Chakrabarty: Citizenship Deprivation as an Act of Persecution: Case Study of t assistance of his state (unable or unwilling standard). Additionally, such interaction must be currently persisting.65 Since the qualification of an act and the attribution of responsibility involve different evaluations, this paper draws primarily from IRL and the actus reus of the ICL regime. In fact, ICL and IRL have converged before in some instances.66 To cite one such instance, IRL has assisted in the development of jurisprudence on gender-based persecution under the Rome Statute,67 even though a full import of the former into the latter is not possible since their underlying purposes are different. 68 As far as this paper is concerned showing a lack of state protection will suffice, discriminatory intent on the part of individual state officials does not need to be proved. Additionally, it draws upon the experiences of others from the same community to build into the persecution assessment; since the aim here is not to seek asylum, there arises no question of “individual circumstances”. Finally, it relies on the showing of “past persecution” to claim that a rebuttable presumption of “well-founded fear” of subsequent persecution arises over the nationwide citizenship exercise proposed. 69 This scheme of looking at the act, coupled with an institutional failure to protect or lack of redress, also has the advantage of obviating the presumption that only nationals from conflictridden, repressive, and failed states are persecuted. As an example, consider the following statement of the UNHCR: “The U.N. refugee agency warns populist politics and fearmongering about immigration are eroding international protection for refugees fleeing conflict and Hugo Storey, “What Constitutes Persecution? Towards a Working Definition” (2014) 26:2 Int’l J of Refugee L 272. 66 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Expert Meeting on Complementarities between International Refugee Law, International Criminal Law and International Human Rights Law (11-13 April 2011) at paras 4, 14-15 online: <https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4e1729d52.pdf>. 67 For more, see, Valerie Oosterveld, “Gender, Persecution and, the International Criminal Court: Refugee Law’s Relevance to the Crime Against Humanity of Persecution” (2006) 17 Duke J of Int’l & Comparative L 49. 68 See, Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, Case No. IT-95-16-T, Judgment (14 January 2000) (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber), where the Trial Chamber itself has warned against such a full-scale import of persecution definition. 69 Establishment of a ‘well-founded fear’ is closely linked to the question of ‘return’ (to the country of origin) and by corollary, availing international protection. See, House of Lords, Select Committee on the European Union, Defining Refugee Status and those in need of International Protection, (HL 2001-02, 156) Article 5 at para 19 online: <https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldeucom/156/156.pdf>. 65 Published by Osgoode Digital Commons, 2021 11