422
L. van Waas, S. Jaghai
protecting the right to a nationality and is codified in both the 1961 Convention and
the European Convention on Nationality (ECN) is the prohibition of withdrawal of
nationality if it results in statelessness.47
This focus on avoiding denationalisation that renders a person stateless implicitly
leaves it to states to determine whether and when to denationalise people, as long as
they also hold another nationality. Indeed, states appear to have derived justification
for targeting dual nationals for denationalisation from the international norms pertaining to statelessness. As the Netherlands explains in its explanatory memorandum
on citizenship revocation measures:
Not withdrawing Dutch nationality if it would result into statelessness is one
of the Kingdom’s core obligations in countering statelessness. This results in
a divide between Dutch citizens that hold one nationality and Dutch citizens
with multiple nationalities, whereby the former cannot be denationalised. This
is a legitimate divide. Preventing statelessness is the reason to revoke nationality in some cases and to not revoke nationality in other cases.48
Furthermore, the 1961 Convention admits a number of exceptions to its general prohibition of loss or deprivation of nationality that result in statelessness and
these too appear to support the unequal application of the measure to different categories of citizen. More specifically, the 1961 Convention allows nationality to be
revoked from naturalised citizens as a result of long-term residence abroad or if it
was acquired by fraud—even if this leaves the person concerned stateless. Here,
again, the possibility of citizenship being an unequal status seems to find support
in international law: this norm tolerates policies that make naturalised citizens more
susceptible to citizenship revocation policies than native-born citizens.
However, there are a number of other important international norms and general
principles of law that are also relevant to the question of how unequal denationalisation regimes are to be understood. These include the prohibition of arbitrary
deprivation of nationality49 and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality that form integral elements of that prohibition.50 An assessment of current law
47
Arts. 7 and 8, 1961 Convention; Art. 7(3), European Convention on Nationality.
Explanatory memorandum on citizenship deprivation in the Netherlands, Kamerstuk 34,356–(R2064)
no. 3, the original language of which reads: ‘Het niet overgaan tot intrekking van het Nederlanderschap
indien dit leidt tot staatloosheid is een van de kernverplichtingen waaraan het Koninkrijk zich gebonden
heeft in het kader van bestrijding van staatloosheid. Dit leidt tot een onderscheid tussen Nederlanders
met een enkelvoudige en Nederlanders met een meervoudige nationaliteit, waarbij in het eerste geval het
Nederlanderschap niet kan worden ingetrokken. Anders dan de geconsulteerde organisaties suggereren
is er hierbij evenwel sprake van een gerechtvaardigd onderscheid. De bescherming van staatloosheid is
immers de grond om in het ene geval niet en in het andere geval wel tot intrekking van de nationaliteit
wordt overgegaan.’
49
Art. 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Art. 18(1)(a) of the Convention in the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities; Art. 20(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights; Art. 4(c) of the
European Convention on Nationality; Art. 29(1) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights; Art. 18 of the
ASEAN Human Rights Declaration; Art. 24(2) of the Commonwealth of Independent States Convention
on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
50
Brandvoll (2014).
48
123