All Citizens are Created Equal, but Some are More Equal Than…
415
everyone who is admitted as a national enjoys the full package of rights attached,
nor the same security of status. Examples of this manifestation include restrictions
on the exercise of political rights by particular categories of nationals, such as dual
citizens10 or the (newly) naturalised,11 as well as unequal ability to transmit citizenship and contribute to further shaping the community.12
The phenomenon of inequality among citizens is also apparent when examining
how protected the legal bond itself is. As this article will expose, when it comes to
the power of states to divest a person of his or her nationality, it matters both how
that nationality was acquired and whether it is the only one the person in question
holds. Citizenship by birth is more secure than citizenship acquired otherwise—such
as by naturalisation—and mono citizens are less prone to withdrawal of nationality
than persons with dual or multiple nationality. As will be shown in Sect. 2, such
inequality is a long-standing feature of the rules on loss and deprivation of nationality across a wide array of countries. Yet, it has drawn increased attention in recent
years on account of the growing interest among states to use nationality deprivation
as a counter-terrorism measure and become a much-scrutinised topic within related
political, public and academic debate. Indeed, as Sect. 3 will discuss, the uptake in
legislation on and use of citizenship stripping on the pretext of protecting national
security has shone new light on not only the unequal scope of the measure, but also
the discriminatory effects of its application. This raises the question of how such
law and practice is to be evaluated against contemporary standards of international
law. Section 4 explores the apparent contradiction between, on the one hand, norms
that inform states’ duty to avoid statelessness and, on the other, the principles of
non-discrimination and of equality before the law, discussing how this might be reconciled. Finally, the article reflects on the broader implications of the current trend
towards greater inequality of citizenship status as a reaction to the perceived threat
that terrorism poses to the integrity of the state, discussing how the creation of different classes of citizen is in fact likely to have a deeper and more lasting impact on
the foundations of liberal democracies.
10
In Australia, for instance, a section of the Constitution that regulates eligibility to sit as a Senator
or member of the House of Representatives was interpreted by the High Court as barring dual nationals from running for office. This made international headlines in 2017 when a ‘dual-nationality crisis’
ensued from the discovery that several sitting parliamentarians held a second citizenship, forcing their
resignation. See BBC report How a dual citizenship crisis befell an immigrant nation, available at: https
://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40773930 (accessed 20 July 2018).
11
In Kuwait, for instance, there is a waiting period of 30 years following acquisition of citizenship by
naturalisation before voting rights can be exercised and citizens by naturalisation are barred from standing for election themselves. Similar rules apply in several of the other Gulf states. See van Waas (2014),
p. 17.
12
The most striking example of this is the enduring inequality of female as compared to male citizens.
In 25 countries globally, women are not entitled to pass their nationality to their children on equal terms
as men; while in more than 50 countries there are unequal rules relating to the conferral of nationality to
a foreign spouse. Govil and Edwards (2014) and UNHCR (2018).
123