The thousand paper cuts of oppressive nationality – a rejoinder authoritarian states as well as liberal democracies. Indeed, as I highlighted in the original essay,324 and in contrast to Lior Erez’s interpretation of this practice as relating to citizenship deprivation rather than imputation, it is liberal states such as Canada and Australia that have attached zombie Israeli citizenship to asylum seekers to prevent them from acquiring refugee status in those countries.325 The harm of oppressive citizenship, then, as Rainer Bauböck captures in his wide-ranging contribution, both on individuals as well as states, is neither always immediately apparent, nor always an obvious violation of an international legal norm.326 A pathological use of weaponised citizenship, as Peter Spiro puts it, such as the pretext for an outright invasion is indeed rare and typically generates swift condemnation by the international community.327 More commonly, however, as Rainer Bauböck argues, the negative effects of oppressive nationality are much more insidious, working to destabilise other nations, raising suspicions about the place of individuals in polities where they are minorities, and turning vulnerable groups into casualties of geopolitical wars waged on other fronts.328 The paper cuts inflicted by these paper swords may be subtle and seem too minor for international law to take seriously, but that does not make them less painful for the individuals or states that are their recipients. Unlike the clean slice of a metal blade, the shallow cut of a paper sword saws and shreds in chaotic ways,329 producing a wound that leaves the surface perilously exposed to future harm. It is true that some of these paper cuts may not be unique to the weaponisation of citizenship, strictu sensu. As some of the responses highlight, quasi-citizenship statuses too can be weaponised in similar ways: Eleanor Knott refers to Russia’s weaponisation of ethno-nationalist claims330 whereas Ramesh Ganohariti highlights practices of passportisation by contested territories such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia.331 These examples raise broader questions on the international legal recognition of statehood and whether the law’s assumption of citizenship as an on-off status may need to be revisited to acknowledge the reality of citizenship on a sliding scale. Who should respond to this weaponisation? Though the responses indicate broad agreement that oppressive nationality can be deeply problematic, they are also largely sceptical that the response to it lies in enhanced international legal regulation. Here, again, the responses range from a bleak assessment of international law’s real-world impact to the claim that international law is already doing the work that it can be expected to do. Jelena Džankić and Lindsey Kingston despair of international law’s capacity to police states on matters such as citizenship that are central to state sovereignty, arguing that the legal framework that permits states to wield citizenship as a weapon is not an oversight but by design.332 Once again, it is not only smaller authoritarian states like Hungary or global autocrats such as Russia that have gamed the system, but liberal states such as the United States are equally complicit in its perpetuation. Rather than pinning their hopes on international law, both Džankić and Kingston see the best defense against weaponised citizenship to be an educated and engaged public that recognizes what it means to be a member of a political community.333 Timothy Jacob-Owens sounds a different note of caution, warning of the perils of putting too much faith in international law’s championing of progressive claims given its historical complicity in the legitimation of imperialist policies and practices.334 And Peter Spiro argues that there is little that a new rule would add to the informal state and non-state reactions that are already in evidence in the pushback against weaponised citizenship.335 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 Jain 2022. Erez 2023. Bauböck 2023. Spiro 2023. Bauböck 2023. Goldman J., ‘Why paper cuts hurt so much’, BBC Future, 5 September 2016, Why paper cuts hurt so much - BBC Future. Knott 2022. Ganohariti 2022. Džankić 2022; Kingston 2022. Id. Jacob-Owens 2022. Spiro 2023. European University Institute 52