Bücken and de Groot 49 would not give rise to legal problems under international law.42 This interpretation is supported by the argument that only a written withdrawal of a reservation made under Article 8(3) would end the effect of that reservation under international law.43 Departing from the ordinary meaning of the phrasing ‘retention of such right’ in Article 8(3), it could, however, be argued that the reservation cannot apply to new laws after the corresponding national provisions had been repealed without immediate re-enactment. This interpretation would give consideration to the fact that the scope of the retained right is explicitly made dependent on the national law existing at the time of ratification. This view is, furthermore, consistent with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention providing for an interpretation of a treaty ‘in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’. The ‘object and purpose of the 1961 Convention is to prevent and reduce statelessness, thereby guaranteeing every individual’s right to a nationality’.44 Here, the aim to reduce statelessness implies a continuous, progressive obligation to take steps towards the minimization of statelessness. To summarize the argument that the Clause 60 of the Immigration Bill (2014) is inconsistent with the obligations of the United Kingdom under the 1961 Convention, the reasoning of Open Society Justice Initiative deserves attention, which advances that the government’s argument would produce the anomalous result ‘[t]hat a state can ‘retain’ a right which the state could not retain if it were to ratify the Convention at the present time. (If the UK ratified the Convention today, it could not make a declaration under Article 8(3), because the grounds do not exist in national law.)’.45 In conclusion, there are multiple legal arguments to make a strong case that the reintroduction of a ground on the basis of Article 8(3) violates international law in general and the obligations of the United Kingdom under the 1961 Convention in particular. D. Tunisia The Tunisian declaration is very elaborate in nature and it corresponds to Article 33 of the 1963 Code de la Nationalite´ Tunisienne. The Tunisian declaration has been observed to be inconsistent with the scope of Article 8(3) of the 1961 Convention and has been subject to objections by four Contracting States submitted to the Secretary General. The governments of Finland, Germany, and Sweden broadly objected that the declaration of Tunisia restricted an essential duty under the Convention and, therefore, it was incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The objection of Norway more specifically referred to paragraph 3 and 4 of the Tunisian declaration as being inconsistent with the obligations of the Convention. The targeted objection of the Norwegian government implies that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the declaration are conform with the Convention. Indeed, the public service for a foreign state (paragraph 1) and the offence against external or internal security of the State (paragraph 2) correspond to the grounds contained in Article 8(3)(a)(i) 42. Parliament of the United Kingdom, ‘Hansard Debate 30 January 2014: Immigration Bill’, Parliament of the United Kingdom (2014), https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140130/debtext/140130-0002.htm. 43. Article 23(4) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331. 44. UNHCR, ‘Expert Meeting: Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention and Preventing Statelessness among Children’, UNHCR (2011), http://www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/expert/4de4dd136/agenda-expert-meeting-interpret ing-1961-statelessness-convention-preventing.html, para. 1. Compare also the title and Preamble of the 1961 Convention. 45. Open Society Justice Initiative, ‘Opinion on Clause 60 of UK Immigration Bill & Article 8 of United Nations Convention on Reducing Statelessness’, Open Society (2014), https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/ briefing-clause60-03112014.pdf, p. 14.