European States’ Obligations to Repatriate the Children Detained in Camps in Northeast Syria In order to not be considered arbitrary, any kind of involuntary loss or deprivation of nationality263 must serve a legitimate purpose that is consistent with the objectives of international human rights law, 264 must have a clear basis in law, be necessary, proportionate to the interest to be protected,265 and follow due process.266 In particular, when assessing the proportionality of a measure entailing the revocation of nationality, States must consider whether loss or deprivation of nationality is proportionate to the interest to be protected by the loss or deprivation (e.g. national security) and must consider alternative measures that could be adopted. The deprivation of nationality may be considered arbitrary and/or violate international law when it results in statelessness—in law or in fact267—and is discriminatory on any grounds.268 Notably, where safeguards to prevent loss or deprivation of nationality leading to statelessness are present, individuals with dual or multiple nationalities are more vulnerable to loss or deprivation than those with a single nationality, which may cause a discriminatory effect between individuals with single and dual nationality. 269 Similarly, nationality acquired by naturalization is often less secure than one acquired 263 Human Rights Council, “Report of Secretary-General on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality,” A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009, para. 23. 264 International law allows States to revoke nationality only on very specific grounds, such as when individuals have conducted themselves in a manner “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state”. See: Human Rights Council, “Report of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality”, A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009, para. 25; Human Rights Council, “Report of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality”, A/HRC/25/28, 19 December 2013, para. 4. For the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) cases related to the loss of the nationality of an EU Member State, see: ECJ, “Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern”, Case C-135/08, 2010, para. 56; ECJ, “Tjebbes and Others v. Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Tjebbes” Case C-221/17, 2019. For ECtHR cases related to the arbitrary denial or revocation of citizenship that raises an issue under Article 8 of the Convention see: ECtHR, “K2 v. the United Kingdom,” Application No. 42387/13, 7 February 2017 (decision on the admissibility); ECtHR, “Ramadan v. Malta”, Application No. 76136/12, 17 October 2016. 265 Human Rights Council, “Report of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality”, A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009, para. 25; Human Rights Council, “Resolution on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality”, 15 July 2016, A/HRC/RES/32/5, para. 16; ECtHR, “Karassev and Family v. Finland”, Application No. 31414/96, 12 January 1999; ECJ, “Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern”, Case C-135/08, ECR I-01449, 2010, para. 57. 266 OSJI/ISI, “Draft Commentary to the Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a Security Measure,” 2020, p. 7. 267 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 8 (1); ECN, Article 7 (3). CRC, Article 3(1); European Charter, Article 24; 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 7 and 8. See also: Human Rights Council, “Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General”, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, para. 4; ECJ, “Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern”, Case C-135/08, ECR I-01449, 2010, para. 57. 268 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 9. 269 Human Rights Council, “Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality: Report of the SecretaryGeneral”, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, para. 6. See also: OSJI/ISI, Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a Security Measure, 2020, Introduction, p. 3. 48