“If you are born in a country and you serve the country and you are part of it, and suddenly your name is deleted from that country, it is very heart-breaking.” Jawad Fairooz SALAM for Democracy and Human Rights T he present upward trend in the use of nationality deprivation in response to alleged threats to national security or terrorism is of urgent concern. While the majority of states do not resort to this measure, over the past few years, numerous governments have taken steps to expand their deprivation powers, with little consideration given to its legitimacy or effectiveness. This measure, commonly implemented in an arbitrary manner, undermines the rule of law and has the effect of exporting the threat. Its net positive impact on global security is therefore questionable, while its use as a discriminatory tool predominantly against minority and migrant communities plays into populist narratives underscored by racism and xenophobia. The use of nationality deprivation is further being increasingly used as a punitive measure against human rights defenders, journalists and political opponents. The crux of the problem was set out clearly in the session. Counter-terrorism measures must always be in accordance with international law yet in practice this is not always respected. Nationality deprivation is often employed with the broad-strokes rationale that States have the obligation to protect the right to life and personal security of their citizens and to counter any threat to their national security. The argument is sometimes also made that the ability to detain foreign fighters upon their return may not be straightforward because of the difficulty in compiling the necessary evidence to secure a conviction – therefore, it is in the state’s interest to prevent return. In practice however, depriving someone of their nationality actually does relatively little to enhance (inter)national safety and security, and those denied the ability to return to their country of former nationality may continue to pose a threat from the territories they are left stranded in. ISI’s World Conference on Statelessness first Grand Challenge session, ‘Precarious citizenship: The use and misuse of deprivation of nationality’ looked at the phenomenon of deprivation of nationality as a national security and counter-terrorism measure, through a combination of personal stories, legal analyses and historical insights. The question of accountability was an important thread in the discussion, with concern raised that the deprivation of nationality of suspected terrorists can lead to the denial of justice. The act of citizenship stripping can serve to hinder criminal proceedings if this makes it no longer possible to prosecute such individuals in the courts of their former country of nationality. Further, this is a measure that affects not only the individual in question, but those close to them as well and may also impact their enjoyment of rights (such as family life) or sense of belonging. 27