Key Reflections • Nationality deprivation is a measure that is increasingly employed by States, and in particular in the name of (inter)national security. Yet, such measures do little to increase security, and may in some cases even be counterproductive. • Denationalisation is a harmful and undesirable measure, and the increasing popularity of its use in the name of (inter)national security, should be mitigated and counteracted as a matter of urgency. • Deprivation of nationality is often a discriminatory practice which violates international legal norms – including where a State’s policy to only target dual nationals (in order to prevent statelessness) results in indirect discrimination. • The human rights implications of denationalisation are considerable, threatening – among others – the right to a fair trial, the right to free movement and the right not to be punished twice; and where denationalisation results in statelessness, the frequency and severity of consequential human rights violations is liable to increase. • To deprive someone of their nationality is to export the risks and move the problem around rather than States taking responsibility. • It is important not to frame the measure of denationalisation exclusively in terms of counterterrorism, as the measure is not only employed in this context in all States. • Nationality deprivation is being increasingly employed against human rights defenders for speaking out against those in power and this is contributing to shrinking civil society space. • Alongside or in place of the deprivation of nationality, some States are deploying other measures such as passport confiscation and travel bans achieve the aim of preventing people from entering or leaving the territory. Such measures should also be subject to scrutiny. 29