In 2013, the Government amended Bahrain’s 2006 counter-terrorism law (Law 58 on Protecting Society from Terrorist Acts), adding Art. 25 which set out a non-exhaustive list of terror-related acts for which a citizen could be denationalised. Then in 2014, the 1963 Nationality Act was also amended, broadening the grounds for deprivation to include “…caus[ing] harm to the interests of the Kingdom or act in a manner that contradicts the duty of loyalty to it to the State”. In 2019, the Nationality Act was amended again, consolidating power to deprive nationality almost exclusively under the portfolio of the Minister of Interior, with no judicial oversight. This gradual expansion of broad and vaguely worded powers, to strip Bahrainis of nationality, has led to the denationalisation of more than 985 people between 2012 and 2019. A large proportion of those targeted over the years include human rights defenders, academics, political opponents and religious scholars. For example, in 2015, a total of 208 people were stripped of nationality, and while the majority were denationalised through criminal courts, an astonishing 35% were stripped of nationality by Decree – receiving no official notification of the intention to deprive them nationality, no investigation prior to denationalisation and no opportunity defend themselves before a court.22 This trend continued in the years to follow, spiking in 2018 when 115 were stripped of nationality on national security terrorism charges and a further 47 dissidents denationalised through the criminal court.23 This expansion of deprivation powers coupled with the erosion of procedural protections under the pretext of national security and counter terrorism, has been effectively used in the context of Bahrain as a tool to silence dissent. In 2019, the Bahraini King reinstated the nationality of 551 individuals who had lost nationality since the expansion of powers to deprive were introduced, however at the time of writing 435 individuals had not yet had their nationality restored.24 While there is no more recent information on the extent to which these provisions continue to be used, it is worth highlighting the far-reaching and continuing impact these measures have had on families, in particular children, who are born stateless as a result of these tactics to strip nationality without judicial decisions or a court ruling.25 In some countries, the legislative provisions on deprivation of citizenship are far more precise, which increases the legal certainty of these provisions and limits the discretionary power of the body that is responsible for taking deprivation decisions. The 2007 Australian Citizenship Act, serves to illustrate this and offers an example of the intricate detail provided in some legislative clauses that regulate nationality deprivation. Citizenship may be deprived if an Australian citizen engages in specific conduct and that conduct “demonstrates that the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia”.26 The “conduct” is then explicitly specified in paragraph (5) to consist of several acts and a clarification of the notion of ‘repudiation of allegiance’ is found elsewhere. Section 36A, for instance, refers to “conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community”, whereas Section 36C(2)(a) (iii) refers to being “opposed to Australia, or to Australia’s interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights or liberties”. A further requirement is that “it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen”.27 According to Section 36E(2), in determining whether it would be contrary to the public interest, the Minister must have regard to, inter alia, the severity of the conduct, the degree of threat posed by the person, the age of the person, and Australia’s international interests. 3.4. CAN NATIONALITY BE LOST AUTOMATICALLY? ment or information verified by the law enforcement authorities is required.30 The Ministry of Public Order and Security will collaborate with the law enforcement authorities in order to verify any relevant information.31 Subsequently, the Ministry of Public Order and Security can propose a decree for the deprivation of citizenship to the President of the Republic.32 Albanian citizenship is lost at the moment when the decree is communicated to the affected person or, in case the decree cannot be communicated to that person, when the decree is published in the Official Gazette.33 In just seven countries (Angola, El Salvador, Germany, Haiti, Indonesia, Myanmar, and Sao Tome and Principe), citizenship is lost automatically due to disloyalty. This entails that citizenship is lost ex lege at the moment when the act of disloyalty was committed. In practice, this generally means that the authorities establish at a later point in time that citizenship was lost at that particular moment. For example, German citizens lose their citizenship automatically at the moment when they participate in concrete combat action in a terrorist organisation abroad. For reasons of legal certainty, it is required that the authorities use the standard procedure for the establishment of German citizenship in order to determine that citizenship was indeed lost at the moment when they first participated in such action. A problematic aspect of the automatic loss of citizenship on this Loss of citizenship due to disloyalty rarely takes place automatground is that a time gap may occur between the moment when ically, but rather it must usually be instigated by a decision of the ex lege loss of citizenship occurs and the moment when that the authorities – an important aspect of ensuring adequate proloss is established by the authorities. This is illustrated by a forcedural safeguards in the event of nationality deprivation.28 As mer Australian loss provision. Between 2015 and 2020, Australshown in Figure 3.3, 127 countries provide ian citizenship could be tacitly renounced that citizenship can be lost on this ground by conduct. This entailed that Australian In July 2019 an Australian by decision. Who this power is delegated to citizens could ‘renounce’ their citizenship woman was sent an official varies from country to country and is disby acting inconsistently with their allegiance notice that stated that her cussed in detail in Section 3.5. to Australia by engaging in certain specified citizenship had been lost on 6 conduct (i.e. acts related to terrorism).34 The May 2016 due to her alleged If citizenship is lost by explicit decision, the renunciation took effect immediately upon service to a declared terrorist loss of citizenship will generally take place at the person engaging in the conduct. Ausorganisation (ISIS). As her the moment when such a decision is made tralian citizenship was also lost if a person children were reportedly born or, alternatively, at the moment when the served in the armed forces of a country at after the citizenship cessation decision is communicated or published. In war with Australia or a declared terrorist ortook place, namely in July 2016 Albania, for example, citizenship can be lost ganisation.35 In that case, a person ceased and September 2018, they by decision if a person supports, acts on the to be an Australian citizen when they comretrospectively never acquired behalf of, or is a member of an organisation menced serving or fighting,36 creating probAustralian citizenship by birth whose activities aim to undermine the nalems in terms of the legal consequences from their mother, exposing tional security and constitutional order of that flow from this approach, as shown in them to a risk of statelessness. Albania.29 Firstly, either a final court judgethe case in the boxed text.37 The loss provi19