4.3. WHERE HAVE DEPRIVATION POWERS REMAINED UNCHANGED? While the increasing instrumentalisation of nationality deprivation powers as a national security or counter-terrorism measure has gained significant attention in the media, in policy corridors and among commentators, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of countries have not amended nationality deprivation powers relating to disloyalty. Comparing the legislation on the books in 2000 with that in force on 1 January 2022, reveals that 131 countries – i.e. over two thirds – have not passed any substantive reforms. The short case studies of France, Sweden and the Czech Republic offer concrete examples of resistance to the introduction or expansion of deprivation powers in a region that has otherwise seen a sweep of reforms (as set out in Section 4.4). Among the other countries where nationality deprivation powers remain unchanged are a number that have been significantly affected by the ‘foreign fighter’ phenomenon in relation to ISIS in Syria and Iraq. For instance, Tunisia is suggested to have had the highest ratio of foreign fighters per capita in the world,18 and yet citizenship deprivation has not been a feature of the response to the challenge of dealing with returnees.19 Tunisia’s nationality legislation remains unchanged and indeed the new Constitution adopted in 2014 actually provides that “No citizen shall be deprived of their nationality, exiled, extradited or prevented from returning to their country”.20 Other countries that saw a significant number of citizens join ISIS, but have similarly maintained their existing stance on citizenship deprivation and not expanded their powers include Jordan, Lebanon, Russia, China and Indonesia. 4.4. WHERE HAVE DEPRIVATION POWERS BEEN NEWLY INTRODUCED OR EXPANDED? Despite steps by some countries to repeal or restrict powers to deprive citizens of nationality between 2000-2022, more countries ventured in the opposite direction. 20 countries put in place deprivation grounds relating to disloyalty where previously there had been none,33 while a further 17 widened the scope of existing grounds.34 Together, this means that one in five of the countries introduced or expanded provisions to strip citizens of nationality for reasons relating to 'disloyalty' – and in almost all cases, national security or terrorism grounds were cited. A further seven countries made amendments to their deprivation provisions, however it was unclear whether the scope of the amendments was such that powers were expanded, restricted FRANCE, SWEDEN & THE CZECH REPUBLIC: RESISTING EXPANSION OF DEPRIVATION POWERS The longitudinal analysis of changes to nationality deprivation provisions relating to national security since 2000 uncovered a particular prevalence of expanding powers in Europe. 18 of the 37 countries that either introduced or extended deprivation powers globally can be found in Europe, with the cumulative result that close to 40% of European countries saw an increase in the scope of these powers. However, the majority of states in Europe (over 60%) have resisted this trend. In several countries where politicians made public calls for powers to be expanded or bills were even tabled in parliament to enact legislative change, these initiatives were defeated. In France, the use of deprivation of citizenship as a counter-terrorism measure was introduced in 1996,21 as a direct response to a series of bloody attacks on the Paris metro in the summer of 1995.22 Nationality can be revoked from a person who acquired it by naturalisation or declaration following conviction for specified terrorist or national security related crimes. In 2015, following the Charlie Hebdo and the Paris attacks23 – the latter being considered as the “deadliest terrorist attack in French history”24—President Francois Hollande proposed that the French Constitution be amended through the Draft Constitutional Law on the “Protection of the Nation”.25 The amendment aimed to allow the government to revoke the nationality of French citizens by birth who have been convicted of terrorist acts (expanding the scope beyond naturalised citizens) and would also allow statelessness to result.26 While the National Assembly supported the proposal, the bill was considered problematic by the Senate and ultimately the reform effort was abandoned. Since 2000, only a minor amendment to the nationality deprivation powers was passed in France, extending the time limit after naturalisation for deprivation of nationality in relation to terrorist acts from 10 years to 15. Moreover, while France is one of the largest source countries of ‘foreign fighters’ in Europe, with an estimated 1910 people traveling from there to Iraq or Syria,27 nationality deprivation numbers are low, with 16 reported cases between 2002 and 2020.28 Sweden is another European country that has seen a significant number of its citizens travel to Syria or Iraq – around 300 people, similar to the Netherlands and Austria.29 This sparked debate in the media and among politicians on whether to withdraw nationality as a national security measure, following the lead of other European countries. However, when calls were made to introduce nationality deprivation powers in 201730 and again in 2019,31 key members of the government spoke out strongly against this proposal. Sweden remains one of the 16 countries in Europe (56 globally) that has no deprivation powers relating to national security in force whatsoever. In the Czech Republic, the Constitution explicitly protects citizens from involuntary loss of nationality (similarly to the constitutions of Poland, Croatia and Slovakia). According to Article 12(2) of the Czech Constitution: “No person may be deprived of his citizenship against his will”. In September 2016, making explicit reference to reports of Czech citizens traveling to Syria or Iraq to join the ISIS, the leader of the SPD party called for a constitutional amendment that would allow nationality deprivation for cases of terrorism, treason or cooperation with the enemy.32 However, it seems that this item did not even make it to the parliamentary agenda for the Chamber of Deputies and the legislative procedure for an amendment never formally commenced. The constitutional protection against nationality deprivation remains in force and the Czech Republic is another country with no deprivation powers on its books. 26