in connection with an armed conflict” (Austria).41 The case study visions however are less clear. For example, one of the grounds of the Netherlands, below, offers another illustrative example for deprivation relates to “acts deemed incompatible or prejudicial” of the successive expansion of deprivation powers in Europe. In to the State. Under the law in force in 2000, the scope of this Denmark, law reform has gone one step further still and the naprovision extended to acting on behalf of a “foreign state”46. Untionality law now precludes children der the 2005 amendment, the scope of from acquiring Danish citizenship by this provision was extended to include descent if they are born in a “conflict acting on behalf of a “foreign actor”.47 In Denmark presents a particularly striking 42 zone” – as set out in the boxed text. both cases there is no requirement for example of the influence of national these acts to be established by a court security considerations on citizenship The MENA region has also seen of law. policy. Already having amended its laws sweeping changes to laws on nationin 2004, the country adopted additional ality deprivation, with eight states Libya’s deprivation laws also apply to provisions in 2020, not specifically on amending their laws to broaden powa subcategory of naturalised citizens – depriving nationality, but rather on the ers43 – in many cases adding ambigthose who acquired nationality within transmission of nationality to children uous grounds that apply mostly to a specific time frame. In 2000, only born to parents unlawfully residing in naturalised citizens and often without those who had committed certain acts “conflict zones”. The amendment blocks basic procedural safeguards in place. within five years of acquiring nationthe jus sanguinis acquisition of citizenship Six of the eight countries that exality, could be stripped of it. Those for children born in areas where a terrorist panded the scope of their deprivation offences were largely centred around organisation is party to an armed conflict. powers maintain grounds that can be disloyalty to the state and the King, The bill’s explanatory report provides invoked without a conviction. Moreobut also included other ambiguous an insight into the justification for this ver, none of these countries provide grounds such as conviction of any ofextreme policy: ‘[t]hese children are born for safeguards to ensure that statefence involving moral turpitude or a to parents who have turned their back lessness does not occur. royal decree showing grounds for the to Denmark and Danish values, and they same. In 2010 the law was amended cannot be expected to grow up under In 2005, for example, Algeria broadextending the time frame in which a circumstances that will provide for their ened the scope of its deprivation naturalised citizen could be stripped of attachment to Denmark and Danish values’. powers. Previously, in 2000, a natunationality from five to ten years. New ralised citizen could be stripped of nationality for being convicted of a crime “against security of the State”44, but this ground was expanded in 2005 to include crimes “affecting the fundamental interests”45 of the state. It is worth noting that there are procedural protections inherent in this ground for deprivation as it is subject to a criminal conviction. The procedural protections regarding other pro- grounds for denationalisation were also introduced with amendments to the provisions – including for instance infringing upon Libya's security or any of its interests. These new grounds and parameters greatly broadened the scope and grounds of who could be stripped of nationality, notably with no procedural safeguard in place. THE NETHERLANDS: SUNSET CLAUSES, EVALUATIONS AND (IN)EFFECTIVENESS OF NATIONALITY DEPRIVATION In its original form, as promulgated in 1984, Article 14 of the Dutch Nationality Act (DNA) only provided for deprivation of nationality where it had been obtained by fraud (currently Art. 14(1)).48 Since 2010, there has been a gradual expansion of the powers to revoke nationality for national security reasons: • • • 2010: Article 14(2)49 – Following conviction for various criminal offences, including the commission terrorist offences, joining foreign armed forces, and offences under the Rome Statute. 2016: Article 14(2b)50 – Following conviction for assistance in or preparation of the commission terrorist offences. 2017: Articles 14(3) and 14(4)51 – Voluntarily entering the foreign military service of a state involved in hostilities against the Netherlands; or joining an organisation that is listed as constituting a threat to national security.52 Different procedural standards are at play in the application of these nationality deprivation powers: while Article 14(2) requires a criminal conviction in order to be invoked, Articles 14(3) and 14(4) can be invoked by the Minister of Justice and Security without a conviction. All of these provisions are, however, subject to Article 14(8) DNA, which provides that “the loss of Dutch nationality shall not occur if it would result in statelessness”. As such, these deprivation powers can only be exercised against Dutch citizens who also hold another nationality. A key and controversial provision for deprivation of nationality in a counter-terrorism context in the Netherlands is Article 14(4) DNA, introduced in 2017: “ 28 Our Minister may revoke the Dutch citizenship of a person who has reached the age of sixteen and who is outside the Kingdom in the interest of national security, if his conduct shows that he has joined an organization that Our Minister, in accordance with the views of the Council of Ministers, has been placed on a list of organizations that participate in a national or international armed conflict and that pose a threat to national security.”