'avoiding statelessness', it is important to note that “protection of mono nationals from statelessness cannot be a legal justification or defence for exposing dual nationals to citizenship stripping”.22 Where nationality deprivation is limited to naturalised citizens or dual nationals, it is applied primarily – if not solely – to individuals of foreign descent. This raises an additional issue of racial discrimination, as such discriminatory policies can have a stigmatising effect on minority communities. alone and comply with the principle of non-discrimination”.26 This recommendation was issued in 2015, five years after citizenship deprivation powers were introduced into the country’s legislation for “citizens other than by birth” in the event of “acts contrary to national security”.27 The analysis in this report shows a high risk of violation of the principle of non-discrimination. As discussed in Section 3.2, two thirds of countries that provide for deprivation of nationality for disloyalty target only certain categories of citizens with this measure – usually naturalised citizens. Of the 43 countries in which deprivation powers are generally applicable, 19 have safeguards against statelessness that render the measure applicable only against dual nationals. This means that over 80% of states that provide for deprivation of nationality for disloyalty make the citizenship of only some citizens contingent while others are 'safe' because they cannot be targeted. In any instance, the deprivation of nationality on national security grounds is presumptively arbitrary. The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality is set out in Article 15(2) of the UDHR and is subsequently enshrined in different international and regional legal instruments. This presumption of arbitrariness may only be overridden in circumstances where deprivation is, at minimum: 1) carried out in pursuance of a legitimate purpose; 2) provided for by law; 3) necessary; 4) proportionate; and 5) in accordance with procedural safeguards. It must be noted that the (non-)arbitrariness test is a cumulative one: if a measure or decision falls short in any of these areas, it must be understood to be arbitrary.28 In reviewing state practice, UN mandate holders have emphasised that states must ensure that citizenship deprivation policy does not further entrench racial discrimination and inequality, including, inter alia, by stigmatising racialised and marginalised groups as threats to national security, or by depriving members of racialised and marginalised groups of their nationality at a disproportionate rate. In reviewing the deprivation practices of the Netherlands, for instance, the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism concluded that: “ incorporates and is shaped by ethnic or national […] because dual nationality in the Netherlands origin, any Netherlands policy that utilizes a mono-/ dual-nationality-distinction will disparately affect minorities on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, and descent in violation of its international human rights law obligations. In this way, the Netherlands’ citizenship stripping policies result in unequal classes of citizenship on these bases (national origin, ethnicity, and descent). This is indirect discrimination.”23 Some recommendations issued by the UN Treaty Bodies also place specific emphasis on the issue of discriminatory deprivation of nationality or discriminatory treatment in the context of counterterrorism practices, though in considerably lesser numbers than recommendations on procedural guarantees or statelessness. For example, the CERD also provided a recommendation to the Netherlands covering non-discrimination (as well as procedural guarantees and prevention of statelessness): “ its policy of stripping dual nationality is only applied with The State Party should: (d) Take measures to ensure that regard to grave criminal offences, does not lead to statelessness, is subject to effective legal remedies, and does not lead to discriminatory effects based on race, ethnicity, national origin or descent”.24 The CCPR also expressed concern on this matter in its own review of the Netherlands.25 Nevertheless, this aspect of citizenship stripping powers has received less attention than the avoidance of statelessness in terms of explicit language issued by the UN Treaty Bodies. Other recommendations refer more generally to the need to comply with the principle of non-discrimination in respect of counterterrorism legislation and practices overall – but without directly commenting on citizenship deprivation powers, even where this is a pertinent issue in the state under review. For instance, the CCPR recommended to South Korea that “the State party should ensure that its counter-terrorism legislation and practices are in full conformity with the Covenant, are applicable to terrorism 5.4. ARBITRARINESS AND DUE PROCESS The primary condition for the avoidance of arbitrariness is that deprivation of nationality must be carried out in pursuance of a legitimate purpose.29 In order to assess whether the purpose is legitimate, it has been held that the purpose must be clearly defined. The following, among others, do not constitute legitimate purposes for nationality deprivation: administering sanction or punishment; facilitating expulsion or preventing entry;30 or exporting the function and responsibility of administering justice to another state. In addition to legitimacy considerations, it is important to assess whether deprivation of nationality is strictly necessary for achieving the stated legitimate purpose. The determination of whether a restriction on a right, in this case the right to a nationality, is 'necessary; most commonly involves the test of 'least intrusive' means. That is, the deprivation of nationality must be the least intrusive of the various means available to achieve the desired result. Given the extensive negative consequences associated with deprivation of nationality and the permanence of the measure, it is unlikely that it is the least intrusive means available. The effectiveness of the measure in achieving the stated legitimate purpose is a further consideration when assessing its necessity and requires that progress towards expected results should be monitored and tracked.31 Given the permanence and extensive impact of the measure, deprivation decisions must be in accordance with procedural safeguards under international law and must respect fair trial standards. Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR provides that amongst the procedural safeguards is the requirement that the individual concerned be “informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands” of the intent to deprive nationality prior to the actual decision to do so. This implies, also, that deprivation must never be automatic, to ensure that the person concerned can provide facts, arguments and evidence in defence of their case. Related to this is the requirement that deprivation decisions must be open to effective judicial review by a “competent, independent and impartial” judicial body, where the proceedings are completed “without undue delay”, and where the defendant is present to defend his case and has his right to be treated “equal[ly] before the courts and tribunals” respected.32 In the analysis of states’ legislation set out in this report, a mixed picture emerges with respect to questions of arbitrariness, proportionality and due process. On the one hand, the overwhelming majority of states that provide for deprivation of nationality for disloyalty ensure that citizenship cannot be lost automatically,33 thereby recognising that the individual circumstances of the case must be assessed in order to ensure compliance with international law. On the other hand, the 35