EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent years have seen a resurgence of states’ practices of nationality deprivation as security measure - repackaged for the 21st century as a counter-terrorism instrument. This report offers the first comprehensive global survey of relevant legislative provisions, covering 190 countries – discussing the prevalence and scope of these powers. For the most commonly applied deprivation ground – disloyalty or harm to the interests or security of the country – the report encompasses a longitudinal study of how deprivation powers have evolved since the year 2000, i.e. after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States and during the period marked by the rise and fall of ISIS. For this deprivation ground, the report also discusses the relevant authority to take deprivation decisions, which categories of citizens are targeted and whether citizenship stripping can result in statelessness. While under international law, “it is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals”, international human rights law provides for the right to a nationality and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality. Given the substantial discretionary powers of states’ authorities under citizenship stripping based on security concerns, there are serious concerns that increased deprivation practices may violate relevant international legal standards. These concerns highlight the need to study the prevalence and scope of such deprivation powers. The report identifies four deprivation grounds as relating to international security: disloyalty; military service to a foreign country; other service to a foreign country; other offences. A look at the prevalence and scope of these deprivation grounds in contemporary nationality laws around the world reveals: 79% of the 190 countries studied have at least one of these deprivation grounds on their books; most countries provide for two or three of these different deprivation grounds. Disloyalty is the most common type of ground and is found in 2/3 of countries; the prevalence of the other three categories is much lower, ranging from 37 to 41%. Deprivation on the grounds of fraudulent acquisition is sometimes also used to target populations that have been identified through a securitised lens. Over 80% of countries globally allow deprivation of nationality based on this ground. Security-related criteria are also present among the naturalisation requirements in the majority of countries. Looking more closely at the most prevalent security-based deprivation grounds, based on the broad concept of ‘disloyalty’, the report finds that: • discrimination against minorities. • wIn spite of clear international norms prescribing the avoidance of statelessness, three-quarters of countries that provide for loss of citizenship due to disloyalty have no On 1 January 2022, 134 The scope of deprivation Countries with this form In 2/3 of countries, safeguards in place to ensure that this does not result in countries had deprivation powers relating to of securitised citizenship deprivation provisions are statelessness. grounds on their books that disloyalty is often very stripping almost universally only applicable to certain • • Deprivation powers most commonly sit with the exrelate to disloyalty/treason. broad, leaving much room provide for withdrawal categories of citizens, ecutive branch of government: in a third of countries, the This means a minority of for discretion and raising of nationality by decision most commonly citizens by authority to take deprivation decisions rests with a minister around 30% of countries do concerns around legal (i.e. non-automatic). This is naturalisation. While this and in around half it is within the competence of the head not have such powers. certainty – concepts such important because it allows approach limits the scope of state, head of government or another government body. as 'conducive to the public weighing relevant factors in of powers, it is problematic Just 14 countries provide for deprivation of citizenship to be good' or 'vital interests of individual cases in order to because it can lead to ordered directly by a Court. the state' are not further avoid arbitrariness. discrimination against • ground. defined in the law. minorities. • Security-related criteria are also present among the naturalisation requirements in the majority of countries. Deprivation powers most commonly sit with the executive branch of government: in a third of countries, the authority to take deprivation decisions rests with a minister and in around half it is within the competence of the head of state, head of government or another government body. Just 14 countries provide for deprivation of citizenship to be ordered directly by a Court. 4 In spite of clear international norms prescribing the avoidance of statelessness, 3/4 of countries that provide for loss of citizenship due to disloyalty have no safeguards in place to ensure that this does not result in statelessness.