2021] NATIONALITY LAWS 127 contained in article 27 of the Constitution and the Alien and the Nationalization Law, which are contrary to article 2 of the [CRC] Convention.186 The following section argues that jus cogens and antifragmentation (and the interplay between the two) as interpretive principles are appropriate tools to address this interpretive gap and provide the framework needed to more squarely address the fundamental issue of racism in nationality laws. V. JUS COGENS AS AN INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLE IN THE CONTEXT OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND NATIONALITY PRACTICE While the jus cogens status of the prohibition on racial discrimination in the context of (or as it extends to matters of) nationality has received considerable support, it is often asserted without critical reflection. Writing in 1978, Paul Weis commented that the prohibition of discriminatory denationalization—particularly acts of collective denationalization—may be regarded as a general principle of international law, and “this certainly applies to discrimination on the basis of race which may be considered as contravening a peremptory norm of international law.”187 Similarly, Laura van Waas writes that the jus cogens prohibition “restricts the freedom of states to legislate on nationality matters by demanding that such regulations must not differentiate between individuals on the basis of [race] either in purpose or in effect.”188 According to van Waas, the prohibition covers laws that provide for both “access to, [and] withdrawal of, nationality” through “delineating the scope of” such laws,189 and adds that the prohibition of racial discrimination “has joined the ranks of jus cogens.” 190 Spiro likewise contends that “the prohibition on race discrimination has since arguably evolved into a jus cogens norm—that is, a norm from which no derogation is permitted,”191 and James A. Goldston notes that “[t]he prohibition against racial 186 Comm. on Rts. Child, Concluding Observation on Liberia, ¶ 41 U.N. Doc. CRC/C/LBR/CO/2-4 (Dec. 13, 2012). 187 WEIS, supra note 64, at 125. 188 VAN WAAS, supra note 74, at 103. 189 Id. 190 Id. at 103, 158 n.39 (citing ICERD, supra note 11, art. 5). See also General Recommendation Thirty, supra note 146. 191 Spiro, supra note 3, at 716 n.144.