Forum Recap: ‘Cancellation of Citizenship: Human Rights, Statelessness and Formal Legal Equality'
On the 10th of November 2017, the Research Forum for Legal Change had the upmost honour of inviting Ms Rachel Pougnet, a Postgraduate student at the University of Bristol, to share her research on the cancellation of citizenship and statelessness as the state's response to national security. Rachel delved into the motivations of two states, the UK and France, as well as the social and human-rights implications of the revoking of citizenship, and what it means to be stateless in the 21st century.
States across the world have opted to cancel citizenship to restrict the access of suspected terrorists to services and people, as well as their travel. This trend took off in 2014-2015, with major terrorist attacks across the EU, notably in Paris and Nice. The removal of citizenship would thereby prevent the individuals suspected of terrorist ties from crossing borders and committing terror acts. Symbolically, cutting legal and social ties between the individual and the state would sever that individual from his community, with the state being able to re-draw the boundaries as to who belongs in the state.
The UK adopted the Immigration Act 2014, of which section 40(4a) enables to Home Secretary to render people stateless if their conduct is severely prejudicial to national interest and security. France attempted to expand the application of article 25 of its Civil Code - which deprived citizenship to individuals violating fundamental national rights, from dual-nationality holders to French born citizens - but it was struck down after mass public outcry.
Induibitably, cancellation of citizenship presents conflicts with Human Rights. A state protects the human rights that all citizens are entitled to. Without a state, their rights cannot be enforced. Additionally, every living being as equal claim to human rights, and hence, should be treated equally by the state. However, the growing political mentality that legislation should discriminate against dual nationality holders and nationalized citizens seems to support foreigness as a justified motif. When the UK deprived 3 individuals of citizenship, they were later killed by US drones. Although the proposed expansion of France's article 25 was rejected, it would have achieved similar results as in the UK. Neither the UK nor France agreed to terms in the 1954 UN Convention on Stateless Persons, and the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
Granted, desperate times call for desperate measures. We live in a time of simultaneous peace and war, and political boundaries shift all the time. However, this serves as a stark reminder that countries need to act rationally. The Secretary Of State of the UK came under fire when it waited for a suspected individual to leave the UK before the revocation of citizenship order was issued - rendering it near impossible for the citizen to even contest the order. In the UK, the burden of proof of evidence is unknown because the court findings and statistics are unreleased and it is unknown how many innocents have been, and will continue to be charged, removed, and prevented from challenging the decision.
Last but not least, the revocation of citizenship can be likened to a shotgun system. Terrorism is an international problem. Simply throwing terrorists from one state to the next is not an efficient solution. In cases of dual-citizenship, one country makes its problem another's.
Some questions were raised to Rachel, who enthusiastically addressed the audience's doubts. France's decision to reject the expansion of article 25 can be attributed to the fact that it was not a revision of legislation, but a revision of the constitution as a whole, which requires a 3/5 majority of both Houses or a Referendum. Rachel also shared some thought and speculation on the future of citizenship cancellation; that it is unlikely to ever be repealed. While most French citizens opposed it, the rest of the world seems to be more flippant. In the UK, such legislation is being normalised, then slowly accepted as the new standard. Additionally, members of the EU and UN can always opt out, as the UK and France have done, of conventions against statelessness.
We sincerely thank Rachel for her time and her stimulating presentation. Our forum organises talks and sharing sessions by our postgraduates, and future topics include the legal intricacies of Artifical Intelligence, as well as the right to your very own DNA. Do connect with us via our social media to find out about our Forums as they come!
