Abstract
In their fight against Islamist terrorism, a growing number of European states and the UK has turned to depriving (suspected) terrorists of their nationality, making use of existing, amended or newly introduced provisions to this effect. This development has met with strong reservations by human-rights NGOs and much recent scholarship alike. In their view, nationality deprivation not only fails to reach its professed goals, especially the safeguarding of national security and the just punishment of terrorists, but also violates core democratic values, including the principle of non-discrimination, and human rights more broadly. Such criticism is diametrically opposed to an important voice that is rarely given full credit in the debate: that of the states themselves, as they speak through their legislations as well as the political and legal institutions that their very identity as liberal constitutional democracies entails. Implemented by elected parliaments, subject to extensive legislative and political proceedings, and scrutinized for human-right compliance by national and international courts, the deprivation regimes of these states are, I contend, too easily dismissed as mere abuses of state power. Thus, my PhD looks afresh at how and why states in Europe and the UK allow for deprivation measures, and asks whether deprivation of citizenship can be justified as a state measure that is both lawful and legitimate in a democratic system. Is there a place for nationality deprivation in a democracy?In order to answer this question, my thesis pursues a three-step approach. First, it conducts a comparative analysis of the deprivation regimes across the EU and the UK, with a view to establishing the legal nature of nationality deprivation as a measure of either criminal or administrative law. This is not a trivial point. Often allocated by its critics to the former, and judged accordingly, nationality deprivation does indeed fall within the remits of administrative law in the very great majority of cases. As I will show, in this capacity, it marks the severing of the legal bond that exists between state and citizen, in a non-punitive response to a citizen’s exceptionally severe transgression of their civic duties. Second, my thesis looks closer at the legal relationship between state and citizen that is formalised by the bond of citizenship in Europe and the UK. What transgressions of this bond may trigger a deprivation regime? What normative understanding of citizenship do deprivation regimes presuppose? In a third and final step, my thesis reviews how the notion of a severed bond between state and citizen that underpins nationality deprivations in the EU and the UK fares against standards of lawfulness and legitimacy. While the former requires the assessment of a measure’s compliance with legal principles and provisions at the national and international level, the question of legitimacy asks, in particular, to what extent nationality deprivation may be regarded just and appropriate in a democracy.
My thesis argues that the response to this question ultimately lies in the inherent link between nationality deprivation and democracy. Contrary to their critics’ belief, deprivation measures in response to terrorist conduct across the EU and the UK do not generally strive to secure national security or punishment, at least not as their primary goal. Instead, they tend to share a different characteristic: they respond to acts so incompatible with the most essential values of the democratic community that they justify an individual’s debarment from it. Rather than abusing democracy, deprivation regimes seek to defend and uphold it. The contentious state of the (un)democratic nature of deprivation regimes raises fundamental questions about citizenship, state authority and democracy that deserve further examination. My PhD contributes to this important enquiry.
Date of Award | 1 Feb 2024 |
---|---|
Original language | English |
Awarding Institution |
|
Supervisor | Peer Zumbansen (Supervisor) & Eva Pils (Supervisor) |