Abstract
Abstract The article examines instances of de jure and de facto denationalization that arise from (suspected) terrorism by analyzing penal outcomes for affected citizens. The article first exposes cases of de jure denationalization that confine citizens to global spaces and draws parallels with instances of de facto denationalization that deny repatriation from abroad. I then argue that both situations signal state’s avoidance of the duty to punish, deviate from conventional penal aspirations and engender volatile global penality. To support this argument, I explore three questions: (1) who punishes, (2) who is punished and (3) what the purpose of punishment is. I conclude by exposing the emerging features of global neo-colonial penality as they pertain to both its objects and objectives.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
