Abstract
Citizenship deprivation of foreign terrorist fighters by the United Kingdom is increasing. This is of debatable legality under international law on five separate grounds. First, the UK is arguably wrong in claiming that an extraterritorial deprivation is outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR. Second, UK law may be unlawfully arbitrary and discriminatory. Third, UK law arguably contravenes the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961. Fourth, the UK may be violating its customary international legal obligation to readmit nationals. Fifth, UK practice may breach its conventional extradite or prosecute obligations. Overall, there are arguments of considerable strength that can be made in opposition to UK law and practice in the area.
Highlights
The deprivation of citizenship in UK law and practice has come to the fore in recent years
UK law and practice governing the deprivation of citizenship arguably conflicts with five different rules of public international law tangential or related to it
Regardless, it is clear that a considerable proportion of those deprived of their citizenship under sections 40(2) and 40(4A) of the BNA 1981 are foreign terrorist fighters
Summary
The deprivation of citizenship in UK law and practice has come to the fore in recent years. The numbers of persons who have lost their citizenship between 2006 and 2016 is 373, a marked increase on previous periods.[3] The renown of certain affected individuals has led to their stories making the front pages, including those of Begum, Al-Jedda, and Abu Hamza.[4] These cases raise a number of questions. This latter question is the focus of this article It is important because the deprivation of citizenship has severe consequences for the individual concerned. The customary international law obligation upon the UK to readmit its citizens appears set to be violated in certain deprivation cases. This article analyses UK citizenship deprivation law and practice as applied to foreign terrorist fighters under public international law.[8] It concludes that there are arguments of considerable strength that can be made in opposition to it
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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
