23

Recently the UK supreme court ruled against IS bride Shamina Begum's attempt to return to the UK to fight her citizenship being revoked.

As I understand it, what happened here was that the UK wanted to disown Shamina Begum after she joined the Islamic State. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights held that she cannot made stateless, but Shamina Begum held dual nationality, making it possible for the UK to revoke her citizenship and make her another country's responsibility (in this case Bangladesh). This seems rather silly to me, because it makes it an arms race to see who can revoke her citizenship faster. On the other hand, why can't the UK just revoke Shamina Begum's citizenship even if she held no other citizenship, since she evidently identified as an Islamic State citizen? Could the UK have done so without violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Only thing I can see is that doing so would constitute de facto recognition of IS as a sovereign country, but even then I don't see why it would be a problem, given that there are other states the UK does not recognize that control territory, e.g. Taiwan.

Allure
  • 34,557
  • 16
  • 102
  • 190

6 Answers6

57

Because recognizing another entity as a country entails admitting it's legally entitled to hold some territory. So the next question would have been: what territory is ISIS legally entitled to hold/control?

No country wanted to admit ISIS was legally entitled to any territory.

For example this was the US position, no doubt reflected by many/most other Western countries:

On the eve of the 13th anniversary of 9/11, Obama finally issued a statement which purported to define ‘ISIL’. Yet both the timing and the content, with a brief reference to location, only reinforced the abstraction:

ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq– Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. [...]

At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL—which calls itself the ‘Islamic State’.

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
  • 6
    Why can't a country recognize another as legally entitled to hold territory while simultaneously looking to destroy the country? I'm sure it has happened in the past, e.g. during the Korean war or Qin's wars of unification in ancient China. – Allure Mar 01 '21 at 03:34
  • 10
    @Allure: Qin wars are irrelevant to the 20th-21st century conception of a state. As for Korea, if you're sure, write your own answer. If that's actually a[nother] question, ask separately, either here or on history SE. – the gods from engineering Mar 01 '21 at 04:04
  • 5
    Unfortunately, I can't write my own answer to this question because I don't know what the answer is. – Allure Mar 01 '21 at 04:04
  • 33
    @Allure ISIS is a terrorist organisation. You imply it's more than just that if you recognise it as a country and doing so adds to its legitimacy (which is bad). Trying to wipe out another country probably also isn't the best political position to put yourself in. A country implies there are a lot of innocent people just trying to live their lives and they are justified in defending themselves (to a large degree). I'm also pretty sure that a country, by its very definition, needs to consist of some land (not just have a theoretical right to own some); who's land are you going to give to them? – NotThatGuy Mar 01 '21 at 09:36
  • 10
    @NotThatGuy Nitpicking a bit, but many countries recognize the Sovereign Military Order of Malta as being sovereign and legitimate, though it neither holds nor claims territory. I'm not sure to what degree it's considered a "country" with "citizens", but it does issue passports at least – Sara J Mar 01 '21 at 11:04
  • 3
    @Allure: Because they don't believe ISIL is legit enough to treat their combatants as soldiers. In the US Civil War; US regarded the Confederacy as a belligerent power with rights to no territory but a government capable of waging war. Thus captured confederate soldiers were not held on trial for murder. – Joshua Mar 01 '21 at 20:39
  • 1
    @Joshua: and even that is not a very good analogy because the individual southern states were not seen as not (each) entitled to their own territory. Also, there was actually formal amnesty of the confederates, absolving them of treason etc. – the gods from engineering Mar 01 '21 at 21:21
  • @Allure In the case of Korea, the two Koreas don't recognize each other as countries, and both claim the whole peninsula as soverign territory. – Stuck Mar 02 '21 at 04:28
  • @SaraJ: that's probably the best counter-example, but SMO's status as a country is a bit debatable (and debated) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta#International_status Although its passports (thus claims to legitimately having some citizens) seems less debated. – the gods from engineering Mar 02 '21 at 15:09
  • 2
    @SaraJ SMOM maintains positive diplomatic relations with countries that recognize its passports. They maintain this relationship through their spoken intentions and their actions, which are ostensibly and, by inspection, demonstrably benign. If SMOM started chopping peoples' heads off, you would see that relationship sour in a hurry. – J... Mar 02 '21 at 17:04
  • 1
    @J... Of course, I am absolutely not trying to say SMOM and IS are the same, I was just pointing out that recognizing some entity as being able to have citizens and recognizing some entity as having legitimate claims to land might not always be the same – Sara J Mar 02 '21 at 19:43
  • 1
    @SaraJ Fair, but we can also deduce by inspection that IS has not been granted diplomatic favours for reasons other than not having land. SMOM is also not properly a country and their passports do not denote "citizenship", but rather "membership". Their passports are more like official or diplomatic passports. I think for the purposes of criminal prosecution they are still treated as citizens of whatever country they remain citizens of, regardless of SMOM membership (ie: if they were to be deported, etc). – J... Mar 02 '21 at 19:52
  • 1
    @SaraJ I guess all this to say that SMOM isn't properly a "country" in the sense that they do not represent the type of diplomatic recognition that IS is seeking (ie: that their territorial claims on lands they have seized be recognized as belonging to a new, actual, state) and that simply issuing passports does not properly elevate SMOM to the status of a sovereign state, being instead an organization or entity. – J... Mar 02 '21 at 19:53
  • @SaraJ To add to your point, during WWII, Free France was recognised as a government-in-exile. While I don't believe ISIL qualifies in any way, there is modern precedent for a "country" that holds no territory. – jernaumorat Mar 04 '21 at 06:02
  • 2
    @Vermilingua: that is a bad example here. Goverments in exile are recognized as entitled to holding/ruling the territory of their country. That they don't hold any presently is a complementary/opposite condition. ISIS held territory but was not deemed entitled to any. So ISIS is the "opposite" of a government in exile. – the gods from engineering Mar 04 '21 at 06:10
27

Clever arguments don't really matter that much, it doesn't make the problem disappear, from either a political or human rights perspective. Some countries have revoked citizenship in similar conditions, if you are prepared to do it and do not fear the local court system, you don't need to be cute about it. Conversely, if you care even a little bit about the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the criticism you might get from NGO, it's not clear what this sleight of hand would buy you.

Relaxed
  • 30,938
  • 2
  • 75
  • 109
17

Your question is predicated on an entirely false assumption, namely:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights held that she cannot made stateless

The UDHR is merely a declaration, and as such is not legally binding. The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness are treaties, which are legally binding, and which both Bangladesh and the United Kingdom have ratified (and hence are legally bound by).

Article 8 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness specifies the following:

Contracting States shall not deprive people of their nationality so as to render them stateless. (Exceptions: where otherwise provided in the Convention; where nationality has been acquired by misrepresentation or fraud; disloyalty to the Contracting State).

Begum's actions quite evidently fall under the highlighted exception.

Further, the UK explicitly catered for this scenario in its laws via the 2014 Immigration Act, which amended the 1981 British Nationality Act. Section 66, "Deprivation if conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the UK":

... that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory...

Again, Begum's actions can easily be categorized as the bolded section.

In short, both in terms of UN and United Kingdom law, there was nothing illegal about the UK's action in depriving Begum of British citizenship. The fact that doing so ostensibly left her a Bangladeshi citizen is irrelevant; her Bangladeshi citizenship lapsed once she turned 22 (another consequence of the 1961 Convention) and there is no requirement for Bangladesh to extend that citizenship to prevent her from being made stateless.

Ian Kemp
  • 1,326
  • 9
  • 16
  • According to the article linked in the question, Begum is 21. The problem is that Bangladesh is on the record as saying that she is not and never had been a citizen of Bangladesh, and UDHR aside, there are IIRC provisions in UK law protecting people from being made stateless. – phoog Mar 03 '21 at 22:17
  • 4
    Furthermore, you have misquoted the amendment to the 1981 nationality act that is made by the 2014 Immigration Act. There are three elements to 4A, and all of them must be true for 4A to apply. The first element is "the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation," which appears not to be the case. Therefore, 4A does not apply to Shamima Begum. Another problem with this answer is that it seems to say that the government was within its right to deprive her of her citizenship, but that is not what the supreme court said. This answer is fundamentally incorrect. – phoog Mar 03 '21 at 22:46
  • Another problem here: Bangladesh has not signed either of the conventions, much less ratified them, in contrast to the claim in this answer. – phoog Jul 06 '21 at 11:26
3

Frame shift (but not defending ISIS members in the least).

(for clarity: "citizenship" below refers only to Western citizenship. ISIS is not, and should not be considered, a state).

If one defines citizenship as, among other things, the capacity to return to one's country of citizenship, it seems that, in practice, rather than fine legal details, Western states are already largely curtailing recognizing citizenship with regards to ISIS members.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/29/canada-bring-home-isis-suspects-and-relatives-syria

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-has-repatriated-27-americans-syria-and-iraq-including-ten-charged-terrorism

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/21/western-europe-must-repatriate-its-isis-fighters-and-families

Searching for "ISIS citizen repatriation" and you will see many such articles - Western countries are often not taking back their citizens.

Should they? That's another question, but I certainly feel the countries which are serving as involuntary hosts are being ill-treated.

Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
  • 83,219
  • 11
  • 197
  • 338
  • 1
    The difference between absolutely refusing and not actively “repatriating” citizens is not merely a fine legal detail. – Relaxed Mar 02 '21 at 19:46
  • @Relaxed perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the meaning of largely curtailing – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 02 '21 at 19:49
  • Can you clarify how this answer is related to the question in the OP? – Allure Mar 03 '21 at 03:14
  • @Allure In practice, though they don't formalize it by law, a number of Western countries are already largely not recognizing the rights of their citizens who fought for ISIS. I am not expressing approval, or disapproval, of this approach, only remarking that the OP's question is already somewhat superseded/sidestepped by actual practice. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 03 '21 at 04:25
  • This answer could be improved by defining which direction you mean when you say "repatriate." Your first sentence talks about "statehood" (i.e. the statehood of ISIL, right? Looking at whether IS "citizens" have the capacity to return to IS?) but then you switch to talking about "citizenship" (not "statehood") and link to news articles describing the opposite phenomenon (i.e. whether Western states are permitting self-declared IS "citizens" to come home to the West just as if they hadn't been citizens of anywhere else). – Quuxplusone Mar 03 '21 at 15:00
  • So? Even if countries were largely curtaling the return of their own citizens (they are not), that wouldn't make your reasoning any more convincing. The difference between largely curtailing and not recognizing citizenship still isn't a “fine legal detail”. The reality, of course, is that European countries are not curtailing anything, they are merely declining to actively intervene, sticking to the line that Iraqi procedures are a domestic matter and fully above board. That's exactly what Human Right Watch is complaining about if you are reading your own links carefully. – Relaxed Mar 03 '21 at 15:08
  • In fact, your own sources mention dozens of cases of repatriations. Mostly limited to children and insufficient in the eyes of NGO but also far from a mere legal detail. So what are you challenging exactly? – Relaxed Mar 03 '21 at 15:11
  • @Relaxed Your own razor sharp arguments boil down to "if they want to be mean and not listen to judges and NGOs they can be mean", Perry Mason. So going all schoolmaster on me? Don't really care. Why don't you relax, chill out and post funny stories again like the time you stated French Muslims had it better than anywhere else in the world ;-) – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 03 '21 at 16:21
  • @Quuxplusone noted. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 03 '21 at 16:23
  • 1
    "western citizenship"? Is citizenship of an Asian country such as China or Laos somehow different from citizenship of a western European country such as the UK or Spain? – phoog Mar 03 '21 at 22:14
  • @phoog I am mostly aware of ISIS fighter repatriation issues relating to Western countries. In fact, one of the links refers to central Asian countries being rather more diligent than Western ones, IIRC. China... would probably just shoot the f***ers (not the children and non-fighting women), which wouldn't sadden me very much, much as I oppose the death penalty. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 03 '21 at 23:10
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Where did you read that, exactly? That's certainly not what I am thinking, quite the opposite. – Relaxed Mar 04 '21 at 17:59
2

I'm the opposite of an expert, so I could easily be missing some nuance here, but it appears the UDHR is not legally binding

Although not legally binding, the contents of the UDHR have been elaborated and incorporated into subsequent international treaties [...]

Emphasis mine.

There's no reason for the UK to recognise the so-called IS as a state to play lawyer chess when they're fully within the law to just delete her citizenship, as described by Ian Kemp.

Adam Barnes
  • 131
  • 4
  • Mrs. Begum is a person who arguably had another citizenship, so the question doesn’t really apply to her. It applies much more to hundred others in a similar position with only UK citizenship. – gnasher729 Mar 03 '21 at 10:19
  • Which doesn't invalidate my answer at all, there's no reason for the UK to play lawyer chess in any way because the UDHR is not legally binding. – Adam Barnes Mar 03 '21 at 13:02
  • The UDHR isn't binding, but the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is binding on the UK, and the UK's own laws about nationality implement its requirements, which is why the "lawyer chess" is in fact necessary. – phoog Jul 06 '21 at 11:31
  • @phoog I notice you're making a great deal of comments here disagreeing with answers, but no answers yourself. Perhaps you should. – Adam Barnes Jul 07 '21 at 12:17
1

It's quite simple: you can't be a citizen in a country that doesn't exist. Admitting that they had become a citizen of the Islamic State would necessarily entail admitting that the Islamic State is, in fact, a state (rather than merely a terrorist group), which is a non-starter for most western countries.

EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine
  • 413
  • 3
  • 11