Is it morally professional for a state to revoke the citizenship below sure situations? Ought to a state revoke the citizenship of its nationals who joined a publicly identified non-state terrorist organisation overseas? Though the 1948 Common Declaration of Human Rights affirms that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (United Nations 1948), there’s a broad variation on how states respect the inherent dignity of all people inside its territory. Within the modern worldwide system, states stay the first authorized guarantor of human rights (Regilme 2019a; Regilme 2020). State-based citizenship constitutes the quintessential entry go for a human particular person to take pleasure in all kinds of rights and privileges which can be solely attainable via formal membership in a professional, territorially-bound political neighborhood. For that cause, citizenship revocation and statelessness have deadly results upon human people. The absence of formal membership in a political neighborhood concretely means reducing off entry to varied instruments for survival — sense of belongingness in addition to materials technique of livelihood, amongst many others. But, there are thousands and thousands of people that stay stateless, one third of that are kids (UNHCR 2020), whereas many states apply citizenship revocation, particularly of individuals deemed with inferior, minoritized, and dehumanised identities.  

Some of the current and broadly identified circumstances of citizenship revocation pertains to the British authorities’s dehumanising remedy of Shamima Begum, who left Britain to affix the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) in February 2015 and was found within the al-Hawl camp in Northern Syria. In 2019, Begum left IS territory and pleaded for repatriation to Britain to offer her unborn little one with a greater probability of survival. When Shamima Begum requested to return in February 2019, Britain’s Dwelling Secretary, Sajid Javid, revoked her citizenship, thereby making Begum the first-ever broadly documented British lady stripped of her citizenship. Begum’s case triggered wide-ranging coverage debates and questions in regards to the contentious politics of citizenship, human rights, and state energy. These debates in British and international politics expose the gendered, racialised, and class-based logics underlying the safety and citizenship discourses within the post-9/11 British context, explored briefly on this opinion piece in addition to within the earlier peer-reviewed article that we not too long ago revealed within the Journal of Human Rights Follow (Oxford College Press).

After 9/11, Western states employed the ‘Us vs Them’ discourse to legitimise anti-human rights practices (Regilme 2018a, 2018b). In Britain, a number of Prime Ministers and their respective Dwelling Secretaries incessantly indicated the ‘value’ of swapping human rights for safety measures (Grierson 2019; Walawalkar 2019; Turnbull 2019), producing notions of nationwide safety defending collective citizenship rights, particularly via citizenship revocation (Macklin 2014:17; Dearden 2019; Batty&Noor 2019). Citizenship is essentially thought-about the first human proper – the precise to have rights through an unwritten social contract between the state and the person (Arendt 1951). Conversely, the absence of citizenship reduces an individual to reveal life, or homo sacer (Agamben 1998). Within the legalistic notion of citizenship, residents with jus sanguinis usually tend to have their citizen stripped over these with jus soli (Macklin 2015; McGhee 2010; Kapoor 2018). Citizenship revocation is thus deeply politicised, and it establishes a hierarchical human rights system for 2 ‘types of life’ (Benhabib 2004; Agamben 2000; Schuilenburg 2008:2), remodeling the ‘non-citizen’ into an ‘undesirable’ entity (Macklin 2014:2-3).

This notion of ‘undesirability’, as strengthened by citizenship revocation, historically belongs to marginalised teams in Britain, equivalent to girls, minority teams, and wage employees, quite than males, Caucasians, and property house owners, who’re deemed exemplary ‘British’ residents (Glenn 2000). In trying to ‘show’ loyalty to Britain, a story of ‘British values’/‘Britishness’ was established (McGhee 2010). This idea, nonetheless, solely fits the aforementioned prototype, with these falling exterior offered as ‘Different’ and ‘un-British’ (Clarke&Garner 2010). These narratives had been employed surrounding Begum, labelling her a safety risk as she ‘is’ in opposition to ‘the values we stand for’ (Javid 2019a). Notably post-9/11, Muslims are anticipated to imagine ‘Britishness’ above all different minority communities (Tufail&Cohen 2017). This expectation can be gendered: Muslim girls are incessantly considered as victims, perceived as ‘incapable’ of talking English and thus allegedly ‘extra prone’ to extremism, abuse, and never selling/speaking ‘British values’ (Smith 2016:303; Mason&Sherwood 2016). But for Begum, this perception is missing. Slightly than addressing the net grooming (Segalov 2019); exploitation (ibid); worldwide trafficking (ibid); underage ‘marriage’ (Gopal 2019); statutory rape (ibid); trauma (Davies&Ward 2019); and her doubtlessly being a toddler soldier (Jorgensen 2019:5); the federal government outlined Begum as ‘an actual risk’ (Javid 2019b).

Muslim girls are subsequently seen as each victims and threats. By branding Begum as ‘threatening’ and revoking her citizenship, feminine Muslim company is considered as perilous to the white secular state. Maybe, then, Begum’s ‘equivalence’ to a ‘safety risk’ will not be really about threatening state safety, however threatening the state’s conception of what constitutes an agency-driven ‘British’ lady. For the British state, Begum doesn’t match the historic and modern illustrations of the ‘feminine Muslim sufferer’, thus when her personal company is seen, she turns into a risk, and upon wishing to return, she receives the final word state punishment: citizenship revocation.

Shamima Begum’s case highlights how the dignity of residents from marginalised backgrounds — on this case a mixture of an ethnic minority, a woman/lady, a Muslim, and a mom— has been systematically undermined by the state. Begum’s case reminds us {that a} constitutional order’s affirmation for human rights is all the time subjected to the persistent political contestations throughout the state-society nexus, which is embedded by racialised, gendered, and class-based logics (Regilme 2019). The British state’s revocation of Begum’s citizenship constitutes a basic assault on the dignity of Begum’s humanity. By citizenship revocation, the British state expelled Begum from her political neighborhood, as she was additionally denied of any recourse to procedural equity and entry to substantive justice. The apply of citizenship revocation additionally undermines the dignity of the human individual from marginalised identities, notably due to their race, gender, socio-economic class, incapacity, amongst others. Citizenship revocation is simply one of many many states’ dehumanising practices deployed in opposition to individuals from marginalised communities. But, citizenship revocation causes a direct and blatant banishment of a human individual from one’s political neighborhood, thereby lowering that dignified human individual to a naked human, or homo sacer. Human rights activists worldwide ought to collectively mobilise in opposition to any state apply that dehumanises anybody via denaturalisation and perpetuates the statelessness of minoritized people.

Notably, such dehumanising practices regarding citizenship have gained traction in recent times, each within the International North and the International South. In the US, the Trump administration has intensified its denaturalisation efforts that systematically focused individuals of color and from very poor socio-economic backgrounds.  In lots of locations elsewhere, the United Nations Excessive Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR 2020) has reported thousands and thousands of stateless individuals from many components of the globe. Accordingly, within the case of Myanmar, almost 600,000 people dwelling in Rakhine state stay stateless on the premise of the present regulation, which successfully denies citizenship for members of Muslim minority teams. Within the Ivory Coast, roughly 700,000 Burkinabe migrants stay ineligible for Ivorian citizenship, whereas Europe has round 500,000 stateless people, lots of whom are from the Baltic states and Jap Europe (ensuing from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991).

The case of Shamima Begum illustrates the enduring political logics of stratifications inside humanity. Amidst a whole bunch of hundreds of stateless people worldwide, normally from minoritised teams, the disaster of statelessness and citizenship revocation is a disaster of basic human rights. Within the modern worldwide system, the place states stay the first guarantor of human rights, statelessness and citizenship revocation ought to be thought-about as an assault to the dignity of the human individual. Though statelessness and denaturalisation packages have persevered even earlier than Begum’s case, such practices stay largely invisible in mainstream scholarly and coverage discussions in addition to the coverage agendas of highly effective states and international governance establishments.  Therefore, we must always proceed to withstand any political initiative that champions citizenship revocation or statelessness inside and past the extent of state-level policy-making. 


Agamben, G. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Energy and Naked Life (D. Heller-Roazen, trans.). Stanford College Press.

Agamben, G. 2000. Means With out Finish: Notes on Politics— Idea Out of Bounds (V. Binetti and C. Casarino, trans.). College of Minnesota Press.

Arendt, H. 1951. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Batty, D., and P. Noor. 2019. Who has Been Stripped of UK Citizenship earlier than Shamima Begum? The Guardian. (referenced 4 Nov 2020).

Benhabib, S. 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Residents. New York: Cambridge College Press.

Clarke, S., and S. Garner. 2010. White Identities: A Vital Sociological Method. London: Pluto Press.

Davies, G., and V. Ward. 2019. Shamima Begum is ‘Traumatised’, Says her Lawyer as he Likens ISIL Bride to a First World Struggle Soldier. The Telegraph. 2019/02/18/isil-bride-traumatised-says-lawyer-likens-first-world-war-soldier (referenced 4 Nov 2020).

Dearden, L. 2019. Shamima Begum: Variety of Folks Stripped of UK Citizenship Soars by 600% in a Yr. The Unbiased. mima-begum-uk-citizenship-stripped-home-office-sajid-javid-a8788301.html (referenced 29 July 2019).

Glenn, E. 2000. Citizenship and Inequality: Historic and International Views. Social Issues 47(1): 1–20.

Gopal, P. 2019. When Do You Grow to be ‘British Sufficient’?. Al Jazeera. indepth/opinion/british-190228141135189.html (referenced 4 Nov 2020)

Grierson, J. 2019. Priti Patel’s Report on Human Rights Prompts ‘Excessive Concern’. The Guardian. (referenced 4 Nov 2020)

Javid, S. 2019a. Sajid Javid has a Message for Shamima Begum. RT UK. com/watch?v=1zsRrYl0Y7Q (referenced 4 Nov 2020).

Javid, S. 2019b. Dwelling Secretary Speech on Preserving Our Nation Protected. UK Authorities — Dwelling Workplace. try-safe (referenced 4 Nov 2020).

Jorgensen, N. 2019. Youngsters Related to Terrorist Teams within the Context of the Authorized Framework for Baby Troopers. Questions of Worldwide Regulation 60: 5–23.

Macklin, A. 2014. Citizenship Revocation, the Privilege to Have Rights and the Manufacturing of the Alien. Queen’s Regulation Journal 40(1): 1–54.

 Macklin, A. 2015. Sticky Citizenship. In R. E. Howard-Hassmann and M. Walton-Roberts (eds), The Human Proper to Citizenship: A Slippery Idea, pp. 223–40. College of Pennsylvania Press.

Mason, R., and H. Sherwood. 2016. Cameron ‘Stigmatising Muslim Ladies’ with English Language Coverage. The Guardian. vid-cameron-stigmatising-muslim-women-learn-english-language-policy (referenced 4 Nov 2020).

McGhee, D. 2010. Safety, Citizenship and Human Rights: Shared Values in Unsure Instances. Palgrave Macmillan.

Regilme, S. 2018a. Does US International Help Undermine Human Rights? The ‘Thaksinification’ of the Struggle on Terror Discourses and the Human Rights Disaster in Thailand, 2001 to 2006. Human Rights Evaluate 19(1): 73–95.

Regilme, S. 2018b. A Human Rights Tragedy: Strategic Localization of US International Coverage in Colombia. Worldwide Relations 32(3): 343–65.

Regilme, S. 2019a. The worldwide politics of human rights: From human rights to human dignity?. Worldwide Political Science Evaluate, 40(2), pp.279-290.

Regilme, S. 2019b. Constitutional Order in Oligarchic Democracies: Neoliberal Rights versus Socio-Financial Rights. Regulation, Tradition and the Humanities. (Might 2019). doi:10.1177/1743872119854142

Regilme, Salvador Santino Fulo Jr. (2020). Human Rights and Humanitarian Interventions within the Worldwide Enviornment. In Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, Bertrand Badie & Leonardo Morlino. (eds). The SAGE Handbook of Political Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 1462-1479

Schuilenburg, M. 2008. The Refugee as Homo Sacer: A Brief Introduction to Agamben’s ‘Past Human Rights’. Social Engineering 15: 86–9.

Turnbull, E. 2019. Boris Johnson’s Monitor Report on Human Rights Right here at Dwelling. British Institute of Human Rights. (referenced 4 Nov 2020).

UNHCR. 2020. Statelessness Across the World. (referenced 13 Nov 2020).

United Nations. 1948. Common Declaration of Human Rights. (referenced 18 November 2020).

Walawalkar, A. 2019. The place Does Boris Johnson’s New Cupboard Stand on Human Rights? Every Different. (referenced 4 Nov 2020).

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations