The dilemma is to deprive the person of citizenship when it is conducive to the public good, to have had the advice and come to a decision which is to be based on the lines of national security and national interest, safeguarding the people in home country but cannot leave the individual stateless as a result of it. On the other hand it is duty of the government to do all they can to safeguard and prevent its citizens from being drawn into terrorism and moving towards such conflicting situations. Also, it is responsibility of the officials to keep its citizens safe.
The officials and authorities need to take into account the attention and formulation of instruments which shall work towards the protection of rights and maintenance of faith of the individuals in the conflicting zones, which shall protect them from the fear of the loss of citizenship and in the working order of their respective country. It is during the war and conflicting times that the citizenship and human rights are infringed upon the most. It becomes imperative for the international bodies and organisations to intervene in order to promote, protect and guarantee the humane treatment to the victims and persons prohibiting torture and cruel treatment.
The consequences of deprivation are usually the tensions that arise and the contradictions in the public realms as claims in regards of marginalisation, radicalisation, exclusion and domination among the groups and individuals, which are generally widespread. This further results in mostly the civil wars and arises conflicts. This differentiates and results in unequal status of citizenship and rights adhered by the persons in conflict zones.
The government could possibly drag individuals out of the conflict zone, it could be difficult, but not entirely impossible for officials to provide protection to its citizens. The political will has a role to play, appropriate mechanism could pull out an individual from the conflicting zone. If so is the case, then it reflects that citizenship does not protects the rights, and leaving an individual stateless is illegal under the ambit of International Law, and as stated in UDHR, no one can be arbitrarily denied of the nationality.
The way forward could be rehabilitation, psychological counselling and mental health support, simultaneously following up with investigation and assessing the risks involved in return, restricting the movement, calculating the risks of resettlement, safety prospects, amongst others. Though nationality is an absolute right under the aegis of International Human Rights law, letting the government to take away human rights of an individual is quite a dangerous precedent under the realm of International law.
#InternationalLaw #HumanRights #HumanitarianLaw #WarZones #Citizenship #Rights #UNHCR
Law And Policy 