Unless you have spent the past four months hibernating under a rock, you’re likely to have come across mention of the name Shamima Begum, though you may be asking yourself what all the fuss is about. Her case, and many like hers around the globe, it transpires, begets a few burning questions, but mainly – was the UK Government justified in stripping her of her citizenship?
Four years after escaping school to join ISIS in February 2015, a heavily pregnant 19-year-old Begum was interviewed by The Times’ war correspondent Anthony Loyd at the Al-Hawl refugee camp. Begum made a plea to return to the UK and raise her child. Though she stated that she never committed any atrocities herself, she refused to admit that she regretted her choice to join ISIS when pressed, justifying the actions they took and the ideology they espouse. Three days later, she gave birth to a son. Soon after, Home Secretary Sajid Javid announced the intent to strip Begum of her British Citizenship.
Shamima’s case has created a fierce debate throughout the United Kingdom and the world beyond it. Aside from the moral discussion about her safety and the safety of her new-born son (who soon after died of pneumonia), or whether she got her “just desserts”, it is important to clarify whether these actions taken by the UK Government were, first and foremost, legal. That is what I’m focused on.
I’ll start with the process. In 2014, Theresa May (back when she was Home Secretary), introduced the Immigration Bill 2013-14, allowing the Government to strip UK foreign-born terror-suspects of UK citizenship. This expanded upon previous laws, such as the British Nationality Act 1948, which states that citizenship can be deprived from people who had “unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy during any war in which Her Majesty was engaged”. Given our history of airstrikes on ISIS, it would be difficult to argue we were not at war with them.
In terms of international law, there is one key international Convention that applies to this case: the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. As per article 8(1) the 1961 Convention, “A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationalist if such deprivation would render him statelessness”. The UK Government does not believe that this Convention prevents them from rendering a person stateless, because the terms of the convention entitled ratifying countries to retain a pre-existing domestic law power to deprive a person of their nationality if that person threatened the vital interests of the state. The 1948 Act is the source of that very pre-existing power.
Having established the process through which the UK can do and has done this, it’s clear to see that this could be interpreted as a very dangerous power – and rightfully so. However, a limitation was placed on it after some significant parliamentary debates: the Home Secretary could only exercise that power if they had reason to believe that the person was able to become a national of another country or territory.
Shamima has a Bangladeshi mother. In Bangladesh, citizenship rights are Jus Sanguinis – determined by blood. In Bangladesh this lapses when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it. Furthermore, under Bangladesh law, a UK national born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. It is hence easy to interpret that as a reason to believe that Shamima could have Bangladeshi nationality.
Yet there is a reason this case is so divisive. The Government of Bangladesh have stated that they have a “zero-tolerance” policy when it comes to terrorism, and as a result have rejected the UK Government’s assumption that she is a Bangladeshi citizen. Does this mean that there is no choice but to leave her stateless?
Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, an authority on immigration law and one of the world’s most respected immigration lawyers, sums up one school of thought quite simply:
“The United Kingdom has no right and no power to require any other State to accept its outcasts and, as a matter of international law, it will be obliged to readmit them if no other State is prepared to allow them to remain.”
So, what now? Shamima ran away to join the forces the UK were at war with. There was reason to believe she could get Bangladeshi citizenship – in fact, she is still eligible. Yet Bangladesh don’t want her, and neither do the UK. It’s certainly hard to imagine Sajid Javid changing his mind. She’s begun appeal proceedings to potentially reverse this decision, but it will be tricky to predict whether International or National law will prevail.
By Rebecca Windsor