The blog post begins by outlining the Dutch legal framework, particularly Article 14 of the Dutch Nationality Act, which permits revocation of nationality in terrorism cases but prohibits such revocation if it would result in statelessness. This creates a legal distinction between mono-nationals, who cannot be deprived of their Dutch nationality, and dual nationals, who can. The Council of State – the highest administrative court in the Netherlands – has, however, thus far held that such distinction is justified in light of the Netherlands’ obligations under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness to not render anyone stateless.
Departing from the jurisprudence of the Council of State, the Amsterdam District Court argues that this distinction leads to direct discrimination based on ethnic origin, as some individuals acquire a second nationality automatically upon birth through the laws of countries like Morocco or Türkiye - often without the ability to renounce it. The court used hypothetical scenarios to support its reasoning, suggesting that this form of discrimination stems from immutable characteristics such as ethnic origin.
Decisive factor
Dresen questions this reasoning, arguing that the decisive factor for nationality revocation is not ethnicity itself but whether someone holds a second nationality - determined by foreign nationality laws. He draws on case law from the European Court of Human Rights to argue that the measure may constitute indirect rather than direct discrimination based on ethnic origin, and that the District Court’s conflation of ethnicity with nationality weakens the legal argument.
The post ends by considering the wider impact of the ruling, particularly in relation to the Dutch government's stated intention to expand the grounds for revoking nationality to, for example, antisemitism and other forms discrimination.
Read the full post here.
