The right to a nationality is set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other international instruments.162 International law does not confer a right to any particular nationality, and it provides for discretion to states to grant and revoke nationality, subject to certain limits. States may also deprive individuals of nationality when they have conducted themselves in a manner “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state”, though this should be interpreted narrowly.163 The power to strip persons of citizenship has also long been enshrined in domestic laws in the OSCE region. However, deprivation of nationality is clearly an extreme measure that interferes, directly and indirectly, with the enjoyment of a much broader range of rights, and which to a significant extent hampers an individual’s ability to claim and secure her/his human rights in general. It is therefore subject to strict limits. First, where deprivation of nationality would result in statelessness, it can violate the state’s obligations in respect of the reduction of statelessness under international law.164 Courts have held that it is insufficient that the individual “could be eligible for another nationality”, if stripping nationality renders the person stateless. Without such protection it would be unlawful as a matter of fact.165 Given the severe impact of statelessness, 162  Article 15 of the UDHR provides that everyone has a right to a nationality and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality nor denied the right to change nationality. According to Article 24 (3) of the ICCPR and Article 7 (1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), every child has the right to acquire a nationality. 163  UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 30 August 1961, Article 8 (3). The UN Secretary General noted that this should be interpreted narrowly as an exception to the general rule; see UN Secretary General, Report to the Human Rights Council (“Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality”), UN Doc. A/ HRC/25/28, 19 December 2013, para. 12. 164  According to Article 8 (1) of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and Article 7 (3) of the European Convention on Nationality of the Council of Europe, state parties to those treaties should not deprive anyone of their nationality if that would render them stateless. Both treaties only allow for exceptions to this rule in strictly limited circumstances. As of June 2018, 71 states worldwide, including 32 OSCE participating States, are parties to the UN Convention and 21 states are parties to the European Convention. The general recognition of the need to avoid statelessness, broadly shared among states, is for example set out in UN General Assembly Resolution 50/152, which calls on states to adopt nationality legislation with a view to reducing statelessness, see UN Doc. A/RES/50/152, 21 December 1995, para. 16. Underlining that the avoidance of statelessness is a general principle of international law, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stressed that deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness will generally be arbitrary unless it serves a legitimate purpose and complies with the principle of proportionality; see summary of information provided by UNHCR in: UN Secretary General, Report to the Human Rights Council (“Arbitrary deprivation of nationality: report of the Secretary-General”), UN Doc. A/HRC/10/34, 26 January 2009, para. 51. 165  In 2014, the power to strip nationality in the United Kingdom was extended from covering just dual nationals to those who there was reasonable ground to believe would have been eligible to obtain another nationality, and the UK Supreme Court found that deprivation would be unlawful if it rendered the person stateless. See Pham (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), 25 March, 2015, <www.supremecourt.uk/ cases/docs/uksc-2013-0150-press-summary.pdf>. The 2014 change of legislation followed an earlier decision of the UK Supreme Court on that matter in the case of Al-Jedda in October 2013. In that decision the Court had dismissed the contention of the Secretary of State that justified the citizenship deprivation of the respondent on the grounds that he could have applied to the Iraqi authorities for restoration of his other nationality. See Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v Al-Jedda (Respondent), 9 October 2013, <www.supremecourt.uk/ cases/uksc-2012-0129.html>. 48 Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters”