Shamima Begum Legal Status
As mentioned above, Ms Begum cannot lodge a direct complaint concerning the above-mentioned violations of her rights under Article 12, paragraph 4. Had it been able to do so, critical questions of the international justiciability of national security justifications for violations of international rights (an issue that has recently been in the spotlight under Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) would have been examined and answered. In the absence of such a remedy, it is unlikely that a definitive conclusion will ever be drawn as to whether Ms Begum`s rights under Article 12(4) have been violated. This point does not apply specifically to stateless persons. In the UK, however, a request for stateless leave is not considered until all other leave options have been exhausted. Stateless persons who are not entitled to financial legal aid in England and Wales, unless they are seeking asylum or, exceptionally, have not gone through this complex procedure at least once before applying for leave as a stateless person which is not subject to appeal, unless human rights grounds have been invoked. In this context, I would argue that, at least until a final court decision (after all appeals have been exhausted) on the legality of the Home Secretary`s withdrawal decision under UK law, Stewart`s comments above suggest that the UK should allow Ms Begum to re-enter the country under Article 12, Paragraph 4. This is particularly true for two reasons. First, the remedies still available to Ms Begum mean that it is entirely possible that the British courts will restore Ms Begum`s British citizenship. If this were ultimately to happen, it is clear that his current inability to enter the UK following the UKSC decision (until his citizenship is restored) would constitute a breach of Article 12(4).
Second, as suggested above, Article 15 TFEU confers on Ms Begum a right against arbitrary deprivation of her nationality. As the UKSC itself has pointed out, its decision prevents Ms Begum from participating meaningfully in actions relating to her British nationality. As a result, his withdrawal of British citizenship will continue indefinitely, without any meaningful appeal, until a viable solution can be found allowing him to participate in proceedings concerning his British citizenship. In my view, this in itself constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of Ms Begum`s nationality and constitutes a continuing violation by the United Kingdom of Article 15 of the UDHR. Begum wanted to be allowed to return to Britain to personally pursue his legal challenge in a test case concerning the status of Britons who joined ISIS and whose citizenship was also revoked. It is important to note that although the UK has signed and ratified the ICCPR, it is not the first optional protocol to the ICCPR. Therefore, the UK remains fully bound by the ICCPR under international law, but no direct complaint can be made against it to the UN Human Rights Committee for alleged violations of individuals` civil rights in accordance with civil and social security and consumer protection. While this means that Ms.
Begum cannot bring a direct complaint against the United Kingdom for the reasons set out below, I would argue that it is important to examine Ms. Begum`s treatment by the United Kingdom in terms of her status as “her own country” under Article 12(4) of the ICCPR, as it exposes the unique vulnerability of the status of second and even third generation immigrants around the world. The Times` so-called “discovery” sparked a national discussion about whether she should be allowed to return to Britain. However, then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid interrupted that conversation by quickly announcing the government`s intention to strip her of her British citizenship. Javid legally justified the decision by saying Begum “has Bangladeshi citizenship” through her parents. Begum was 19 at the time of the revocation and was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, but she should have claimed it at 21. Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Shahriar Alam said in a statement to British media just days after Javid`s announcement that Begum was not a citizen of Bangladesh and would be denied entry into the country. In any event, it is important to frame the international legal discussion surrounding Ms. Begum`s case in these terms.
The UKSC decision, and Ms Begum`s case in general, shows that the citizenship of second- and perhaps even third-generation immigrants around the world is not as secure as the citizenship of “native” citizens, because even a superficial legal relationship with another country (and a potential claim to foreign citizenship, Even if there is no significant social citizenship, cultural or economic ties with such a foreign country) can lead to absolute deprivation of citizenship and the right to return to one`s own country. At home in certain circumstances. Focusing on whether a country is “one`s own” within the meaning of international law, regardless of national legislation on whether to remain a citizen of that country, is an important way to push back this narrative and affirm the right of immigrant communities to be treated as “indigenous” citizens of the countries in which they have lived. integrated and contributed for generations. At the very least, the wording of the conversation in these terms reveals the need to ensure that immigrants (and descendants of immigrants) retain the right to return to their country of citizenship like other “Indigenous” citizens. Immigration cases are first appealed to the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the courts.