Fernando López Range (University of the State of Rio de Janeiro)
Introduction
Within the Inter-American system, the 1969 Pact of San José enshrined the right to a nationality in Article 20 through three provisions: “1. Every person has the right to a nationality; 2. Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality; and 3. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or of the right to change it.” The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has emphasised that this right confers and underpins all the prerogatives, guarantees and benefits of belonging to a social and political community (IACHR 1977, para. 10). Accordingly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) considers the right to a nationality to be the second most important human right (1984, para. 32). Also, Article 22 of the American Convention further elaborates on rights relating to nationality stating that states are prohibited from hindering the entry, movement, residence and departure of nationals (IACtHR 1999, para. 100; IACtHR 1984, para. 34; and IACtHR 2001, para. 87).
The IACtHR affirms that international law imposes limits on state discretion (2001, pp. 383–384), while Article 20 has two implications: it provides minimum legal protection to the individual in international relations, and protects the individual against the arbitrary deprivation of their nationality. Such deprivation could harm non-derogable rights—that is, rights from which no suspension is permitted (Tiburcio 2001, p. 76– 77). Indeed, the Court considers nationality to be a fundamental right inherent to all persons (Fripp 2016, p. 279) of non-derogable character (IACtHR 2005, para. 136), that is, emergency reasons may not suspend this right under Article 27 of the Convention.
Domestic policies and regulations on nationality across the Americas have since evolved, taking this framework into consideration. However, progress is not uniform. While most of the Latin American region has robust legal protection of the right to a nationality, receptive towards plurinationality and with limited causes for the involuntary loss of nationality, Nicaragua displays a counterexample (along with a couple of other autocratic regimes), where reforms have allowed for greater discretion. This blog will discuss the current context of nationality deprivation in Nicaragua, where citizenship revocation has been increasingly used as a tool used against political dissent. Particularly, the blog will analyse the report from the UNHRC on the human rights violations of President Daniel Ortega’s Government, and in doing so, add to existing scholarship demonstrating the weaponisation of citizenship.
Nicaragua Deprivation of Nationality
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) established the Group of Experts on Human Rights in Nicaragua (the Group) in 2022, with the mandate to investigate human rights and transnational violations since April 2018. It was a response to increasing political restrictions under the Ortega Government, which prohibited political demonstrations after large unrest in 2018. The Group highlights multiple massive human rights violations and Nicaragua’s failure to comply with its international obligations and increasing repression during that period. Particularly, the right to nationality appears in the past two Annual Reports presented for the 58th and 61st sessions, respectively.
Both reports concluded that the Nicaraguan Government seeks absolute political control. To this end, it employs policies of deprivation of nationality and forced expulsion (Report 2025, paras. 106-107). The IACtHR notes that the practice of denationalisation restricts the exercise of political rights, hence violating democratic principles of the American States, while such restrictions to participation must observe the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality in a democratic society (2005b, paras. 109, 201, 204, 206 and 207). Therefore, the Government must not unreasonably restrict the right to stand for elections (UNHRC 1996, para. 17; cf. IACtHR 2005b, para. 208). Indeed, it must ‘be provided for by law, not be discriminatory, be based on reasonable criteria, serve a useful and appropriate purpose’ and that ‘least restricts the protected right and is most proportionate.’
The Group identified four phases of Nicaraguan autocratisation through an escalation of governmental political repression (Report 2025, para. 7). Arbitrary deprivation of nationality has unfolded mainly in the fourth and final phase since 2023 (Report 2025, para. 10). Indeed, the Group recalls that the National Assembly amended Article 21 of the Constitution, which prohibited nationality deprivation, in order to enable the Government’s actions (Report 2025, para. 59) while breaching the Constitutional legislative process. During that period, the Group noted 452 violations of the obligation not to arbitrarily deprive individuals of their nationality (Report 2026, para. 33), of which 94 trials were held in absentia and in secret (Report 2026, para. 33), and most of them under the accusation of political treason. The measures affected different groups for political reasons and rendered most of them stateless (Report 2026, para. 34). Moreover, it notes that 342,045 Nicaraguans – 12% of the population – have sought asylum abroad until the end of 2025 (Report 2026, para. 23). Indeed, a member of the Group said that “The deprivation of nationality has become a tool to punish and erase those who dare to dissent”.
It must be noted that Nicaragua announced the decision to withdraw from the Human Rights Council and all its mechanisms in order to avoid international scrutiny and accountability just after the 2025 Report on 27 February, in which the Group named 54 officials responsible for the violations – now 56 according to the expert and human rights lawyer, Reed Brody. Brody also recalls that countries that host Nicaraguans in exile have particular responsibilities under international law. In this context, the 2025 Report acknowledges the offers of citizenship from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and Spain (2025, para. 112). Chair Jan-Michael Simon concludes that the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, directly or indirectly through measures that effectively stripped their nationality, is part of a transnational repressive plan that fosters a general climate of fear inside and outside the country. It has led to self-censorship and isolation, prevented political opposition and hindered the enjoyment of human rights. The violations have intensified and diversified even beyond Nicaragua’s border, establishing systematic and organised repression.
Moreover, it notes that many Nicaraguans in exile become de facto stateless as a consequence for not holding a second nationality while subject of Nicaragua’s measures such as the prohibition of entry, blocking access to documents registries and official records, and depriving of legal identification (2026, para. 36). The measures sought long-term incapacitation with the civil and economic death (2026, para. 97) of exiled Nicaraguans and their relatives (2026, para. 40). The Group also accounts for the gendered impact of the repression, identifying that the transnational violations particularly target women, human rights activists and journalists, and the consequences of such repressive measures disproportionately affect individuals depending on their gender, sexual orientation, age and social roles (2026, para. 44). Finally, the 2026 Report calls for Nicaragua to be held accountable before the International Court of Justice seeking provisional measures to halt the practice of citizenship revocation (para. 104, c). Additionally, both Reports recall individual accountability for taking part in said repressive measures. It also urges that the international community strengthen protection for Nicaraguans in exile, ensuring asylum and naturalisation procedures and preventing refoulement at all costs.
Citizenship deprivation across the region
Despite the Nicaraguan case, the region still bolsters progressive legal approaches to nationality overall, being widely accepting of having multiple nationalities (Vonk 2015) and where deprivation relating to disloyalty is least common (Vink et. al. 2022, p. 23). As of 2024, only four out of 35 countries in the region provided for generally applicable loss of citizenship by disloyalty or against national interests (Bahamas, Haiti, Nicaragua and USA), and only two countries provide for generally applicable loss of citizenship by acquiring a foreign citizenship (Guyana and Suriname) (Vink et. al. 2025).
In fact, the Nicaragua case sits in opposition to major recent milestones. For example, Brazil has made significant progress with a constitutional change in 2023 that repealed the clause that enabled depriving nationality by birth when voluntarily acquiring another nationality. The repeal came after the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) found, in the March 2018 Cláudia Sobral case, that losing Brazilian nationality after acquiring a second nationality through naturalisation was unconstitutional and against international law.
Sobral, a Brazilian national, who had voluntarily acquired US nationality in 1999, was convicted of the murder of her American husband whilst residing in the United States, and subsequently lost her Brazilian nationality. In response to the decision, the Federal Senate proposed a constitutional amendment (PEC) n. 6/18 to restrict the potential reasons for loss of nationality. Overall, the PEC recalled that the constitutional text had already been amended back in 1994 to restrict loss to cases where foreign nationality was imposed, removing the provision for loss in any instance of voluntary acquisition.
On this basis, the Proposal encompassed in particular three amendments: (a) replacing derived nationality loss caused by ‘activity harmful to the national interest’ for ‘fraud in naturalisation and attacks on democracy and the constitution’ instead; (b) precluding nationality loss that leads to statelessness; and (c) limiting native-born nationality loss to the express renunciation of the individual concerned, to whom is then permitted to reacquire citizenship. In addition to recognising that the loss of nationality must stem from the national’s personal desire and not from an administrative act – which would allow for arbitrariness – it is stated that the primary purpose of nationality under contemporary international law is to prevent statelessness, rather than to avoid multiple nationalities.
Conclusion
The Nicaragua case is a clear example of how citizenship can be used as a weapon to consolidate power for autocratic regimes – a current global trend (Blitz 2011, p. 16). Ortega’s Government has established a transnational repressive regime through exceptional powers to revoke nationality. Nicaragua’s Constitution originally prohibited nationality deprivation; however, the Constitutional overhaul has allowed for increased nationality revocation powers as part of the Government’s fourth phase of its plans for complete political control with cross-border repressive actions. It has brought accusations against critics of the regime who have fled the country and deprived them of their nationality, permanently crippling their capacity for civic and political action.
This case shows that progress concerning the right to nationality is not linear. Comparing the Nicaraguan situation with recent progress being made elsewhere in the region – i.e., Brazilian Constitutional change – unveils that protecting nationality goes further than just the individual’s interests. The protection of the right to a nationality is an indication of the health of democratic institutions. Indeed, the Nicaraguan case shows that politically motivated deprivation of nationality can further entrench authoritarian regimes. Therefore, the right to nationality, more than an important status for human rights and development, is also part of a democratic system. While the Inter-American regional system is progressive towards nationality, Nicaragua remains a reminder of the potential for State misuse of nationality laws. In the United States, recent developments have also put nationality at risk, mainly of foreign-born Americans and children of undocumented migrants. These cases also highlight the need for instruments to enforce international human rights obligations in respect to the right to nationality. That also applies to countries receiving victims of violations. The IACtHR has noted such obligations – yet no action to hold states accountable has been put forth.
References
ANNONI, Alessandra; FORLATI, Serena. The Changing Role of Nationality in International Law. Routledge, 2013.
ARRIAGA, Lara. “O direito fundamental à nacionalidade no Brasil: perspectivas para o século XXI.” Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, v. 46, n. 2, p. 82–118, jul./dez. 2018.
BLITZ, Brad K.; LYNCH, Maureen (eds.). Statelessness and the Deprivation of Nationality. In: Statelessness and Citizenship: A Comparative Study on the Benefits of Nationality. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011.
CABELLO, M. G.; FAIST, Thomas. Encyclopedia of Citizenship Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024.
CASELLA, Paulo Borba. “Nacionalidade – Direito Fundamental, Direito Público Interno e Direito Internacional.” Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo, v. 111, p. 301–309, 2017.
CASELLA, Paulo Borba. “Nationality – Fundamental Right, Domestic Public Law and International Law.” Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo, v. 111, p. 301–309, 2016.
CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS. Caso Ivcher Bronstein vs Peru. Sentença de 6 de fevereiro de 2001. Exceções preliminares, mérito, reparações e custas.
CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). Judgment. I.C.J. Reports, 2012. Disponível em: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf. Acesso em: 23 fev. 2024.
DE MARCO, Carla Fernanda. O Direito Fundamental à Nacionalidade: a Apatridia e a Competência Atributiva da ONU. 1. ed. Paco Editorial, 2015.
DOLINGER, Jacob; TIBURCIO, Carmen. Private International Law. 15th ed. Forensic, 2020.
EDWARDS, Alice; VAN WAAS, Laura. Nationality and Statelessness under International Law. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
FERREIRA MAIA, Rafaela de Brito; SILVA, Elcio Domingues da. “A Perda da Nacionalidade Brasileira Originária e a PEC 16/2021.” SICTEC, 2023.
FRIPP, Eric. Nationality and Statelessness in the International Law of Refugee Status. Hart Publishing, 2016.
GARCÍA SAN JOSÉ, Daniel. The Concept of Democracy in International Law.
GROUP OF HUMAN RIGHTS EXPERTS ON NICARAGUA. Nicaragua: Persecution Beyond Borders, Exile and Transnational Human Rights Violations. 23 Sept. 2025.
HERDOCIA SACASA, Mauricio. “The International Law of Democracy: Does It Exist? Contributions from OAS Bodies and Regional Courts.” In: 38th Course on International Law. OAS, 2011, p. 77–98.
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile. Chapter IX: Right to Nationality. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.40, 1977.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Proposal for an Amendment to the Political Constitution of Costa Rica Concerning Naturalisation. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, 19 Jan. 1984. Series A No. 4.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Judgment of 30 May 1999.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of 6 Feb. 2001.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, 17 Sept. 2003.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Judgment of 23 June 2005.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Case of Yean and Bosico Children v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of 8 Sept. 2005.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of 28 Aug. 2014.
KREŠIĆ, Mario et al. (eds.). Individual Identity, Collective Identity and Human Dignity: Challenges to the European Union and the Western Balkans. IUSGENT, vol. 99. Springer, 2002.
KUMM, Mattias. “Global Constitutionalism: History, Theory and Contemporary Challenges.” Revista Direito e Práxis, v. 13, n. 4, p. 2732–2773, 2022.
LIMA, Lucas Carlos; SALIBA, Aziz Tuffi. “O ‘caso Changri-lá’ e o Direito Internacional das imunidades perante o Supremo.” Consultor Jurídico, 2021.
LIMA, Lucas Carlos; SALIBA, Aziz Tuffi. “The Immunity Saga Reaches Latin America: The Changri-la Case.” EJIL: Talk!, 2021.
MOLNÁR, Tamás. “The Prohibition of Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality under International Law and EU Law: New Perspectives.” In: Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law 2014. Eleven International Publishing, 2015, p. 67–92.
MOUTON, Jean-Denis; KOVÁCS, Péter. Le concept de citoyenneté en droit international / The Concept of Citizenship in International Law. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2019.
OLIVEIRA, José Esley de; ARAUJO, Débora Medeiros Teixeira de. “A PEC 16/21 e suas alterações nas regras de perda da nacionalidade brasileira.” Research, Society and Development, v. 11, n. 15, 2022.
PENTASSUGLIA, Gaetano. “Self-determination, Human Rights and the Nation-State: Revisiting Group Claims through a Complex Nexus in International Law.” International Community Law Review, v. 19, p. 443–484, 2017.
PIOVESAN, Flávia. “Ius Constitutionale Commune Latino-Americano em Direitos Humanos e o Sistema Interamericano: Perspectivas e Desafios.” Revista Direito & Práxis, v. 8, n. 2, p. 1356–1388, 2017.
REZEK, José Francisco. “Le Droit International de la Nationalité.” Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, v. 198, 1986. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789024735556_03.
REZEK, José Francisco. Le Droit International de la Nationalité. Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, v. 198, 1987.
SALERNO, Francesco. “Conclusions.” In: ANNONI, Alessandra; FORLATI, Serena. The Changing Role of Nationality in International Law. Routledge, 2013.
SOYSAL, Yasemin Nuhoglu. “Postnational Citizenship.” In: CABEZA, M. G.; FAIST, Thomas. Encyclopedia of Citizenship Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024.
TIBURCIO, Carmen. The Human Rights of Aliens under International and Comparative Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001.
TIBURCIO, Carmen. The Human Rights of Aliens under International and Comparative Law. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004478527.
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. A/HRC/61/56, 6 Feb. 2026.
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE. General Comment No. 15: The Position of Aliens under the Covenant. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1, 11 Apr. 1986.
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE. General Comment No. 25: The Right to Participate in Public Affairs, Voting Rights and the Right of Equal Access to Public Service. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7, 12 July 1996.
VINK, Maarten; VAN DER BAAREN, Luuk; BAUBÖCK, Rainer; DŽANKIĆ, Jelena; HONOHAN, Iseult; MANBY, Bronwen. GLOBALCIT Citizenship Law Dataset, v3.0, Country-Year-Mode Data (Loss). Global Citizenship Observatory, 2025. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/73190.
VINK, Maarten; VAN DER BAAREN, Luuk; VAN WAAS, Laura et al. Instrumentalising Citizenship: A Global Comparative Analysis of Legislation on Deprivation of Nationality as a Security Measure in the Fight against Terrorism. Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion; Global Citizenship Observatory, 2022.
VONK, Olivier W. Nationality Law in the Western Hemisphere: A Study on Grounds for Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship in the Americas and the Caribbean. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015.