- European
Court questions UK on Begum case. - Challenges
citizenship stripping as unlawful act. - Probes
“sham” revocation in ISIS case.
European lawyers have questioned whether Begum’s treatment
complies with the UK’s obligations to trafficking victims.
Begum’s attorneys have benefited from the intervention,
which has also fueled Conservative and Reform demands to withdraw from the
European human rights convention and claims of foreign judges intervening.
Begum left her home in east London in 2015 as a
fifteen-year-old schoolgirl, traveling with two friends to live in an area
controlled by the Islamic State (IS). She was “married off” to an IS
fighter and had three children, all of whom passed away at a young age.
In 2019, Sajid Javid, the home clerk at the time, withdrew
her citizenship for reasons of public security. The present administration
supported this decision, which was validated by the court of prayers last
time.
Begum’s attorneys and activists contend that she was a
victim of child trafficking. Begum, 26, is still living in a camp for Syrian
deportees without a nation.
Begum is contesting Javid’s ruling under Article 4 of the
European Convention on Human Rights, which forbids
slavery and forced labor, according to a document released by the European
court this month.
After she was refused the opportunity to contest the
revocation of her British citizenship at the UK Supreme Court, the case was
filed in December 2024.
Among four questions posed by judges in Strasbourg to the
Home Office, they asked:
“Did the secretary of state have a positive
obligation, by virtue of Article 4 of the convention, to consider whether the
applicant had been a victim of trafficking and whether any duties or
obligations to her flowed from that fact, before deciding to deprive her of her
citizenship?”
Begum’s attorney, Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, stated that
the court’s statement “presents an unprecedented opportunity” for
Begum and the UK to “grapple with the significant considerations raised in
her case and ignored, sidestepped or violated up to now by previous UK
administrations.”
One of the lawyers, Gareth Peirce, said:
“It is
impossible to dispute that a 15-year-old British child was in 2014-15 lured,
encouraged and deceived for the purposes of sexual exploitation to leave home
and travel to [IS-controlled] territory for the known purpose of being given,
as a child, to an [IS] fighter to propagate children for the Islamic State.”
She added:
“It is equally impossible not to acknowledge
the catalogue of failures to protect a child known for weeks beforehand to be
at high risk when a close friend had disappeared to Syria in an identical way
and via an identical route.
It has already been long conceded that the then home
secretary, Sajid Javid, who took the precipitous decision in 2019 very publicly
to deprive Ms Begum of citizenship, had failed entirely to consider the issues
of grooming and trafficking of a school child in London and of the state’s
consequent duties.”
According to Pierce, the difficulty arises because the
present administration has made protecting victims of trafficking and grooming
a national priority.
Any decision taken to safeguard national security will be
vigorously contested, according to a Home Office official. They added:
“The
government will always protect the UK and its citizens. That is why Shamima
Begum – who posed a national security threat – had her British citizenship
revoked and is unable to return to the UK.”
Begum had “no place” in the UK, according to Chris
Philp, the shadow home secretary, since she supported violent extremists.
“It is deeply concerning that the European Court of Human Rights is now
looking at using the ECHR to make the UK take her back,”
he wrote in a
post on X.
How might this impact international law on statelessness
protections?
An ECHR ruling in Shamima Begum’s favor could strengthen
transnational morals against citizenship stripping that results in
statelessness, obliging countries to prioritize due process and proportionality
under the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions.
By checking UK’s cancellation without Begum’s input or
return rights, the court might affirm that public security claims can not stamp
protections against arbitrary privation( UDHR Article 15, ICCPR Article 24),
limiting unilateral conduct by powers like the US, Australia, or Canada in
terrorism cases.
It would bolster UNHCR calls for statelessness determination
procedures and safeguards, potentially inspiring reforms in Europe( e.g., via
Council of Europe) and reducing discriminative practices, though enforcement
gaps persist due to limited convention ratifications.
