Stripped There, Held Here: Iraq’s Burden in the Global Failure to Repatriate ISIS Foreign Terrorist Fighters

[Bashar AlHadla is a human rights researcher and educator specializing in international human rights law, refugee protection, and nationality law. He holds graduate degrees from Union University in Belgrade, the University of Toronto, and the University of London.]

In February 2026, the United States Central Command announced the completion of transferring 5,700 ISIS terrorist fighters from detention camps in north-eastern Syria to Iraq. The move sent shockwaves through Iraqi society, particularly among Sunni communities that endured the terror and devastation inflicted by ISIS between 2014 and 2017. For many, it revived deep-seated fears of a return to one of the country’s darkest periods.

In response, the Iraqi National Security Advisory characterised the relocation as a temporary measure, indicating that the individuals would ultimately be repatriated to their countries of origin. Yet Iraqi authorities remained silent on a critical question: what will happen to those who have been stripped of their citizenship or for whom no viable framework of repatriation, legal accountability, or rehabilitation exists? A significant proportion of those transferred to Iraqi detention facilities are reportedly stateless or have been deprived of their nationality, leaving Iraq to manage the consequences of policies adopted elsewhere.

This post argues that the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters to Iraq exposes the legal and political consequences of States’ increasing reliance on citizenship deprivation as a counterterrorism strategy. While presented as a national security measure, the deprivation of citizenship frequently functions as a mechanism for externalising responsibility by shifting legal, humanitarian, and security burdens onto countries such as Iraq. Where denationalisation results in statelessness or arbitrary deprivation of nationality, it raises serious concerns under international human rights and nationality law and undermines internationally recognised obligations concerning repatriation, accountability, and the prevention of arbitrary detention.

Foreign Terrorist Fighters and Citizenship Deprivation

The roots of the dilemma lie in the policies adopted by several States that began revoking the citizenship of individuals who joined ISIS. In some cases, fighters were punitively rendered stateless without timely notification, learning of their loss of nationality only months after the decision—if at all. The United Kingdom, for example, expanded its powers to deprive individuals of citizenship through the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the Immigration Act 2014, and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, including measures affecting individuals suspected of terrorism-related activity abroad.

Similar approaches have emerged elsewhere. Canada’s Bill C-24 permitted the revocation of citizenship from dual nationals convicted of terrorism-related offences, while Australia and Norway have adopted citizenship-stripping measures against ISIS fighters where this does not result in statelessness. The Netherlands likewise permits nationality revocation for certain national-security offences.

International Law and Arbitrary Citizenship Revocation

International law imposes significant constraints on the deprivation of nationality, particularly to prevent statelessness and arbitrary interference with nationality. Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of nationality. The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness further restricts deprivation of nationality where it would result in statelessness, subject to narrowly defined exceptions. The European Convention on Nationality similarly permits loss of nationality only within specified limits and, in relevant circumstances, where it does not result in statelessness.

The 1961 Convention recognises a narrow exception allowing deprivation of nationality on national-security grounds where an individual has acted in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State. Under Article 8(3)(a)(ii), the exception applies only where the State has expressly reserved the right to invoke it. Canada, for example, acceded to the Convention without making such a reservation, limiting its ability to rely on this ground of deprivation and contributing to the subsequent repeal of citizenship-stripping provisions introduced through Bill C-24.

Beyond the prevention of statelessness, international law also prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of nationality. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), arbitrariness is understood broadly, extending beyond mere illegality to encompass injustice, unpredictability, discrimination, and the denial of due process. Article 26 prohibits discrimination, while Articles 2 and 14 reinforce equality before the law and procedural fairness—principles applicable to nationality decisions. The United Nations Human Rights Council, likewise, emphasises that individuals arbitrarily deprived of nationality remain protected under international human rights, refugee, and statelessness law. The 2009 Report of the UN Secretary-General to the Human Rights Council recognises the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality as a principle of international human rights law, emphasising its connection to proportionality, non-discrimination, and the prevention of statelessness. Finally, the International Law Commission indicates the State’s competence in revoking citizenship may be exercised only within the limits imposed by international law.

Judicial decisions illustrate these limits in the counterterrorism context. In Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 62, the UK Supreme Court held that deprivation of nationality could not lawfully proceed where it would render the individual stateless. In Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 7, the Court considered the deprivation of Shamima Begum’s British citizenship after she travelled to Syria and aligned herself with ISIS. Although the case did not determine the substantive legality of the deprivation itself, the Court held that she could not return to the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal because of the national-security risk. The decision therefore highlighted the tension between national security, effective access to justice, and the ability of individuals detained abroad to challenge deprivation decisions.

The European Court of Human Rights has likewise recognised that nationality deprivation remains subject to procedural and proportionality safeguards. In K2 v United Kingdom [2017], the Court accepted deprivation on national-security grounds where it was prescribed by law, accompanied by procedural safeguards, and subject to judicial review. In Ghoumid and Others v France [2020], it examined the arbitrariness and proportionality of nationality deprivation, including its consequences for applicants’ private lives under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These decisions demonstrate that national-security considerations do not remove judicial scrutiny or fundamental human-rights safeguards.

Scholars have similarly criticised denationalisation as a counterterrorism strategy. Audrey Macklin characterises contemporary citizenship deprivation as a form of “neo-banishment” that transforms citizens into “aliens” while shifting perceived security threats beyond the State’s jurisdiction. Matthew Gibney argues that denationalisation can operate less as a mechanism of accountability than as a means of externalising security risks and responsibilities to other States. These critiques are particularly relevant to foreign terrorist fighters, whose deprivation of citizenship may transfer legal, humanitarian, and security burdens abroad rather than resolve them.

Legal Remedies to Arbitrary Citizenship Revocation

At the expert meeting convened by UNHCR in Tunisia in 2013, paragraph 28 of the summary conclusions affirmed that where nationality has been unlawfully withdrawn in violation of international law, including the 1961 Convention, the State is required to restore the situation that existed prior to the violation. The primary remedy is therefore restoration of citizenship, preferably automatically and retroactively. Requiring individuals to undergo re-naturalisation may be inadequate, particularly where it fails to preserve rights acquired while they were recognised as citizens.

International law also supports a right of return for individuals seeking to re-enter their own country. Article 12(4) of the ICCPR provides that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” The Human Rights Committee has interpreted “one’s own country” more broadly than formal nationality, extending the concept to individuals with sufficiently strong ties or legitimate claims, including persons unlawfully deprived of nationality. This is particularly significant for foreign terrorist fighters whose citizenship has been withdrawn without lawful justification.

Relatedly, the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters from detention facilities in north-eastern Syria to Iraq has generated significant concern among international human rights organisations. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticised the prolonged and often indefinite detention of foreign nationals in camps and detention facilities without adequate judicial oversight, access to legal representation, or clear prospects for repatriation. Importantly, where detention becomes prolonged, indefinite, or is not subject to meaningful judicial review, it may violate international human rights standards even when initially justified on security grounds. In particular, it may raise serious concerns under Article 9 of the (ICCPR), which protects the right to liberty and security of the person and prohibits arbitrary detention. Human Rights Watch has further warned that transferring detainees from north-eastern Syria to Iraq without adequate legal safeguards may expose them to unfair trials, torture, enforced disappearance, expedited proceedings and other human rights violations within Iraq’s counterterrorism justice system. The Iraqi Observatory for Human Rights, on 25 May 2026, has indeed reported a significant deterioration in Iraqi detention facilities during 2025, documenting approximately 400 deaths allegedly linked to torture, inadequate medical care, and severe overcrowding. According to the report, prison occupancy exceeded 300 per cent of official capacity, with approximately 67,000 prisoners and detainees held in facilities designed to accommodate no more than 25,000 individuals. The Observatory further noted that 140 of these deaths were reportedly closed without investigation.

The ‘Not in My Backyard’ Approach to Foreign Terrorist Fighters

The deprivation of citizenship from foreign terrorist fighters reflects an externalisation of responsibility in counterterrorism, whereby States effectively shift legal and security burdens onto other jurisdictions. By rendering individuals stateless or without effective citizenship, sending States create a legal and practical vacuum, leaving such individuals without lawful avenues of return and increasing the likelihood that they will operate in already fragile or conflict-affected jurisdictions.

This burden has fallen disproportionately on States such as Iraq, which has, for over a decade, borne the human, institutional, and security costs of managing detained or active foreign terrorist fighters. Within fragile political and security environments, such individuals may present heightened risks where governance and prosecutorial and rehabilitative capacity remain limited. The mass prison break from Abu Ghraib on 21–22 July 2013, during which hundreds (500-1,000) of high-risk detainees escaped, illustrates how rapidly such risks can translate into renewed cycles of violence.

By contrast, some States have sought to address the challenges posed by foreign terrorist fighters through expanded extraterritorial jurisdiction over terrorism offences. France amended its legislation in 2012 to assert jurisdiction over nationals and habitual residents involved in terrorist activity abroad, while the United Kingdom’s Serious Crime Act 2015 broadened the scope of the Terrorism Act 2006 to encompass preparatory acts and terrorist training conducted overseas. These frameworks demonstrate that States possess legal tools to investigate and prosecute terrorism-related offences committed abroad without resorting to denationalisation. Yet their implementation remains uneven: while France and Germany have increasingly relied on repatriation followed by domestic investigation and prosecution, others continue to prioritise citizenship deprivation and refusal to repatriate nationals from Syria and Iraq. The persistence of these divergent approaches suggests that the principal obstacle is not the absence of legal authority, but political willingness to exercise it, leaving frontline States such as Iraq to bear the legal, financial, humanitarian, and security consequences of prolonged detention.

Conclusion: Toward a Responsibility-based and Rights-compliant Approach

The current predicament surrounding foreign terrorist fighters in Iraq is not merely a security challenge but the consequence of fragmented and, at times, legally questionable State practices of citizenship deprivation. While States have legitimate security concerns, the externalisation of responsibility through denationalisation has proven neither sustainable nor lawful where it results in statelessness, jurisdictional limbo, and prolonged instability in already fragile regions.

A durable solution requires a decisive shift away from exclusionary policies toward a framework grounded in international legal obligations and shared responsibility. States of nationality must assume primary responsibility for prosecution, ensuring that foreign terrorist fighters are investigated and, where appropriate, tried under domestic criminal law, including through expanded extraterritorial jurisdiction where necessary. States where prosecution is not feasible must also invest in structured rehabilitation and reintegration mechanisms consistent with international human rights standards, particularly for vulnerable categories such as women and children.

Moreover, international cooperation must be strengthened through coordinated repatriation frameworks, intelligence-sharing, and mutual legal assistance, ensuring that no State is left to bear a disproportionate burden. In parallel, detention and judicial capacities in conflict-affected States such as Iraq should be supported through sustained international assistance, rather than leaving it to manage global security risks in isolation.

Ultimately, counterterrorism cannot be effectively achieved through policies of legal displacement. The practice of rendering individuals stateless or preventing their return does not eliminate the threat; it redistributes and often exacerbates it. A rules-based, cooperative, and rights-compliant approach remains the only viable path toward ensuring accountability, preventing recurrence, and restoring coherence to the international legal order governing nationality and security.

Photo attribution: “VOA in Al-Hol Camp, Syria, 17 October 2019” by Y. Boechat (Voice of America) is in the public domain