Explore the vast range of titles available.

Three common law countries—the UK, Canada and Australia—have significantly expanded citizenship revocation laws as a counterterrorism response. This article provides a detailed examination of these laws, their development and their use. It also explores and critiques the extent to which the laws shift citizenship away from fundamental common law principles, and the means by which such a shift has been justified.

The Preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) makes three broad claims about Australian statutory citizenship: that it signifies 'full and formal membership of the Australian community'; that it is characterised by the possession of 'reciprocal rights and obligations'; and that it is a 'bond' that 'unites all Australians'. This article examines the extent to which these claims accurately describe the legal implications of citizenship in Australia. In doing so, it looks in detail at the degree to which holding Australian statutory citizenship impacts upon the rights a person possesses in four broad categories that are intrinsically connected with citizenship: status protection rights, rights to entry and abode, rights to protection, and political rights.

In three common law countries - the UK, Canada and Australia - recent legislation significantly expanded the grounds on which nationals can be stripped of their citizenship. In each country, two justifications were invoked to support the expanded grounds for citizenship deprivation: a symbolic justification, asserting that citizens who engage in particular behaviour do not deserve to retain their citizenship, and a security justification, which cast citizenship stripping as a necessary device to neutralise threats from within the citizenry. In this article, we examine the denationalisation laws introduced in each of the three countries and analyse the extent to which each law served these symbolic and security justifications.

Establishment of Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) - federal reform of higher education and research - review by Professor Denise Bradley - scope of Commonwealth power - s 51(xx) of the Constitution.

In three common law countries - the UK, Canada and Australia - recent legislation significantly expanded the grounds on which nationals can be stripped of their citizenship. In each country, two justifications were invoked to support the expanded grounds for citizenship deprivation: a symbolic justification, asserting that citizens who engage in particular behaviour do not deserve to retain their citizenship, and a security justification, which cast citizenship stripping as a necessary device to neutralise threats from within the citizenry. In this article, we examine the denationalisation laws introduced in each of the three countries and analyse the extent to which each law served these symbolic and security justifications.

In three common law countries - the UK, Canada and Australia - recent legislation significantly expanded the grounds on which nationals can be stripped of their citizenship. In each country, two justifications were invoked to support the expanded grounds for citizenship deprivation: a symbolic justification, asserting that citizens who engage in particular behaviour do not deserve to retain their citizenship, and a security justification, which cast citizenship stripping as a necessary device to neutralise threats from within the citizenry. In this article, we examine the denationalisation laws introduced in each of the three countries and analyse the extent to which each law served these symbolic and security justifications.

In three common law countries - the UK, Canada and Australia - recent legislation significantly expanded the grounds on which nationals can be stripped of their citizenship. In each country, two justifications were invoked to support the expanded grounds for citizenship deprivation: a symbolic justification, asserting that citizens who engage in particular behaviour do not deserve to retain their citizenship, and a security justification, which cast citizenship stripping as a necessary device to neutralise threats from within the citizenry. In this article, we examine the denationalisation laws introduced in each of the three countries and analyse the extent to which each law served these symbolic and security justifications.

In three common law countries - the UK, Canada and Australia - recent legislation significantly expanded the grounds on which nationals can be stripped of their citizenship. In each country, two justifications were invoked to support the expanded grounds for citizenship deprivation: a symbolic justification, asserting that citizens who engage in particular behaviour do not deserve to retain their citizenship, and a security justification, which cast citizenship stripping as a necessary device to neutralise threats from within the citizenry. In this article, we examine the denationalisation laws introduced in each of the three countries and analyse the extent to which each law served these symbolic and security justifications.

Contextualisation of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 - overview of substance and explanation of constitutional basis - evolution from historical citizenship legislation in Australia - rights from possession of statutory Australian citizenship - comparison with citizenship rights in other jurisdictions - obligations of citizenship arising reciprocally to the rights - consideration of the Preamble's claims about the nature of citizenship.

The Preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) makes three broad claims about Australian statutory citizenship: that it signifies 'full and formal membership of the Australian community'; that it is characterised by the possession of 'reciprocal rights and obligations'; and that it is a 'bond' that 'unites all Australians'. This article examines the extent to which these claims accurately describe the legal implications of citizenship in Australia. In doing so, it looks in detail at the degree to which holding Australian statutory citizenship impacts upon the rights a person possesses in four broad categories that are intrinsically connected with citizenship: status protection rights, rights to entry and abode, rights to protection, and political rights.