When Law fails.

[Fuiking]

Recently news came out that a number of jihadists from IS have there dutch citizenship revoked.

however the government first needs to make a law to be able to do that, however theres one already.

it states that if you serve in a foreign country (When in war with them) you are punishable by law, seeing how those jihadists served as militia in the army of IS (and possibly other ones) they will fall under the regular law already, so why the bloody fuck do they need to make a law just for that? I see that as a failure in law.

[Kujako]

Which country is Jihadistan? Can't find it on a map. Also, your links to information and articles seem to be broken.

[Edge-]

Need a lot more information about this to have an opinion.

What's the language of the existing law? What are its limitations? Is the creation of a new law authorizing them to strip ISIS combatants of Dutch citizenship an actual issue? Is the Netherlands formally "at war" with ISIS to allow for the law you referenced to be applicable? etc.

[Deleted]

Sounds like the current law isn't worded well enough to merit the actions they wish to make, which means they'll need a better written law.

[Xarkan]

Recently news came out that a number of jihadists from IS have there dutch citizenship revoked.

however the government first needs to make a law to be able to do that, however theres one already.

it states that if you serve in a foreign country (When in war with them) you are punishable by law, seeing how those jihadists served as militia in the army of IS (and possibly other ones) they will fall under the regular law already, so why the bloody fuck do they need to make a law just for that? I see that as a failure in law.

Perhaps the punishable by law does not in fact include revoking citizenship and thus to revoke that they need to pass a different law?

Edit: Though obviously if that was the case then they would violate the EHCR if they punish people more harshly than the law would indicate at the time of the act so lets assume thats not it?

Edit2: By EHCR i may mean ECHR.. so close to each other.. the European Convention on Human Rights

[Fuiking]

Perhaps the punishable by law does not in fact include revoking citizenship and thus to revoke that they need to pass a different law?

Edit: Though obviously if that was the case then they would violate the EHCR if they punish people more harshly than the law would indicate at the time of the act so lets assume thats not it?

Edit2: By EHCR i may mean ECHR.. so close to each other.. the European Convention on Human Rights

De Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap uit 1984 bevat dan ook de toevoeging dat verlies van Nederlanderschap door vreemde krijgsdienst pas mogelijk werd indien er tevens handelingen tegen de Nederlandse staat plaatshadden.
Artikel 15, lid 1 "Het Nederlanderschap gaat voor een meerderjarige verloren: e.indien hij zich vrijwillig in vreemde krijgsdienst begeeft van een staat die betrokken is bij gevechtshandelingen tegen het Koninkrijk dan wel tegen een bondgenootschap waarvan het Koninkrijk lid is."

Translation: Law from 1984 states that you lose your citizenship if you enter, and fight for a foreign army if its against the country or its allies... Seeing how Syria is an enemy of USA and its allies you can say / claim those jihadists are actually within the powers of the law to have there citizenships revoked.

Govermental website is actually even more clearer on it. Dont understand why they have to make a new law when there are laws in place already.

[Edge-]

De Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap uit 1984 bevat dan ook de toevoeging dat verlies van Nederlanderschap door vreemde krijgsdienst pas mogelijk werd indien er tevens handelingen tegen de Nederlandse staat plaatshadden.
Artikel 15, lid 1 "Het Nederlanderschap gaat voor een meerderjarige verloren: e.indien hij zich vrijwillig in vreemde krijgsdienst begeeft van een staat die betrokken is bij gevechtshandelingen tegen het Koninkrijk dan wel tegen een bondgenootschap waarvan het Koninkrijk lid is."

Translation: Law from 1984 states that you lose your citizenship if you enter, and fight for a foreign army if its against the country or its allies... Seeing how Syria is an enemy of USA and its allies you can say / claim those jihadists are actually within the powers of the law to have there citizenships revoked.

Govermental website is actually even more clearer on it. Dont understand why they have to make a new law when there are laws in place already.

Syria isn't at war with the US or Netherlands, and ISIS isn't part of the Syrian army.

Still need more information, specificity in laws matters a whole lot.

[alexw]

Recently news came out that a number of jihadists from IS have there dutch citizenship revoked.

however the government first needs to make a law to be able to do that, however theres one already.

it states that if you serve in a foreign country (When in war with them) you are punishable by law, seeing how those jihadists served as militia in the army of IS (and possibly other ones) they will fall under the regular law already, so why the bloody fuck do they need to make a law just for that? I see that as a failure in law.

There is no country called Jihadistan and it would be an extremely extremely bad idea if we (everyone) recognized the territory they hold as a country given what that would mean (basically it'd be a legitimate country with all the international rights due such).

The Dutch gov is doing the right thing here.

[Shadowmelded]

De Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap uit 1984 bevat dan ook de toevoeging dat verlies van Nederlanderschap door vreemde krijgsdienst pas mogelijk werd indien er tevens handelingen tegen de Nederlandse staat plaatshadden.
Artikel 15, lid 1 "Het Nederlanderschap gaat voor een meerderjarige verloren: e.indien hij zich vrijwillig in vreemde krijgsdienst begeeft van een staat die betrokken is bij gevechtshandelingen tegen het Koninkrijk dan wel tegen een bondgenootschap waarvan het Koninkrijk lid is."

This is why. IS isn't a state.

[Edge-]

This is why. IS isn't a state.

Oh, so it specifically references fighters fighting for a foreign state? Because that makes a lot of sense as ISIS, despite being a self proclaimed state, isn't actually a state. Figured it would be some kind of technicality like this, if that is indeed the issue.

[Shadowmelded]

Oh, so it specifically references fighters fighting for a foreign state? Because that makes a lot of sense as ISIS, despite being a self proclaimed state, isn't actually a state. Figured it would be some kind of technicality like this, if that is indeed the issue.

Yeah, the abbreviated translation was generalized and not a word-for-word translation. Which would look like this;

The Kingdom Act on Dutch Nationality from 1984 contains an addendum that the loss of Dutch Nationality through foreign service is only possible when it involves taking action against the Dutch State.
Article 15 clause 1 "Dutch Nationality of an adult is lost when: (e) they voluntarily serve in a foreign army of a state that is engaging in combat against the Kingdom or against an alliance which the Kingdom is a member of"

[Fuiking]

Actually it makes more sense now, thank you my cute fellow OT'ers

Seems they forgot to make a law back in 2001 for this eventuality

[Deleted]

To use that law IS would have to be recognised as a state, which it isn't. So new legislation is required.

It literally has state in the name. Should be good enough

[Deleted]

Islamic State is as much a state as the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic.

Sure. But we should still use it against them