1.1.4 – Rights in context
Shamima Begum is a British-born woman from east London who left the UK in 2015 aged 15 to travel to Syria, where she joined the Islamic State group. Her case became highly prominent after she was found in 2019 in a detention camp run by Kurdish forces following the territorial defeat of Isis. She has remained there ever since.
In 2019, the then home secretary Sajid Javid removed Begum’s British citizenship under powers that allow deprivation where it is deemed conducive to the public good. The government argued that she posed a national security risk and claimed she was eligible for Bangladeshi nationality through her parents, meaning she would not be rendered stateless. The UK Supreme Court later upheld the decision, prioritising national security and ruling that there was no obligation to allow her return to the UK.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has now intervened by asking the UK government to explain whether it acted unlawfully when it removed Begum’s citizenship. The court is examining whether the UK breached Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly by failing to properly investigate whether Begum was groomed or trafficked as a child and whether stripping her citizenship undermined those duties. The ECtHR has not ruled on the outcome, but its intervention reopens legal scrutiny of the government’s actions.
The government’s response so far has been to defend the decision to strip Begum of her citizenship, with a Home Office official stating that, “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”.
This case highlights the tension between collective rights and individual rights in the UK. The government argues that removing Shamima Begum’s citizenship protects the collective right to national security, prioritising the safety of the wider public over the rights of one individual. UK courts have accepted that security assessments by the executive should be decisive, even if the consequences for Begum are severe. By contrast, the European Court of Human Rights focuses on individual rights, questioning whether Begum’s rights under the European Convention were breached, particularly given her age and possible grooming. The conflict illustrates how protecting the majority can clash with safeguarding individual legal protections.