European Human Rights Court Presses UK to Justify Stripping Shamima Begum of Citizenship
Strasbourg judges ask whether UK failed to consider trafficking protections before revoking her nationality in 2019
The European Court of Human Rights has formally challenged the United Kingdom government over its 2019 decision to revoke the British citizenship of Shamima Begum, renewing scrutiny of long-standing legal and human rights questions.
Begum, who left east London at fifteen to travel to Syria and live under Islamic State control, remains stateless in a refugee camp after her citizenship was removed on national security grounds.
Strasbourg judges have asked the UK government to explain whether it fulfilled its obligations under Article four of the European Convention on Human Rights — which prohibits slavery, servitude and forced labour — by considering whether Begum was a victim of trafficking or exploitation before depriving her of nationality.
The case, filed in December 2024 after the UK Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal, frames four key questions to the Home Office, including whether authorities recognised and assessed potential trafficking and grooming at the time of their decision.
Begum’s legal team has described the court’s communication as an “unprecedented opportunity” to address substantive issues they argue were overlooked by previous UK administrations, including failures to protect a child at high risk of harm.
The current UK government, defending a position upheld repeatedly by domestic courts, insists it will robustly justify its actions as necessary to protect national security and the safety of British citizens.
Senior opposition figures within the Conservative Party have criticised the European court’s intervention as undue foreign interference, asserting that Begum’s association with violent extremists disqualifies her from return.
As this legal challenge unfolds in Strasbourg, it raises broader questions about the balance between state security powers, international human rights obligations and protections for vulnerable individuals under trafficking frameworks.
Begum, who left east London at fifteen to travel to Syria and live under Islamic State control, remains stateless in a refugee camp after her citizenship was removed on national security grounds.
Strasbourg judges have asked the UK government to explain whether it fulfilled its obligations under Article four of the European Convention on Human Rights — which prohibits slavery, servitude and forced labour — by considering whether Begum was a victim of trafficking or exploitation before depriving her of nationality.
The case, filed in December 2024 after the UK Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal, frames four key questions to the Home Office, including whether authorities recognised and assessed potential trafficking and grooming at the time of their decision.
Begum’s legal team has described the court’s communication as an “unprecedented opportunity” to address substantive issues they argue were overlooked by previous UK administrations, including failures to protect a child at high risk of harm.
The current UK government, defending a position upheld repeatedly by domestic courts, insists it will robustly justify its actions as necessary to protect national security and the safety of British citizens.
Senior opposition figures within the Conservative Party have criticised the European court’s intervention as undue foreign interference, asserting that Begum’s association with violent extremists disqualifies her from return.
As this legal challenge unfolds in Strasbourg, it raises broader questions about the balance between state security powers, international human rights obligations and protections for vulnerable individuals under trafficking frameworks.
