SLP 12 (2017)

“conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Party”. A number of European states employ this power of deprivation. It is, prima facie , an easy solution which also acts as a decisive gesture protecting the security of the state. However, international law, as well as domestic constitutional standards, set limits on the use of this deprivation. Moreover, there are important political and political-strategic arguments against the use of the power to deprive, such as the questionable efficiency of this measure as regards public security. In addition, deprivation of citizenship will necessarily always be a minority option, if only in view of the fact that it can be used in most cases only in relation to dual citizens. Therefore, it is not only entirely legitimate but practically necessary to consider and employ alternatives to deprivation, some of which were discussed. The next chapter by Dr. David Kryska presents the development of mutual relations between the institutes of citizenship, asylum and refugee status since the formation of the Czechoslovak Republic. It deals not only with the law in force but also with administrative and judicial practice and doctrine. It aims to show similarities and differences between the institutions and their respective overlaps. After the introductory comments on terminology the chapter is divided into three parts based on the period of development: 1) The first Czechoslovak Republic, 2) Czechoslovakia after 1948, and 3) The transformation period and the successor state of the Czech Republic. Part III of the book titled Regionalisms and Nationality commences with the chapter of Doc. Harald Christian Scheu who explains the concept of Union citizenship, which was introduced into EU law by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and has a firm foothold in the founding treaties and also in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. An analysis of the relevant provisions and the subsequent jurisprudence of the EU Court of Justice shows that the rights of Union citizens are largely interlinked with both the rights of third-country nationals and the rights of nationals of the host Member State. In Chapter 10, Dr. Katarína Šmigová focuses on nationality from the point of view of jurisprudence of judicial and quasi-judicial regional human rights bodies, whether or not the right to nationality is expressly enlisted in relevant international conventions. The chapter points out limits of sovereignty of a state when granting or revoking its nationality. These limits are present in human rights protection context because of prohibition of discrimination and prohibition of arbitrariness of state authorities’ decisions. The main purpose of the chapter of Dr. Alla Tymofeyeva is to determine whether, under the European Convention on Human Rights, an applicant may claim before the European Court of Human Rights the right to citizenship enshrined in Article 4 of the European Convention on Nationality. In order to respond to this question, the author analyses the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the former European Commission for Human Rights. It concludes that, although both

197