Al Jazeera’s report about Cambodia’s new citizenship law made it sound like a simple political crackdown. But this narrative needs to be changed or at least balanced by looking at how other countries deal with the same problem. Laws in the UK, France, Australia, and even the US say that citizenship can be taken away for treason, terrorism, or significant criminal conduct. In the last twenty years, more than 100 people in Britain have lost their citizenship. In Australia, dual nationals convicted of terrorism received the same punishment. After terror attacks on its land, France has had many debates over this issue. It is not accurate to say that Cambodia’s measure is the only one. This isn’t an unusual practice; it’s done all across the world.
On August 25, 2025, Cambodia’s parliament passed a bill that allows the government to take away the citizenship of people who are found guilty of treason or working with foreign forces. The headlines came out within hours. One big news source throughout the world said it was just another example of the ruling party being authoritarian. It was evident to readers outside the country that this was merely another way to shut up critics.
But such framing leaves out half the story. Citizenship revocation is not a uniquely Cambodian idea, nor is it reserved for authoritarian regimes. In fact, some of the world’s most established democratic countries, often admired as models of liberty and rule of law, have long used similar measures. To understand Cambodia’s decision, it must be placed in that global context.
A Global Practice That Has Been Around for a Long Time
It’s simple: being a citizen means having rights and duties. When someone betrays their country by joining hostile groups, engaging in terrorism, or conspiring with foreign powers, many governments reserve the right to sever that bond.
Take the United Kingdom. Since 2002, the Home Secretary has had authority to strip naturalized citizens of their nationality “in the public good.” After 2014, this power extended to dual nationals involved in terrorism. More than 100 people had their citizenship taken away by 2017, and this was frequently because they were connected to ISIS.The story of Shamima Begum, who left the UK as a teenager to join ISIS, divided the country but showed how strongly many people in Britain felt about loyalty.
In France, the Civil Code has long allowed revocation for treason and terrorism. After the Paris attacks of 2015, debates on tightening these rules dominated political life. While human rights groups pushed back, the principle remained accepted: citizenship is not unconditional.
Australia’s 2015 amendment allowed authorities to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals engaged in terrorism. The administration has now upheld certain cases, saying they are required for the safety of the public.
The US can’t take away someone’s birthright citizenship, but it can remove those who lied during the citizenship process or committed treason. Courts have always backed this notion, saying again that being a citizen comes with both rights and responsibilities.
Across Europe, in countries like Belgium, Norway, Austria, and Italy, similar provisions exist, usually tied to terrorism and major crimes. Cambodia, far from being an outlier, is aligning itself with what many nations already practise.
Why Now in Cambodia?
Critics want to know why Cambodia decided to pass this law in 2025. The answer can be found in its past and where it is located. Cambodia is a small country that has often been pushed into the sphere of bigger powers. Foreign involvement is not just a concern; it has happened many times, from Cold War interventions to the rivalry between big powers today.
People in the country have experienced claims of secret funding for political groups, disinformation efforts, and foreign interference. For many Cambodians, treason is not just a legal phrase; it is a real threat to their freedom. In this case, taking away someone’s citizenship is less about punishing them and more about stopping them from doing it again.
The vote itself reflected this consensus. The law passed with 120 votes in favour and only five against. It will still undergo constitutional review and require royal assent, showing that there are procedural steps before it comes into force.
Citizenship as a Bond of Trust
At its core, being a citizen is being a part of a community. It gives rights and protections, but it also expects loyalty. For most Cambodians, the thought of someone working alongside individuals from other countries against their own country feels like the most awful form of betrayal.
This feeling isn’t just in Cambodia. When Shamima Begum’s case dominated discussions in the UK, many British people, regardless of their political views, believed that anyone who joined an organisation aiming to destroy their society had forfeited their right to belong. Cambodia has been the target of frequent foreign meddling, such that moral reasoning is much more important for them.
The Concerns and the Safeguards
Human rights groups raise an important concern: what if such laws are abused? Could they be used against critics or political opponents? These are legitimate fears and deserve serious consideration.
But Cambodia’s law is written to apply only after a court conviction. This is not an administrative punishment handed down by officials but a legal consequence after due process. It is like additional safeguards that are used to stop statelessness, like judicial review, parliamentary supervision, and international commitments.
What Other Countries Teach Us
There are useful lessons to be learnt by looking at other countries:
- In 2019, a dual citizen who was found guilty of planning a terrorist attack in Melbourne lost his citizenship after serving part of his sentence. The government said it was essential to protect society.
- There was a lot of talk in France in 2015 about revocation after the Bataclan and Charlie Hebdo attacks. Many people regarded it as a chance to bring individuals together again after betrayal, even if civil society groups advised against going too far.
- In the 2010s, denaturalization cases in the US went after people who had hidden ties to terrorism or war crimes. The courts said these acts were permissible since they protected the country’s integrity.
These examples demonstrate that denaturalisation or citizenship revocation is always controversial; however, it is also widely recognised as a legitimate tool when applied narrowly.
Beyond the Headlines
The deeper issue is not Cambodia’s decision to adopt such a law but the way it is portrayed internationally. Too often, reporting reduces it to a political crackdown, ignoring both precedent and context. When democracies use the same power, it is framed as a tough but necessary measure. When Cambodia does it, it is painted as authoritarianism.
Balanced reporting would present both sides: the risks of misuse and the legitimate need for national defence. Anything less risks creating a double standard.
Final Thoughts
Cambodia’s new citizenship law is not perfect. No such law exists. It must be applied sparingly, transparently, and with full respect for due process. Civil society has every right to monitor its use.
But it should also be recognised for what it is: part of a global legal framework that treats treason as a rupture so grave that citizenship itself can be withdrawn. For Cambodia, a nation that has endured foreign domination and interference for generations, the stakes are especially high.
This law is not about silencing dissent. It is about protection. Protection of sovereignty, of national security, and of the meaning of citizenship itself.
