Cambodia Approves Law Allowing Revocation of Citizenship | Civil Rights Concerns

Introduction

A contentious amendment to the 1996 Law on Nationality was on August 26, 2025, approved unanimously by the National Assembly of Cambodia, which gave the state immense power to deprive a Cambodian citizen of his or her nationality in case of so-called collusion with foreign power. Led by ex-Prime Minister, Hun Sen and supported by the Cambodian Peoples Party (CPP) of Prime Minister, Hun Manet, the reform does away with the constitutional guarantee of Khmer nationals not being deprived of their nationality. Alarm bells have been raised by the civil society movements, opposition party officials and international observers: they fear that the legal clause will be abused to suppress dissent, nip out the right of free expression and clamp down on remaining Khmer Rouge opponents. With Cambodia struggling with persistent border disputes with Thailand and a growing politicized centralized society, this article explores the origins of the amendment, the legal dynamics surrounding the amendment, its effects on Cambodian civil liberties and lastly, the story of citizen revocation laws across the globe.

Background- Nationality Framework of Cambodia.

The 1996 Law on Nationality

The Law on Nationality was signed in Cambodia in 1996, as a result of the Cambodian civil war, genocide, and foreign interventions, which established the rules according to which Cambodian citizenship was acquired, retained, and renounced. Article 4 of the 1996 statute made citizenship by birth dependent on the fact that at least one parent was a Cambodian national. Dual nationality was still allowed but administrative registration. Notably, Article 33 of the 1993 Constitution assured that the Khmer citizens should not be deprived of their nationality, which was an after-cold war promise that individual rights and national cohesion cannot be compromised in the post-Khmer Rouge genocide era.

Constitutional Safeguard and Its Removal

To pass the law disenfranchising citizens of nationality, the government had to amend the Constitution. Both chambers of parliament voted in July 2025 to take away the inviolability clause of Article 33 and make it:

The law shall determine acquisition and loss of Cambodian citizenship with or without withdrawal.

The amendment was closed at the end of last month by the endorsement of King Norodom Sihamoni. So, Cambodia became another country in a list of countries that allow the citizenship to be revoked under some circumstances. The law, unlike in most democracies where the target of revocation is dual nationals convicted of an act of terrorism or treason, is applicable to a national, whether dual or not, and whether the offense committed is minor or a serious act.

Details of the Citizenship Revocation Law

Key Provisions

The amendment to the Law on Nationality introduces several new articles:

Grounds for Revocation

• Congiving with a foreign government or organization to injury national interests.
• The act of belonging to groups that were considered hostile to Cambodia.
• Measures that hurt sovereignty or territorial integrity.

Procedure

• Ministry of Interior idea.
• Review by Nationality Commission
• Final approval by the Prime Minister

Appeals Mechanism

• Administrative appeal within 60 days
• Judicial review by the Supreme Court

Government Rationale

Justice Minister Keut Rith also presented the amendment as a necessary measure to protect sovereignty in the face of increased border tensions with Thailand in the parliament. Interior Minister Sar Sokha also stressed its target as traitors who team up with foreign nations. CPP politicians claimed that the law puts Cambodia in compliance with international standards and prevents espionage or subversion. Proponents give parallel laws in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, where dual nationals found guilty of terrorism may be deprived of citizenship.

Civil Society and Opposition Response

Something Chilling: Freedom of Speech.

The joint statement of the fifty civil society groups in Cambodia condemned the amendment as vague and destined to have catastrophic chilling effect on the freedom of speech of all Cambodian citizens. They cautioned that such terms as collusion and national interests would give the government a free hand to attack its critics, journalists, human rights activists, and diaspora activists. The issue of defamation and tax laws by the CPP used against dissenters has a long history of being documented by the Cambodian NGOs. Activists worry that self-censorship will become soaring with citizenship at stake.

Risks for the Cambodian Opposition

Available in exile leaders of opposition, including those of dual nationality, feared that the legislation will criminalize political organization in foreign countries. Political parties such as the Candlelight Movement and the Khmer National Rescue Party have their offices abroad because of ban in their home countries. According to the new law even being financed by a foreign state or even having meetings with foreign officials might provoke revocation. The law in effect makes it synonymous with democratic participation, as said one exiled figure of the opposition, the law treats treason as democratic engagement.

Two Perspectives on the Amendment

National Security Imperative

In the eyes of the government, Cambodia is subject to chronic danger:

• Border Conflicts with Thailand: Nationalist passions have simmered as a result of skirmishes at Preah Vihear and other sites.
• Foreign Interference: The political parties, NGOs or Intelligence services that are allegedly funded by foreign powers may disrupt domestic tranquility.
• Cold War Legacy in the Region: The Cambodian experience of being a proxy in the Vietnam war and Sino-Soviet conflict highlights the susceptibility to foreign intervention.

Advocates believe that depriving citizenship to people who betray the nation is a rightful sovereign action similar to laws in most democracies of the West. They claim that the amendment will enhance patriotism, curb espionage and protect the peace and development that is so difficult to achieve in Cambodia.

Civil Rights and Rule of Law

Opponents respond that security reasons are a cover-up to political oppression:

• Side Thought: Obvious Ambiguity The term colluding or harming national interests can include legal criticism or nonviolent demonstrations.
• The absence of Independence: The Nationality Commission and the Supreme Court are accused of being controlled by the CPP, which compromises an impartial ruling.
• International Standards: The United Nations conventions warn against arbitrary deprivation of nationality, with emphasis on due process and non-discrimination.

This perspective points out that strong citizenship precautions are the primary elements of free expression, civic engagement, and minority rights. The termination of nationality is tantamount to rendering people stateless in contravention of both the Cambodian and international law. Civil rights organizations are insisting on more precise legal definitions, more judicial protection and actual separation of powers.

Comparative Insight – Revocation in Other Countries

Revocation in the United States

Citizenship revocation (denaturalization) applies in the U.S. narrowly:

• Fraud in Naturalization: Misrepresentation during the naturalization process.
• Service in Enemy Forces: Voluntary service in a country hostile to the U.S.

The procedure of denaturalization takes place in federal courts and it provides the defendants with all due process. Citizenship of nationals of birthright is practically never revoked. The wide scope of the Cambodian law stands in opposition to the U.S. practice because revocation depends on the evident criminal behavior and evidence.

Commonwealth Examples

In Australia and the United Kingdom the revocation of dual nationals who have been involved in terrorism is permitted under the ministerial orders and the judicial review. Key safeguards include:

• Notice requirements
• Appeal right in independent courts.
• Security-cleared special advocates for sensitive evidence

These are steps that will strike a balance between national security and individual rights. The amendment of Cambodia does not subscribe to the same procedures and the review by an independent body, thus casting doubt on political decision-making.

Legal and Human Rights Implications

Risk of Statelessness

Even though Cambodian dual nationals can retain a second passport, a great number of rural Cambodians are solely citizens. Indeed, withdrawing their Cambodian nationality jeopardizes making them stateless, which violates the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness- although Cambodia is not a signatory. Statelessness leads to poverty and reduced access to education and healthcare, weakening of community.

Impact on Freedom of Expression

The academic institutions, journalists, and other activists will tend to exercise self-censorship in the fear of being labeled as colluding with foreign powers. International NGOs are worried that programmatic constraints will be even greater, which will undermine the delivery of aid in health, education, and land rights sectors. The effect of the law may affect the Cambodian human rights history and tension with the donor nations.

Border Dispute with Thailand – Catalyst for Nationalism

Recent Skirmishes and Political Climate

A five-day armed conflict occurred between the Cambodia and Thailand borders in July 2025 near the Preah Vihear temple. The two blamed each other over incursion, which led to military fatalities and displacement of people. The media in the state united around the Prime Minister Hun Manet and justified the conflict as an existential threat that required nationalism. Within such environment, the demand to impose punitive actions on the so-called foreign agents were gaining momentum, which preconditioned the rapid adoption of the law on citizenship revocation by the parliament.

Media Alignment and Public Opinion

Amendment was described in Cambodian state-controlled media as a defense imperative. According to polling, a majority of interviewed city residents (more than 70 percent) want revocation authority, but framed to defend sovereignty. But non-governmental critics–whose influence is limited–warn of the property damaged in terms of civic space over the long term. This contrast highlights the way national emergencies can cause radical shifts in the law in the name of solidarity.

The Path Forward – Safeguards and Recommendations

Empowering Procedural Safeguards.

In order to keep in line with international best practices and reduce the cases of civil rights violations, Cambodia might:

Clarify Legal Definitions

• Precisely define “collusion,” “national interests,” and “traitor” in law

Ensure Judicial Independence

• Empower an autonomous appeals process with impartial judges

Guarantee Due Process

• Mandate full disclosure of evidence and access to counsel

Limit Scope

• Limit revocation to acts of terrorism, espionage or grave offences.

Developing the Civil Society.

Civil rights organizations, bar associations, and academia should:

• Monitor application of the law
• Provide legal aid to affected individuals
• Host public forums on citizenship and civil liberties
• Engage regional bodies like ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights

International Dialogue

• Foreign governments and multilateral institutions can:
• Provide technical support to transform the judicial institutions.
• Include citizenship safeguards in diplomatic dialogues
• Support capacity-building for Cambodian NGOs

Conclusion

Revoking citizenship rights through the powers of the government is another step that Cambodia has made in its post-genocide quest. As supporters celebrate the amendment as a fortress against foreign intrusion and an instrument of protecting the sovereignty, civil society and opposition leaders denounce it as a poorly defined weapon of political oppression. As the situation of the border tension continues, along with a progressively centralized political setting, the threat of arbitrary application is ominous. Cambodia needs to change the lack of clarity in the definition of the law and strengthen judicial independence as well as guarantee strong due process to maintain the rule of law and safeguard fundamental freedoms. Only then can the nation reconcile security imperatives with its commitments to human rights and democratic governance.

Key Takeaways

• The citizenship revocation statute adopted in Cambodia violates the constitutional protections and gives the state the capacity to deprive any national of Khmer nationality.
• Civil society cautions of a chilling effect of freedom of speech and threats of statelessness.
• The U.S., U.K and Australia comparative practices emphasize the value of narrow definitions and appeals.
• Procedural safeguards and involvement of the civil society is essential to avoid abuses.
• Cambodia can be assisted by the international partners in terms of technical assistance and diplomatic intervention.

Critical examination of the mechanics of the amendment, its background, and suggestions of practical changes, can all help stakeholders to develop a framework that secures national security without trampling on civil rights and achieves further advancement of Cambodia in the direction of inclusive and democratic governance.