Britain 's Prime Minister , David Cameron , has declared that when dealing with would-be `` terrorist fighters , '' he believes it should be easier to confiscate passports -- to stop people traveling , to prevent those who go abroad to fight from returning to the UK , and to deal decisively with those who are here . How exactly the Counter Terrorism Bill will be framed when it is published shortly remains unclear , but current proposals go beyond what is required and risk doing exactly what the U.N. Security Council insists on , which is to act in compliance with international law . `` Dealing decisively with those who are here '' sounds good , of course , and there are plenty of terrorism-related offences already on the statute books which can do duty . Whether more are needed is a matter for debate , but clearly , as the U.N. Security Council affirmed last September in its unanimous resolution on `` foreign terrorist fighters , '' states must also address the underlying factors , as well implementing rehabilitation and reintegration strategies . Denmark is working on the latter , but has anyone looked to see how they work ? The Security Council says states are obliged to prevent the movement of terrorists by way of effective border and passport controls , and passports are probably the easiest target . British citizens have no legal right to a passport , which continues to be issued under the Royal Prerogative and therefore within the discretion of the Crown ( in practice , the Identity and Passport Service acting for the Home Office ) . Passports can be withdrawn or `` canceled '' for a number of reasons , including public interest grounds such as suspicion that the holder might be involved in international organized crime or in terrorism . The surrender of a passport can also be required as a condition of bail . But what the British government now wants is a statutory power allowing it to seize and retain a canceled passport , so as to reduce the likelihood of it being used anyway . In practice , though , it will be difficult to stop people traveling in the absence of evidence of their intentions ; their proposed destination may be a give-away , but what if their aims are not terrorism-related , but humanitarian ? Many are keen to assist those injured or at risk because of conflict . The Security Council says there needs to be `` credible information '' and `` reasonable grounds '' to believe that an individual is traveling for terrorism-related purposes ; it encourages the use of `` evidence-based traveler risk assessment . '' But there are dangers here , and it rightly insists that authorities do not resort to profiling based on stereotypes which in turn reflect internationally prohibited grounds of discrimination . How will the UK apply such standards , and what protection will citizens have against arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement ? Will police officers be entitled to act simply on suspicion ? In debating earlier legislation , the Government made it clear that `` suspicion '' was a `` lesser test '' than belief , and certainly far short of the standard of proof in criminal matters . These issues demand serious thought , if arbitrary power is to be avoided , and discretion confined and structured as the rule of law requires . It is in stopping citizens from returning , however , that the Government will run into trouble with the law . Exclusion orders have been used against UK citizens in the recent past , limiting freedom of movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the 1970s to the 1990s ; but these orders were an internal matter , applied to citizens within the United Kingdom , whereas the Prime Minister 's notion is to exclude citizens from the UK . The new `` temporary exclusion orders , '' it is proposed , will include passport cancellation , entry on a `` no fly list , '' and sanctions against any airline carrying an `` excluded '' British citizen to the UK . Such orders may extend for up to two years , though why two years is anyone 's guess , and not apparently evidence-based . Return following exclusion may be allowed , but could be conditioned on prosecution , restrictions on movement , or immersion in a `` de-radicalization programme '' -- the dice look loaded with presumptions -- and returning without permission could result in up to five years in jail . Humanitarian workers thus run the risk of becoming trapped in a war zone , while others -- rightly or wrongly suspected of criminal activity -- may be rendered effectively stateless in some transit state or half-way house , in both cases denied the protection which the state owes to its citizens , and allowing the United Kingdom to avoid the responsibility which it owes to other states . Time and again , the Security Council has stressed that whatever measures states take to deal with terrorist-related threats must comply with all their obligations under international law . Specifically , it has said that no state would be obliged to deny entry or require the departure from its territory of its own nationals or permanent residents . `` Exile , '' after all , is expressly prohibited by Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights , while Article 12 ( 4 ) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that : `` No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country . '' Cameron 's statements regarding so-called jihadists are regrettably indiscriminate and premised on assumptions of guilt . He has called for a `` discretionary power '' to exclude citizens from the UK , though this seems to imply an arbitrary competence exercised according to the rule of government , not the legal certainty and procedural protection required by the rule of law , and with no regard either to the rights and interests of other states , or to the necessity for improved international cooperation . No state is obliged to accept another 's `` temporarily excluded '' citizens . Any state would be fully within its rights to deport such a person to the UK , and the UK is duty-bound to readmit citizens not allowed to remain in other countries . Moreover , any state whose airline was sanctioned because it carried a UK citizen back to the UK , would be equally entitled to apply counter-measures against the UK , by reason of its unlawful conduct . As was the case earlier this year with deprivation of citizenship , the rush to legislation led to inadequate scrutiny by parliament and cursory consideration of the applicable international law . The result then -- as it may be again -- was a broadening of executive authority beyond what the rule of law in a representative democratic state requires and demands . READ MORE : UK spy chief says tech firms must help combat terrorREAD MORE : Denmark offers foreign fighters rehab , not jailREAD MORE : Will ISIS 'weaponize ' foreign fighters ?
UK government wants to make it easier for authorities to confiscate the passports of would - be jihadis . British citizens subjected to planned exclusion orders will be expelled from UK . Goodwin Gill questions how government will decide whether people are suitable for exile . ` ` ' Exile ' is expressly prohibited by Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights ''