In this article, we conduct a timely analysis of international counter-terrorism law and its relation to domestic measures like citizenship stripping in light of the exceptionalist and extra-legal tendencies of the former. We highlight the pingpong effect between international and domestic counter-terrorism laws showing that domestic and international law mutually reenforces each other's exceptionality. We argue, first, that the international law framework for counter-terrorism measures exhibits the characteristics of a 'model of accommodation', fostering an extra-ordinary legal approach that is inspired by domestic law designs of counterterrorism law; second, that international law further enables and encourages domestic law to adopt extra-ordinary or even extra-legal measures in the field of counter-terrorism; and third conversely, domestic measures like citizenship-stripping laws more broadly affect general international law by contributing to the normalization of extra-ordinary legal measures. In this regard, we discuss recent domestic citizenship-stripping laws as an expression of a renewed emphasis on exceptionalism and extra-legalization of counter-terrorism measures. Considering citizenship-stripping laws enacted in various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada and the UK, we argue that by justifying exceptionalist citizenship-stripping laws as permissible under both, international and domestic law, states will permanently affect the concept of citizenship nationally and internationally.