Nationality
is a human right. The right to a nationality was established in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and has been reaffirmed in almost every major human
rights treaty adopted since. The very existence of statelessness stands at odds
with this human rights norm. Nationality is also critical to the ability to
exercise many other human rights, so statelessness presents a significant
barrier for people’s access to the benefits of international human rights law.
Moreover, nationality is a fundamental part of a person’s identity, so
statelessness can leave people feeling like outcasts. In other words,
statelessness is a pressing human rights concern. It is also a very real one,
given that it effects over 10 million people worldwide.
Around the
world, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) share the common objective of
promoting and protecting human rights. This is a broad mandate which naturally encompasses
a wide variety of issues, including the right to a nationality. The exact work of
NHRIs varies from country to country, depending on the national human rights
environment and challenges – yet, there are many shared concerns and common
types of activity. At different times and in different ways, NHRIs have
therefore developed mechanisms to exchange information and discuss experiences,
with a view to refining their human rights work. Given the severity, scale and
reach of the problem of statelessness, this is an issue which is likely to have
drawn the attention of NHRIs in many different countries and regions. At a time
of growing international commitment towards addressing statelessness, shedding
light on NHRIs’ responses to statelessness can help to build a better understanding
of what role they are already playing and to develop a roadmap for their future
engagement. With this in mind, in the summer of 2013, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights and the Statelessness Programme of Tilburg University joined forces to conduct a survey
of the role of NHRIs in addressing statelessness. This blog offers a brief
snapshot of the principal findings of the study (the full report can be accessed here).
Although
the survey response was relatively small, it was complemented by some desk
research which uncovered further examples of NHRI engagement on statelessness.
Overall, the study clearly demonstrated that statelessness is indeed a phenomenon
that is known amongst NHRIs and uncovered some interesting examples of their
engagement on this issue. Among the NHRIs that responded to the questionnaire,
an impressive 80% has conducted some form of lobbying or issued advice on
issues relating to statelessness. Most often, this work concerns advising on
the reform of nationality laws or on the removal of discrimination from
nationality policy. Nevertheless, 40% has also lobbied or provided advice in
relation to strengthening the protection of stateless people and the same
proportion has actively assisted individual stateless people to secure better
access to their rights. A greater number of NHRIs has engaged in individual
cases relating to the enjoyment of the right to a nationality (60%) or
recognition as a stateless person (50%). Note that this figure should also be
read in light of the fact that not all NHRIs have a mandate to do individual
casework. An important aspect of NHRIs’ human rights work is education, i.e.
informing different stakeholders and the general public about human rights
norms and standards. Another interesting finding of the survey was how often
this human rights education has touched on statelessness: 40% of the NHRIs that
completed the questionnaire indicated having carried out awareness raising on
the issue.
Currently,
40% of the NHRI survey respondents feature statelessness in their work plan,
but 60% have dedicated staff time to the problem. All of the latter expressed
an interest in developing more expertise on statelessness in the future,
suggesting that NHRIs are open to and may benefit from the development of
further tools and/or the establishment of networks for information exchange on
statelessness. The study expresses this as one of its recommendations,
recognising the role that capacity building and knowledge sharing can play in
strengthening the influence of NHRIs on statelessness issues in their country
of operation.
Earlier
this month, the European Group of
National Human Rights Institutions discussed the findings of this study and
decided to put statelessness on its agenda. One clear common interest of
European NHRIs is to strengthen the role of human rights in the migration
context and many countries in the region are confronted with statelessness in
the migration setting. Indeed, stateless people are among the most vulnerable
of Europe’s migrants and much more needs to be done to improve the protection
framework under which they are received. Against this background, the issue
will now be taken up in the Migration
Working Group of European NHRIs, of which the Netherlands Institute for
Human Rights is the chair. This will kick off with an informal discussion of
challenges and opportunities in response to statelessness in Europe at their
next strategy meeting in Brussels this December. We hope that it will mark the
beginning of regular discussions on the role of NHRIs in tackling statelessness
in the region and perhaps lead to greater collaboration in this area of work.
Stans Goudsmit (Commissioner with the
Netherlands Institute for Human Rights) and Laura van Waas (Manager Tilburg
University Statelessness Programme)
[Note that both authors are members of the
European Network on Statelessness and this blog appeared simultaneously on the ENS
website]
No comments:
Post a Comment