Act now and help protect stateless people across Europe

When meeting a stateless person what is often so very striking is their understandable bewilderment about the situation they have been unlucky enough to find themselves in, and a corresponding desperate desire on their part to establish an identity and to enjoy the sort of normal daily life that most of us take for granted.

This same sense of frustration and longing jumps out from testimonies gathered by the European Network on Statelessness as part of its campaign to protect stateless persons in Europe. Launched last October, this will culminate with a coordinated day of action on 14 October, and several ENS members are already planning actions or events in support of the campaign. The stories launched today, along with an online petition (available in 9 languages) calling on Europe’s leaders to take action, are intended to give stateless persons a voice and to try to help uncover at least a little of their invisibility. The six stories offer only a snapshot of the typical problems faced by stateless people across Europe today but hopefully will help serve as a wake-up call for governments to put in place the relatively simple reforms that would provide a much-needed solution.

Take Isa, stateless in Serbia, and who feels different a “million times” because of his lack of citizenship or any identity documents. Or Sarah, stuck in limbo in the Netherlands, who explains “I live day by day, not knowing what the future will bring”. Or Luka, who despite having lived in Slovakia for over 20 years, is unable to work or even officially to be recognized as the father of the child he has with his partner, a Slovak national. In many respects even more alarming is the fact that both Luka and Roman, another stateless person stuck in limbo in Slovakia, have lost their personal liberty for no other reason than that they are unlucky enough to be stateless. Roman describes having been detained on 6 to 7 occasions while Luka once spent 14 months in an immigration detention centre.

But as I learnt when invited to speak at a statelessness roundtable organised by UNHCR in Bratislava last week, Slovakian legislation actually already provides a discretionary power to regularise stateless persons but unfortunately lacks any form of dedicated determination procedure to enable officials to reliably identify stateless persons on its territory. But it would be unfair to single out Slovakia in this regard as the regrettable fact is that most European states still lack such basic procedures which are urgently necessary if these countries are to honour the obligations they signed up to when ratifying the 1954 Statelessness Convention. So except for a few states that have yet even to take the first step of acceding to the Convention (including Cyprus, Estonia, Malta and Poland) the problem really is one of implementation.  In this regard, last December ENS published its good practice guide on statelessness determination, intended as a tool for states considering introducing these essential dedicated procedures.

Obviously the stories described above are just a glimpse of the human impact of statelessness but they echo recent more detailed research undertaken, including through UNHCR mapping studies in Belgium and the Netherlands. This research confirms that the absence of a route by which stateless persons can regularise their status leaves these individuals at risk of a range of human rights abuses. Many stateless persons find themselves destitute or forced to sleep rough on the streets. Others are subjected to long term immigration detention despite there being no prospect of return. Few are in a position to break this cycle, and as a consequence are left in legal limbo for years.

We are asking you and others concerned about statelessness in Europe to sign the following online petition:

To European leaders,

Around 600,000 stateless persons live in Europe today, including many migrants stuck in perpetual limbo. They urgently require our protection. We ask that:

1) All European states accede to the 1954 Statelessness Convention by the end 2014.

2) All European states without a functioning statelessness determination procedure make a clear commitment during 2014 to take necessary steps to introduce one by the end 2016.

Act now by signing and sharing this petition with your contacts!

With your support we can bring Europe’s legal ghosts out of the shadows and ensure that stateless persons are treated with the respect and dignity which has been lacking.

Thank you!

By Chris Nash, Coordinator of the European Network on Statelessness

This blog first appeared on the European Network on Statelessness website at http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/act-now-and-help-protect-stateless-people-across-europe

Life is Waiting…

Remember the predicaments of Tom Hanks’ character Viktor Navorski in The Terminal? After a coup in his East European country Krakozhia, Navorski wasn’t allowed to arrive or depart JFK airport until his formal status had been determined, and meanwhile was to remain stationary, unable to participate in society, in the comparable legal quagmire of a stateless person in no man’s land.

The real story is happening with Igor Skrijevski (51) and Galina Skrijevskaia (49), who fled to the United States from what was in 1990 still the Soviet Union. Lawful stay in the US was eventually denied, but meanwhile the USSR they left behind ceased to exist and the couple proved unable to be deported back to this country that had now disappeared. An uphill struggle with bureaucracy for recognition and admittance followed, ultimately continuing to this day from that ill-defined legal space in between countries where stateless persons are relegated to. They’ve been passing time in waiting rooms like airports, holding cells, and asylum centres; the non-places where non-persons often end up. After being sent to Ukraine, which in its turn tried to return them, they became stranded in the Netherlands. Sitting in waiting, now nearly eight years ‘delayed’.

The legal perspective

Regardless of possibly violated US obligations (e.g. under the HRC’s understanding of a person’s right to enter his ‘own country’ under Article 12(4) ICCPR), the pertinent question is what the country where the Skrijevskis currently are ought to do with them. This question became most pressing after the Netherlands rejected their asylum claims and moved to expel them under the EU-Ukraine readmission agreement – a move which the highest Dutch appeals court for such decisions found unobjectionable.

One expects to find answers in the 1954 Convention which aims to protect stateless people. While it does offer the Skrijevskis some important rights as administrative assistance and identity papers, many are conditional upon lawful stay, such as access to the labour market, social security, travel documents, and protection from expulsion. Yet at the moment there is no obligation to grant lawful stay. Although implementation of a determination procedure would briefly help (see paragraph 20, UNHCR Guideline #2), without a corresponding right of residence for verified stateless persons little would improve. The UNHCR therefore recommends a (temporary) residence permit as good practice – echoed by the UN Secretary-General – unless protection is realistically available elsewhere or when statelessness results from voluntary renunciation as a matter of convenience or choice (Guideline #3). These two exceptions could be called the ‘alternative’ and ‘unwilling’ obstacles to residency. In the first exception a transitory arrangement is appropriate, in the second involuntary return would not be ruled out. However, the UNHCR narrowly interprets voluntary renunciation and distinguishes this from the ‘loss of nationality through failure to comply with formalities, including where the individual is aware of the relevant requirements and still chooses to ignore them’ (paragraph 44 and accompanying footnote, Guideline #1). By the many references to the couple’s personal responsibility and their uncooperativeness in obtaining Ukrainian nationality, choosing to give up a nationality or choosing to refuse one, passively or actively, might be the same in the eyes of the Netherlands (or the UK, cf. Al-Jedda). Both exceptions would then apply. In their defence, after almost sixteen years of working and living in New York they understandably feel American. Their business and social life is there. They also connect Ukraine with the place they fled from persecutions. Lastly, it’s conceivable that they’ve been advised to remain stateless in order to increase their chances of gaining readmission to the US.

The Skrijevkis expose an uncomfortable challenge in addressing statelessness. Can people choose to become or remain unnecessarily stateless, and if so, are States justified in attaching the consequence of withholding certain rights? Does the right to have a nationality mean there’s no obligation to have one, just like the right to health doesn’t mean one can’t choose to live unhealthy? Here is not the place to go into this in detail, but in short I think the answer to the last question should be no. The reasoning in Pretty v UK can be applied whereby the right to life emphasises a State’s obligation to protect it, rather than an individual’s discretion to reject it – the same could be true for nationality.

A short comment is warranted on other possible obligations aside from those under the Statelessness Conventions. In DCI v the Netherlands, the European Committee of Social Rights held that foreign children are entitled to certain rights under the Revised European Social Charter, whatever their residence status, hence despite the exclusion clause in the Appendix, paragraph 1 to such effect. In CEC v the Netherlands, the right to food, clothing and shelter are now being invoked for undocumented adults. If the claim is upheld, it could bring such rights into reach for stateless persons. Although they receive separate treatment in paragraph 3, excluding them when the lawful residence requirement would be waived for aliens is hardly tenable in light of the 1954 Convention’s core principle, codified in Article 7, which prohibits treating stateless persons worse than foreigners who do possess a nationality. Especially when the second requirement of belonging to contracting Parties is also ignored, perhaps because of the progressive insight that fundamental human rights shouldn’t be based on reciprocity. Whether stateless persons could benefit from the Charter remains to be seen though.

Finally, an important question remains as to what sort of protection the ECHR obliges States to provide. In this regard, a potentially important case now pending is Dabetić v Italy. Dabetić became stateless after Yugoslavia dissolved and his nationality was ‘erased’. His complaint was previously declared inadmissible in Kurić v Slovenia for not exhausting domestic remedies, because in the Court’s view he had failed to express any wish to reside in Slovenia. His presumed unwillingness to obtain a solution elsewhere makes the case nearly identical to the Skrijevskis. If the Court will find Italy in breach of (any of) Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 ECHR, by withholding statelessness status, a (temporary) residency permit and the more favourable treatment provided to refugees, it will have significant consequences for Dutch obligations. It will be interesting whether the Court could clear the ‘alternative’ and ‘unwilling’ obstacles through independent operation of ECHR standards.

Address unknown

In 2011, a Dutch television programme organised a protest at the Skrijevskis’ behest at the US embassy in The Hague. While the reporter saw his ambitions and patience run into a bureaucratic wall, Igor and Galina stood by carrying signs with ‘return to sender’. Standing in waiting, with quiet accusation in their defeated looks. Igor and Galina are among more than ten million persons frequently treated by States as undeliverable parcels, attempted to be sent back and forth. A solution to statelessness requires political will, but above all prevention by sound nationality laws. Drawing attention to the issue and talking about stateless persons is a way to help, to grant them recognition and to make them more visible.

Martijn Keeman, Statelessness Programme Research Clinic participant 2013-2014

2014 Global Forum: A “meeting place” for people concerned about statelessness

In September 2014, Tilburg University and UNHCR will co-host the First Global Forum on Statelessness. Originally, when the idea of organising an event to mark the 60th anniversary of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons was first conceived by the Statelessness Programme at Tilburg Law School, the vision was of a traditional academic conference. Around the world, individual scholars and research institutes have shown a growing interest in studying and discussing statelessness over the past decade. The channels for sharing and debating the findings of such research remain limited, however, as there have been no conferences, nor are there any journals, specifically dedicated to statelessness. As a result, information remains dispersed, as papers are published or presented in a wide variety of venues – i.e. in journals or at conferences focusing on related issues including migration, human rights, international relations, etc. While there have been numerous meetings in the last few years which focused on statelessness, these have tended to concentrate on convening only government representatives (e.g. 2011 UNHCR Ministerial meeting) or NGOs (e.g. annual UNHCR-NGO consultations, with the recent addition of a statelessness retreat). The initial ambition of the Statelessness Programme was to organise the equivalent global meeting for members of the university community in order to share research experiences and findings on statelessness, as well as start to plot out a research agenda for the future. Following discussions with UNHCR and the decision to form a partnership for this event, we set our joint sights a little higher…

 After lengthy consideration of the alternatives, the word ‘Forum’ was carefully chosen to describe the international conference that is now planned for September 2014 in the Hague. The idea is simple: to offer a meeting place where people who are concerned about statelessness can come together and share their ideas and experiences. This includes academics, governments, NGOs, legal practitioners, UN staff, journalists, community and faith-based groups and, those directly affected - stateless and formerly stateless people themselves. There will still be some of the familiar trappings of an academic conference, such as a number of keynote speeches on different aspects of statelessness research and policy by prominent international experts, the opportunity for academics to present and ask for feedback on a research paper they are preparing and the publication, after the event, of a book which offers a selection of some of the most current and cutting edge research in this field. But there will equally be opportunity for government representatives to present and discuss their policy experiences and for others engaged in addressing statelessness to share observations and ideas from their own work. The Forum will be flexible in terms of the way in which particular sessions are designed, depending on the envisaged topic, participants and desired outcome. This could mean panel debates, multimedia sessions, interactive workshops or other formats and we are keen to explore such ideas with any individual or organization that is interested in helping to shape part of the event with us. Moreover, in the spirit of the ancient Roman forum, or marketplace, the First Global Forum on Statelessness will also provide ample informal space for meeting, gathering and exchanging views, including through the inclusion of networking events as part of the programme.

"The daily suffering of millions of stateless people is an affront to humanity. The persistence of statelessness around the world is a challenge that requires a concerted international response. Building on the momentum of renewed international commitment to address statelessness, the First Global Forum on Statelessness presents an invaluable opportunity to bring together stateless people, policy makers, academics, NGOs and international organizations to come up with solutions to end statelessness.” - UNHCR High Commissioner António Guterres

 While the Forum aims to be flexible to accommodate the diverse backgrounds and styles of its participants, certain important parameters have nevertheless been set. To begin with, for this First Global Forum on Statelessness, the overarching topic of “New Directions in Statelessness Research and Policy” has been selected. We recognise and value the wealth of knowledge and experience that has amassed around the issue of statelessness, especially over the past few years. Now is the time to explore this collectively, in order to discover and share innovations that will help to ensure a more effective response to statelessness in the future, as well as to discuss the challenges that we still face and how to move forward. New research findings can help to feed into more effective policy, while policy innovations and obstacles may spark new research projects. Under this broad umbrella, the Forum will delve in particular into three themes which have also been set: Stateless Children, Statelessness and Security and Responses to Statelessness (a description of each theme can be found on the Forum website). Again, we are happy to discuss with anyone who is considering participating in the forum how their personal or organisational experiences with statelessness can be linked to one or more of these themes and help them to identify how their work or knowledge can best feed into the Forum. Our hope is that the exchange of information and the establishment of new contacts at the Forum will give a fresh boost to activities and collaboration in the field of statelessness.

 The call for presenters for the First Global Forum on Statelessness is now open. Proposals can be submitted using a simple application form which can be downloaded from the Forum website at www.tilburguniversity.edu/statelessness2014. The deadline for submissions is 1 December 2013. To first discuss ideas for a presentation, to propose a panel or workshop, or to be added to the mailing list for updates on the Global Forum, write to statelessness2014@tilburguniversity.edu.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme

[This blog also appeared on the website of the European Network on Statelessness,  www.statelessness.eu]

Statelessness consultations in Geneva

This week, I attended the annual UNHCR-NGO consultations for the first time. This is a 3-day event during which civil society partners of the UN Refugee Agency descend on Geneva and engage in a structured dialogue (or sometimes monologue) with one another and with UNHCR staff. Before coming, I wasn't quite sure what to expect - I found it hard to picture what a 'consultation' with some 300 participating NGOs might look like or what the outcome would be. As I sit at the airport now, waiting for my flight home, I am still digesting the experience. Overall, I would say that it was exhausting but productive, with the most beneficial aspect being the chance to catch up in person - during a very short space of time - with many of our existing partners and discuss ongoing and possible future projects, as well as to make new connections that will hopefully lead to all sorts of new opportunities. Without attempting to give a comprehensive account of what went on this week, below is a reflection on some of the highlights...
 
Launching our research with the Women's Refugee Commission
My colleague Zahra Albarazi headed for Geneva a few days before me in order to participate in a so-called 'side event' during the lunch break of the Human Rights Council sitting last Friday. She was the principal researcher for our study that mapped the impact of gender discrimination in nationality law in terms of how it contributes to statelessness and what knock-on effects this has. The research focused on the Middle East and North Africa region, where Zahra undertook several field trips during the first months of this year, namely to Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and Morocco. The Human Rights Council side event in which the findings of this research were presented also marked the official launch of the report and the beginning of advocacy work by the Women's Refugee Commission (who took the initiative for and funded the project). The report, an evocative photo-essay and two absolutely fantastic short advocacy videos which show the human dimension of this problem can be found on WRC's website. The launch successfully out of the way last week, I was able to join Zahra and our WRC counterparts and participate in a number of smaller and more detailed briefings on the project in the margins of the NGO consultations. The response, especially to the stories told in the videos by those directly effected, was very impressive and we have real hope that this project can help to contribute to a better understanding of the need to continue to push for the reform of nationality laws to allow women to pass nationality to their children. We certainly don't want any more women to feel guilty or depressed because they married a foreigner or for couples to feel pressure to divorce in a desperate attempt to give their children a chance of acquiring a nationality and securing a better future.
 
Statelessness retreat

 

Immediately before the official (and rather imposing) UNHCR-NGO consultations kicked off, UNHCR convened a smaller group (+/- 30) of organisations and individuals specifically active in the field of statelessness for a 'retreat', to discuss how to improve collaboration and make more of an impact. A retreat in nature, not just in name, we convened at a picturesque but Spartan monastery outside Lausanne. In addition to exchanging good (and less good) experiences and providing updates on planned activities so that we could all think about ensuring greater complementarity of our work, we also had an active discussion about the need to a global network, coalition or movement of some kind to really take on statelessness. There seemed to be consensus that now is the time to act and that with the momentum that exists behind statelessness, we perhaps need to set the bar higher and formulate a ‘big’ ambition to work towards. What exactly this bigger goal or campaign around which we should all be uniting, was still up for discussion at the end of the retreat, but agreeing that it may be time to identify such a goal is certainly an important first step.
 
UNHCR-NGO consultations
During the NGO consultations proper, statelessness was put on the agenda for one of the thematic break-out sessions and an entire afternoon was dedicated to further discussion. This session was attended by somewhere in the region of 75 individuals (from my own quick and rather crude head-count), bringing in more voices than those which were involved in the retreat. Here again, there was a discussion of good practices and common outstanding challenges, in particular on: how to move governments to make (then keep) commitments in the field of statelessness, how to tackle protracted situations of statelessness like that of the Rohingya in Myanmar and how to take advantage of the 60^th anniversary of the 1954 Statelessness Convention next year to make strides on the issue. I had the honour (and daunting task) of moderating the session, which turned out to be rather enjoyable since I was able to abuse my position at regular intervals to add my own thoughts on ideas or questions raised. Personally, I found the last part of the discussion which was all about ‘what now?’ the most interesting and useful. It was quickly apparent that, within the room at least, a consensus has been reached about the challenges posed by statelessness but also the opportunity to really make a difference on this issue if existing momentum can be consolidated. The discussion, as at the retreat, therefore quickly turned to a crucial question that needs to be addressed: coalition or cause? It’s something of a chicken-and-egg discussion, the crux of which is this: do we need to focus our energies on further growing and organizing a coalition of organisations to work on statelessness and push this issue forwards or do we need to – with those already engaged – identify a common cause around which we can rally and subsequently hope to draw in and activate others? My own sense at the moment is that the latter approach might be more effective, since I think it will be easier to entice organisations that have to date been hesitant to get involved in the issue to become a part of a global movement if the foundation for such a movement has already been laid with a few organisations taking a lead role and publically announcing their ambition. What that ambition could be also seems to be crystallising as several organisations expressed their support for the goal that has, in fact, already been enunciated by UNHCR High Commissioner Guterres: the eradication of statelessness within the next decade. Realists would likely be quick to suggest that this is an ambition which is inevitably beyond our reach, yet there is something inspiring about the sentiment and to dare to set ourselves such a goal (and publically commit to it) would, I think, enable us to collectively channel our energies and set out a roadmap that – even if only partly achieved – could bring real and lasting change for the issue. If we could, for instance, even achieve the eradication of childhood statelessness in the next ten years and ensure that no more children start out life without a nationality, this would be a major and massively worthwhile achievement. In short, I for one came away with a new perspective on our work and the task that lays ahead of us and I am quietly hopeful that over the course of the next year or so, we will begin to be more daring and more ambitious in our aims.
 
Other bits and bobs
Besides promoting the findings of our research project with WRC and actively participating in all of the general statelessness discussions, I was also able to make some strides on other matters during my stay in Geneva. Together with some of the other steering committee members of the European Network on Statelessness – who were also in town for the NGO consultations – we were able to hold some useful side meetings to discuss a strategy for tackling statelessness in Europe. One of the most fruitful of these was a gathering of NGOs in which UNHCR’s Europe Bureau Director also participated and gave voice to the plans that they are laying for the issue in this region. It was encouraging to hear of the commitment not just to participating actively in activities around the commemoration of the 1954 convention next year, but longer term, to really find solutions to bring back the number of stateless people in the region. The openness of the discussion between UNHCR and NGOs in this region and the added value of ENS as a regional network representing NGO experiences and interests, offers massive advantages in helping to translate all of the ideas into actual action. Another good experience this week was the chance to speak up for involvement of the academic community in work on statelessness and to appeal to both UNHCR and NGOs to reach out to university partners and draw them into their activities wherever relevant. I was very pleased to discover that I was not the only academic present and even more pleased to make a number of very interesting new contacts that will, I hope, lead to some form of collaboration with universities, including in Japan, South Africa and the US. So, plenty to follow up on in the weeks and months to come and fingers crossed that by the time of next year’s NGO consultations we will have formed and consolidated further partnerships – and perhaps even achieved the beginnings of a global movement – on statelessness.
 
Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme
 

Introducing... Linda Peels, intern supporting the organisation of the First Global Forum on Statelessness

Ms Linda Peels, 22 years old, Dutch

Studying: International and European Law, Bachelor Programme

Internship Project: Organisational support for the “First Global Forum on Statelessness” in September 2014, co-hosted by UNHCR and the Statelessness Programme.

Last year I attended a pub lecture on statelessness, given by Laura van Waas. I had never heard of this topic before, but after Laura’s lecture I immediately wanted to learn more about this phenomenon, in particular how it could possibly happen that someone did not have a nationality. I was thrilled when I saw that The Statelessness Programme was looking for an intern.

My internship focusses mainly on the organisational part of the 2014 Global Forum. When I first started, I have to admit I was a bit in doubt whether I would actually learn a lot about the academic side of statelessness, since this is not the main focus of my internship. So alongside my internship,  I also enrolled for the course “Nationality, Statelessness and Human Rights”, created by the Statelessness Programme.

However, my doubt turned out to be for nothing: from my first day on, I had – and still have-  to write so many people and explain to them what statelessness is and why this conference is so important, that I was forced to look into the topic and the definition to deepen my knowledge. Many questions arose, differing from very practical, such as how many NGOs are actually working on statelessness – not that many by the way- , to very academic, for instance how we should interpret the definition of statelessness given in art 1 of the 1954 UN Convention Relating to The Status of Stateless Persons, or how safeguards should be implemented in nationality laws to prevent statelessness.

For these questions, the combination of studying the topic during class and working on the topic during my internship is perfect: I get to work with both the practical obstacles and questions as well as the academic side of statelessness, which really helps me to understand this complex phenomenon and to explain what it is in a way that non-academics will understand it too. I found the answers to my questions, not only in literature during class, but also by working on the topic during my internship.

To give you an idea of what organising of such an extraordinary event implies, I will elaborate a bit more on what I am currently working on. The idea is to hold a conference for both academics and policy makers. On this point, we are trying to map NGOs who are working on the topic, we are looking for academics as key note speakers and we are mapping governments that have done a lot to prevent statelessness, for instance Indonesia, who has changed their nationality law and built in more safeguards to prevent statelessness. We hope to attract some 300 academics, governments representatives, key UN staff, NGO’s or legal practitioners working on human rights, refugees and stateless people with various international backgrounds. We have to make sure we keep a balance between policy developers and academics, since the hoped outcome of the conference implies both encouraging new research on statelessness and the development of better nationality laws or other policies, for instance giving stateless people access to Micro Finance Intuitions – see Jason’s latest blog post.

The conference aims to raise the profile of statelessness by giving academics and governments representatives the opportunity to share their research, experiences and achievements in tackling the issue. We also hope to provide a podium for the stateless and to give them a voice.

Since I first started I have met such wonderful people who are always willing to answer my questions. I have already learned a lot about the topic of statelessness, the mandate of the UNHCR and the people working on statelessness, and I still have more than a year left full of learning and experiences!

Linda Peels, intern with the Statelessness Programme

Start the clocks: countdown to the FIRST GLOBAL FORUM ON STATELESSNESS

It's official, in exactly 18 months time, the First Global Forum on Statelessness will be convened in the Hague (the Netherlands), to mark the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. A joint initiative of the Statelessness Programme (Tilburg University) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this 3-day event will bring together some 300 academics, government representatives, international organisations, NGOs and stateless people from around the world to present their research, policy work and experiences on statelessness.

 

The overarching theme of the First Global Forum on Statelessness is “Exploring challenges and sharing good practices in research and policy on statelessness”. Three sub-themes have been identified as the main focus for presentations and discussion:

1.   Stateless Children

Topics that may be considered under this theme include: securing a child’s right to a nationality, including in contexts such as international surrogacy arrangements, where children are abandoned or orphaned , or in the case of disabled children; the importance of birth registration and documentation; the impacts on children of gender discrimination in nationality matters; and addressing the psychological effects of statelessness on children

2.   Statelessness and Security

This theme encompasses questions of the impact of statelessness on  human security, national and international security. Issues to be explored may include: the impacts of statelessness on economic, social and cultural rights;  links between statelessness and forced displacement, human trafficking and arbitrary detention; or the role of nationality and statelessness as they relate to conflict and peace-building and; the impacts of statelessness on minority or indigenous communities.

3.   Responses to Statelessness

Academic and policy perspectives examining both the challenges and good practices when responding to statelessness may be considered. Areas of interest include research methods to study statelessness; the function and content of protection mechanisms for stateless persons; addressing protracted statelessness situations; successful efforts to reform nationality laws ; and addressing statelessness and its effects in the context of development assistance or disaster relief projects.

 

How to get involved: the success of the First Global Forum on Statelessness depends on its ability to attract a broad range of participants, from a broad ranges of backgrounds, disciplines and countries. If you have been researching statelessness and would like to present and discuss your findings, you will have the opportunity to apply to participate in a panel discussion. The same is true if you are working on statelessness policy or advocacy work, or if you would like to voice your experiences as a stateless or formerly stateless person. If you are only just starting out with some work on statelessness, don't worry: there's still time. The Global Forum is still 18 months away, but start planning! You can also get involved by sponsoring the event, by helping to support someone's participation or simply by helping us to spread the word about statelessness and about this gathering in particular.

 

More details will be available on Tilburg University and UNHCR's websites in a few weeks time...

GUEST POST: Naturalization of stateless persons: The standards of facilitated access to citizenship

One of the measures, proposed as a durable solution of statelessness, is facilitated access to citizenship for stateless persons. Nevertheless, the issue of facilitated naturalization of this particular group,¹ stays still grossly overlooked. There exists some international instruments,² explicitly recommending that states should facilitate the acquisition of their nationality for the stateless, however, there are still no clear and comprehensive guidelines explaining, what the states should do to comply with this recommendation.

 I  addressed this problem within my master thesis called „Facilitated naturalization of stateless persons: Solution of statelessness?“ where I  set out to identify international obligations of states relating to attribution of nationality via naturalization and to derive international and European standards for facilitated access to citizenship for stateless persons. In addition, based on my comparative study of three states – Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia - with very different approach to statelessness, I  formulated reccomendations which could help to eliminate “unreasonable impediments”³ to naturalization for this category of applicants. Within my research I focused in particular on the assessment of material requirements (residence, language and other integration requirements, good character, economic resources requirements, loyalty to the state and security) and procedural aspects of naturalization (application, proceedings), as well as other areas of concern arising when it comes to facilitated access to citizenship.

In light of the foregoing, the states should, at the occasion of the next review of their nationality law, consider the following key measures, which would help to ensure that stateless people have access to a durable solution:⁴

–to adopt provisions providing for a stateless status determination procedure; this procedure can efficiently identify stateless persons in need. Moreover, a separate procedure regulating the legal status of stateless persons may substantially contribute to the acceleration of the subsequent naturalization procedure.

–to reduce the prescribed period of residence such that this does not exceed five years. If a statelessness determination procedure is in place, the period of residence should start to count since the submission of the application concerned, provided that the stateless status is granted. If no stateless protection status is in place and stateless person have to establish their lawful residence first, states are encouraged to give stateless persons access to a residence permit on preferential grounds.

–to waive language requirements or require only basic knowledge of the language (A1 standard). If language tests are required, the states should provide assistance to individuals to help them to learn the language and to familiarize themselves with the content of the tests.

–to waive integration requirements or introduce them on a voluntary basis. If integration tests are applied, the state should again provide assistance to individuals to help them to prepare for the tests and to familiarize themselves with their content.

– regarding the good character requirement, to take into account only crimes with sentences of imprisonment for more than 5 years and use qualifying periods instead of an absolute refusal to grant citizenship. Examination of criminal records from other states should be done critically and there should be a possibility to grant an exception with regard to the special circumstances of the case.

–to waive economic resources requirements or/and to consider applications by stateless persons in need with sympathy.

–to reconsider the requirement of loyalty, especially if formulated in a way to deny the access to citizenship to a group of people sharing a certain characteristic without the consideration of all circumstances of the case; and to exempt certain categories of applicants from the oath of allegiance if necessary (e.g. minors, incapable persons etc).

–to adopt provisions allowing for alternative forms of evidence if some documents, generally required for naturalization, cannot be submitted or/and to shift the burden of proof to the state where necessary.

–to reduce or waive costs of naturalization (including application fees, translation fees, administrative fees for issuance of required documents etc.).

–to accelerate the procedure and to implement legal guarantees for administrative proceedings, in accordance wth the rule of law and international standards of due process (e.g. reasoned decision, right to appeal, representation before an independent administrative authority and/or a court).

– if the procedure is discretionary, to consider all circumstances of the case and an impact of refusal of the application on an individual.

In conclusion, I have to emphasize that I realize that the call for facilitated naturalization, even though set out in different international documents, is rather soft, and it neither requires the states to grant their citizenship, nor stateless persons to accept any such offer. The duty of facilitated naturalization therefore has to be understood as an effort to encourage states “to dispense with as many formalities in their naturalization process as possible so that [stateless persons] are positioned to acquire citizenship with the absolute minimum of difficulty.”⁵ In my view, this is exactly the reason why states should be informed about possible difficulties which stateless persons may face applying for citizenship. I hope I managed to outline at least some of them.

Eva Mrekajová, Human Rights LLM Programme graduate of Tilburg Law School, reflecting on the lessons learned from the research for her Masters Dissertation

1 Please note, that I further focus only on facilitated naturalization of stateless persons in its strict sense of grant of nationality upon application later in life.

2 See. e.g. Article 32 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons; Article 6 (4) (g) Council of Europe: 1997 European Convention on Nationality; Recommendation 564(1969) of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, para 1(b); Explanatory report to 1997 European Convention on Nationality. para 52; Recommendation R (1999) 18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Avoidance and Reduction of Statelessness, section IIB and per analogiam Article 34 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Recommendation 564(1969) of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, para 1(b)

3 Human Rights Committee: Individual complaint of Capena v. Canada. para. 11.3.

4 See also MIPEX 2010 Indicators (http://www.mipex.eu/methodology); For the purposes of my study I adjusted the indicators related to access to citizenship for the context of naturalization of stateless persons to benchmark the laws and policies of the chosen states. For more information see my thesis via http://www.mipex.eu/naturalisation-stateless-persons-solution-statelessness

⁵per analogiam Hathaway, J.C. The rights of refugees under International law. p. 985-986

An instant best practice: Philippines’ new Stateless Status Determination Procedure

The Philippines made history this week by becoming the first state in Asia to put a statelessness determination procedure in place. This move follows the country’s ratification, just over a year ago now, of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the pledge made at last December’s UNHCR High Level Meeting to proceed with establishing a procedure. The adoption of Department Circular No. 58 on “Establishing the Refugee and Stateless Status Determination Procedure” sets a good example, not only in the region, where protection frameworks for stateless people are largely absent, but also to countries in other parts of the world which acceded to the 1954 Convention but have yet to take this vital step in its implementation. There are currently 76 state parties to the 1954 Convention, but less than a dozen examples of dedicated statelessness determination procedures globally.

I was especially excited to hear of the new law passed in the Philippines because I was fortunate enough to have the chance to follow some of the preceding developments first hand. In late 2010, while I was working with UNHCR’s regional office in Bangkok, I had a wonderful, whirlwind 24 hour-trip to Manila, where I gave a presentation on international statelessness law to a room full of people drawn from different government agencies and civil society. Thanks to the amazing efforts of the UNHCR office in the Philippines and the incredible support and enthusiasm of key people within the Department of Justice to carry this issue forward, the decision to ratify the 1954 Convention was already pretty much in the bag. The purpose of the meeting was to ensure that the ratification and any steps that would subsequently be required to implement the treaty enjoyed the broadest possible support, from all relevant stakeholders. I remember very clearly the energy in the room and the overriding sentiment that it was a highly logical step for the country to become a state party: the Philippines was, after all, already a state party to the convention’s sister instrument, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, so surely it made perfect sense to ratify the 1954 Convention in order to complete the protection framework. Moreover, the Philippines had actually signed the statelessness instrument back in 1955, they had simply “forgotten” to follow this up with ratification when interest in this convention temporarily lapsed. This line of reasoning is indeed compelling and suggests that it may be possible to make up the lost ground in terms of accessions to the 1954 Convention relative to the 1951 refugee convention, now that statelessness is again gaining momentum as an issue of international concern.

In late 2011, I crossed paths with a government delegation from the Philippines again, just as the instrument of accession to the 1954 Convention was being deposited with the UN Secretary General. This time, it was at a statelessness workshop and photography exhibition in Madrid, which coincided with a “study visit” from the Philippines Department of Justice, facilitated by UNHCR.  They had travelled to Spain (and subsequently to Hungary), with a view to learning about the operation of statelessness determination procedures. What is most commendable about the law which has now been passed establishing the Philippines’ Stateless Status Determination Procedure, is this: while clearly incorporating good practices drawn from Spain, Hungary and the handful of other countries where a procedure exists, the Philippines’ procedure has addressed some of the shortcomings that are found elsewhere. For instance, it has not mimicked Hungary’s restrictive approach of only accepting applications for stateless status determination from people already lawfully staying in the territory. Moreover, the Philippines’ law explicitly states that, following the lodging of an application for statelessness determination, “any proceeding for the deportation or exclusion of the Applicant and/or his or her dependents shall be suspended” and that an order may also be given to release the applicant from detention (section 7). The Philippines’ law can therefore be considered as something of an instant best practice, providing a more favourable regime than the handful of “older” statelessness specific procedures and following instead in the footsteps of other recently created mechanisms in Moldova and Georgia. It has evidently also drawn from the recent UNHCR guidelines on statelessness determination procedures and the status of a stateless person, reinforcing the approach that is recommended in these guidance documents.

Besides the aforementioned section on the question of deportation and detention, other noteworthy elements of the Philippines law include: a shared burden of proof whereby the applicant and the government protection officer “collaborate” to determine whether the person is stateless; a standard of proof that takes into account the difficulty of establishing beyond any doubt that the person is stateless and instead requires this to be established “to a reasonable degree”; an entitlement to legal counsel, to an interpreter, to access to UNHCR and to be interviewed (heard) during the procedure; an explicit right to residence for a person found to be stateless and his/her family members; and the right to receive a motivated decision in writing and to seek review of a negative decision. In addition, the law deals clearly and appropriately with the relationship between stateless and refugee status determination. Where it is discovered that “a refugee claim appears to exist” in relation to an applicant for stateless status, the investigation into possible refugee status takes priority and stateless determination is only picked up again if the person is found not to be a refugee or following cessation of refugee status. For good measure, the law also explicitly reaffirms that “in no case shall there be contact with the authorities of a foreign state [an important tool in stateless determination] where there is a claim of persecution” (section 31). Finally, with the entry into force of this law, the Philippines’ Refugee Protection Unit has been renamed to become the Refugee and Stateless Persons Protection Unit, in acknowledgement of the need to promote the visibility of both vulnerable groups.

There are, nevertheless, a few questions that the Philippines’ law does not address. Although it indicates that the nationality laws of a specific group of countries with which the applicant has a relevant link must be examined, and that the applicant has the obligation to submit “all relevant evidence reasonably available”, it does not detail which forms of evidence may be accepted. Nor does it suggest how such evidence should be weighed, if there is any contradiction, or what conclusions are to be drawn from the failure of a country to which the applicant has a relevant link to respond to questions regarding his or her nationality status. Furthermore, the law prescribes a 90-day timeframe for reaching a decision on an application for either refugee or stateless status – “unless there are reasonable grounds for an extended period”. While it is certainly commendable to aspire to achieve such quick decision-making – establishing a “fair, speedy and non-adversarial procedure” is the stated objective of the law – it remains to be seen whether this is a realistic goal in the context of stateless status determination and whether it will be possible for the applicant to establish his or her statelessness “to a reasonable degree” within this time. All of these procedural issues are, nevertheless, likely to be ironed out as the determination officers gain experience with the new procedure. The law provides sufficient flexibility for on the job learning and all of the most important elements in terms of guiding principles, procedural protections and the rights of the applicant are in place. I wish the officers of the newly renamed Refugee and Stateless Persons Protection Unit the best of luck with their work and I look forward to continuing to follow the Philippines’ journey into the field of statelessness in the years to come.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme.