GUEST POST: The issue of statelessness in Europe put forward at a Regional Session of the European Youth Parliament in Sweden

The 3rd Eastern Regional Session of the European Youth Parliament Sweden (EYP Sweden) took place in Stockholm on 22- 24 of November 2013.

This year EYP Sweden was organising a round of Regional Sessions across Sweden. One of them was the 3rd Eastern Regional Session that I had the honour to preside. This session stood out among the others first and foremost due to its theme: “The Right to Human Rights”. The situation of Syrian Refugees, LGBTI rights, gender violence, human trafficking in the EU and other topics were discussed during the session. Moreover, it was the first time when the topic of statelessness was put forward for discussions at an EYP event. In particular, the Committee on civil liberties, justice, and home affairs I (LIBE I) were confronted with the following question: “There is a nearly universal ratification by EU Member States of the 1954 Statelessness Convention relating to the status of stateless persons (Estonia, Cyprus, Malta and Poland are yet to sign it). Despite this, there remain an estimated 700,000 stateless persons living in Europe today. Only a handful of European States have functioning statelessness determination procedures in place, thus implementing their obligations. What steps should the EU take to improve the protection of stateless persons in Europe?”

The LIBE I Committee has suggested the following responses to the question above. The Committee emphasised the importance of raising awareness about statelessness in Europe through, among others, informative courses on statelessness as part of school programmes (for example, social science and history classes in educational curricula offered to high school students within EU Member States) and through the implementation of awareness campaigns via the use of social media and public debating. The Committee members also supported the establishment of NGOs with a specific focus on statelessness through the provision of respective financial and human resources on behalf of the EU.

Furthermore, Swedish youth called for a detailed analysis of the existing statelessness determination procedures with the aim of identifying the best practices and the potential of their further application in other EU Member States. Another issue discussed, but not mentioned in the Resolution was the issue of questioning the existing Conventions on statelessness, as well as the European Convention on Nationality. Committee members even discussed the idea of adopting a new European Convention that would solely focus on statelessness in Europe.

As a Member of the EYP and a PhD student with a focus on statelessness, I am very pleased with the outcome of the session, in particular with the fact that the issue of statelessness in Europe was raised, especially taking into consideration the launch of a pan-European campaign by the European Network on Statelessness to improve the protection of stateless persons in Europe in October this year. Hopefully, the topic of statelessness will be included into the agenda of more events of the European Youth Parliament in the future.

To see the full Resolution Booklet, please click here. 

Valeriia Cherednichenko, PhD Researcher in Advanced Studies in Human Rights at Charles III University of Madrid, Spain

European Youth Parliament is a non-partisan and independent educational project which is tailored specifically to the needs of the young European citizen. Today the EYP is one of the largest European platforms for political debate, intercultural encounters, political educational work and the exchange of ideas among young people in Europe. The EYP consists of a network of more than 35 European associations and organisations in which thousands of young people are active in a voluntary capacity. The entire network organises about 200 events every year. The EYP is a programme of the Schwarzkopf Foundation (please follow the link for more information http://www.eypej.org/ ).

Campaign for statelessness conventions gains traction, at last

The ‘statelessness conventions’, two little-known instruments that have long floated somewhere on the periphery of international law, are finally starting to command the attention that they deserve...

Closely related to, yet not really part of, either refugee law or human rights law, the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness did not initially make much of a splash after their adoption in 1954 and 1961 respectively. The 1954 Convention took twice the time to gather enough state parties to enter into force as compared to its sister instrument, the virtually identical 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Meanwhile, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness took a full twelve years to gather just six ratifications and enter into force. After this less-than-promising start, both conventions continued to lag far behind other international agreements in terms of accessions and remained woefully under-appreciated. And so it was with no false modesty or irony that the instruments were still being described as “orphan conventions” into the late 1990s. Recently, however, there has been growing interest in these two international agreements which are specifically designed to help states to protect stateless people and avoid cases of statelessness.

In fact, over the past decade or so, repeated calls have been made by a variety of international and regional bodies - including on numerous occasions by the UN General Assembly - for states to embrace the statelessness conventions. With this renaissance of interest in the issue and rediscovery of the conventions, accessions have also started to pick up significantly. This trend now looks set to continue as the campaign to raise awareness of and support for the statelessness convention starts to really gain traction, especially with regard to Europe. Already at the December 2011 Ministerial Meeting convened by UNHCR, over 30 states worldwide made pledges relating to accession to one or both conventions and many, including some European countries have already acted on these promises. Then, at a similar UN high level meeting dedicated to the Rule of Law, there were further encouraging signs, in particular the pledge by the Delegation of the European Union on behalf of the EU Member States. This included the explicit and concrete statement that “the EU Member States which have not yet done so pledge to address the issue of statelessness by ratifying the 1954 UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and by considering the ratification of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness” (pledge 4).

This recent EU pledge confirms the position of the statelessness conventions at the heart of the international legal framework for tackling statelessness – EU countries pledge to address the issue by signing up to these instruments. This sends a strong signal to governments elsewhere about the value of these conventions, regardless of their somewhat chequered history. A close inspection of how this statement has been formulated suggests a slightly stronger commitment to the 1954 convention, which serves as the foundation for identifying and protecting stateless people. This is perhaps unsurprising given that the European Union has already achieved near-universal accession to this instrument, with just a handful of states still needing to take action. Still, the promise that universal acceptance of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons in the European Union will be met is significant. The instrument is pivotal to the protection of non-refugee stateless people and once all EU member states become parties, this will help to raise the profile of statelessness in the region and may provide a new avenue for instigating a Europe-wide dialogue on the implementation of states’ obligations towards the stateless.

At the same time, it is also promising that EU member states have collectively pledged to “consider” acceding to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. It is true that Europe already has its own, relatively strong, regional framework for the coordination of nationality policy and the avoidance of statelessness – provided by the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, the 2006 Council of Europe Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in relation to State succession and a range of related recommendations. Yet, there are still numerous EU member states which have not adopted these regional standards. And even if they were embraced across Europe, the 1961 Convention remains an important counterpart for this framework at the global level. It contains highly similar safeguards for the avoidance of statelessness and even provides a stronger guarantee with regard to acquisition of nationality at birth where a child would otherwise be stateless. Therefore, by also committing to universal accession of this second instrument, EU member states send a strong message to - and set a good example for - countries elsewhere about taking and sharing responsibility for ensuring that no-one is left without a nationality in this day and age. It remains to be seen within what timeframe these pledges will become a reality.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme

This blog also appears on the website of the European Network on Statelessness

GUEST POST: Statelessness - any attention at the national level?

Different international obligations have been established in order to address the problem of statelessness, mainly by the 1954 United Nations (UN) Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Even though a growing number of states is committing to these obligations by acceding to the aforementioned treaties, a question that is often raised is whether states actually follow through and adhere to their obligation to prevent and reduce statelessness, and protect stateless persons at the national level. As part of my research regarding statelessness and statelessness determination – in my view an important first step in adequately protecting stateless persons in practice at the national level – in the European Union (EU), I therefore decided to test to what extent national legislation of EU member states actually pays any attention to statelessness. I did so by undertaking a small study into references to statelessness in the main laws regarding nationality/citizenship of three randomly selected EU member states: Czech Republic, Italy and Luxembourg. Of these countries, only Czech Republic is a States Party to the 1954 and 1961 Conventions; Italy and Luxembourg have both only ratified the 1954 Convention. What furthermore should be noted is that this study is not only limited by the small number of countries included, but also in the sense that only references to statelessness in the main nationality laws of these countries are considered. This approach was chosen because statelessness is closely linked to nationality, as the lack of this is statelessness. Despite these limitations, I still think my findings give an impression of whether states actually take statelessness into account at the domestic level. This preliminary research can also uncover whether it would be of interest to undertake a more elaborate study into references to statelessness in the domestic legislation of all EU member states in order to find good and bad practices in dealing with the different aspects of statelessness. My findings were as follows:

Czech Republic

The Czech Act to regulate the Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship refers to statelessness several times. With a view to prevention of statelessness, it provides that a child born on the territory of Czech Republic shall acquire Czech citizenship if its parents are stateless and at least one of them has permanent residence on the territory. Here, a definition of a stateless person is given as well: “a natural person without citizenship”. Furthermore, the issue of statelessness is acknowledged in naturalization and application procedures in the Czech Republic. Whenever certain documents are needed to prove that someone will lose his or her current/previous nationality with the acquisition of Czech citizenship, the Act provides for an exemption with the words “unless the person is a stateless person or a person with refugee status in the territory of the Czech Republic”. 

Italy

The Italian Citizenship Law No. 91 of 5 February 1992 (Law No. 91/92) elaborates on Italian citizenship and mentions statelessness. Again a preventive clause regarding statelessness is provided for, as any person who was born in Italian territory, of whom either both parents are unknown or stateless, or where he or she does not acquire his or her parents’ citizenship according to the law of the state to which the latter belong shall be considered an Italian citizen by birth. There are also some more specific provisions regarding stateless persons with Italian ancestors, and for spouses. A more general reference to statelessness concerns stateless persons who are legally resident in Italy – establishing that they shall be subject to Italian law insofar as the exercise of civil rights and the performance of military duties are concerned. This means that legally resident stateless persons can enjoy civil rights and be protected in this sense. From this, it can also be assumed that there is some way to be legally resident in Italy as a stateless person. Both protection and prevention thus seem to be covered in some way by the Italian law regarding citizenship.

Luxembourg

The Law on Luxembourg Nationality is active in the prevention of statelessness by providing that all children born in Luxembourg who have no nationality because their parents are stateless shall acquire Luxembourg nationality through birth. This kind of attention to statelessness can also been seen when the lineage of a child to a Luxembourg parent has not been established prior to him or her reaching the age of 18 years. Normally, a child would lose Luxembourg nationality in this case, unless the other parent possesses the status of Luxembourger or when the child would become stateless. Statelessness is also considered in the context of withdrawing Luxembourg nationality where it was obtained through fraudulent procedures: withdrawal is impossible if this would render the person concerned stateless. In the provisions regarding naturalization, however, no reference to statelessness is to be found. Still, Luxembourg laws clearly try to prevent statelessness, which should be commended.

Though this is only a limited study of references to statelessness in domestic laws of EU member states, some conclusions can be drawn. First of all, it is clear that there definitely are such references to be found – at least in the three countries studied – and that states do pay attention to statelessness at the domestic level. Secondly, the laws studied take statelessness into account in different ways, but certainly all have an interest in preventing statelessness. This could be expected because the rules studied are those dealing with access to nationality. Yet this might imply that in other laws, for example regarding aliens or refugees, references regarding the protection of stateless persons are also included. Overall I think this little piece of research shows that the implementation of the international obligations regarding statelessness at the national level is in need of further inquiry. Also, it demonstrates that states have already taken an interest in the issue of statelessness and sought to address certain problems through their laws. States should therefore be encouraged to join the international treaties on statelessness, and for States Parties to the conventions, guidelines, such as the Guidelines that are being issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), that clarify the commitments and provide guidance in designing the appropriate domestic legislation are important for adequate implementation. Greater attention for the issue and more research will remain key in this process.

Caia Vlieks, Research Master Student, Tilburg Law School