UNHCR Statelessness Research Award interviews... Eva Mrekajová

 

In this series of blog posts, we will be asking the students honoured in this year's UNHCR Award for Statelessness Research about their experiences studying the phenomenon on statelessness and their research findings. First up is Eva Mrekajová, whose Master of Laws thesis on the "Naturalization of Stateless Persons", written at Tilburg University, won Joint Best Research in the Graduate Category.

1.     Could you summarise, in 2 or 3 sentences, what your research was about?

Firstly, I tried to identify international obligations of states relating to attribution of nationality via naturalization and to formulate international and European standards for facilitated access to citizenship for stateless persons. Secondly, in light of these standards, I was comparing national regimes of three states – Estonia, Hungary and Slovakia - and in particular, material and procedural aspects of naturalization. Finally, I briefly discussed the potential of facilitated naturalization as an effective measure against statelessness.

 

2.     What first got you interested in the problem of statelessness?

Statelessness was for me a totally new area when it firstly caught my attention. Tilburg University, where I completed my LL.M. programme, runs a Statelessness Research Programme and that is how I started to be interested in the issue. And because statelessness as a global phenomenon is still a relatively underresearched area, it poses many interesting questions which still are to be answered.

 

3.     Why did you choose this particular research topic?

I was looking for a topic which would be sufficiently narrowed down and at the same time new enough to allow me to contribute to the existing body of research. I found the concept of facilitated naturalization of stateless persons to be just this topic. Naturalization of stateless persons has the potential of being a durable solution for statelessness, but the duty of facilitated naturalization under international law is very soft, and there are no clear guidelines explaining what actually amounts to facilitated naturalization. States therefore need to be informed and become aware of possible difficulties the stateless persons may face to become more encouraged to facilitate the procedure. This was the goal of my research.

 

4.     Could you briefly describe how you went about your research? E.g. did you base it on existing sources – and were they easy to find? Did you do fieldwork or interviews – and what was that like?

First of all, is important to mention that there had never been done separate research on the issue, so I worked mainly with sources relating to statelessness and nationality law as such, as well as national legislation and international documents. Moreover, the second part of my research, the comparative study of the national regimes, was conducted also in cooperation with national experts in the form of interviews and consultations. I have to say that I highly appreciated their willigness to contribute to my research because it was particulalry this cooperation which helped me to fully understand the nationality law and practise relating to naturalization in all states, what was crucial for my research.

 

5.     What was the greatest challenge you had to deal with in undertaking your research?

The most challenging was to work out the approach to presenting the findings of the comparative part. I was looking for some visual way to do that. Finally, thanks to Vadim Poleshchuk, nationality expert from Estonia, I started to work with MIPEX 2010 Indicators, which I adjusted to be able to assess particular national regimes and to draft corresponding radar charts. I believe that this helped me to present my findings in a very clear and comprehensive way.

 

6.     Could you briefly summarise your main findings or conclusions – or what you think is the most important outcome of your research?

It is important to realize that the obligation to protect stateless persons and to reduce statelessness may be derived not only from international instruments dealing explicitly with this issue but indirectly also from human rights law. The right to nationality, together with the obligation to avoid statelessness and prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of citizenship consequently strengthen the obligation to facilitate access to citizenship. However, the practical application and enforcement of facilitated naturalization of stateless persons may be further influenced by political, historical and psychological aspects. Therefore, it is not always the most effective solution and other options should be considered depending on the source of statelessness and the context of a particular society. Nevertheless, I do think that facilitated naturalization could be one approach to reducing statelessness and it can be a good one, especially if applied as part of a complex policy of reduction of statelessness, in accordance with international standards.

 

7.     Have you found it rewarding to research statelessness – why / why not?

I enjoyed my research for two main reasons: due to the lack of other substantive research on the issue I had enough space to present my own assessments and conclusions, which was particularly rewarding, because I saw how much knowledge I gained about the issue since the beginning of my research. Secondly, I enjoyed very much the communication with all the experts I contacted and the cooperation with my thesis supervisor, which were both not only immensely helpful but also inspiring, considering their knowledge and experience.

 

8.     What tips would you give to students who are getting involved in statelessness research to help them? E.g. are there particular questions you think they should be looking at or methodological issues they should consider?

My general advice would be to find a topic you can relate to, especially if you are just delving into the problem of statelessness. That was why I decided to frame my research for European countries. In my opinion, it is simply not enough to just read the particular law, it is also important to fully understand the setting in which it operates, which in many cases means to understand fully also its political and historical background. Not considering these may leave the research findings flat and distorted.

 

Eva Mrekajová, originally from Slovakia, obtained the LLM International and European Public Law Degree with Human rights specialization from Tilburg University where she graduated cum laude in July 2012 as a recipient of Tilburg University Scholarship for Academic Excellence. In addition, she has a Master Degree in Law from Comenius University in Bratislava. Later, she completed a traineeship at the Research and Documentation Directorate at the Court of Justice of the European Union, where she subsequently stayed as an administrator for Slovak law for two more months. Currently she is interning at the Statelessness Unit of the Department of International Protection at the UNHCR HQ in Geneva. Besides she is working on various projects reflecting her main areas of interest, namely, the right to education, protection of minorities and different aspects of migration.

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