Why a campaign to end statelessness matters

Dear friends and colleagues,

It is not easy to imagine what life would be like if you did not hold any nationality. In fact, it is not easy to even imagine this even being possible. Everyone has a birthplace, a family, a home, a community: surely everyone has a nationality? Sadly, no. Millions of people around the world are stateless. They are perpetual foreigners, disenfranchised, not recognised as or able to exercise the rights of citizens in any country. This is a serious problem – for those affected, but also for those of us who do enjoy a nationality and can make a difference, as people who care about and want our children to grow up in a free, fair, safe and democratic world.

We welcome, admire and support the ambitious campaign launched today by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to end statelessness by 2024. Statelessness fundamentally and unequivocally deserves more attention than it has received to date and the time has come for it to take its rightful place amongst other pressing and worrying issues that are already vying for international attention. We are not powerless in the face of statelessness. Citizenship is our own modern-day creation and we set the rules. Bad laws can be amended. Discriminatory policies can be repealed. We believe that with greater awareness of the issue, stronger collaboration and a firm commitment to act, statelessness can be solved. Indeed, we not only believe that statelessness can be tackled, we believe that it must. Statelessness matters, to all of us, for many reasons. Here are just some of them…

If people matter…

Stateless persons are among the world’s most vulnerable. They are seen and treated as foreigners by every country in the world, including the country in which they were born, the country of their ancestors, the country of their residence, the country they happen to find themselves in today and any country they may find themselves expelled to tomorrow. Stateless persons face an extreme form of exclusion that impacts their sense of dignity and identity, as well as their ability to do all sorts of everyday things that most of us take for granted, like go to school, get a job, be treated by a doctor, get married or travel. So, if people matter, statelessness matters.

If children matter…

Many of the world’s stateless persons are children. In fact, in every region of the world, children continue to be born into statelessness and grow up never knowing the protection and recognition that comes with a nationality. Some children inherit their statelessness from stateless parents, creating an intergenerational problem. Others aren’t able to acquire their parents’ or any other nationality due to discriminatory laws and policies or the failure of governments to implement simple legal safeguards that prevent childhood statelessness. Without a nationality, children can have difficulty exercising their rights, become outcasts in their own country, struggle to feel like they belong and grow up to be disenfranchised and excluded adults. So, if children matter, statelessness matters.

If human rights matter…

The contemporary human rights framework is premised on notions of equality, liberty, dignity and universality: we all hold basic rights because we are human beings. But the human rights system also recognises that states may reserve some rights for their citizens, such as the right to vote or be elected, placing these out of reach for stateless people. And in practice, statelessness is a proven barrier to the exercise a wide range of other rights. So the very universality of human right rests on the premise that everyone enjoys a nationality – laid down, for that reason, as a right in most major human rights instruments. Until statelessness is eradicated, the fundamental aspiration of universal human rights remains just that, an aspiration. So, if human rights matter, statelessness matters.

If development matters…

Difficulties accessing education and employment; restricted property rights; lack of opportunities to own or register a business; limited access to a bank account or a loan; and, in some cases, the threat of extortion, detention or expulsion; these factors can trap stateless persons in poverty and make it extremely challenging for them to improve their circumstances. Where statelessness affects whole communities over several successive generations – as it often sadly does – such communities can be neglected by development actors and processes. Statelessness means a waste, of individual potential, of human capital and of development opportunities. So, if development matters, statelessness matters.

If democracy matters…

Nationality is the gateway to political participation. Stateless persons have no right to vote, stand for election or effect change through regular political channels. Their statelessness suppresses their voices and renders their opinions obsolete. In countries with large stateless populations, whole sectors of the constituency are disenfranchised. Elsewhere, statelessness is a tool in the arsenal of those who would seek to manipulate the democratic process, with deprivation of nationality a means of silencing the opposition. To ensure a level and inclusive democratic playing field, stateless persons must also be heard. So, if democracy matters, statelessness matters.

If addressing displacement matters…

Statelessness is a recognised root cause of forced displacement, with stateless persons fleeing their homes and often countries in order to find protection elsewhere. Preventing cases of statelessness is vital for the prevention of refugee flows – a link that has been a key motivation for UNHCR to further operationalise its statelessness mandate and now call to end statelessness. Addressing nationality disputes and tackling statelessness where it arises can also be a key tool in resolving existing refugee situations because it can pave the way for successful voluntary repatriation and reintegration. So, if addressing displacement matters, statelessness matters.

If peace and security matter…

The vulnerability, exclusion, despair, frustration and sometimes persecution experienced by stateless persons can spark other problems. Casting a group as “others” or “outsiders” by denying them access to nationality – in spite of clear and lasting ties to the country – can contribute to attitudes of suspicion and discrimination. This can cause a dangerous build-up of tension within and between communities that may lead to conflict. Disputes surrounding nationality, membership, belonging and entitlement can also hamper peace-building efforts. So, if peace and security matter, statelessness matters.

If size matters…

Many millions of people are affected by statelessness around the world today. UNHCR estimates that there are at least 10 million stateless persons under its mandate and if stateless refugees and stateless Palestinians under UN Relief and Works Agency mandate are added to this tally, the figure is higher still. This means that there are enough stateless persons to create a medium-sized country (although this is not suggested as a solution). Moreover, these numbers do not include the many more who feel the impact of statelessness, for instance because a close family member lacks any nationality. So, if size matters, statelessness matters.

What can you do?

The launch of the campaign led by the UNHCR to end statelessness by 2024 is a great opportunity to reach out to all individuals, communities and organisations, who have it within their capacity to help address statelessness. Please take a moment to reflect on statelessness and its many impacts. Is it relevant to your field of work? Does it affect people in your country? Do people near you experience the vulnerability and exclusion of statelessness?

Sign up to UNHCR’s #ibelong campaign to end statelessness: http://ibelong.unhcr.org/. Start a conversation, discuss the issue, raise awareness and try to use your position and expertise to help. Share this note on ‘Why Statelessness Matters’ with people in your network; watch and share this short video too. If you would like to learn more about statelessness, if you want to do something but are not sure what, or if you are looking for partners to collaborate with, get in touch with us and we will try to help.  If you think your organisation can better integrate statelessness into its work but would like to brainstorm ideas to make this happen, we will support you. If you want to further study the link between your field of expertise and statelessness, we welcome your plans. Together, we can end statelessness. We can also, in the interim, protect and include the stateless. This issue matters.

Amal de Chickera, Laura van Waas and Zahra Albarazi – Founders of the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion

The Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion is a newly established, independent non-profit organisation dedicated to leading an integrated, inter-disciplinary response to the injustice of statelessness and exclusion. In December 2014, the Institute will release its first publication, “The World’s Stateless”, assessing the challenge of ending statelessness by 2024 by taking a closer look at what we know (and what we don’t know) about who is stateless and where. To find out more or support the Institute’s work, please visit www.InstituteSI.org or contact us at info@InstituteSI.org.  

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

What connects Tom Hanks, Osama Bin Laden and Albert Einstein?

On the 10^th of December every year, Tilburg University joins many other organisations and individuals around the world to celebrate Human Rights Day: the day on which, in 1948, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was signed and the modern human rights era was born. A symposium is convened on campus, where a human rights topic is explored and the ‘Max van der Stoel Award’ for best dissertation in the field of human rights is presented. In 2013, the Statelessness Programme was invited to provide the substance for the Human Rights Day symposium and give the audience an insight into the lives of stateless people. Honoured to be asked and excited by the challenge of summarising the experience of statelessness just half an hour, my colleague Zahra Albarazi and I set to work and came up with the following provocative question around which to construct our presentation: “What connects Tom Hanks, Osama Bin Laden and Albert Einstein?” For those who were unable to attend the Human Rights Day event in Tilburg, here’s a brief run-down of the answer to that question… 
[Click on the youtube links to watch the short clips we showed the audience on the day]


Now, it is important to note at the outset of this blog that these three names have been put together in a single sentence for the sole purpose of explaining about the different ways in which people can become affected by statelessness. We are not by any means suggesting that they are otherwise in any way alike or share anything else in common. Nor, to be entirely accurate, are we actually implying that Tom Hanks is or was himself a stateless person. Rather, in one of his film roles, he played the stateless Victor Navorski and it is with Victor’s story that we opened the symposium.

“Currently, you are a citizen of nowhere… You don't qualify for asylum, refugee status, temporary protective status, humanitarian parole, or non-immigration work travel. You don't qualify for any of these. You are at this time simply... unacceptable.” 

In the film ‘The Terminal’, after demonstrating the demise of his country by bursting a bag of crisps with an apple (really!), this is how the Director of Customs and Border Protection (played by Stanley Tucci) explains to Victor Navorksi (played by Tom Hanks) why he is stuck at JFK Airport. The extract from the film where this happens – a fascinating, entertaining and immediately heart-wrenching two and a half minute scene – is perhaps one of the best introductions to the world of statelessness and a fantastic teaching resource. Very quickly, it (roughly) explains how the break-up of a state can leave a person stateless without them asking for it, doing anything or even knowing that it has happened. This gives an immediate insight into one of the most significant causes of statelessness globally, state succession, which has left many hundreds of thousands of people stateless – including in Europe, following the dissolution of the USSR and Yugoslavia. The same extract also provides a simple and compelling description of a stateless person: “a citizen of nowhere”, a reasonably sound summary of the international legal definition (i.e. “a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law”). But perhaps most importantly, the Director of Customs and Border Protection’s reels off in his little speech all the forms of protection status which a non-national may qualify for in order to be allowed to enter or reside in the US before being forced to conclude that Victor Navorski does not qualify for any of them. There is no tool in his arsenal for dealing with cases like Victor’s, which is why Victor is simply left to fend for himself in the international departures lounge of JFK Airport – prohibited from entering the United States but also unable to board a plane and leave. The JFK departures lounge becomes a very apt metaphor for the real-life limbo in which many stateless people are trapped precisely because many countries do not have a special protection status for stateless people who they encounter in the migration context. While most do not live at airports, the reality is that many are considered “unacceptable” and are forced to somehow find a way to survive without being allowed to enter, reside or work in the country they are in, but also without the alternative of return or onward travel to any other country. This problem lies at the heart of the debate about and emergence of dedicated statelessness protection regimes, as seen recently for instance in the United Kingdom.  

To take the story of statelessness out of the realms of fiction, we followed the extract from the Terminal with two short video clips about Mikhail Sebastian, whose predicament was once described as “a sweaty Pacific island version of ‘The Terminal’”. Mikhail became stateless following the break-up of the USSR and has lived in the United States since 1995. In December 2011, he travelled to American Samoa for what was meant to be a short holiday, but when it came time to go home to Los Angeles, he was prevented from doing so by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. In this video (first 2.20 minutes), Mikhail explains how he became trapped: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dol2QbNWfs.

Eventually, after more than a year stuck on the island and after significant media attention was devoted to his story, student groups mobilised on his behalf and lawyers argued his case, Mikhail was allowed to return to the United States and pick up the threads of his life there. But his statelessness remains unresolved and he continues to face all sorts of restrictions and has to deal with tiresome bureaucracy. As he explains (minute 4.15 to 5.30) in this film, Mikhail would dearly love to become a citizen and officially belong somewhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4zELYdyXpY.

Back to the main question of the symposium: what connects Tom Hanks, Osama Bin Laden and Albert Einstein? Next up is Osama Bin Laden. A lesser-known fact about this now deceased, notorious international terrorist is that he was stripped of his Saudi Arabian citizenship in the 1990s, in response to his vocal criticism of the ruling regime, rendering him stateless. While Bin Laden’s case is unlikely to evoke concern or compassion, his story is nevertheless illustrative of another wider scenario in which statelessness emerges. Citizenship policy is, at times, used as a political tool: wielded in order to silence opposition voices or disqualify a political opponent from running for election. The latest backdrop against which such policy has emerged is that of the Arab Spring, where vocal critics of the ruling powers have become targets for denationalisation, often leading to statelessness. This 2-minute news item on Al Jazeera that we showed at the symposium illustrates the problem with the story of two Bahraini brothers who were stripped of their citizenship in late 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRiizGbNL24. The story of the Fairouz brothers is particularly compelling because they used to be Members of Parliament. From using their citizenship rights to the full – exercising the right to be elected and representing other citizens – they are now citizens of nowhere, stateless. There’s a lesson there about never taking your nationality for granted.

The final story of statelessness selected for our Human Rights Day symposium was introduced through the example of Albert Einstein. Einstein was stateless for five years at the end of the 19^th century, after renouncing his German nationality. Although Einstein initiated his own statelessness and it was short-lived thanks to his naturalisation as a Swiss citizen (and later also as a US national), his story is inextricably tied to the plight of the German Jews under the Nazi regime. Einstein became a refugee in the 1930s and worked tirelessly on behalf of other German Jews. The large-scale denationalisation of Jewish exiles and refugees was one of the tools used by the Nazi regime in its persecution of this population, which brings us to one of the darkest manifestations of statelessness: that caused by the deliberate, discriminatory and en masse deprivation of nationality. In spite of the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality, laid down 65 years ago in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights precisely because of the dangers inherent in the manipulation of nationality policy by those in power, instances of collective denationalisation have continued. Today, a key characteristic of a population commonly described as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world, the Rohingya, is that they were rendered stateless through arbitrary deprivation of their nationality. We used this two and a half minute video about the exhibition of a photography project on the Rohingya, by Greg Constantine, at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC in November 2013 to explain the story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddu5VethFu4.

This is how, through the exploitation of loose affiliations to Tom Hanks, Osama Bin Laden and Albert Einstein, we demonstrated some of the ways in which statelessness can strike – affecting different people, for different reasons, with different consequences. Given the setting of a Human Rights Day symposium, we chose to end on the screening one further short video, from a project that the Statelessness Programme was involved in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ_Y0hW3DdA. The story of Um Chadi, who Zahra met in her home in Jordan and interviewed for a project with the Women’s Refugee Commission, says it all: if you are concerned about human rights, you should be concerned about statelessness. The human impact is real and significant.   

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager of the Statelessness Programme

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/ ).

ENS launches Good Practices Guide on Statelessness Determination and Protection to Mark International Human Rights Day

The European Network on Statelessness (ENS) celebrated International Human Rights Day yesterday, by launching its inaugural publication “Statelessness Determination and the Protection Status of Stateless Persons: a Summary Guide of Good Practices and Factors to Consider when Designing National Determination and Protection Mechanisms”. Stateless people are a particularly vulnerable group when it comes to the ability to exercise human rights, and determination procedures are key to their effective protection in a migratory context. This ENS guide serves as a tool for civil society advocates lobbying for and states considering the establishment of domestic statelessness determination procedures and protection mechanisms.

On this the 20th anniversary year of the establishment of the mandate of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Human Rights Day has been themed “20 Years: Working for Your Rights”, but with an emphasis on the future and challenges that lie ahead. The task of looking back over 20 years of endeavour and achievement in the human rights field and drawing on this foundation to plan for future challenges resonates strongly with statelessness as an issue, the development of ENS and its recently launched campaign to improve protection for stateless persons in Europe. The publication of the good practices guide is a key component of one of the campaign’s two primary objectives, namely that all European states take steps to introduce statelessness determination procedures.

Twenty years ago, statelessness was a well hidden and poorly understood issue. As the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) began to actively explore its statelessness mandate and as academics and NGOs began to grapple with the issue, our collective understanding of the extent of statelessness and its human impact evolved, enabling us to respond more effectively to the challenge of statelessness. Over these past 20 years, statelessness has ceased to be perceived purely as a complex legal anomaly and been re-characterised as fundamentally a human rights issue that must be addressed through both the human rights framework and international statelessness mechanisms. This joined up thinking as well as efforts to understand the impact of statelessness on related fields such as development, healthcare, economics, humanitarian aid and security (to name but a few) has the potential to greatly strengthen the statelessness movement, and to draw in new and important allies from other disciplines. The growth of expertise and interest in statelessness over the past two decades is well reflected in the ENS story, which germinated as an idea in 2010, evolved into an informal discussion between a few organisations in 2011 and today is a fully functional civil society network with over 50 member organisations in more than 30 European countries. 

The identification of stateless persons is an important process, necessary to ensure compliance both with the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and with international human rights law. The state obligation to not discriminate against stateless persons, for example, can only be fully complied with if states know who the stateless are among their populations. The failure to implement fair, accessible, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary determination procedures that comply with substantive and procedural standards under international law would result in people not being appropriately identified as stateless and consequently being denied the human rights protection they are entitled to.

Twenty years ago, only two countries (France and Italy) had procedures in place to identify and protect the stateless. Today, there are twelve such states, with several others having made pledges in this regard. The ENS Guide looks at these twelve states, at UNHCR and expert guidance and at international law, to tease out good practices that states about to implement new procedures should consider adapting and replicating. Consequently, it is an exercise in the discipline of looking back in order to plan for the future – which goes to the very core of the theme of this year’s celebration.

Looking forward to the next few years of the human rights journey, ENS remains committed to addressing statelessness in Europe and globally. The identification of stateless persons is a crucial first step towards protection, and ENS hopes this Guide will contribute to the growing human rights movement to protect the stateless and end statelessness in the future.

 The ENS Good Practice Guide is available on the ENS website at  http://www.statelessness.eu/resources/ens-good-practice-guide-statelessness-determination-and-protection-status-stateless  and a print copy can be requested by emailing ENS Coordinator Chris Nash at info@statelessness.eu

[This blog originally appeared on 10 December 2013 on the website of the European Network on Statelessness, www.statelessness.eu] 

"Nationality Matters", 5 years on: how far statelessness has travelled

Exactly five years ago today, I found myself in the main auditorium of Tilburg University, wearing a brand new dress, armed with a hot-off-the-press copy of my PhD manuscript “Nationality Matters”, ready to take the final step towards earning my ‘Dr’ title. In front of family, friends and colleagues, I stood on the podium, tackling questions on my research from a committee of professors who were clad in the traditional gowns of academia and who protocol dictated I address as “highly esteemed opponent”. I have no recollection now of either what was asked or what I answered, but I do remember the buzz that it gave me to – finally, in my eyes – have a truly captive audience for a discussion on ‘my’ topic and passion: statelessness. According to the rules in place in Tilburg, the examining committee and I, as well as our audience, would only be released from the task of exploring my research findings once a full 45 minutes had passed and the officiator (the “beadle”) re-entered the auditorium to strike the floor with the ceremonial staff he has charge of for this purpose and call an end to the proceedings. Although this is perhaps not the experience of everyone who has stood in my shoes and defended their PhD, I really enjoyed it! After 4 years of hard work, these 45 minutes were just the opportunity I had been waiting for to try to win some fresh hearts and minds on the issue. Thinking back to it today makes me smile.

What makes me smile more is thinking about all of the things that have happened since. I would be the first to admit that statelessness has not been resolved – far from it – and we are facing new and severe crises in terms of guaranteeing that stateless people are protected (think of the deterioration of the situation of stateless people in Myanmar) and ensuring that statelessness is avoided (think of the recent Constitutional Court ruling in the Dominican Republic that may create thousands of new cases). Yet the context in which this is happening, and even the very awareness that it is happening and that it is a problem, is very different today. Momentum to address statelessness has built in a manner I did not and could not have foreseen on the day I defended my PhD research. For example…

Growing the circle of ‘friends of statelessness’

While certainly not alone in my concern for statelessness over the course of my PhD project nor at its conclusion in 2008, there were only really a very small number of people worldwide who were interested or able to dedicate a significant amount of time and attention to the issue. Today, statelessness is no longer a lonely profession. All around the world students, activists, lawyers, policy makers and others are taking up the cause. Staffing within the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – the UN agency mandated by the General Assembly to address statelessness – is indicative of this trend. In my PhD I bemoaned the fact that of a 6000-strong staff, less than a handful were dedicated to statelessness. Five years on and the team at headquarters level has expanded in size, regional officers have been posted to help to coordinate and support work on statelessness in five major regions of the world, many national offices have dedicated staff and agency-wide there is far greater awareness of and capacity to contribute to statelessness work thanks to a concerted effort to hundreds more staff on the issue. Within civil society, there has also been a transformation, from a situation in which a few isolated individuals and organisations had devoted themselves to the unenviable task of dragging the issue out of obscurity, initiatives are now mushrooming. Within Europe, this engagement is even starting to take on a new level of sophistication. A region-wide coalition of civil society actors launched in the summer of 2012 – the European Network on Statelessness – has rapidly grown to an 80-member strong network and is already embarking on its first pan-European, coordinated campaign.

Embracing the UN statelessness conventions

The focus of my PhD research was the international legal framework relevant to addressing statelessness, placing centre-stage the two UN conventions that have been specifically designed for the purposes of responding to statelessness (deconstructing and contrasting these against norms found within international human rights law). Described, by UNHCR as recently as 1999, as “orphan conventions”, the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness were certainly largely unknown, much less appreciated international law tools. Again I am reminded by my own manuscript that at the time of publication in 2008, these conventions had just 62 and 34 state parties respectively. Today, 5 years on, the tally has climbed to 79 and 54. These numbers may still fail to impress those who are used to the ratification figures for instruments like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (187 state parties) or the Convention on the Rights of the Child (193 state parties). Nevertheless, when put in perspective, the upward curve in accessions is significant. For instance, consider the fact that it took the 1961 Convention 40 years to gather its first twenty state parties and now it has achieved the same in just the last five years. It is no wonder that UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres has described these developments as “unprecedented” and the public expressions of commitment by states to statelessness through these and other channels as a “quantum leap” for the issue. Having often wondered, during the tougher days of my PhD project, whether there was a point to poring over the text and interpretation of two old and neglected international treaties, it is particularly rewarding to see that their enduring value is not just being recognised, but also seized upon, as a way for states to reinvigorate their efforts to tackle the problem of statelessness.  

Welcoming much-needed conceptual guidance

… Throughout my PhD research there was one particular challenge that I kept coming back to, again and again: the question of what exactly the scope of the definition of a stateless person is and how this definition should be applied in practice to identify whether a particular individual is stateless. While this was not ultimately central to answering my research question, it is something that nagged at me. I clearly remember feeling frustrated by the absence of the kind of core conceptual guidance on these questions that exists, for example, in the field of refugee law. In the end, I included a comment to this effect in my conclusion, suggesting that further clarification was sorely needed on these and other aspects of statelessness law and that UNHCR should lead this process. Five years on and UNHCR is well on its way to elaborating a handbook on statelessness! It has already issued highly informative guidelines on the definition of a stateless person, how to go about the process of identification/determination of statelessness and what status a stateless person should enjoy in accordance with international obligations. There is even guidance on how the safeguards to prevent statelessness at birth must be interpreted and implemented; and soon there will be a clarification of the norms and standards around loss and deprivation of nationality. To someone like me, who struggled alone in an office with a whiteboard and marker, scribbling and re-scribbling ideas/diagrams/flowcharts to try to make sense of it all, the issuance of this much-needed guidance is perhaps the greatest and most significant change. We now have a shared understanding as our starting point and a very well-crafted set of documents that lay the conceptual foundations for anyone who wants to provide training, undertake research or engage in debate on statelessness issues. I have had the pleasure of being involved in many rewarding statelessness activities since completing my PhD and it would be difficult to pick a particular one that stands out from among them. However, I feel particularly privileged to have been able to participate in the expert meetings held to date, the conclusions of which informed the subsequent UNHCR guidelines – and some of my fondest statelessness memories are of collectively thrashing out, once and for all, these fascinating conceptual questions.

Setting bold ambitions for the future

… I also have the sense that, for want of a better way to describe it, the language of statelessness has changed over the last five years. Where once people were almost apologetic about raising the issue or mentioning the relevant conventions at events or in publications, given the above developments there is now a sense that statelessness has earned its place on the agenda and it is spoken about with greater confidence. There is also much more and more diverse information, research, stakeholders, activities, etc regarding statelessness. With the broader engagement of actors, wider acknowledgement of the issue and the relevance of the international framework, clearer conceptual understanding and increase in confidence, it feels as though there is also a shift in ambition. Perhaps the boldest expression of this new level of ambition is the explicit call made by UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, to the agency’s executive body to work to eradicate statelessness, in a decade. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muiznieks, has said that there should be no stateless children in Europe. Just this month, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon reportedly called for an end to statelessness ahead of a visit to Latvia, where almost 300,000 people are still without a nationality. Every year since I started my research, but especially in the last five years, I have watched closely as bigger, bolder and more exciting initiatives have unfolded. Certainly, there is no more question as to whether statelessness is an issue in its own right: it is and more must and will be done.

These are just a few reflections on how far statelessness has travelled in just five years – there is undoubtedly plenty more to say on the matter. These comments should not by any means be mistaken as insinuating that the change has come about because of the publication of my PhD. To the contrary, I am grateful that the issue ‘found’ me at the time that it did and that I have been able to watch and where possible contribute to some of these developments. Statelessness remains, 5 years on from that exciting day in Tilburg University’s auditorium and almost 10 years on from the day I first crossed paths with the issue, an intrinsically fascinating, intellectually stimulating, deeply moving and truly rewarding problem to work on.

A single regret

On this personal statelessness anniversary, as I reacquaint myself with my own PhD manuscript and think back to where my journey started, I have just one regret in terms of the path that I have chosen. It was the simple story of a worried father and a baby without a nationality that first spurred my interest in the topic. Had I never met this man – a client at the local refugee advice centre where I was volunteering at the time – and heard about his son, I would never have picked statelessness as the focus of my PhD. I am very grateful to this family for opening my eyes to an issue I had previously never contemplated or even heard of and my one regret is not being conscious of the significance of the encounter at the time. Because of that, I quickly lost touch of them and didn’t follow up on their story, so I am ignorant as to if and how it was resolved. I am also very conscious now of the fact that I also did not have the appropriate knowledge or understanding of the issue at the time to know how to help. Still, perhaps instead I can offer their story again here, as told in the opening of my PhD, in the hope that it may help others to understand my first answer to the question “why statelessness?” and perhaps inspire more people to be compassionate towards or even take up the cause of the stateless…

This is the story of the first stateless person I knew:

Once upon a time, in a town in the Southeast of the Netherlands, a baby boy was born. His parents were thrilled and named him Omar, seeing this extension of their family as a good sign for the future and a fresh start for them all. Omar’s parents had been forced to flee their homes in the Middle East some years before, leaving everything that they had behind. They eventually won the right to settle in the Netherlands and were making the most of it. Omar’s father found a job and quickly picked up the language. As soon as he was eligible, he successfully applied for the Dutch nationality in order to affirm his new link with the country. But what he most dearly wanted was to be able to marry Omar’s mother. Sadly, they did not have the documents required by Dutch law to do so. Instead, they muddled along in the hope that one day they would be able to afford to send for the right documents or pay for the replacements in order to get married.  

Then Omar was born and they were overjoyed. Omar’s father went straight from the hospital to the town hall to register the birth, all the while oozing the pride of a man who has newly become a father. Omar was registered: his name, date and place of birth recorded. But when the registrar logged “unknown” in the box marked “nationality”, Omar’s father grew worried. After all, he was Dutch and his son was born on Dutch soil, so surely Omar would also be Dutch.  

Little did he know that just a few months previously a new law had come into force. This law required him to register the imminent birth of his son while his girlfriend was still pregnant. Failing to do so - and because he and Omar’s mother were not married - he would not automatically be recognised as the boy’s father and his son would not acquire his nationality. 

Omar’s father quickly made the necessary arrangements at the local court to be legally recognised as the father, but this procedure did not grant Omar the Dutch nationality. Nor could Omar acquire the nationality of his mother, as she was the national of a country that did not allow women to pass on their nationality to their children. Omar’s nationality was therefore more than unknown: it was absent. He was stateless. 

After they had recovered from the shock, Omar’s parents began to discover the consequences of his statelessness. Omar could not obtain a passport, or be included in the passport of either of his parents, he could only apply for a foreigners’ travel pass at substantial cost. Omar was also registered by the immigration service as “a foreigner who entered the country for family reunification purposes” – an interesting feat for a baby just a few days old. His parents would have to pay a sizeable fee for a residence permit for Omar, without which he could, in theory, be subject to expulsion.  

Later, in order to have any hope of resolving his plight, Omar’s parents would have to fight for his formal recognition as a stateless person. This may then allow Omar to benefit from provisions in the Dutch law that offer nationality to a stateless child after three year, so long as he remains within the country in that time and under the care of his Dutch father.

This initial experience of statelessness provides much food for thought and one possible answer to the question “why statelessness?” can arguably already be found in the personal struggle of this family. Statelessness presents a real, human dilemma for this one boy and his parents.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme

Photo Competition: (my) nationality

This year is the 65th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted on 10 December 1948, this document proclaims that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. It elaborates rights for every individual in the world, whatever their nationality.

But nationality is still important: it gives a person a sense of belonging and plays an important part in enabling people to exercise rights. Just imagine what life would be like without a country, without a passport. For the more than 10 million stateless people around the world, despite the aspirations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, life is still very hard.

In order to raise awareness of the global problem of statelessness, the Statelessness Programme and Awake International are organising the photo competition “(my) nationality”. 

Inspire us with your view on nationality. For example: What does it mean, for you, to be a national of your country? What is special about your nationality? How would you feel if you lost your nationality? The challenge is to capture your view of nationality, or your experience of your own nationality, in a single picture: one photograph.

Requirements

You can submit 1 picture by sending in your full name, your e-mail address, your age, a title for the photograph and a brief description of the image and the story behind it to photocontesthumanrightsday@gmail.com. There are no additional requirements for the format of the picture. The winner of the competition can choose between a Mediamarkt or Foregames voucher (30€ each), whereas the consolation price will be the not-chosen voucher. By sending in your picture you give automatically consent to post it on the Facebook and Blog of the Statelessness Programme

Important dates

The deadline for submissions is 5 December 2013. On the 10th of December the winner will be announced during the Human Rights Day seminar on statelessness (Dante Building, Room 1, Tilburg University, 3.00-5.00pm). Afterwards there will be an informal gathering with drinks in the Foyer of the same building.

A time for action - ENS launches campaign to protect stateless persons in Europe

As a founding member and active participant of the European Network on Statelessness, we at the Statelessness Programme are proud to be a part of the first Europe-wide civil society campaign for the protection of stateless people in Europe. Below is the blog by ENS coordinator Chris Nash, explaining the aims of this campaign [first posted on the website of ENS here].

Since its launch in June last year the European Network on Statelessness (ENS) has attracted  50 new member organisations in over 30 European countries. Encouraged by the diversity of its membership base and keen to build on recent momentum with regard to global efforts to tackle statelessness, ENS today launches a year-long campaign seeking to improve protection for stateless persons in Europe.

A public statement launching the campaign is available here and is intended to be circulated as widely as possible to help spread awareness about the campaign and what we hope to achieve.

Previous ENS blogs have reported on the impressive strides made with regard to ratification of the two UN Statelessness Conventions – for an up to date progress report by UNHCR see here. At the regional level two striking features stand out. The first is the critical agenda for concerted action provided by the European Union in October 2012 when it pledged that all its Member States not already having done so (that’s Estonia, Cyprus, Malta and Poland) would accede to the 1954 Statelessness Convention – the international instrument setting out obligations owing to stateless persons on a State Party’s territory. The second is that despite this near universal ratification, relatively so few states have in place dedicated statelessness determination procedures which are a prerequisite for them to fulfil their obligations towards stateless persons in practice (those EU states with provisions in place are France, Hungary, Italy, Spain and the UK as well as outside the EU Georgia and Moldova).

What’s surprising is that this glaring gap between notional rights owing and the possibility of attaining them in reality has continued unquestioned for so long. Many European states signed up to help stateless persons decades ago but then simply did nothing – this for example in stark contrast to their response to having ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention, with regard to which almost all signatories have considered it de rigueur to adopt asylum procedures in order to be able to recognise and reward those deserving of sanctuary. The absence of an equivalent protection framework for stateless persons can have devastating consequences for those individuals stuck in limbo as a result.

Joint research conducted in 2011 by UNHCR and my organisation Asylum Aid found that previously stateless persons in the UK were left unidentified and at risk of human rights abuses. Many of the stateless persons we interviewed had been destitute for months, had been detained by immigration authorities in spite of evidence that showed there was no prospect of return, or had been separated for years from their families abroad. Some had been forced to sleep on the streets. Many had seen their accommodation and support repeatedly cancelled and reinstated. Almost all of this group were prohibited from working. Few were in a position to break this cycle. UNHCR mapping studies in Belgium and the Netherlands revealed a similar picture with the absence of adequate protection mechanisms leaving stateless migrants stuck in an endless limbo without respect for their fundamental rights. UNHCR is currently undertaking mapping studies in the Nordic and Balltic states which will hopefully also shed much needed light on the situation in those countries. As such there is a growing body of evidence about the harsh reality facing stateless persons in Europe today.

As reported more fully in a previous blog, what has changed - in the UK at least – is the introduction of new Immigration Rules effective from April this year which now provide stateless persons with a regularisation route and a crucial lifeline out of limbo. This example now needs to be followed by other European countries.

ENS has chosen today, the anniversary of Hannah Arendt’s birthday, to launch a pan-European campaign seeking to improve the protection of stateless persons in Europe. Timed to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the 1954 Statelessness Convention, this campaign will bring together our members and other civil society organisations across Europe in calling for:

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

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

While not underestimating the ambitious nature of these objectives, we believe that we can make real progress towards achieving them through a combination of awareness-raising and advocacy activities at the national and European Union level. Central to this will be our efforts to put a human face on the statelessness issue by gathering individual stories and testimonies from across Europe. Equally important will be our ability to successfully engage broader popular support through online advocacy and use of social and other media. Finally, the campaign will culminate with a concerted day of action against statelessness across Europe on 14 October 2014. We are asking our members and other interested organisations to plan ahead in order to mark that day with a special event or action – for example a public meeting, film screening, photo exhibition, umbrella march, public lecture or media briefing/press release. As well as providing an important focus point for the campaign, it will hopefully also demonstrate the value of implementing ENS’s existing call for the UN General Assembly to adopt an international day of action against statelessness.  

Our campaign launch statement concludes that:

“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 since the philosopher Hannah Arendt famously identified their plight in her seminal text The Origins of Totalitarianism back in 1951. The fact that there remain an estimated 600,000 stateless persons living in Europe today shows that action is long overdue. The time for action is now.”

Ultimately the success of this initiative will be dependent on the level of backing it receives from a broad spectrum of supporters. We hope that working together we can bring about real change. Please start by sharing details of the campaign as widely as possible.

For further information or to get involved visit www.statelessness.eu

or email ENS Coordinator Chris Nash at info@statelessness.eu