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

UNHCR’s verdict on statelessness activities over last two years: “unprecedented”

Every other year, UNHCR produces a report summarising the progress made in addressing statelessness. It discusses important international trends and developments, as well as UNHCR’s own activities and achievements. In other words, it’s a very nice little snapshot of what has been happening and this time around there is more to report than ever before. UNHCR’s overall verdict on the current interest and momentum in addressing statelessness…? “Unprecedented”. Here are some of the most interesting highlights from the report:

UNHCR’s commitment to statelessness

Often criticised in the past for not engaging enough on its statelessness mandate, things have changed dramatically within UNHCR over the last few years and there are now some key institutional arrangements that will help the agency to work more effectively on statelessness. According to the report:

“UNHCR’s four pillar budget structure (which is broken down by particular population groups including pillar II for stateless persons), global strategic priorities and results-based framework for planning and reporting have permitted field offices to establish specific objectives and set budgets for activities relating to statelessness which are visible and distinct from those for refugees and other persons of concern. This has ensured that responses to the statelessness problem are given due attention in relevant operations. Progress made in this regard may be measured by the number of UNHCR operations which set objectives relating to statelessness: from 28 operations in 2009, the number rose to 51 in 2010 and 60 in 2011, remaining at this level in 2012. A similar rise occurred in budgets and expenditure. […] UNHCR has strengthened its global response to statelessness, both in terms of reach and also the quality of its interventions, through increased staffing capacity. The High Commissioner’s protection capacity initiative of 2011-2012 led to the creation of five dedicated regional statelessness posts covering Asia and the Pacific, Europe, West Africa, the Americas and the Middle East and North Africa. These posts were filled in 2012 and 2013, and they have significantly bolstered the capacity of field offices in these regions. […] Significant effort was made to bolster the capacity of staff through training and the provision of additional operational guidance. […] Statelessness workshops were organized in four regions for over 110 field staff, while workshops at headquarters reached more than 100 staff.”

Governments’ commitment to statelessness

While the actual reduction of statelessness or improvement of the lives of stateless people can be the only real measure of governments’ commitment to statelessness, it is also interesting to look at whether and how statelessness features on governments’ agendas. There are encouraging signs that statelessness is now being taken more seriously and that government commitment – on the surface at least – is increasing:

“The anniversary of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 2011 proved to be a breakthrough in UNHCR’s efforts to achieve progress on statelessness around the world. At the Ministerial Intergovernmental Event, 61 States made a total of 105 specific and measurable pledges relating to statelessness. These pledges included: 32 on accession to the 1961 Convention; 22 on accession to the 1954 Convention; 12 to reform nationality laws; 12 to improve civil registration to prevent and reduce statelessness; 12 to conduct studies or awareness-raising campaigns; 11 to establish statelessness determination procedures; and 4 to address the problem through foreign policy initiatives. […] Currently, 22 per cent of the pledges made have been implemented. Significantly, there were 26 accessions to the 1954 and 1961 Statelessness Conventions during the two years covered by this report.”

Strengthening other partnerships to address statelessness

Building a comprehensive and successful response to statelessness is a task that cannot be left to governments and UNHCR alone, but in which many other partners can and must contribute. As with the progress statelessness has made in climbing the agendas of governments and within UNHCR itself, so too is it gathering further support from a broad range of stakeholders in every region:

“The Office worked to expand its partnerships and benefited from the increased interest in statelessness generated by the anniversary of the 1961 Convention in 2011. It supported a major symposium of the African Union in Nairobi, Kenya, which explored a range of statelessness issues and adopted a number of recommendations. This was followed by the adoption of a resolution on statelessness and the right to nationality by the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. UNHCR also undertook two workshops with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Inter-Governmental Human Rights Commission on issues relating to the nationality of women and children and birth registration. In the Americas, UNHCR supported a workshop on statelessness for staff and permanent missions of the Organization of American States, as requested by its General Assembly. The Office briefed the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and provided background information on statelessness to the Commissioner of Human Rights of the Council of Europe. It also worked more intensively with the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, including on the organization of the Zagreb Conference on the Provision of Civil Status Documentation and Registration in South Eastern Europe, which took place in October 2011. To promote action on statelessness by parliamentarians, UNHCR provided a number of briefings to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. […] In 2012, UNHCR organized a session to promote information exchange, joint strategizing and coalition-building among NGOs. Twenty-six organizations from 13 countries attended, and a follow-up event will be held in 2013.” [= recent NGOconsultations and statelessness retreat which we reported about last month onthis blog]

Law reform to prevent and reduce statelessness

A pivotal component of the response to statelessness is to put in place legal frameworks that safeguard the right to a nationality. In other words, by reforming nationality laws to e.g. remove discrimination or incorporate special provisions that will help to prevent statelessness among children, the suffering that comes with statelessness can simply be avoided. Nationality laws around the world undergo regular amendments and the trick is to use these as opportunities to improve the safety-nets against statelessness and certainly to ensure that the legal framework does not deteriorate:

“During the reporting period, a total of 14 States amended their nationality legislation to strengthen safeguards against statelessness. UNHCR observed several broad trends in nationality laws during this period, including removal of legal provisions leading to loss of nationality for residence  abroad, removal of requirements to renounce nationality before applying for naturalization, and inclusion of safeguards to prevent statelessness owing to voluntary renunciation of citizenship. Consultations with governments in the lead-up to the Ministerial Intergovernmental Event provided an opportunity to discuss problematic elements of nationality laws and possible amendments to address them. Twelve governments made pledges on law reform to prevent and reduce statelessness.”

Resolving cases of statelessness

Millions of people are affected by statelessness around the world and some situations of statelessness have become so protracted that they have engulfed several successive generations, which has a massive social, political, psychological and economic impact on these communities. In 2012, UNHCR High Commissioner Guterres called on all states “to make a firm commitment to ending statelessness within the next decade”. For this to happen, finding ways to resolve statelessness is critical. Progress in this area is steady, but it needs to pick up speed if this goal is to be attainable:

“There was slow but steady progress in reducing statelessness in a number of countries, though no breakthrough that led to a major reduction in the global population. The data available to UNHCR showed that more than 115,000 people acquired a nationality or had it confirmed in 2011 and approximately 94,600 in 2012. This was similar to the progress achieved during the previous reporting period. […]The Office continued to advocate for solutions to a number of protracted statelessness situations. The anniversary of the 1961 Convention again allowed for significant consultations with governments on solutions. One encouraging development was the willingness of a small number of States to discuss their own successful efforts to resolve statelessness situations, thereby encouraging others to follow their example. There was also an increased understanding among States that prolonged statelessness can lead to displacement and unrest. This was underlined by the continuing outflows of Rohingya refugees without nationality from Myanmar and the spike in departures following communal violence there in 2012.”

The Statelessness Programme and UNHCR

Tilburg University’s Statelessness Programme – the hosts of this blog – was established in 2011, so at the beginning of the period which UNHCR has now reported on. It is encouraging to see that the cooperation between the Statelessness Programme and UNHCR throughout these two years is also noted and some of the activities get an explicit mention:

“With the goal of reaching a higher number of staff and partners, and with a related objective of building institutional capacity, the Office supported short courses organized by external actors, including Oxford University, Tilburg University, the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network, Mahidol University and the European Network on Statelessness. […] It worked with the universities of Tilburg, Maastricht and New South Wales as well as the Open Society Foundations to develop a global analytical database of nationality laws. [...] In collaboration with Tilburg University, the Office will hold the First Global Forum on Statelessness [in 2014] at which up to 300 representatives of academic and international institutions, governments NGOs and statelessness populations from around the world will present their research, responses and experiences related to statelessness.”

What is next?

This edition of UNHCR’s note on statelessness ends on an encouraging note. Rightly so, given in particular the institutional progress and the signs of increased – “unprecedented” – commitment and engagement by UNHCR and a range of other actors. At the same time, the report also correctly points out that turning this commitment and engagement into real change on the ground remains a challenge and there is much more to be done:

“UNHCR’s activities under its statelessness mandate were enhanced during the two years covered by this report. This was in part due to the organization-wide focus on statelessness during the anniversary of the 1961 Convention in 2011, but it also reflects a longer-term trend. There was an unprecedented impact in terms of action by States, including a significant number of accessions and the adoption of new determination procedures. The number of pledges made by governments at the 2011 Ministerial Intergovernmental Event suggests further progress will be made in the coming years. While impressive, these developments pale in comparison to the magnitude of the problem. There was only limited progress toward resolution of protracted situations. If the international community is to be successful in meeting the challenges posed by statelessness globally, the momentum of the past two years must be maintained and channeled towards acquisition of nationality by stateless persons.”

Reflections on Thailand (1): A protracted and neglected situation of statelessness

This is the first in a short series of blog posts dedicated to the situation of statelessness among Thailand’s ethnic minority people (the ‘hill tribes’). They are inspired by our current research into the impact of statelessness on women in Thailand, which aims specifically to map the link with human trafficking – a project funded by the US Department of State’s Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration.

A large stateless population

For some time, Thailand topped the global statelessness charts: with a whopping estimate of 3.5 million stateless people, Thailand was believed to be home to the largest stateless community of any country in the world. More recently, this number has been revised down, based on a better understanding of the definition of a stateless person (following guidance on this question issued by UNHCR) and a more detailed study of the relevant populations in Thailand. As it turned out, and due in part to confusion surrounding the use of terminology in the Thai context, the high figure had been inflated by the inclusion of a large number of statusless people who are currently present on Thai soil without the requisite documents or permission under the country’s immigration law, but do largely hold a (foreign) nationality.

Today, Thailand reports a stateless population of just over half a million. In the global leagues, the country is therefore still very much a heavy hitter. Only Myanmar and Nepal have a higher figure in UNHCR’s statistical tables (at year-end 2010). Moreover, the number of stateless people in Thailand is five times the combined number of asylum seekers and refugees residing in the country.

An indigenous, ethnic minority, stateless community

Most of Thailand’s stateless people are members of the community known collectively as the ‘hill tribes’ (or sometimes ‘highlanders’), because they traditionally reside in the mountainous western and northern areas of the country, in particular along the borders with Myanmar and Lao PDR. They are an indigenous community within these regions, with ancestral ties to the territory. They are also an ethnic minority community – distinct from the Thai majority population – and comprise a multitude of different tribes, each with its own linguistic and cultural traits.

As mentioned, many hill tribe people and their ancestors have inhabited Thailand for hundreds of years. Others arrived in the country during various waves of migration in the 18^th, 19^th and early 20^th centuries – in particular during periods of upheaval in their countries of origin (which include China, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Nepal and Vietnam). Collectively, these groups make up the contemporary ethnic minority, hill tribe community in Thailand. Their total number in Thailand is not known, but some estimates put it in the region of 2 million people. Many hold Thai nationality, but some half a million are stateless.

It is of interest to note that a smaller indigenous population which is also grappling with statelessness can be found further south in Thailand, along the Andaman coast. Known as the Moken, Chao Lay or simply ‘Sea Gypsies’, they are a relatively small group (a few thousand people) who have lived semi-nomadic lives in this part of the country for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Following the devastating 2004 tsunami, several projects were launched in the area to support the re-documentation of people and the re-building of livelihoods. It was then that this population’s lack of citizenship came to light and there has been some work since to try to resolve their statelessness. Our own research into the impact of statelessness on women in Thailand does not include the Moken – it is limited to the experiences of Thailand’s stateless hill tribe people.  

Protracted and neglected

Statelessness has been a phenomenon among Thailand’s hill tribe population ever since the country first began to really document its nationals, in the 1950s. For many, exclusion was a result of the poor enumeration of people or villages – some simply lived in such remote areas that they did not come into (regular) contact with the state authorities and were overlooked when civil registration and nationality documentation systems were implemented. Others may have had the opportunity to register as citizens, but did not see the importance of doing so, since the whole concept of nationality was alien to their lives. During various later attempts to fill in the gaps in census and civil registration records, the Thai authorities did not necessarily recognise those encountered – who were not previously registered – as Thai nationals. Instead, a system of different coloured cards was implemented to grant some form of temporary status to the ethnic minority groups, pending a more durable solution. For many, the difficulty in accessing Thai nationality was then compounded by a revision of the nationality policy to exclude from the country’s jus soli rules anyone whose parents were deemed to be illegally residing in Thailand. In other words, children born on Thai soil to illegally present parents – including many of the groups who held the aforementioned temporary statuses, which were not considered lawful residence – was excluded from nationality and would also be stateless. As such, statelessness became a protracted and hereditary phenomenon within these communities and there are many families which have been stateless for generations.

Despite the protracted nature of statelessness in Thailand and the sheer scale of the problem, the country’s stateless have drawn relatively little attention beyond its borders. Competing for the already marginal interest that different international actors have demonstrated in relation to statelessness to date, they have clearly lost out against other communities. Within the region, they are overshadowed by the larger stateless Rohingya Muslim population of Northern Rakhine state in neighbouring Myanmar, grabbing international headlines – both historically and again recently – thanks to the sheer level of destitution, marginalisation and persecution suffered, plus the challenges faced in relation to the international forced displacement of the group. Elsewhere, stateless communities in other parts of the world have also mobilised more interest or support, including the stateless Kurds in Syria, the Bidoon in the Arab Gulf, the Nubians in Kenya and the persons of Haitian descent in the Caribbean. In relative terms, at least where the interest of the international media and the involvement of international civil society and governmental actors is concerned, Thailand’s hill tribes appear today to be are among the most neglected of the world’s stateless people. As will be discussed in one of the later blogs in this series, this is especially unfortunate given the opportunities that the current legislative framework present in Thailand for the large-scale reduction of statelessness among the hill tribes and to which far more attention and resources should be directed to finally effect real change.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme

Statelessness as a utopia

‘My own wish is to be a citizen of the world, to be a fellow-citizen to all men – a pilgrim, better still.’

Desiderius Erasmus, letter to Huldrych Zwingli, 1522.

Statelessness is a problem. All of us, academics, practitioners, activists, and even artists, who work with stateless persons, are sharply aware of the harsh reality of statelessness. Statelessness means instability, poverty, discrimination and despair. We work with the ‘problem’ of statelessness, because the human suffering takes priority over anything else.

But for me, statelessness is more than just a problem. There is something about the idea (and not the reality!) of statelessness that inspires me, that is ultimately romantic, and completely unrealistic. It is something vaguely communist, and maybe even anarchist. It is an idea of an individual who is beyond the state, who does not need the state. A stateless individual is beyond nationalism, wars and borders, not needing to belong anywhere and therefore welcome everywhere. Do you recognise this idea?

The birthday wishes from the Statelessness Programme Campaign put me in a dreamy mood. They addressed important issues – I can relate to all of them, and I wish all these wishes come true. Most of these wishes were policy objectives, lobbying plans and calls for activism. Many of them made me think: ‘Yes, I can really do something about this! If we join hands with all these dedicated people, we can make this wish come true!’. But there was one specific wish which I thought was a wish in the true sense of the word – a wish which cannot be realised within the practical limits of the world, and where you need involvement of some heavy magic:

‘I wish that statelessness soon only means there are no more states’ (a wish from Stichting STIL in Utrecht)

This is the wish I would make if I met a little fairy with a magic wand, or got hold of a Aladdin’s Lamp. It is my dream of a stateless utopia.

I wish sometimes that all people were stateless, and happy in their statelessness. I wish we didn’t need states – neither for practical purposes, nor for psychological reasons. I wish the world could be organised without borders, and individuals had something better to base their confidence on than their national identity. I don’t know how this can ever be true, or whether all my fellow human beings would agree to that, but I can dream, can’t I?

I wonder sometimes whether this image of a stateless utopia actually motivates me to help stateless persons. It is so far away from the reality of my every day working routine. The primary motivation is probably compassion to fellow human beings in great need of legal advice, but there are many categories of individuals who are in difficult legal situations, such as the refugees, the homeless, the ‘illegals’ and so on. There is also, of course, pure intellectual curiosity towards the legal complexities around the phenomenon of statelessness, but English tort law is not less complex, nor is the issue of animal rights. When I think of what makes statelessness so special for me that I am prepared to dedicate four years of my life to study it in a PhD project, and spend my free time giving legal advice to stateless persons, I come back to this romantic, impossible and nothing-to-do-with-reality image. While in my perfect world statelessness means the lack of a state in the life of an individual, I see how in reality statelessness (ironically!) leads to extreme dependence of individuals on states, and I want to do something about it. Even though I will never witness a stateless utopia, I do want to make the life of stateless persons a little less ‘state-full’, so that it does not revolve so much around papers, stamps, and moods of civil servants. I want stateless persons to be more independent, and more empowered in their relations with states.

Even though my dream is nothing but a dream, it clearly shapes the way I see my research. I don’t want to eliminate the problem of statelessness. Instead, I want statelessness to no longer be a problem. I am more interested in researching the issue of protecting stateless persons, rather than eliminating statelessness.

I would of course do anything within my power to help a stateless person to acquire the citizenship of some state, and cease to be stateless, since (alas!) it is often the best way to secure their access to basic rights. But while I would be doing that, I would hope that one day there would be no need for citizenship.

Katja Swider, Research Advice Service Coordinator, Statelessness Programme

“Expat Nationality Services”: a potential money-maker?

Sitting on the plane home from Geneva, where I’ve been helping to teach staff at UNHCR’s headquarters about statelessness, seems the perfect opportunity to write a new blog and share a rather novel idea that actually surfaced during the workshop… going into business providing “expat nationality services”.

The offices of UNHCR, like those of any other international organisations or multinational companies, are a melting pot of people from different parts of the world, holding different nationalities. Over the course of the years that they have spent living and working abroad many have also met and married someone from a different country than their own. Regular rotation from one office – and one country – to another, adds further complexity to the family life of many, with children born in yet another location, sometimes far from either of the parents’ countries of origin. When embarking on a training about statelessness, the intricate web of ties that such international professionals have formed with a whole array of countries creates a ready interest in the issue of nationality and conseqently also the lack of it. Indeed, it is often the case that they have already, more than the average person, reflected on the question of where their nationality comes from and what it means. Moreover, a significant number of participants in such workshops have already personally encountered one type of legal anomaly in the field of nationality: dual citizenship. They themselves, their partners and/or children, will commonly have accummulated two or more nationalities thanks to the path that they have taken in life. As a result, there is a natural curiosity about the opposing anomaly of statelessness.

Given this starting point, one of the ways that I like to introduce the phenomenon of statelessness is by presenting a case which illustrates the lottery-like effect that nationality laws can sometimes have. Since each state can, in principle, set its own rules for the conferral of nationality, statelessness can arise from a straightforward and often unintended conflict between the nationality laws of different countries. Simple misfortune in the circumstances of birth (in nationality terms, that is) can leave a person with neither the nationality of their father, nor their mother nor their country of birth and thus render them stateless. For example, the father may be from a country that does not allow him to transmit his nationality if his child is born out of wedlock and the parents may indeed be unmarried; while the mother is perhaps from a country that does not allow women to pass on nationality to their children at all; and the child may be born in a country that does not recognise this fact as sufficient for the acquisition of nationality. Then, the child will be left stateless, unless the all-important safeguards that we work hard to promote are in place in one or other of the nationality laws. At the same time though, a very slight change in the circumstances of birth – parents who are married, a woman who is allowed to transmit nationality, birth within a state that does grant citizenship to everyone born on its soil – and the person can swing from being stateless, to enjoying single, dual or even multiple nationality. In other words, it can take very little for a negative conflict of laws to become a positive conflict of laws.

The fact that someone’s nationality status can balance on a knife-edge like this is fascinating, especially to people who have, themselves, had to navigate different nationality laws to discover how they or their family members might be affected. While many international professionals and expats are able to take advantage of the opportunity to collect several nationalities for themselves and their children, the reality is that the risk of statelessness also looms over them. Consider, for instance, the nationality laws that allow nationality to be withdrawn from anyone who takes up residence abroad for an extended period of time. Consider the nationality laws that require consular registration, or even return to the country, before any children born to a national abroad are able to secure their father or mother’s nationality. And consider the nationality laws that limit the transmission of nationality to children born outside the country to the first generation only, leaving the second generation in a potentially uncertain position. As mobility increases and the expat community grows worldwide, it becomes ever more important to understand the impact of these and other complexities of different state’s nationality laws, working alone or in conjunction with others.

This observation made and one or two in the room expressing concern at the precariousness of their own or their children’s nationality status, given the ins and outs of the nationality laws which apply to them, one response that I found striking was this: perhaps the highly sophisticated expat services industry should branch out into a new area? Indeed. After all, as important as it is to find the right housing, safely ship your treasured belongings, import your own car, understand a new tax system or locate a new doctor all are… some competent advice on nationality laws and procedures certainly wouldn’t go amiss, to make sure you don’t forget something vital like consular registration which could otherwise cause you or a family member to be cast adrift and join the ranks of the stateless. This may even be a money-making opportunity, using nationality expertise to advise those who can afford to outsource dealing with the issue and maybe injecting that back into projects that provide similar legal assistance to those who cannot pay for such a service. While the high-flying, professional, expat situation is an interesting one, the reality is that the situation of other migrants – those less well paid, less well educated, empowered or connected and those whose situation is all the more vulnerable because it is undocumented or irregular – poses a far greater challenge in the quest to avoid statelessness. Maybe using one to subsidise the other is an effective way forward.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme

Birthday wishes are just the beginning of the journey...

After an evening spent baking and an early morning start, the 50^th anniversary of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness Birthday Wishes Tour finally kicked off in Utrecht. The eager team of four, two from the Tilburg law School Statelessness Programme and two from UNCHR, commenced at 9.30am with a meeting with STIL, a local NGO that provides support to stateless individuals. We then continued on to the Landelijke Ongedocumenteerden Steunpunt (national foundation supporting undocumented people), where we were presented with an exceptional, hand-made birthday card in honour of the anniversary. Here, Evelien Vehof, one of the journalist behind the Citizens of Nowhere project, also joined us to make a wish. Spending the morning with individuals who work on the ground providing social support and highlighting the plight of stateless persons gave us our initial insight into the eagerness of the people working directly on the issue to push the agenda of combating statelessness forward. 

With the birthday cupcakes delicious reputation developing and some poignant birthday wishes gathered, we left Utrecht (on time!) making our way to the next stop; Amsterdam. We commenced our tour in the capital meeting with Vluchtelingenwerk, Hamerslag & van Haren lawyers and Amnesty International. These three organizations, already involved in advocacy and research on stateless groups and issues related to them, all showed their commitment to be involved in a unified national effort in working on the issue in the near-future. Eduard Nazarski, Director of Amnesty in the Netherlands, summed up the overall sentiment well in his wish… “that governments combat statelessness – everyone has the right to a nationality!”

Dokters van de Werald then went on to give us an interesting perspective on the difficulties of stateless groups accessing basic medical rights, and added their wish to the growing pile.  We were then extremely surprised to be treated to music, song and dance by the people at the Wereldhuis, our last stop in Amsterdam, who we were very sad to leave.  Here we were privileged to meet a committed group of individuals providing help to anyone who needed it in their community, regardless of nationality or legal status, and to meet several stateless people who had themselves suffered from the inaction of the authorities to solve their situation. 

After fewer than eight – rather rushed, cake-filled meetings - we were already developing a more detailed picture of statelessness in the Netherlands. The mix of organizations we were meeting with, lawyers working on individual cases, international NGOs with an understanding of the global phenomenon, and community support organizations that helped us put faces and real-life stories behind this universal problem, were together sketching a colourful map of the problems stateless groups face and the steps needed to help.

The genuine enthusiasm and commitment of the people we were meeting provided the energy the team needed to continue the frenzied tour. So, despite hunger kicking in, there was no time to waste as we re-bundled into the car where our dedicated volunteer driver navigated us towards The Hague - to everyone’s surprise – only very slightly behind schedule.

We started our stay in the Hague at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs where we met jointly with Lionel Veer, the Dutch Human Rights Ambassador, and Willem van Genugten, the dean of Tilburg Law School (which hosts the Statelessness Programme). We were very pleased with the interest they showed in the ongoing research initiatives on statelessness and to hear them pledge their support for furthering the advocacy efforts that will stem from the research done in this field. Underway to a brief stop at UNHCR’s own office in the Hague, where we delivered a cake to Rene Bruin, the head of office, we added to our growing collection of hopes and aspirations a number of birthday wishes that were being sent in from people abroad who were not able to join us in the tour.

We were then pleased to be received by Jan Pronk, former Development Cooperation Minister and UN Special Representative in Sudan at his home. We sat with him and his wife in their delightful garden, discussing at some length the legal limbo that stateless individuals find themselves.  We  collected their wish and proceeded to end our tour with a warm reception by a team of senior advisors at the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities who shared their understanding of issues of stateless communities throughout Europe, adding a new dimension to the otherwise largely Dutch-focused day. The HCNM’s wish: “700,000 stateless persons in the OSCE region are counting on the Statelessness convention to end their exclusion. Ratify and implement it!” 

After this last meeting the birthday wishes campaign continued with the team collapsing in a café and finally blowing out their own candles, tasting the cupcakes and making their own wishes. All involved were genuinely surprised and gratified by the reception and passion we repeatedly met over the course of our frantic day on the road.  It was clear that the issue of statelessness was a rising and enduring concern for those we met, while advocacy opportunities were disappointingly limited due to a lack of information on the overall situation in the country and of awareness of the issue generally. 

Everyone encountered was furthermore keen to join the Statelessness Programme in their official launching event, Voiceless, Faceless, Stateless, which will be the next step in raising awareness of the issue and further strengthening ties between the organizations involved in order to advance efforts on all levels.  This will be held on November 3^rd and will also be a good opportunity to discuss the findings of the UNCHR report which details the humanitarian and legal situation of statelessness in the Netherlands, which will be officially launched on October 31st.  All the organizations, through their own capacity, have been dealing with issues of statelessness, and all were confronted with obstacles while trying to address the problem.  This varied from finding difficulties in helping stateless children access vaccination programmes in Rotterdam to dialogue on how the ‘’legal stay’ requirement in Dutch law which violated the very convention we were celebrating was obstructing legal solutions. These and other topics were noted down for the agenda of future meetings with to discuss in greater depth what response is needed to better address statelessness in the Netherlands.

 

The only regret of the day was that we were not able to spend more time talking to and learning from the individuals and organizations we met. This will have to wait until the next opportunity to sit around a table with one another, perhaps over more cake, as we take the next step in the challenging journey towards tackling statelessness and turning some of these wishes into reality. Watch this space as the journey continues…

For your enjoyment: a list of all the wishes collected!

Wishes from around the Netherlands on 30 August 2011

OCSE High Commissioner on National minorities (The Hague)

I wish… 700,000 stateless persons in the OSCE region are counting on the Statelessness convention to end their exclusion. Ratify and implement it!

Amnesty International (Amsterdam)

Eduard Nazarski: I wish… Governments would combat statelessness. Every individual has a right to a nationality!

Annemarie Busser: I wish… Nationality forms the access to a lot of fundamental human rights; stateless people should never be put in immigration detention

Jan Pronk (The Hague)

I wish… The Netherlands government complying with the 1961 Convention, and strip the legal stay condition

Evelien Vehof, Citizens of Nowhere (Utrecht)I wish… For nation states to use their power to take care of the stateless and recognize then as citizens

Dutch Refugee Council (Amsterdam)

I wish… Its about people, not about borders! Don’t let people be the victims of conflicts between states!

Lionel Veer, Human Rights Ambassador of the Netherlands (The Hague)

I wish… This campaign will help solve the problem and help the ‘victims’

UNHCR (The Hague)
I wish… All Stateless persons be recognized and can start life again

Landelijk Ongedocumenteerden Steunpunt (Utrecht)

That the statelessness convention will be used more effectively in the Netherlands.

Dokters van de Wereld (Amsterdam)

I wish… That stateless have better access to health, more info that stateless children have the right to be vaccinated

Willem Van Genugten, Tilburg Law School (The Hague)
I wish… That much more attention will be given to an much more REAL ACTION will be undertaken in order to tackle the problem

STIL (Utrecht)

I wish… That statelessness soon only means there are no more states. No one is illegal!

Neil Blomhous, Lawyer with Hamerslag & van Haren (Amsterdam)
I wish… That the Dutch authorities would approach the problem of statelessness with an attitude towards solving the problem instead of dumping it on the (de facto) stateless person

International Organisation for Migration (The Hague)

I wish… that all countries become signatory and abide to the convention of 1954 relating to the Status of Statelessness Persons and the convention of 1961 on the Reduction of Statelessness
　　
Wishes collected at the Wereldhuis (Amsterdam), including from stateless people

I wish… All humans to be respected as such, regardless of their nationality or beliefs

I wish… That one day we all walk through boundaries without any questions of documents but love

I wish… The Dutch government fulfils her noble promise in allowing the statelessness sufferings and see them not as numbers but as human beings!

I wish… The statelessness people will be recognized to be known to enjoy a better life at wherever countries they are in

I wish… That justice will always exist

I wish… The Netherlands can become a home country for these people who are stuck here because no country accepts them

　
Wishes from the ‘birthday wishes campaign team’

Femke Joordens, UNHCR Nederland

I wish… No country should tolerate that children are born stateless　

Laura van Waas, Statelessness Programme

I wish… That over 100 states pledge to concrete action to address statelessness at the ministerial conference this December

Zahra Albarazi, Statelessness Programme

I wish… That states recognise and ensure the fundamental human rights of stateless persons and not see nationality as prerequisite for enjoying rights

Karel Hendriks, statelessness researcher for UNHCR

I wish… That all states would establish a dedicated statelessness procedure. After all, statelessness is a legal fact

Mark van Waas, dedicated driver for the campaign
I wish… That states who don’t feel statelessness is a big issue wake up and tackle the issue

　

Wishes sent in from others around the world

Sebastian Kohn, OSI (New York)
I wish… To end statelessness amongst children through committed law and policy
reforms. And follow @statelessness

Amal Dechickera, Equal rights trust (London)

I wish… Reduction of statelessness is as important today as it was 50 years ago. We wish that in 50 years time there will be no need for a convention.

Praxis (Serbia)

I wish… Every person in the world could have a state!

Nick Oakeshott, Asylum Aid (London)

I wish… That all European states establish Statelessness Determination procedures following the excellent examples set by France and Spain.

Priyanka Motaparthy, HRW (New York)

I wish… For stateless biduns in Kuwait, after fifty years of waiting, to get citizenship through a fair and just procedure.

Maureen Lynch, International Observatory on Statelessness

I wish… This anniversary year, equal attention and efforts would be paid to ensuring nationality rights for all the worlds stateless people.

Cynthia Morel, Independent Consultant working on nationality
Over the course of the last 50 years, the Convention has enabled countless individuals to shed the shackles of statelessness, leading to full and fruitful lives. While this anniversary is cause for optimism, let us not forget the millions who remain at the margins of society, in desperate need of recognition.

Campaign tools: cake and explanatory card

Eduard Nazarski, Amnesty International

Jan Pronk, former Dev. Coop. Minister

Human Rights Ambassador Lionel Veer and Tilburg Law School's Willem van Genugten

A beautiful card hand-crafted by the staff at LOS in Utrecht

Mirjam Koppe, Dokters van de Wereld

Staff at the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities

Wishes and music greeted us at the Wereldhuis in Amsterdam