GUEST POST: New adventure in the world of statelessness

It has been two weeks since I moved to Madrid for my PhD in Advanced Studies of Human Rights in the University of Carlos III. If a year ago I was told that I would make up my mind to do a PhD, I would probably never believe it. But here I am, in Madrid, ready to start this adventure.

However, back then the biggest surprise for me would have been the area that I have now chosen for my research and….it is statelessness! And of course, frankly speaking, the reason for this is the Statelessness Programme. I have met Laura and Zahra in October 2011 during my interview for the internship position at the Statelessness Programme. From then on and till now, statelessness is a topic that fascinates me the most out of the wide range of unsettled issues in international law. I have heard of statelessness before during one of my general lectures on international law in the Institute of International Relations of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, but I have never thought of choosing it as my field of research until I got that internship position at the Statelessness Programme. That is when I learnt that there is a shocking amount of stateless people in the world in the twenty first century (!), discovered the reasons of why people are stateless and much more. I have also attended an extremely interesting and informative course on Nationality, Statelessness and Human Rights given by Dr. Laura van Waas, the Senior Researcher and Manager of the Statelessness Programme. Moreover, I have written my Master Thesis in the area of statelessness, entitled  “Revocation of nationality from Dominicans of Haitian descent in light of the Bueno v. Dominican Republic case”, supervised by Laura.

Looking back, I must say it was quite a “statelessness year” and as it seems, there are about three or four more to come. I have just started my PhD in Spain, thus many things have to still be arranged and organized, however I can already reveal the theme that I am planning to do my research on and it is: “Access to basic human rights of stateless people and their implementation in the example of statelessness determination procedure in Spain”. There is still a long way to go, but I can feel the first steps already and I must say it’s very exciting.

Thus, I would like to thank Statelessness Programme, Laura and Zahra for opening the world of statelessness for me and letting me in “behind the scenes” of the “statelessness world”. I cannot wait to start my research and make my modest contribution to the treasury of researches in the area of statelessness.

Valeria Cherednichenko, former intern of the Statelessness Programme (2011-2012), now doing a PhD in Advanced Studies in Human Rights at the Institute of Human Rights Bartolomé de las Casas, Charles III University of Madrid

Growing support for establishment of statelessness procedure in the Netherlands

At the end of 2011, UNHCR published the findings of a mapping project which looked at the situation of stateless people in the Netherlands. While the country has been a party to both UN conventions on statelessness for several decades, this study uncovered a number of gaps in the implementation of these international norms. Perhaps the strongest recommendation to come out of the research conducted was the need for the establishment of a statelessness determination procedure, which is currently lacking in the Dutch context. Due to this gap, the report suggested, it was unclear whether the Netherlands was meeting its international commitments towards stateless people. Indeed, there were indications that - for some stateless people at least - the protection fell some way short of the international standard. 

When the Netherlands mapping study was launched, it attracted some interest from the national media and subsequently also an official response from the Dutch Cabinet to the recommendations made. However, the former was short lived and the latter was in the form of a confidential letter directed to UNHCR, so there was no further public debate on the way forward. Now, one year on, there is a renewed effort to generate discussion on what legal or policy measures are needed to improve the protection of stateless people in the Netherlands.

On 13 December 2012, a symposium entitled “International developments in the field of statelessness and the situation in the Netherlands” was held at Tilburg University. It was convened by the Statelessness Programme of Tilburg Law School, in cooperation with the universities of Leiden and Maastricht and the office of UNHCR in the Hague. The programme offered participants the opportunity to learn about and reflect on the many currently unfolding developments relating to statelessness across the globe and, in particular, those elsewhere in Europe. On the specific issue of statelessness determination procedures, three international experts offered different perspectives on the value and the various practical considerations of establishing such a mechanism:

-          Inge Sturkenboom, Statelessness Protection Officer for Europe with UNHCR, explained what the approach to this question is in the recently established UNHCR guidelines on statelessness, which provide authoritative interpretation of how the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is to be implemented in practice.

-          Gábor Gyulai, Chairman of the European Network on Statelessness, demonstrated some of the ways in which statelessness determination procedures have taken shape across Europe and discussed some of the pros and cons of different approaches.

-          Tamás Molnár, Senior Legal Advisor for the Hungarian Ministry of Interior, offered a government’s perspective by describing the process by which a determination procedure was adopted in Hungary and how it functions in practice.

During the afternoon, the symposium participants divided into a number of workshops to discuss the situation in the Netherlands in greater detail. Two of the groups dealt specifically with the question of when and how statelessness is currently established in the Dutch context and debated whether there is a need for a dedicated procedure.

The first of these workshop sessions took a closer look at the procedure for establishing a person’s nationality for the purposes of registration with the municipal authorities. A consensus was quickly reached that the Dutch municipalities do not currently have clear guidelines on the establishment of statelessness for individuals who approach the office for registration, nor are the municipalities the most suitable site for statelessness determination. The participants - who included civil servants from several municipal authorities and lawyers with many years of experience in dealing with relevant cases - raised a variety of concerns. These included doubts as to the level of expertise and the tools available to municipal officials for the purposes of statelessness determination, as well as the observation that there is already a wide divergence in practice when it comes to registering a person’s nationality.  

The second workshop to consider the question of statelessness determination procedures was that focusing on the Dutch ‘no fault’ policy. The Statelessness Programme has been conducting research over the past few months on the functioning of this non-statelessness specific protection mechanism, which offers an avenue to protection (and a residence status) for some stateless people, but on the basis of a finding that they cannot be expelled from the country rather than specifically on the ground of statelessness. One of the main findings of the analysis of ‘no fault’ case files that was presented during the working group was the fact that statelessness appears to be neither a matter for investigation during this procedure nor of influence on its outcome. Thus, as the workshop participants from the Migration Policy Department of the Dutch Ministry for Security and Justice confirmed, the ‘no fault’ procedure does not lead to the determination of statelessness. The Statelessness Programme researchers pointed out that this makes it difficult to draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of the ‘no fault’ policy as a means for securing protection for stateless people.

Meanwhile in one of the other workshops, where the European Court of Human Rights’ role in addressing statelessness was the subject of debate under the guidance of Prof. Egbert Myjer (former Dutch judge at the ECtHR), the issue of determination procedures also came up. Participants questioned whether the lack of an evident procedure for claiming recognition as a stateless person in order to enjoy the specific entitlements that are attached to that status – such as access to a travel document or to facilitated naturalisation under Dutch law – could be deemed a violation of the European Convention guarantees relating to the right to an effective remedy.  

The various discussions during the symposium and the aforementioned workshops highlighted the need to re-open the discussion on the establishment of a clear procedure for the determination of statelessness in the Netherlands. On the occasion of the symposium, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights made a call, echoing the recommendation from last year’s UNHCR report, that effort be made to remedy this significant gap in Dutch law. The Institute points out that effective statelessness determination is of great importance both to the individual who is seeking to enjoy a minimum standard of living and to the Dutch state which has made specific commitments to the protection of stateless people through its ratification of the 1954 statelessness convention. The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights therefore called for the establishment of a dedicated statelessness procedure that incorporates all necessary due process guarantees.

The Statelessness Programme will continue to follow this debate closely and provide an update on any relevant developments through this blog. In the meantime, some snapshots and video extracts of the 13 December symposium can be found on our facebook page: www.facebook.com/StatelessnessProgramme.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme

A Call to Include the Stateless on International Human Rights Day

This statement was issued on Monday the 10th of December - on the occasion of Human Rights Day - by the European Network on Statelessness, a civil society coalition of which the Statelessness Programme is an active member. For more information on the work of the network, please visit the website at www.statelessness.eu.

Today, as the world marks international human rights day, millions of stateless persons continue to live in silence and exclusion, unable to participate in public life as equals, to freely organise and express themselves and to associate with others. The focus of this year’s celebration - ‘inclusion and the right to participate in public life’ – is consequently particularly pertinent to the stateless among us. Under this theme, the provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which enshrine the freedom of assembly and association (Article 20), the right to take part in elections, in public life and decision-making (Article 21) and the freedom of expression and opinion (Article 19) are being celebrated, scrutinised and reflected upon worldwide.

All persons in Europe should benefit from the protection of these rights provided for by the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, hundreds of thousands of stateless persons in Europe continue to have little or no access to these and other fundamental rights despite the region’s advanced human rights framework. The daily exclusion and voicelessness experienced by over 600,000 stateless persons in Europe and 12 million worldwide, bring into stark perspective the importance of human rights which guarantee our ability to be heard, to associate with others and to participate in democratic processes.

Decades after ‘universal and equal suffrage’ has been achieved through long and difficult struggles to secure the rights of women and minorities in Europe, stateless persons remain without a right to vote – politically voiceless and democratically irrelevant.

Stateless persons are entitled to freedom of association and expression under international law. However, in practice they face significant barriers in realising these two fundamental freedoms which are cornerstones of both human rights law and democratic participation. The voice of stateless persons has largely been rendered mute, as they are excluded from mainstream society. Stateless migrants in Europe are often viewed as illegal immigrants and criminals who must be dealt with harshly, through detention and futile efforts at removal. Equally, stateless populations that have lived in Europe for generations are likely to be minorities that are discriminated against, treated with suspicion and shunned by society at large. Stateless people often lack resources to organise themselves into effective movements, and human rights law has not been adequately enforced to ensure that they too enjoy their fundamental rights.

The European Network on Statelessness (ENS) is a civil society alliance with over 60 members in over 30 countries committed to address statelessness in Europe. We believe that all human beings have a right to a nationality and that those who lack nationality altogether are entitled to adequate protection – including the freedom to speak and be heard, to associate with others and to partake in democratic processes. In light of strong pledges made by many European countries to end statelessness, identify and protect stateless populations and ensure their enjoyment of human rights, ENS marks international human rights day by drawing attention to the hundreds of thousands of stateless persons in Europe, whose voices should count as much as our own, but do not.

As Europe and the world mark the importance of the right to take part in elections and public life and the freedom of expression and association, celebrate the individual and collective struggles that have secured these rights for all, and recognise the positive impact they have made on countless individuals and entire nations, we call on countries in Europe and elsewhere to end statelessness and ensure that those without a nationality are not also deprived of a voice and a stake in our collective future.

Visiting Scholar, Jason Tucker: "Introducing myself and my research"

I have been asked to use this blog as an opportunity to introduce myself, my background and my current research.  My area of interest lies particularly within the field of migration studies. In the past I have worked on human trafficking in the Indonesian and US contexts and with informal civil society organisations for Sudanese refugees in Cairo. For several years now though I have focused specifically on statelessness. I began my PhD at the University of Bath, in the U.K, in 2010 and have just entered my final year.  My thesis looks at the concepts of global citizenship and how they are being used to address statelessness.

Exploring the magnitude of the literature and theoretical debate surrounding global citizenship would pose an unrealistic challenge due to the restrictions of the size of this post. Several key areas though can be highlighted to reflect the breadth of this debate and its relevance to the statelessness discourse. When the concept of global citizenship (sometimes referred to as cosmopolitanism) is introduced it is often the case that the audience, if not versed on the topic, will either conceptualise it as future ‘world citizenship’ with various manifestations such as a world passport and/or a world government, or on the other hand think of it as a vacuous buzz word, thrown around by activists, politicians, businesses and anyone who wants to jump on the global citizenship band wagon. In both cases it is easy to dismiss it as either overly idealistic or so vaguely defined as to be insignificant. 

While these two conceptualisations are not totally without merit they by no means even begin to scratch the surface of the depth and nuances of the debate on global citizenship. To mention but a few ways that this expanded moral obligation has been theorised we can see Nussbaum’s (1996) ‘cosmopolitan education’, Buchanan’s (2004) focus on legal cosmopolitanism, Held’s (1999) argument that international institutions should internalise cosmopolitan principles and enforce them through international laws, Linklater’s (1999) claim it should be realized through trans-state dialogue in international institutions and the idea of ‘deliberative democracy’ put forward by such scholars as Habermas.

So then how do these concepts relate to the statelessness discourse? Examples of this are few and far between. But they do exist. For example, Byers (2005:2 my emphasis) noted:

“There are tens of millions of stateless persons in the world today. They have no right to reside, vote, express opinions, associate or travel anywhere at all. Their lack of national citizenship, and their consequential, desperate need for governmental assistance and accountability, makes them the most obvious candidates for global citizenship”.

My thesis aims to begin to explore the relationship between global citizenship and the addressing of statelessness, with a specific focus on Lebanon. My research arose due to the assumptions made by several scholars that the stateless, having none of the normal channels through which to participate in the nation-state system, could benefit from global citizenship, as Byers’ quote reflects. This however was the limit of his theoretical reflection, and more generally the assumed relationship has not been based on empirical foundations but remains abstract and normative. Finding this a highly interesting, though as of yet a greatly under-researched and theorized idea, I decided to contextualise this assumption in a country with multiple, vast, protracted and varying stateless communities and persons, namely Lebanon. This highly complex national environment allowed me to draw on comparisons between the actors addressing the statelessness of the different stateless groups in the country, with the aim of reaching a more grounded understanding of the use of global citizenship upon which to base future debate. To do this I spent three months in Lebanon at the beginning of the year interviewing those working with the stateless in the country, based out of the Lebanese American University in Beirut.

I am currently working through and analyzing all the data that I collected from my time in Lebanon and am unable to provide a conclusive set of findings at this moment. I can, however, reflect on a few broad topics that have arisen so far.  The data highlights how the various stateless groups reflect on the concepts of citizenship and nationality, how the government use the concept of the suspension of judicial order in certain spaces inhabited by the stateless, with these ‘stateless spaces’ being the subject of multiple and partial sovereignties as developed by Giorgio Agamben (1993,1998, 2005), and finally the claim of the ‘natural’ statelessness of the Bedouin.  Following a detailed analysis of the conceptualisations of the nation-state and citizenship and relating this statelessness focused assessment to the state-nation-territory trinity in the first two analytical chapters of my thesis, the final chapter focuses specifically on global citizenship, trying to draw out a relatively inclusive understanding of what form of it is being used to address statelessness in Lebanon. One line of thinking that I am developing at the moment is the concept of the paradox of defining the Palestinians NGOs and activists as global citizens, since their moral obligation only extends to fellow Palestinians and they are using it for reductionist ends, namely to regain citizenship within a Palestinian state. To reconcile this theoretical concern, I argue that we need to shift our understanding of global citizenship away from the claim that it can only manifest itself as the actions of an individual with an expanded sense of moral obligations to that of global citizenship as a means to create a space for dialogue.

Following my time in Lebanon earlier this year I transferred to the Statelessness Programme for six months at the beginning of October, which is where I am currently working through my data, as well participating in other projects taking place here. During my time in Tilburg I have developed my understanding of statelessness under international law and how to situate this legal understanding back within more sociological debates.  By drawing on the internationally recognised legal definition of statelessness in sociological research we open an under utilised avenue to understanding the phenomenon with the view to more effectively addressing it. Further to this, my time here has allowed me to better understand the development of the stateless discourse within the UNHCR, the problems they face, and how some of these hurdles have been overcome.

Jason Tucker, Visiting scholar with the Statelessness Programme

 

References / further reading

Agamben, 1993, Beyond Human Rights [online], Available from: http://www.skor.nl/_files/Files/OPEN15_P90-95(1).pdf, [Accessed 9/11/2011]

Agamben, G. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. D. Heller-Roazen, Trans. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Agamben, G., 2005, State of Exception, Kevin Attell Trans, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Byers, M., 2005, Are You a Global Citizen? [online], The Tyee, Available from: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/10/05/globalcitizen/, [Accessed 14/2/2011]

Held, D., 1999, Transformation of Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalization, In: I, Shapiro and C, Hacker-Cordón (eds), Democracy's Edges, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Linklater, A., 1999, Cosmopolitan Citizenship, In Kimberly Hutchings and Roland Dannreuter (eds), Cosmopolitan Citizenship, Houndsmill: Macmillan, pp.35-59

Nussbaum, M., 1996, Reply, In Cohen, J., (ed) For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism, Boston: Beacon Press

Denationalizing Bahrainis, ousting the opposition

This month, the volatile situation that has existed across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) since the start of the Arab Spring saw a new development in Bahrain which has highlighted a worrying trend spreading across the region.  The Bahraini government ordered 31 of its citizens, all of them prominent opposition figures, to be stripped of their Bahraini nationality.  According to most reports only six of them hold another nationality (Bahrain does not generally recognize dual nationality), which means that an estimated 25 new cases of statelessness have resulted from this act. This decision follows high-profile denationalizations of several Emirati citizens in the UAE over the last year, prompting the worry that MENA States may revert to the practice of denationalizing citizens in response to broad ‘security concerns’ more frequently in the future.   

The Bahraini Ministry of Interior explained that it had exercised its powers under Article 10 of the country’s 1963 nationality law which allows the withdrawal of nationality under extreme circumstances. The 31 individuals concerned had been accused of 'undermining the security of the state’, which is a recognised ground for deprivation of nationality under this provision of the law. 

Whilst it is the sovereign right of any state to determine the conditions upon which nationality can be acquired or lost, the withdrawal of nationality from citizens must be undertaken with caution and must be done in adherence to both domestic and international regulations. Otherwise it would be at the discretion of any ruling political power to redefine its citizenry, denationalizing for example a section of society who they feel may not vote for them, or a section of society whose religious beliefs differs from theirs.

Article 10. 4 of the Bahraini law indeed allows the withdrawal of nationality when someone 'causes harm to the security of the State.' Whether the 31 individuals targeted in this instance have been found to seriously undermine the security of the State – and on what basis exactly – is not clear due to the lack of transparency of this decision.  There has been instability in the country, with a spate of bombings in the weeks leading up to this decision. Nevertheless, most indications show that this act of denationalisation was purely a political move.  One of the affected, lawyer Taimoor Karimi, was quoted by Human Rights Watch as saying that he had first heard about the decision through the media and had not been aware of any such impending process, highlighting this lack of transparency.  This suggests that what would be considered an accepted threshold of 'undermining the security' has not been met.  The government immediately publicly listed the names of the accused, including figures such as former MPs of the leading opposition movement, al-Wifaq, the head of the Bahrain Freedom Movement, and three Shiaa clerics - Hussein Mirza, Khaled Mansour Sanad and Alawi Sharaf.  Although no conclusion can be made without a full investigation, these individuals - all leading, opposition members - seem unlikely to have instrumented extreme militant acts.  Rendering them non-citizens is an attempt to de-legitimise criticisms against the government as it is now seen that they no longer belong to that State. 

Bahrain has declared that those affected would have the right to appeal this decision in national courts.  Article 11 of the same nationality legislation allows for restoration for those whose nationality was withdrawn.  However the likelihood of this being an independent and effective review is small.  Only a few days following this decision in Bahrain, the news from the Emirates was that its courts had rejected the appeal of the seven Emiratis who had their nationality stripped, again for 'threatening the security of the state,' setting a troubling precedent.

Perversely, the Bahraini Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid Al Khalifah further stated that one of the reasons behind this action was that the country had seen repeated abuse by these individuals 'of the rights to freedom of speech and expression,' which they deemed could no longer be accepted.  It is not in any way clear how they came to the interpretation that these individuals had been enjoying too much of this fundamental right.  They have shown no evidence of the need to derogate from this right, but instead are claiming that the individuals somehow overstepped some necessary self-imposed limitations of this right which justified the withdrawal of nationality.  Besides the absurdity of the claim that someone has been practising too much of their right to freedom of speech,  any withdrawal of nationality in response to the legitimate exercise of a fundamental freedom should, by definition, be deemed arbitrary under international law. This stands at odds with the Interior Ministry’s official statement and comments on State TV in which he declared that citizenship  would be revoked 'in conformity with the kingdom's commitments under international law.' At the same time, the authorities’ belief that rendering the activists stateless would exclude them from the enjoyment of the right to freedom of speech is worrying and shows a significant lack of understanding with regard to the content of Bahrain’s international human rights obligations. 

It is unclear what will now happen to these former citizens, specifically the majority who still reside in Bahrain.  An individual who has no legal link to any country often is unable to access many basic rights, such as healthcare, access to documentation, travel and education, thus there is a risk of further, subsequent violations of international law. Other questions arise such as possible limitations on residency in Bahrain. As prominent activists, many of those affected have been very outspoken since this decision, and it is clear that they are acutely aware of the possible detrimental outcomes.  

In Bahraini State media we are now witnessing a vilification of these affected individuals – a traditional tool used by states to popularize support for decisions to disqualify certain individuals as citizens.  There are many accusations being used to justify why they have ceased to deserve having membership in the Bahraini citizenry. One example is the circulation of a picture of one of these denationalized stepping on his Bahraini ID card.  The media, in this case, is being used as a channel to communicate to the general public why these high-profile individuals no longer deserve to be nationals.

Worryingly, all of the denationalized are of the Shiaa confession, highlighting suggestions floating in the media that members of this sect are more likely to be loyal to foreign states – namely Iran.  This is a dangerous speculation that alienates and isolates this sector of society, and certainly does not address the prevalent socio-political problems of the country.  This move may also – probably one of the state’s objectives - instil a sense of fear in other opposition elements, especially those from the Shia sect, who would worry that if they continue to voice criticism they may also face this fate.

A broader reflection: is denationalisation a growing trend in the MENA?

Exclusionary citizenship ideologies and denationalization are not new concepts in the MENA region. Underlying factors for such policies range from delicate confessional demographics to the Palestinian presence, from Pan-Arab ideologies to a fear of changing the cultural make-up of a population.  To these motivations, we must evidently add the mechanism of using citizenship policy as a political tool: to quell opposition and silence minority voices. 

Unfortunately, although one of the few collective initiatives, this move is not an isolated one. The GCC, in particular, have not shied away from using this mechanism, targeting a specific confession or political ideology, to de-legitimize any sort of vocal opposition. This both discounts opposition figures from the national debate and often scares others into silence.  Already in Bahrain’s history, 1954 saw the denationalization of Abdul Rahman Al-Baker, a political leader whose activities were not appreciated by the ruling powers.  There have been other situations where Bahrainis studying abroad were not allowed to return and their passports were not renewed.  Although in 2001 the country saw a spate of political reforms, amongst them the restoration of the nationality of many who had in decades before seen their nationality revoked, this does not seem likely to develop as a norm under the current political tensions.

If States continue to see denationalization as a powerful mechanism, the worry is that we may see an expansion of targeted withdrawal of nationality in response to all manner of broad security or public order concerns which many MENA countries face today. This concern is especially acute where we are now seeing problems developing from the polarization of states, such as Libya or Syria. 

 
Zahra Albarazi, MENA Nationality and Statelessness Project Coordinator, Statelessness Programme