Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:18:17.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY AND REFUGEE STATUS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2014

Hélène Lambert
Hélène Lambert*
Affiliation:
Professor of international law, University of Westminster, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question of whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality constitutes persecution for the purposes of a determination of refugee status has received increased attention in recent jurisprudence. However, no systematic argument has been made to date on the ordinary meaning of words, context, object and purpose of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as it applies to stateless refugees. This is an important question because the absence of determination procedures and a protection regime specifically for stateless persons in many jurisdictions makes refugee and/or complementary protection the only options. This article examines existing landmark judicial decisions worldwide, relevant UN documents, and academic writing on whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality, either on its own or when taken with other forms of harm, amounts to persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and if so on what grounds. It concludes by suggesting when (arbitrary) deprivation of nationality should lead to a finding of persecution, based on good practice, and points to a global consensus on a new rights perspective concerning nationality.

Keywords

comparative jurisprudencehuman rightsinternational lawinternational refugee lawstatelessness
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 1 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 189 UNTS 150.

2 This is in contrast to refugees with a nationality. eg Goodwin-Gill, GS, ‘The Search for the One, True Meaning…’ in Goodwin-Gill, GS and Lambert, H (eds) The Limits of Transnational Law: Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union (Cambridge University Press 2010) 204–41Google Scholar; McAdam, J, ‘Interpretation of the 1951 Convention’ in Zimmermann, A (ed), The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2011) 75–115Google Scholar; Hathaway, J, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005) 48–74Google Scholar; Hathaway, J and Foster, M, The Law of Refugee Status (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2014)Google Scholar; Foster, M, International Refugee Law and Socio-Economic Rights (Cambridge University Press 2007)Google Scholar; Storey, H, ‘Persecution: Towards a Working Definition’ in Chetail, V and Bauloz, C (eds), Research Handbook on Migration and International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2014) 459–518Google Scholar.

3 There are currently 82 State parties to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and 59 State parties to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness <http://www.refworld.org/statelessness.html>. Currently, only eleven countries have a stateless status determination procedure (France, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Latvia, Mexico, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, the Philippines, and the UK). The Netherlands and Brazil are to have one soon. Even in countries that have a procedure, refugee law can be crucial if for instance stateless status provides less rights than refugee status in domestic law (eg in Hungary).

4 360 UNTS 117.

5 989 UNTS 175.

6 Introductory Note by the UNHCR on the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness <http://www.unhcr.org/3bbb286d8.html>.

7 Art 1(1), 1954 UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.

8 International Law Commission, Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries (2006) 48–9 <http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_8_2006.pdf>.

9 UNHCR Expert Meeting, ‘The Concept of Stateless Persons under International Law: Summary Conclusions’ (‘Prato Conclusions’) in Commemorating the Refugees and Statelessness Conventions: A Compilation of Summary Conclusions from UNHCR's Expert Meetings (2012) 16, para 18 <http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4f461d372.pdf>.

10 ibid 14, para 3.

11 Batchelor, CA, ‘Stateless Persons: Some Gaps in International Protection’ (1995) 7 IJRL 232, 233–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Other regional instruments (such as the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 1001 UNTS 45) and UNHCR's international protection mandate through UNGA Resolutions are also relevant—a full list is available at <http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c16a.html>.

13 Art 5, 1954 Stateless Persons Convention. See also UNHCR ‘Prato Conclusions’ (n 9) 14, para 5.

14 Inter-Parliamentary Union and UNHCR, Nationality and Statelessness: A Handbook for Parliamentarians No 22 (2014) 30–42. See also UNHCR and Asylum Aid, Mapping Statelessness in the United Kingdom (2011) 23–4.

15 Fischer Williams, J, ‘Denationalisation’ (1927) 8 BYIL 45Google Scholar, in GS Goodwin-Gill, ‘Stateless Persons and Protection under the 1951 Convention or Refugees, Beware of Academic Error!’ (December 1992), texte présenté au Colloque portant sur ‘Les récents développements en droit de l'immigration’, Barreau de Québec, 22 janvier 1993, fn 13.

16 Scelle, G, ‘A propos de la loi allemande du 14 juillet 1933 sur la déchéance de la nationalité’ (1934) 29 Revue critique de droit international 63–76Google Scholar, in Preuss, L, ‘International Law and Deprivation of Nationality’ (1934–35) 23 GeoLJ 250, 253Google Scholar.

17 US Supreme Court, Trop v Dulles 356 US 86 (1957) 101. The phrase ‘a right to have rights’ is borrowed from Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (André Deutsch 1986) 295–6Google Scholar.

18 UNGA Resolution A/RES/50/152 (21 December 1995), referred to Inter-Parliamentary Union and UNHCR, Nationality and Statelessness: A Handbook for Parliamentarians No 22 (2014) 44.

19 For a comprehensive review of the literature, see Blitz, B and Lynch, M (eds), Statelessness and the Benefits of Citizenship: A Comparative Study (Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights and the International Observatory on Statelessness, June 2009)Google Scholar. See also Conklin, WE, Statelessness: The Enigma of the International Community (Hart Publishing 2014)Google Scholar; Edwards, A and Ferstman, C (eds), Human Security and Non-Citizens: Law, Policy and International Affairs (Cambridge University Press 2010)Google Scholar.

20 With the exception of a few country specific articles, eg G S Goodwin-Gill, ‘Nationality and Statelessness, Residence and Refugee Status: Issues Affecting Palestinians’ (March 1990), available at <http://refugeeresearch.net/engine/node/5026>; Darling, K, ‘Protection of Stateless Persons in International Asylum and Refugee Law’ (2009) 21 IJRL 742–67Google Scholar; Fullerton, M, ‘The Intersection of Statelessness and Refugee Protection in US Asylum Policy’ (2014) 2 Journal on Migration and Human Security 144–64Google Scholar; Forbes, SE, ‘“Imagine There's No Country”: Statelessness as Persecution in Light of Haile II’ (2013) 61 BuffLRev 699–730Google Scholar.

21 See (n 2).

22 Relevant documents and cases were primarily located on Refworld <http://www.refworld.org> unless specified otherwise.

23 GS Goodwin-Gill, Lecture on ‘International Migration Law’, UN Audiovisual Library of International Law <http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Goodwin-Gill_IML.html>. See also Gibney, MJ, ‘Should Citizenship be Conditional? The Ethics of Denationalization’ (2013) 75 JPol 646, 647Google Scholar.

24 Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), Second Phase, Judgment of 6 April 1955, 23.

25 This is the meaning of ‘nationality’ in art 2(a) of the 1997 European Convention on Nationality (Council of Europe, ETS No 166), in international law more generally, and in the practice of some States; other States use ‘citizenship’ when referring to this legal bond. See Batchelor, CA, ‘Statelessness and the Problem of Resolving Nationality Status’ (1998) 10 IJRL 156–82Google Scholar; and Batchelor (n 11) 234.

26 UNHCR, Submission in Kuric v Slovenia, GC, No 26828/06, Judgment of 26 June 2012, para 2.2.3. See also Manby, B, Les lois sur la nationalité en Afrique: Une étude comparée (Open Society Institute 2009)Google Scholar ix.

27 For an excellent discussion on this point, see Sloane, RD, ‘Breaking the Genuine Link: The Contemporary International Legal Regulation of Nationality’ (2009) 50 HarvIntlLJ 1–60Google Scholar; and Batchelor (n 25).

28 Kesby, A, The Right to Have Rights: Citizenship, Humanity, and International Law (Oxford University Press 2012) 65Google Scholar.

29 Hudson, MO and Flournoy, RW Jr, ‘Nationality – responsibility of states – territorial waters, drafts of conventions prepared in anticipation of the First Conference on the Codification of International Law, The Hague 1930’ (1929) 23 AJIL supplement, 21Google Scholar.

30 The same may be said of considerations of ‘property’ or indeed ‘asylum’, which until their mention in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 were part of State's sovereignty. C Beyani, ‘The Right to Seek and Obtain Asylum under the African Human Rights System’, Talk at the 4th International Refugee Law Seminar Series, Refugee Law Initiative, London, 16 October 2013.

31 Art 1, 179 League of Nations Treaty Series 89.

32 Spiro, PJ, ‘A New International Law of Citizenship’ (2011) 105 AJIL 694Google Scholar, 698. See also Hailbronner, K, ‘Nationality in public international law and European law’ in Bauböck, R, Ersbøll, E, Groenendijk, K and Waldrauch, H (eds), Acquisition and Loss of Nationality: Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries vol 1 (Amsterdam University Press 2006) 1.1.4Google Scholar.

33 (1955) ICJ Reports 20.

34 Spiro (n 32) 694.

35 Schachter, O, ‘Human Dignity As a Normative Concept’ (1983) AJIL 848–54Google Scholar; McCrudden, C, ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’ (2008) 19 EJIL 655–724Google Scholar; Harvey, C, ‘Is Humanity Enough? Refugees, Asylum Seekers and the Rights Regime’ in Juss, S and Harvey, C (eds), Contemporary Issues in Refugee Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2013) 68–90Google Scholar; Kesby (n 28) ch 4.

36 See GS Goodwin-Gill, ‘Deprivation of Citizenship resulting in Statelessness and its Implications in International Law: Opinion’, 12 March 2014, at 8–16 <http://www.ilpa.org.uk/resources.php/25900/ilpa-briefings-for-immigration-bill-house-of-lords-committee-stage-3-march-2014>.

37 Spiro (n 32) 695.

38 ibid 710, fn 105, referring to the words of Nehemiah Robinson.

39 S Keetharuth, welcoming remarks to a meeting held in Banjul, The Gambia, 14 May 2010 on ‘The African Charter and the Right to a Nationality’ <http://www.afrimap.org/english/images/research_pdf/CRAI-Report-of-BJL-meeting-final.pdf>.

40 UN Human Rights Council (HRC), ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, 14 December 2009, A/HRC/13/3414, para 21.

41 UN HRC Resolutions 7/10 of 27 March 2008, 10/13 of 26 March 2009, 13/2 of 24 March 2010, and 20/5 of 16 July 2012, as well as all previous resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights on the issue of human rights and the arbitrary deprivation of nationality. See also UN HRC ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28.

42 Art 24, ICCPR. See also art 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

43 Note that the prohibition of racial discrimination has become jus cogens and so has the prohibition of racial discrimination in relation to nationality in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Art 9 of the 1961 Statelessness Convention also prohibits deprivation of nationality on the basis of discrimination on racial, ethnic or political grounds. UNHCR, Expert Meeting: Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention and Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of Nationality (‘Tunis Conclusions’), March 2014, paras 18 and 70–71 <http://www.refworld.org/docid/533a754b4.html>.

44 These principles are protected in all international human rights law instrument, including arts 1(3) and 55 UN Charter, arts 1, 2, 7 and 10 UDHR, and arts 2, 3, 14, 16, 24, 26 ICCPR. See also UN HCR Resolution 20/5 (2012) and UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28.

45 However, as of today, at least 20 States have attached reservations to this provision <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservations-country.htm>. See also A Edwards, ‘Displacement, Statelessness and Questions of Gender Equality under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’, UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series, August 2009.

46 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 27, Freedom of Movement (Art 12), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999) paras 20–1.

47 Stewart v Canada, Comm No 538/1993, Views of 1 November 1996, para 12.4: When ‘the country of immigration facilitates acquiring its nationality and the immigrant refrains from doing so, either by choice or by committing acts that will disqualify him from acquiring that nationality, the country of immigration does not become “his own country” within the meaning of article 12, paragraph 4, of the Covenant’. For an application of Stewart, see Toala et al. v New Zealand, Comm No 675/1995, Views of 2 November 2000.

48 Nystrom, Nystrom and Turner v Australia, Comm No 1557/2007, Views of 18 July 2011, para 7.5.

49 Nystrom, Nystrom and Turner v Australia, Comm No 1557/2007, Views of 18 July 2011, paras 7.5 and 7.6. See also Warsame v Canada, Comm No 1959/2010, Views of 21 July 2011, paras 8.4–8.6.

50 Individual Opinion of Committee members Gerald, Neuman and Iwasawa (dissenting), and Rodley (Sir), Keller and O'Flaherty (dissenting) in Nystrom, Nystrom and Turner v Australia, Comm No 1557/2007, Views of 18 July 2011, also referred to in Warsame v Canada, Comm No 1959/2010, Views of 21 July 2011.

51 UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: resolution / adopted by the Human Rights Council’, 16 July 2012, A/HRC/RES/20/5, para 2. See also UN HRC Resolution 10/13.

52 ibid.

53 See UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, 14 December 2009, A/HRC/13/34, referring to the following instruments: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. See also UN HRC, ‘Arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, 26 January 2009, A/HRC/10/34, reporting on State practice in 28 countries that provided information to the UN Secretary General call for information.

54 The issue of nationality is explicitly regulated in the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

55 DC Baluarte, ‘Denationalization as persecution: Using a human rights approach to refugee law to address the stateless legal limbo in the United States’, paper presented at the First Global Forum on Statelessness: New Directions in Statelessness Research and Policy, 15–17 September 2014, at 26 (on file with the author).

56 Foster (n 2) 143.

57 UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: report of the Secretary-General’, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, para 3. Note that while human rights instruments, the UN HRC and the UNGA use (or appear to use) deprivation to refer to all forms of withdrawal of nationality, automatic and non-automatic, since the outcome is the same, the 1954 Stateless Persons Convention and the 1961 Statelessness Convention use deprivation to refer to withdrawal of nationality resulting from the decision of a State authority—while ‘loss’ refers only when occurring by operation of the law, thereby focusing more on the processes (see arts 7–8). UNHCR ‘Tunis Conclusions’ (n 43) paras 9–14.

58 M Manly and L Van Waas, ‘The Value of the Human Security Framework in Addressing Statelessness’ in Edwards and Ferstman (n 19) 49, 63.

59 ibid 63–4.

60 UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28.

61 See (n 44). See also UNHCR ‘Tunis Conclusions’ (n 43) paras 15–27.

62 Art 17 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States, with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1999, vol II (Part 2) 38. UNHCR ‘Tunis Conclusions’ (n 43) paras 28–29. See also art 8(4) of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and arts 11 and 12 of the European Convention on Nationality (1997). For a useful summary of these conditions, see UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, paras 4–5, and UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (Geneva 2014)Google Scholar paras 71–77.

63 ILC Draft arts, ibid, para 25.

64 ibid, para 26.

65 UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of Secretary-General’, 19 December 2011, A/HRC/19/43. UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: resolution / adopted by the Human Rights Council’, 16 July 2012, A/HRC/RES/20/5, para 6.

66 For a full discussion of these rights in the context of international human rights law instruments and treaty bodies, see UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of Secretary-General’, 19 December 2011, A/HRC/19/43. See also UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: resolution / adopted by the Human Rights Council’, 16 July 2012, A/HRC/RES/20/5, para 7.

67 Foster (n 2) 94.

68 ibid 103.

69 ibid 96–103.

70 ibid 105–6.

71 ibid 103.

72 ILC Draft Article on Nationality, para 25.

73 Art 8(1), 1961 Statelessness Convention; arts 4(b), 7(1) and 7(3), 1997 European Convention on Nationality.

74 Council of Europe, ETS No 166.

75 eg Case C-135/08 Rottmann v Bayern [2010] ECR I-1449.

76 Explanatory Report, art 7(1)(b), 1997 European Convention on Nationality.

77 For a critic of this distinction, A Berry, ‘Who are you? Fraud, impersonation and loss of nationality without procedural protection’ <http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/who-are-you-fraud-impersonation-and-loss-nationality-without-procedural-protection>.

78 Art 8(2)(b), 1961 Statelessness Convention.

79 Art 8(3)(a)ii, 1961 Statelessness Convention; art 7(d), 1997 European Convention on Nationality. See also UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, paras 12–13 and 18–19. UNHCR ‘Tunis Conclusions’ (n 43) paras 52–69. Note that both the 1961 Statelessness Convention and the 1997 European Convention on Nationality also provide for lawful deprivation of nationality where a person acquired nationality by naturalization and resided abroad for more than seven years without registering with the State authorities whilst abroad.

80 On the UK's declaration under art 8(3), see GS Goodwin-Gill, ‘Mr Al-Jedda, Deprivation of Citizenship, and International Law’, revised draft of a paper presented at a Seminar at Middlesex University 14 February 2014, at 4 <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/GSGG-DeprivationCitizenshipRevDft.pdf>. The points made in that paper were further developed in Goodwin-Gill (n 35); Goodwin-Gill, ‘Deprivation of Citizenship resulting in Statelessness and its Implications in International Law – Further Comments’, 6 April 2014 <http://www.ilpa.org.uk/resources.php/26116/ilpa-briefing-for-the-immigration-bill-house-of-lords-report-7-april-2014-deprivation-of-citizenship>; Goodwin-Gill, ‘Deprivation of Citizenship resulting in Statelessness and its Implications in International Law: More Authority (if it were needed…)’, 5 May 2014 <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/GSGG-DeprivationCitizenship-MoreAuthority.pdf>.

81 eg art 8(4), 1961 Statelessness Convention; Chapter IV, 1997 European Convention on Nationality. See also UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, paras 31–34.

82 UN HRC Resolutions 7/10 and 10/13. See also UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (Geneva 2014)Google Scholar Part Two.

83 Berry (n 77).

84 <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/22/section/66/enacted>.

85 Goodwin-Gill, ‘Mr Al-Jedda’ (n 80) 6.

86 ibid 11—referring to art 9 of the International Law Commission Draft Articles on the expulsion of aliens.

87 ibid 13.

88 ibid 13–15.

89 Batchelor (n 25) 169.

90 UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Resolution / adopted by the Human Rights Council’, 16 July 2012, A/HRC/RES/20/5, para 3. Note that States' obligations to meet their protection responsibilities towards refugees, stateless people and internally displaced persons had already been acknowledged by the UN General Assembly a few years earlier. UNGA Resolutions on the Office of the UNHCR 61/137 of 25 January 2007, 66/133 of 12 March 2012 and 67/149 of 6 March 2013.

91 Baluarte (n 55) 28, referring to the Draft Articles of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc A/56/10,GAOR, 56th Sess, Suppl No 10 (2001) art 14.

92 Note that of the three main regional instruments—the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), and the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)—the ACHR is alone in providing explicitly the right to a nationality (art 20(1)); it also takes the leading step of seeking to combat statelessness by securing the right of children to acquire a nationality (art 20(2)).

93 Advisory Opinion on Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica, OC-4/84, IACtHR, 19 January 1984, paras 32 and 33.

94 Castillo Petruzzi, IACtHR, 30 May 1999, para 100. See also Constitution of Costa Rica, OC-4/84, IACtHR, 19 January 1984, para 34.

95 Bronstein v Peru, IACtHR, 6 February 2001, para 93.

96 Yean and Bosico Children v The Dominican Republic, IACrtHR, 8 September 2005, para 168.

97 ibid, paras 205–206.

98 Gelman v Uruguay, IACtHR, 24 February 2011, paras 121–122.

99 Nickel, JW, ‘Rethinking Indivisibility: Towards A Theory of Supporting Relations between Human Rights’ (2008) 30 HRQ 984–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar, arguing that rights with low-quality implementation provide little support to other rights; for indivisibility to work, the rights in question must be fully realized (at 984).

100 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, 234: Resolution on the Right to Nationality, 23 April 2013. See also Union Inter-Africaine des Droits de l'Homme, Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme v Angola, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Comm No 159/96 (1997).

101 John K Modise v Botswana, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Comm No 97/93 (2000).

102 Malawi African Association v Mauritania, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Comm Nos 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 to 196/97 and 210/98 (2000).

103 ibid.

104 The Committee was created in 1999; one of its functions is to interpret the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. See Bekker, G, ‘The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child’ in Ssenyonjo, M (ed), The African Regional Human Rights System: 30 Years after the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Martinus Nijhoff 2011) 249–63Google Scholar.

105 African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa and the Open Society Justice Initiative (on behalf of children of Nubian Descent in Kenya) v Kenya, Decision No 002/Com/002/2009.

106 Nubian Children v Kenya, ibid, paras 40–46. See also judgment of the African Commission in Free Legal Assistance Group v Zaire, Comm Nos 25/89, 47/90, 56/91,100/93.

107 In principle: Karassev v Finland, Application No 31314/96, decision of 12 January 1999, at 10 (inadmissible). In fact: Sisojeva v Latvia, Application No 60654/00, judgment of 16 June 2005; Kaftailova v Latvia, Application No 59643/00, judgment of 22 June 2006 (both cases affirm that State authorities have an obligation under art 8 ECHR to regularize the stay of aliens but not to give them a choice of legal status or residence permit). See also Genovese v Malta, Application No 53124/09, judgment of 11 October 2011.

108 Andrejeva v Latvia, Application No 55707/00, judgment of 18 February 2009, para 88. See also Zeibek v Greece, Application No 46368/06, judgment of 9 July 2009.

109 Zeibek v Greece, Application No 34372/97, decision of 21 May 1997.

110 Kuric v Slovenia, GC, Application No 26828/06, judgment of 26 June 2012, paras 357 and 393.

111 Kuric v Slovenia, GC, Application No 26828/06, judgment of 26 June 2012, paras 359–361, 386 and 390.

112 Amie v Bulgaria, Application No 58149/08, judgment of 12 February 2013, para 77, and Kim v Russia, Application No 44260/13, judgment of 17 July 2014, para 50.

113 Amie v Bulgaria, Application No 58149/08, judgment of 12 February 2013, para 77, and Kim v Russia, Application No 44260/13, judgment of 17 July 2014, para 53. This line of cases builds on Amuur v France, Application No 19776/92, judgment of 25 June 1996, and Saadi v UK, GC, Application No 13229/03, judgment of 29 January 2008, and previously on Giama v Belgium, Application No 7612/76, European Commission of Human Rights, report of 17 July 1980 in which the Commission accepted that Belgium's attempt to remove Mr Giama from its territory without travel documents may raise an issue under art 3 ECHR (para 31). In an EU context, see art 15 of the Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, limiting the maximum period of detention for removal purposes to six months. Case C-357/09, Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, ECJ, 30 November 2009.

114 Although, on this aspect, the ECtHR considers ‘the Committee of Ministers to be better placed than the Court to assess the specific individual measures to be taken’ and leaves it to the Committee to supervise these measures (Kim v Russia, Application No 44260/13, para 74).

115 Kuric v Slovenia, GC, Application No 26828/06, judgment of 26 June 2012.

116 MSS v Belgium and Greece, GC, Application No 30696/09, judgment of 21 January 2011, para 251, and Kim v Russia, Application No 44260/13, judgment of 17 July 2014, para 54.

117 Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v Al-Jedda (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 62, judgment of 9 October 2013, para 12 (as per Lord Wilson).

118 UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems, Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons: Memorandum by the Secretary-General, 3 January 1950, E/AC.32/2, art 2 <http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae68c280.html>. See also Batchelor (n 11) 239.

119 Sawyer, C, ‘Stateless in Europe: legal aspects of de jure and de facto statelessness in the European Union’ in Sawyer, C and Blitz, B K (eds), Statelessness in the European Union: Displaced, Undocumented, Unwanted (Cambridge University Press 2011)Google Scholar 69, 76.

120 UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, art 2 (n 118).

121 A Zimmermmann and C Mahler, ‘Article 1A, para 2’ in A Zimmermmann (n 2) para 675. See also UNHCR, ‘Eligibility: A Guide for the Staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’, March 1962, at 81, para 78, cited in H Massey, ‘UNHCR and De Facto Statelessness’, UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series, April 2010, at 10.

122 Batchelor (n 25); and Massey ibid 7.

123 This is quite evident from reading ECOSOC Resolution 248(IX) of 6 and 8 August 1949 which repeatedly refers to ‘refugees and stateless persons’ in the English text, but to ‘réfugiés et des personnes déplacées’ in the French text; in UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, art 2 (n 118). See also Cohen, GD, In War's Wake: Europe's Displaced Persons in the Postwar Order (Oxford University Press 2012) 84–90Google Scholar.

124 Batchelor (n 11) 243.

125 UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, 7–8 (n 118). See also UNHCR reprint, N Robinson, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons: Its History and Interpretation, 1997, Part Two, art 1 <http://www.refworld.org/docid/4785f03d2.html>.

126 Goodwin-Gill, ‘Beware of Academic Error!’ (n 15) 5.

127 UNGA Resolution 3274 (XXIX), 10 December 1974. See also UNHCR ExCom Conclusion No 78 (XVVI) 1995 and UNGA Resolution 50/152, 9 February 1996. In addition, UNHCR Statute includes stateless persons in its definition of refugees, provided unwillingness to return occurred for a reason ‘other than personal convenience’ (which includes tax evasion for instance). UN General Assembly, Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 14 December 1950, A/RES/428(V), art 6A(ii).

128 A de Chickera, ‘A stateless person, a refugee and an irregular migrant walk into a bar…’, European Network on Statelessness, 7 July 2014 <http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/stateless-person-refugee-and-irregular-migrant-walk-bar>.

129 UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (Geneva 2014)Google Scholar paras 78–82 and 125–128. See also Inter-Parliamentary Union and UNHCR, Nationality and Statelessness: A Handbook for Parliamentarians No 22 (2014).

130 ibid.

131 Macklin, A, ‘Who Is the Citizens’ Other? Considering the Heft of Citizenship’ (2007) 8 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 333, 337Google Scholar.

132 Bradley, M, ‘Rethinking Refugeehood: Statelessness, Repatriation, and Refugee Agency’ (2014) 40 RevIntlStud 101, 109Google Scholar.

133 Goodwin-Gill, ‘Beware of Academic Error!’ (n 15). On the meaning of the semicolon in art 1A(2), see Revenko discussed in section IVB.

134 UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (re-edited 1992) paras 101–105.

135 It is defined in the UNHCR Handbook (ibid) para 103, as ‘the country in which he had resided and where he had suffered or fears he would suffer persecution if he returned’. See Revenko v SSHD [2001] QB 601, UK Court of Appeal, Pill LJ, at 617; YL (Nationality), UKIAT 2003, para 17; United States Court of Appeal, 6th circuit, El Assadi v Holder, No 09-4193, 25 April 2011, 2. For a detailed analysis of what ‘country of former habitual residence’ means in the doctrine, see New Zealand, Refugee Status Appeal Authority, Refugee Appeal No.1/92 Re SA, decision of 30 April 1992, and Hathaway and Foster (n 2) 67–70.

136 German Federal Administrative Court, 26 February 2009, 10C 50.07—English summary  available on EDAL <http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu>.

137 Thabet v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 FC 21, Canada: Federal Court of Appeal, 11 May 1998. See also in Australia, Case No 0908992 [2010] RRTA 389, 14 May 2010, at para 127. This position is also that held by Hathaway and Foster (n 2) 71–5.

138 German Federal Administrative Court, 26 February 2009, 10C 50.07—English summary available on EDAL <http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu>.

139 MA (Ethiopia) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 289, para 73.

140 Hathaway and Foster (n 2) 193–208. See also A Zimmermann and C Mahler, ‘Article 1 A, para.2’, in A Zimmermann (n 2) 282–465, at paras 216–233, and Alland, D and Teitgen-Colly, C, Traité du droit d'asile (Presses Universitaires de France 2002) 370–7Google Scholar.

141 UNHCR, ‘Interpreting Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees’, April 2001, at 2, para 5 <http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b20a3914.html>. See also Storey (n 2); Chetail, V, ‘Are Refugee Rights Human Rights? An Unorthodox Questioning of the Relations between Refugee Law and Human Rights Law’ in Rubio-Marín, R, Human Rights and Immigration (Oxford University Press 2014)Google Scholar.

142 Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (n 2) 104–5.

143 ibid 109–11; and advocating a slightly different approach, Hathaway and Foster (n 2) 200–4.

144 Goodwin-Gill and McAdam (n 2) 93. See also McAdam, J, ‘Rethinking the Origins of ‘Persecution’ in Refugee Law’ (2014) 25 IJRL 667–92Google Scholar.

145 Goodwin-Gill and McAdam (n 2) 94.

146 Revenko, [2001] QB 606-A-B (Steven Kovats for the Secretary of State). See also Justice McHugh in A v MIEA: ‘Whether or not conduct constitutes persecution in the Convention sense does not depend on the nature of the conduct. It depends on whether it discriminates against a person because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a social group’, [1997] HCA 4; (1997) 190 CLR 225; (1997) 142 ALR 331 (24 February 1997).

147 Chetail (n 141) 26, referring to Jacques Vernant's early (1953) definition of persecution as ‘severe measures and sanctions of an arbitrary nature, incompatible with the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’.

148 Dowd, R, ‘Dissecting Discrimination in Refugee Law’ (2011) 23 IJRL 28–53Google Scholar.

149 Lambert, H, ‘The Next Frontier: Expanding Protection in Europe for Victims of Armed Conflict and Indiscriminate Violence’ (2013) 15 IJRL 207–34Google Scholar.

150 Dowd (n 148) 32.

151 UNHCR Handbook (n 134) para 53.

152 Dowd (n 148) 35.

153 Neier, A, The International Human Rights Movement: A History (Princeton University Press 2012)Google Scholar 80 referring to the judgment by the Constitutional Court of South Africa Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) (2002) 5 SA 721 (CC), 5 July 2002. See also Foster (n 2) 143, fn 234.

154 UNHCR Handbook (n 134) para 54. See also East African Asians v UK, Application No 4403/70, Commission decision of 14 December 1973.

155 UNHCR Handbook (n 134) paras 53–55.

156 For a compelling discussion on this point, see Storey (n 2).

157 Ireland v UK, Application No 5310/71, judgment of 18 January 1978 (plenary).

158 NA v UK, Application No 25904/07, judgment of 17 July 2008.

159 RC v Sweden, Application No 41827/07, judgment 9 March 2010. However, the cumulative approach to risk assessment has not been applied consistently by the ECtHR, see FH v Sweden, Application No 32621/06, judgment of 20 January 2009.

160 Case C-369/90 Micheletti [1992] ECR I-4239, para 10; Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen [2004] ECR I-9925, para 37; Case C-135/08 Rottmann v Bayern [2010] ECR I-1449, para 39.

161 Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, para 31; Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I-7091, para 82.

162 Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted—now Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast).

163 Case C-31/09, Nawras Bolbol v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, judgment of 17 June 2010.

164 El Kott, Radi and Ismail v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Case C-364/11, judgment of 19 December 2012.

165 Joined Cases C-71/11 and C-99/11 Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y and Z, judgment of 5 September 2012.

166 Joined Cases C-199/12, C-200/12 and C-201/12, X, Y and Z, judgment of 7 November 2013.

167 I thank Hugo Storey for this point.

168 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 27, Freedom of Movement (art 12), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999). See discussion in section IIB.

169 Revenko v SSHD [2001] QB 601. See also EB (Ethiopia) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 809; MA (Ethiopia) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 289; ST (Ethiopia) v SSHD [2011] UKUT 252 (IAC).

170 Revenko, 601-E.

171 For Pill LJ, ‘the phrase “well-founded fear of persecution” is the key phrase in the definition of art 1A(2)’, Pill LJ, Revenko, 622-H.

172 Thabet v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 FC 21, Canada: Federal Court of Appeal, 11 May 1998.

173 NZ RSAA Appeal No 72635/01 2002, paras 65–68. See also NZ RSAA Appeal No 76187, 18 June 2008.

174 Diatlov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 468, (1999) 167 ALR 313; and Savvin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 171 ALR 483—in this case Katz J came to the same conclusion reached by the UKCA in Revenko, but by applying a literal interpretation to art 1A(2) of the Convention. For an Application of Savvin by the Tribunal, see Case No 0908992 [2010] RRTA 389, 14 May 2010, para 123. For further examples, see also DZABG v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2012] FMCA 36, para 121, and Appeal No 0805551 [2009] RRTA 24, 15 January 2009.

175 AAAAD v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 326.

176 Maksimova v Holder, 361 F Appendix 690, 693 (6th Cir 2010) (stating that statelessness is not grounds for asylum, and that a ‘stateless applicant must show the same well-founded fear of persecution as an applicant with a nationality’); see also Ahmed v Ashcroft, 341 F 3d 214 (3rd Cir 2003).

177 EB (Ethiopia) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 809, UKCA, 31 July 2007, para 63.

178 EB (Ethiopia), Longmore LJ, para 67.

179 See also Gillan, S, ‘Refugee Convention: Whether Deprivation of Citizenship Amounts to Persecution’ (2007) 21 Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law 347–50Google Scholar.

180 ST (Ethnic Eritrean – nationality – return) Ethiopia GC [2011] UKUT 252, applying EB (Ethiopia).

181 For details on the general context referred to in ST (Ethiopia), see Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, Final Award, Eritrea's Damages Claims between The State of Eritrea and The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 17 August 2009, The Hague.

182 MA (Ethiopia) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 289.

183 ibid, para 83.

184 In YL (Eritrea) v SSHD, 30 June 2003, the then UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal held that it is always relevant to consider the steps taken by claimants to apply for nationality of the country of formal habitual residence and whether these steps have been successful or not (paras 45–46, referring to the Bradshaw principle as it extends to asylum cases, that there may be valid reasons for a claimant not to approach his or her embassy or consulate, or the authorities of the country direct, regarding an application for citizenship). These may go some way towards establishing persecution under art 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention and, indeed, may provide good indication of persecution at its extreme, namely, denial of membership in society.

185 MA (Ethiopia) paras 64 and 66.

186 MA (Ethiopia) para 66. To read more on this case, see Campbell, JR, ‘The Enduring Problem of Statelessness in the Horn of Africa’ (2011) 23 IJRL 656–79Google Scholar.

187 In the UK: BA (Kuwait) CG v SSHD [2004] UK AIT 00256; MA (Palestinian Territories) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 304; MT (Palestinian Territories) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 1149; SH (Palestinian Territories) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 1150; and now MS (Palestinian Territories) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 25. In Ireland: High Court, SHM v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 128, applying Revenko.

188 Maarouf and Abdel-Khalik v Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 73 FTR 211 (FCTD) and Altawil v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 114 FTR 241 (FCTD) at 243.

189 eg Thabet v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 FC 21, Canada: Federal Court of Appeal, 11 May 1998.

190 As decided by the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada in Thabet v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 FC 21, 11 May 1998.

191 DZABG v Minister for Immigration [2012] FMCA 36.

192 Appeal No 0805551 [2009] RRTA 24, 15 January 2009.

193 ibid, para 56.

194 ibid, para 60.

195 Appeal No 0808284 [2009] RRTA 454, 21 May 2009, para 105.

196 ibid, para 109.

197 ibid, para 112.

198 He was nonetheless recommended for humanitarian considerations to the Minister.

199 AAAAD v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 326.

200 BA (Kuwait) CG v SSHD [2004] UK AIT 00256, para 63. See also HE (Bidoon) Kuwait CG [2006] UKAIT 00051 for an application of BA and Others (2004).

201 NZ RSAA Appeal No 76077, 19 May 2009, para 106.

202 DZABG v Minister for Immigration [2012] FMCA 36; Appeal No 0908370 [2010] RRTA, 18 January 2010; Appeal No 0805551 [2009] RRTA 24, 15 January 2009.

203 German Federal Administrative Court, decision of 26 February 2009, 10 C 50.07—English summary available on EDAL <http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu>.

204 Spain, High National Court, decision of 3 November 2010, case 555/2009.

205 Belgium, Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers, X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, Decision No 22144, 28 January 2009.

206 Islam (A.P.) v SSHD; R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, Ex Parte Shah (A.P.), Session 1998–99, United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee), 25 March 1999, as per Lord Millet.

207 NZ RSAA, Refugee Appeal No 71687, decision of 28 September 1999; Stserba v Holder, No 09-4312, US Court of Appeals, 6th Circ, 20 May 2011.

208 El Assadi v Holder, US Court of Appeals, 6th  Circ, 25 April 2011, 4. This is also the view of the Australian courts, eg case no 0908992 [2010] RRTA 389, 14 May 2010, para 141, and in New Zealand, NZ RSAA, Refugee Appeal No 1/92, 30 April 1992.

209 In the UK: BA (Kuwait) CG v SSHD [2004] UK AIT 00256, paras 65–66 and para 81; YL (Eritrea) v SSHD, UKAIT, 30 June 2003, para 41. In New Zealand: Appeal No 74467, decision of 1 September 2004, para 94. In Germany: High Administrative Court Sachsen-Anhalt, 25 May 2011, 3 L 374/09.

210 BA (Kuwait) CG v SSHD [2004] UK AIT 00256.

211 NM (documented/undocumented Bidoon: risk) Kuwait CG [2013] UKUT 00365(IAC), para 97.

212 The exclusion of a stateless Palestinian from accessing Lebanese government hospitals does not constitute serious harm because ‘the differential treatment of Palestinian refugees stems entirely from their statelessness’ and is therefore justified, see KK IH HE (Palestinians – Lebanon) v SSHD, 29 October 2004, UKAIT, paras 101 and 104. See also MM and FH (stateless Palestinians) v SSHD, UKAIT, 4 March 2008, para 127, reaffirming KK IH HE (Palestinians – Lebanon). The same conclusion was reached in Ireland, High Court, S.H.M. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 128; in Australia, Appeal No 0808284 [2009] RRTA 454, 21 May 2009; and in New Zealand, NZ RSAA, Refugee Appeal No 1/92, 30 April 1992.

213 C Vlieks, ‘Strategic Litigation: An Obligation for Statelessness Determination under the European Convention on Human Rights?’ European Network on Statelessness Discussion Paper 09/14 (2014) 26.

214 German Federal Administrative Court, decision of 26 February 2009, 10 C 50.07—English summary available on EDAL <http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu>.

215 ibid.

216 The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol, and this practice reflects that advocated in para 51 of UNHCR Handbook (n 127).

217 Haile v Gonzales (Haile I), 421 F3d 493 (7th Cir 2005) at 496. See also, for the same point of law, Mengstu v Holder, 560 F3d 1055 (9th  Cir 2009) at 1056–1057.

218 Haile v Holder (Haile II), 384 F Appendix 501 (7th  Cir 2010). See SE Forbes (n 20) 699–730.

219 Stserba v Holder, No 09-4312, US Court of Appeals, 6th  Cir, 20 May 2011.

220 ibid 9.

221 ibid 10.

222 US Supreme Court, Trop v Dulles, 356 US 86, 101–102.

223 Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US at 161, quoting Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) 294. See also Lord Macdonald of River Glaven's statement 17 March 2014, col 53, before the UK House of Lords defeating the Government on deprivation of citizenship leading to statelessness <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140317-0002.htm>.

224 Goodwin-Gill, ‘Beware of Academic Error!’ (n 15) December 1992) 7.

225 Roth, K, ‘Defending Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Practical Issues Faced by an International Human Rights Organization’ (2004) 26 HRQ 63, 69Google Scholar.

226 eg High Court of Kenya, Kituo Cha Sheria v Attorney General, 26 July 2013, paras 34 and 40; ECtHR, MSS v Belgium and Greece, GC, Application No 30696/09, judgment of 21 January 2011; ECtHR, Kim v Russia, Application No 44260/13, judgment of 17 July 2014, para 54. See also Timmer, A and Peroni, L, ‘Vulnerable Groups: The Promise of an Emerging Concept in European Human Rights Convention Law’ (2013) 11 IJCL 1056–85Google Scholar.

227 These may be provided by constitutional provisions (eg art 21(3) of the Constitution of Kenya) or human rights treaties (eg arts 3 or 5 ECHR or art 4 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).