First generation
(20th century)
Second generation
(2000-2011)
Specific rules in law,
Spain (2001)12
clear or relatively clear
Latvia (2004)13
procedural framework
Hungary (2007)14
Clear protection ground, but no detailed rules
in law, yet functioning procedural framework
France (1952)19
Italy (70s?)20
Clear protection ground, (yet incomplete)
procedural framework
Third generation
(after 2011)11
Moldova (2012)15
Georgia (2012)16
Philippines (2012)17
United Kingdom (2013)18
Mexico (2007)21
Slovakia (2012)22
Turkey (2013)23
212223
In addition to these countries, a number of others have recently shown interest in following their example.24
None of the above-referred models can be considered as a single “best practice”; as even those that are
frequently looked to as a model, exhibit important persisting gaps and challenges. The following two principles
guided the identification of good practices highlighted in this document:
A good practice ensures the effective implementation of legal standards established by the 1954
Convention, UNHCR guidance and international human rights law;
In addition, and without compromising the first principle, it facilitates practical efficiency.
21 Originally established by Circular CRM-015-07: Migratory situation of stateless persons, CRM-015-07, 3 July 2007, which was later
succeeded by provisions incorporated into the Act on Migration, 25 May 2011 and the Manual of Migratory Criteria and Procedures of the
National Institute of Migration, 29 January 2010
22 Established by: Act No. 404/2011 on Residence of Aliens and Amendment and Supplementation of Certain Acts, 21 October 2011 – The
statelessness determination mechanism yet lacks detailed rules and a complete procedural framework in Slovakia at the time of writing.
Therefore it will only be considered as potential good practice in connection with the status granted to stateless persons and some
particular evidentiary rules that already exist in law.
23 Established by: Act on Foreigners and International Protection, Law No. 6458, 4 April 2013 – The determination and protection system
in Turkey is very recent and yet lacks detailed regulation at the time of writing. Therefore it cannot yet be considered as a fully functioning
determination and protection regime and will only be referred to in this document exceptionally.
24 At a ministerial meeting in December 2011, Belgium, Brazil, Costa Rica, Peru, the United States of America, Uruguay and Australia
pledged to establish a statelessness determination mechanisms, while Austria pledged to “review her implementation of the [1954]
Convention” on the basis of UNHCR guidance. Preparatory work for the creation of such a regime is already on-going at the time of
writing in some of these states (e.g. Brazil, Costa Rica, Uruguay, etc.), and in the United States a statelessness determination procedure
has been tabled as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
7