SOLVING STATELESSNESS assistance to stateless persons. These are specific obligations which are not explicitly contained in the international human rights framework. The 1954 Convention does not articulate these obligations as a matter of equality, but, with the benefit of a more advanced and comprehensive approach to human rights and equality law, both can be seen as aspects of the State’s obligation to take positive action to accelerate progress towards equality.°’ This is an argument which, to the authors’ knowledge, has to date not been made to States. It is an important argument to explore further because this type of cross fertilisation between the 1954 Convention and equality law, by which the latter is applied to and enriches the former, is essential if we are to bring the protection of stateless persons (and ultimately the solving of statelessness) in line with 21% century standards. Furthermore, the equality framework is enriched by being confronted with the 1954 Convention, as an example of how the stateless - who for too long have remained on the very margins (at best) of the equality discourse — can very tangibly benefit from the targeted application of positive action. As all States have obligations to not discriminate and to treat all persons with equality, there is an argument to be made for even States which are not party to the 1954 Convention to take these and other positive measures to address the structural discrimination and disadvantage faced by stateless persons. Positive action demands not only that States acknowledge the disadvantages faced by certain groups, but also that they take action to correct those. Accordingly, it can be argued that, in tackling some of the disadvantages faced by stateless people in accessing other rights (as identified in section 2), States also have the opportunity and indeed obligation to go further and institute positive measures for longer term equality by solving statelessness. For example, while the State obligation to tackle the indirect discrimination faced by undocumented stateless children seeking to access education by removing the requirement for identity documents to have this access is obvious, it can also be argued that the State should treat this point of contact between stateless people and the administrative system as an opportunity to step in and provide stateless people with documents, which would often strengthen their claim to nationality. Such a form of targeted documentation would be an appropriate positive action measure. 57 See, T. Molnar, “A fresh examination of facilitated naturalisation as a solution for stateless persons”, chapter 8 in this book. 117