Should, the entire territory of a State be permanently submerged, inevitably there could be no permanent population attached to it or a government in control of it. The loss of all territory has been cited most frequently as a possible ground for loss of statehood. It appears, however, unlikely to occur before the end of the century, even with the upwardly revised rates in rising sea-levels announced by scientists recently.3 A threat to statehood may nonetheless arise far earlier. It is projected that the number and severity of extreme events such as storms and flooding will increase considerably. Extensive loss of fresh water and arable land due to contamination and seepage is expected. As well, destruction of the economic base is additionally expected due to erosion, as well as damage to corals and fishing grounds due to rising sea levels and global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has thus indicated that “rapid sea-level rise that inundates islands and coastal settlements is likely to limit adaptation possibilities, with potential options being limited to migration”.4 It has also confirmed that rising sea-levels are unavoidable.5 Low-lying island States are thus very likely to be entirely uninhabitable long before their full submersion, causing entire populations and the governments to be externally displaced. Unless territory could be protected or territory was ceded by another State, the exile of the population and the government would presumably be permanent. The population and the government would be entirely dependent on the status the host State would be willing to grant it. The government's independence could thus also be questioned. The IPCC itself has noted the threat to the sovereignty of low-lying island States likely to be affected.6 Should statehood cease, the population would be rendered stateless. Disappearance of a State due to loss of territory or the permanent exile of the population or the government is without precedent. The international community could agree that the affected States would continue to exist nonetheless. Even in such a case, however, governments of affected States would face many constraints in practice,7 and their populations would be likely to find themselves largely in a situation that would be similar to if not the same as if statehood had ceased. The population could thus be considered de facto stateless.8 To the extent that statelessness is foreseeable, efforts should focus on preventing it from arising. The principle of prevention of statelessness is a general one recognized in international law as a corollary to the right to a nationality. Both have been iterated in numerous international and regional human rights instruments.9 As well, specific instruments address prevention and reduction of statelessness, including inter alia the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (hereafter the 1961 Convention).10 In addition, the General Assembly in 1996 entrusted UNHCR with a global mandate to engage in preventing and reducing statelessness as well as to protect stateless persons.11 To prevent statelessness in the context of low-lying island States, one option would be that territory elsewhere would be ceded to the affected State to ensure its continued existence. If other States agreed that this was the same State, statelessness would not arise. Union with another State would be another option. In such a case, the 1961 Convention and the Draft Articles on the Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to Succession of States provide for specific safeguards to prevent statelessness.12 Otherwise, the acquisition of the nationality of another State would need to be foreseen. As existing instruments do not provide specific guidance for such a case, situation-specific arrangements would be required. 2