emphasized that the finding that an individual is stateless constitutes a juridically relevant fact. A significant distinction emerged between two different contexts, the first consisting of countries – many industrialized – that host stateless persons who are predominantly, if not exclusively, migrants or of migrant background; and the second consisting of countries that have in situ stateless populations (i.e. those that consider themselves to already be “in their own” country2). All participants agreed on the importance of improving protection of stateless persons in both of these contexts. At the same time it was acknowledged that the means by which this is achieved will differ depending on the circumstances of specific populations and countries. The discussions during this meeting frequently invoked obligations in international human rights law beyond those contained in the 1954 Convention – particularly with respect to guaranteeing a child’s right to a nationality as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). However, it was underscored that the scope of those obligations will be discussed in greater detail in the third expert meeting of this series. The following summary conclusions do not necessarily represent the individual views of participants or necessarily those of UNHCR, but reflect broadly the key understandings and recommendations that emerged from the discussion. Statelessness Determination Procedures The necessity for determination procedures 1. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons establishes a standard of treatment which can only be applied by a State party if it knows who the recipients of this treatment should be. As such, it is implicit in the 1954 Convention that States parties identify who qualifies as a stateless person under Article 1 of the Convention for the purpose of affording them the standard of treatment set forth in the Convention. The identification of stateless persons may occur in procedures which are not specifically designed for this purpose. This would be appropriate where such procedures are linked to grant of residence, as is the practice in a number of States. In the absence of such provisions in aliens or immigration laws, a procedure which is aimed at determining statelessness enhances a State’s ability to fulfil its obligations under the 1954 Convention. 2. Recognition as a stateless person is not a substitute for acquisition of nationality. In the case of stateless persons in situ, where there is a realistic 2 This terminology was adopted taking into account Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the manner in which this provision has been interpreted by the Human Rights Committee (General Comment 27). 2