is “not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law” (our emphasis).167 Palestine, as discussed above, does not currently have a nationality law, despite past efforts to enact one, nor full sovereignty. “Law” generally should be interpreted to include jurisprudence and government policies as well as legislation,168 and there are people who are considered as “belonging” to Palestine who might in some situations benefit, to a limited extent, from its protection. However, Palestine’s lack of sovereignty (particularly control over entry and exit to its territory) and repeated failure to enact a nationality law makes it very problematic for decision-makers in other countries to decide that Palestinians are not stateless in the context of international legal protection for stateless persons. The UK (a case study) A Palestinian man, Mr Z,169 was born stateless and resided in the UAE. He travelled to and applied for asylum in the UK in 2015, with his wife and children as dependents. At his asylum screening interview, he did not state any fear of persecution in the UAE, and the Home Office interviewing officer informed him that he did not have a valid basis for claiming asylum, so he withdrew his application. Later, Mr Z re-applied for asylum. He subsequently attempted to return voluntarily to the UAE, but this was impossible, and he made yet another asylum application. At one point, a solicitor drafted inadequate submissions for him, which did not constitute an asylum claim and did not refer to Mr Z being stateless. In 2016, about a year after his first asylum claim, assisted by a solicitor at the University of Liverpool Law Clinic, Mr Z applied to remain in the UK as a stateless person.170 Home Office documents obtained by the Law Clinic showed that Home Office officials were aware for some time that Mr Z was stateless, but the Home Office did not inform Mr Z of the possibility of making an application to remain in the UK on this basis. Mr Z’s statelessness application was granted in mid2017, with his family members as dependants, and they were all granted residence permits (which entail permission to work for adults). Mr Z and his family received financial support from the UK Government for approximately 18 months while trying to resolve their status. They were required to move during this time, disrupting the children’s education. The welfare of all family members was negatively affected by the delays in resolving their situation. If Mr Z had been informed of the UK’s statelessness determination procedure in 2015 and accessed adequate legal assistance, the family could have avoided unnecessary hardship, and Mr Z and his wife could have been granted permission to work sooner.171 7. 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness The 1961 Convention’s primary aim is to prevent statelessness, ensure that it decreases over time, and place limits on the circumstances in which nationality can be withdrawn. It is particularly important in ensuring that children have an entitlement to the nationality of their country of birth if they would otherwise be stateless. Detailed consideration of the 1961 Convention is beyond the scope of this report, but it is a vital part of the international framework to resolve statelessness, and it is relevant to the lives of some Palestinians, particularly children born to stateless Palestinian parents. 167 In Spanish, the wording of Article 1(1) does not include reference to ‘the operation of law’, but rather to ‘legislation’. (‘A los efectos de la presente Convención, el término «apátrida» designará a toda persona que no sea considerada como nacional suyo por ningún Estado, conforme a su legislación.’) 168 UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, Para 22, n 66. 169 Mr Z is a pseudonym added for convenience. 170 The UK’s statelessness determination procedure is set out in Part 14 of the UK’s Immigration Rules, based on but departing in some aspects from the 1954 Convention (see n 94). 171 Bezzano and Carter, 12, n 39.. 31