Views Adopted by The UN Human Rights Committee Under Article 5(4) In reality, DZ’s situation is not exceptional. Rather, it is the result of a flawed system that traps thousands of individuals in a legal limbo. According to a recent study, there were 6,303 children registered as having ‘unknown nationality’ in their civil records, even though they were born in the Netherlands.17 Although draft legislation on a statelessness determination procedure has been pending before the States General (the Dutch Parliament) since 2016, the HRC stressed that this procedure did not meet international standards, since it does not ensure that a person recognised as stateless is granted a residence permit to fully enjoy their rights under the ICCPR.18 CONCLUSION Albeit its historical importance, the HRC’s decision failed to explore two key areas. The first relates to the way in which the HRC interpreted and applied the definition of a stateless person, in particular, the ‘under the operation of its law’ test. Instead of expressly relying on art 1(1) of the 1954 Convention, which contains a clear definition of a stateless person, the HRC decided to build its reasoning around the 1961 Convention and the UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No 4.19 While the reasons behind this choice are not entirely clear, the question of ‘when is a person not considered as a national under the operation of a state’s law’ could have been unpacked in a more nuanced way. Relying on the UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No 420 and the Handbook on the Protection of Stateless Persons,21 the HRC could have elaborated further on how the persistent unwillingness of the Chinese authorities in recognising DZ as a Chinese national would meet the ‘under the operation of its law’ test. The second unexplored area is the interrelationship between the right to acquire a nationality and an individual’s enjoyment of juridical personality and respect for human dignity. If compared to the rich case law of the African 22 and InterAmerican human rights systems on the matter, the HRC’s decision fell short in linking the right to acquire a nationality with other rights and guarantees under the ICCPR. For instance, in Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights acknowledged that stateless children are left in a legal limbo, so far as they do not have a recognised ‘juridical personality’.23 As pointed out by Hélène Tigroudja in her concurring opinion, DZ’s ‘situation of statelessness’ should have been ‘analysed by the majority as a violation of the right to be recognized by the law as a legal person (art. 16) and the right to be treated with humanity and dignity (art. 7)’.24 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, Childhood Statelessness in the Netherlands (Report, 2021) 2 <https://files.institutesi.org/Childhood_Statelessness_in_the_Netherlands.pdf>. Communication No 2918/2016 (n 1) 7–8 [8.4]. In fact, the Human Rights Committee relied on just one paragraph in the Guidelines on Statelessness: Guidelines on Statelessness (n 7) [16]. See also Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, opened for signature 30 August 1961, 989 UNTS 175 (entered into force 13 December 1975). Guidelines on Statelessness (n 7) 4–6 [16]–[21]. UNHCR Handbook (n 14) 2014 12–13 [22]–[24]. See, eg, Penessis v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits and Reparations) (African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, App No 013/2015, 28 November 2019) [84], [87]. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, Costs, Judgment) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No 130, 8 September 2005) 67 [180]. Communication No 2918/2016 (n 1) annex II 13 [5]. 167