diasporic and familial ties, as well as international agreements also serve to increase the accessibility of migration. Given this reality, any laws which result in a loss of nationality due to living abroad are anachronistic.103 Of all LAS member States, only one country maintains laws by which its citizens by birth may lose their nationality based on prolonged residence abroad. A small number has provisions by which a naturalised citizen who lives abroad for a certain period of time may lose their nationality, with all of the relevant time periods being less than seven years. If States are to maintain provisions permitting the loss of nationality based on time spent living abroad, it would be preferable for them to provide for the potential loss of nationality rather than making it automatic upon time spent living abroad, so as to allow the authorities to take relevant circumstances into account. Additionally, it is incumbent upon States to notify the individual living abroad of the potential loss of nationality associated with their continued residence abroad, so as to give them sufficient time to either return to their State of nationality or to take any such measure as may assist them to retain their nationality.104 Though the 1961 Convention allows for the loss of nationality on these grounds to lead to statelessness, the evolution of international law towards a state whereby individuals have a right to acquire and retain a nationality, requires that any loss of nationality due to prolonged residence abroad should never result in an individual being left without a nationality, as the impact on the individual would far outweigh the objective sought by the State.105 As indicated, two formulations of a model provision in relation to deprivation of nationality are included in this Toolkit on Nationality Legislation. In the first, the ideal provision, the law does not allow for the deprivation of nationality to result in statelessness. Though the 1961 Convention does permit the creation of statelessness as a result of deprivation of nationality in very limited and exceptional circumstances, there is a growing consensus, based on the development of international human rights law, that statelessness should never result from the deprivation of nationality. The second formulation of the provision does allow for statelessness to occur as a result of deprivation of nationality in the specific occasions that are outlined by the 1961 Convention. When States formulate their own laws on the deprivation of nationality, they are urged to adopt the first approach. As well as the negative humanitarian consequences which may result from a person being made stateless, States 45