2019 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 1(2) running to 2024 suggests that while there is interest and political will to address statelessness, it is not yet universal in scope, aspiration or timeframe. 24 By way of example, 25 states globally are reported to have inequality in legislation between men and women with regard to nationality determination.25 Of these 25 states, seven are listed as having extremely limited circumstances if any for women to convey their nationality to their children which, without safeguards in place, creates a high risk of statelessness. Early analysis of pledges received indicates that only one of these seven states, Eswatini, pledged to change this situation. This means that without further action, discrimination against women in the conferral of nationality to children will be maintained in certain states, and additional cases of childhood statelessness are likely. As another measurable example, and again based on an early analysis of pledges received, 15 states committed to accede to the 1954 Convention while 21 states committed to accede to the 1961 Convention. These additional states parties would bring the total to 108 and 95 for the 1954 and the 1961 Statelessness Conventions respectively by 2024, an important increase but not yet universal in scope. A similar analysis can be made with regard to other pledges received for example on the collection of data concerning statelessness, and so on. There may be more states that are considering taking action despite not making a pledge. Robust advocacy toward ending statelessness in all states, with or without pledges, is certainly one critical area where strengthened review, collaboration and partnership will be needed. Indeed, one of the key outcomes of the High-Level Segment on Statelessness is a better understanding of where future efforts are required to reach the Campaign goal of ending statelessness by 2024. Overall, therefore, if all received pledges are implemented, important strides will continue to be made. However, at this pace we cannot expect to see a complete end to statelessness in five short years. While a reduction in the number of stateless cases and the prevention of many future cases is certainly desirable and an achievement in its own right, assuming momentum is maintained, nothing less than the complete eradication of statelessness should be the goal given the severe deprivation caused in the lives of those who still are or will become stateless. At this juncture, therefore, some critical areas for focus include the following. STRENGTHENING PARTNERSHIPS Statelessness is not a problem with regard to law only. Changing perceptions about nationality entitlement is often a precursor to the introduction of legal prescriptions. An ‘us versus them’ confrontational methodology typically leads to fewer and more short-lived results, while consultative engagement and accountability ensures a role for all in achieving lasting dividends. Partnership between the state, civil society, stateless populations and concerned organisations 24 25 A brief extension period was given post-Executive Committee for those who wished to submit pledges or who made oral pledges to provide them formally in writing. Moreover, while most pledges were clear, there is an ongoing clarification exercise taking place with regard to some of the commitments outlined. While it is still therefore early days with regard to a detailed analysis of the full set of final pledges, there will not be significant changes now in the number and nature of pledges received as part of the ExCom High-Level Segment on Statelessness. See Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2019 (Report, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 8 March 2019) <https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5c8120847.pdf>. 312