world with the largest percentage of the population following nomadic or transhumant lifestyles, yet its laws take no account of this fact. Most recent migrants or refugees will not themselves be stateless, since, even if they lack documents, they retain the knowledge of their “home” country, its languages and other identifying features, that would enable them to re-establish that nationality in case of need (provided they had assistance to make the necessary applications). Yet a failure to act to provide the possibility of obtaining nationality in the country where they now live, and especially for their children, creates the risk of multigenerational statelessness of individuals, families and communities who cannot obtain nationality in either (or any) country where they have connections. Ethnic groups cut in two by modern borders, or those whose nomadic lifestyles lead them to cross such borders frequently, are often distrusted for their ability to claim to belong either side of that boundary. But they are as much at risk of having documents of neither state as of both. Equally, most foundlings and children separated from their parents will find a niche where they are accepted, with or without documents, even if they are not in the country of their birth; but some will not. Failing to provide systems to document such children creates for them the risk not only of exclusion from school, medical treatment and other needs; but also that on adulthood they have no legal status in the society where they have made their home, and therefore no enjoyment of their other human rights. Of course, if a person has money, it is usually possible to sort out such problems: but it is hardly desirable to advocate corruption as a means of avoiding statelessness. Moreover, if documents are known to be obtained corruptly, they are mistrusted; and, in a crisis, will not be believed as proof of nationality. 6.4. Due process and transparency are key In societies where many people are undocumented, decisions about access to public services, voter registration and other rights are effectively left to interpretation by low-level administrative officials. In this context, instinctive criteria such as language or last name are often the default basis for determining eligibility. It becomes very important for those who do not fit these criteria to have a means of proving nationality in case of doubt. In this regard, the civil law system in which nationality of origin is determined by the courts and not by the administrative authorities has significant advantages over the common law countries in terms of due process and clarity. It establishes the certificate of nationality as a single document that is definitive proof of nationality, and in the president of the relevant tribunal nominates an impartial arbiter who, while (of course) not entirely immune from bias or financial impropriety, is significantly more rule-bound and better informed than in a system dependent on much more junior administrative staff responsible for processing applications for identity documents. Nonetheless, court-based systems, perhaps even more than those that are purely administrative, can be very burdensome in terms of process, and may require individuals to be assisted by lawyers or other advisers in order to have effective access to the procedures established. Completely discretionary systems for deciding questions of nationality – such as those in place in most West African countries for naturalisation – create major risks of statelessness, not necessarily for reasons of ill faith, but because they have enabled a paralysis in the process for people to change their nationality to that of the place where they have the closest connections. They also greatly favour people with money, lawyers and connections over the poor who do not have access to such assistance 92