Journal of Human Rights 185 an equal basis with men. This can be seen in the Global Campaign on Equal Nationality Rights (GCENR), the UNHCR #IBelong Campaign to End Statelessness (UNHCR, 2022), and a recent World Bank Group (2019). Efforts to eradicate racial and ethnic discrimination retain a similar, single-issue focus. They also emphasize legal reform, as well as ensuring universal birth registration for people belonging to minority groups. This is because the majority of the world’s stateless populations belong to minority groups (UNHCR, 2017). Rather than considering gender and racial forms of discrimination in isolation, intersectional analysis helps us to see how multiple forms of discrimination converge to expulse people from the very systems that should establish their legal existence. The limited way intersectionality has been used to study statelessness to date has focused on lived experiences of multiply marginalized stateless persons, such as Romani women and children of same-sex parents in Europe (Brennan et al., 2021). As Brennan (2019) demonstrated, intersectional theory can aid in understanding the interactions between multiple identities and experiences of subordination, and help to avoid the pitfall of assuming stateless people to be a coherent group with identical problems and needs. Intersectionality can be not only an analytical perspective but also a method for studying outcomes and differences in lived experiences, or what Yuval-Davis has called “situated intersectionality” (2015). Building on these insights, Sabhapandit and Baruah (2021) examined the structural forms of discrimination impacting rural, low-income women of Bengali Muslim ancestry in the Indian state of Assam, as they navigate a state-led documentation process that is making millions stateless. Their intersectional feminist ethnographic research revealed, “The entire process of applying for documentation and paperwork reflect relations of production and domination, with women and ethnic minorities, inter alia, at a significant disadvantage. Moreover, the gendered nature of how women interact with the bureaucracy intersects with other aspects of one’s identity” (Sabhapandit & Baruah, 2021, p. 244). Despite these advances in intersectional statelessness scholarship, there is scope to use intersectionality to understand not only the consequences in stateless people’s lives but also the structural causes of this condition. One way people can be made stateless is through blocked access to birth registration. Intersectionality as method for building a global inventory of exclusionary birth registration practices Extant research on which population groups tend to be excluded from birth registration confirms the relevance of paying particular attention to the experiences of parents who are women migrant workers (especially when lacking status), asylum-seekers or refugees, ethnic minority groups, and stateless persons.4 Within the universe of the nonregistered, intersecting identity factors have proven to be relevant, such as the mother’s age, ethnicity, and social class and the location of the birth (rural vs. urban, home vs. health facility), as to whether and when a birth can be registered. The fact that patterns of exclusion from birth registration reflect existing social inequalities based on migration status, citizenship, ethnicity, age, and class underscores the importance of taking an intersectional approach. Nevertheless, most human rights research on birth registration has examined the matter solely as a matter of children’s rights (Bhabha, 2011; Stein, 2016; Vandenabeele, 2011). This project sought to identify the patterns of exclusion from birth registration that can make children of migrants, refugees, and other multiply marginalized people stateless. Despite extensive legal recognition in various human rights treaties,5 in practice, the right to birth registration is routinely violated. Where this right is not fulfilled becomes visible through the periodic reviews conducted by the treaty bodies that examine states’ compliance with the human rights conventions to which they are party. The issue shows up most consistently in the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) reviews, as well as the Universal Period Review (UPR), as a matter of children’s rights. However, it is also a major concern for the CEDAW and CERD committees.