184 A. J. PETROZZIELLO surrounding human rights violations (Chow, 2016; Davis, 2015; de Beco, 2017; Ghanea, 2013; Handl et al., 2022; Holzer, 2020; Kuokkanen, 2012; Sifris & Tanyag, 2019; Wadsworth, 2011; Xanthaki, 2019). Handl et al. (2022), for example, engaged with intersectionality as an analytical tool to expose inequality in business, thereby enriching scholarship on business and human rights. Holzer (2020) used intersectionality to analyze gender and racial discrimination among women in sport, as evident in jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. For her part, Tapias Torrado (2022) used it to interpret not only the intersecting forms of oppression faced by Indigenous women human rights defenders in Colombia but also their strategies and agency in addressing it. Still others have noted the power and potential of intersectionality in the international human rights system to recognize complexity, overcome siloed thinking, and better address human rights violations affecting people whose identities fall within more than one marginalized group (Davis, 2015). Some UN treaty bodies have increased attention to intersecting forms of discrimination. This can be seen in the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), whose General Recommendation 28 recognizes that: Intersectionality is a basic concept for understanding the scope of the general obligations of States parties. … The discrimination of women based on sex and gender is inextricably linked with other factors that affect women, such as race, ethnicity, religion or belief, health, status, age, class, caste and sexual orientation and gender identity. (CEDAW, 2010, art. 18) To some extent, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD; see Ghanea, 2013) and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; see de Beco, 2017) have also acknowledged intersectionality. The CERD’s General Recommendations on Gender, Descent, Roma, Health, and Xenophobia against Migrants (GR 25, 28, 29, 37, 38, and 39) provide specific examples of intersectionality and encourage states to adopt an intersectional approach to preventing and addressing resultant harms.3 Yet, for the most part, the human rights mechanisms are still figuring out how to implement intersectionality in a system based on single treaties (Chow, 2016; Xanthaki, 2019). In part, this can be attributed to the structure of the international human rights system, which has specific treaties for discrimination affecting different population groups (e.g., women, migrant workers, persons with disabilities), rights categories (e.g., civil and political vs. economic, social, and cultural), and phenomena (e.g., racial discrimination, torture). If human rights researchers recognize the structural limitations of the system itself but remain committed to intersectional thinking and practice, then we must design methodologies to overcome these constraints. The next section considers the usefulness of intersectionality for studying statelessness. Studying statelessness from an intersectional perspective Since 2014, a growing interdisciplinary body of scholarship on statelessness has emerged, which can benefit from adopting an intersectional approach. Traditionally a topic of study for scholars of international law, a new generation of emerging scholars from various disciplines is committed to investigating the causal mechanisms of statelessness as well as the multiple forms of exclusion and violence that can result (Baluarte, 2019; Bloom & Kingston, 2021; Brennan et al., 2023; Kingston, 2019a; Petrozziello, 2019). If multiple forms of discrimination can be both cause and consequence of statelessness (Kingston, 2017, 2019b), then intersectionality is a useful framework for understanding states’ production of statelessness. Nevertheless, the main international organizations working on these issues (e.g., the UN High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] and UNICEF) tend to consider gender and racial discrimination as separate causal factors of statelessness. Regarding gender discrimination, the prevailing approach focuses on reforming gender discriminatory nationality laws (GDNL, hereafter), which prevent women from passing on their nationality to their children or spouse on