2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) As of 2020, SDPs have been enacted by 23 states, either through norms or legislation. 11 These SDP norms establish specific procedures for statelessness status determination, addressing the protection of stateless populations independent of migration and asylum procedures. The recognition of SDPs with autonomous character, establishing specific regulations in this subject matter, constitutes a state’s positive political will for the identification, recognition and protection of stateless persons. As a starting point, SDP norms consider stateless persons as foreigners. Successful SDP applicants are recognised by the state as stateless, have the right to documentation (ID and residence) and access to naturalisation. 12 Naturalisation is a durable solution for statelessness and one of the keys for integrating stateless persons into society. Similarly, naturalisation is a durable solution for migrants and refugees, 13 who also are considered foreigners by states. Nevertheless, there is a concern that shall be addressed throughout this article: those who have the right to nationality could be considered ‘foreign’ by their own state. Stateless persons can be born in the territory of the state or have strong links given an extensive period of living in the state. What if, then, an applicant could be a national of the country in which they have applied for a determination of statelessness status? An application that may be made whether the applicant is aware of their nationality or citizenship rights in the country to which they have applied or not. Could a formally adopted SDP be used by states to perpetuate a policy of exclusion or denationalisation? These questions have not been addressed nor discussed by the doctrine or UNHCR within SDP contexts. For these reasons, this article raises an alert or ‘red flag’ when applicants in SDPs could be nationals of the state in which they have applied for recognition of their status as stateless; meaning, therefore, that an SDP is not the procedure that corresponds to their case. It is important to identify such cases, regulate due process and, moreover, underline the importance of state will towards recognising their right to citizenship. Of the 23 states that have enacted SDPs as of 2020, eight countries have included safeguards in their SDP norms for identification, investigation and referral mechanisms where the applicant could be identified as a national of the state in which they have applied to be recognised as stateless. The applicant would not be eligible to be recognised as stateless, but would be recognised as a citizen of the state in which they have wrongly applied for a status of statelessness. These safeguards in the SDP normative framework constitute good practice and guidance 11 12 13 The author of this article read statelessness determination procedure (‘SDP’) norms in their original languages: Spanish, English, French, Portuguese and Italian. SDP norms from Turkey, Montenegro, Ukraine, Moldova, Kosovo, Georgia, Latvia, Bulgaria and Hungary were read and analysed from unofficial translations into English. For the purposes of this article, the words ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’ have the same meaning. Also, the term ‘norm’ or ‘law’ will be understood in a broad manner, either as an SDP law enacted by the congress or parliament of a country; or an SDP norm issued through a decree, resolution or the application of rules issued by a state’s executive branch or its corresponding ministries or agencies. 1954 Convention (n 1) art 32. See also UNHCR Conclusion (n 3); Good Practices Paper 2016 (n 3) 1, 8; Good Practices Paper 2020 (n 1) 20–22; Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (n 2) 25 [58]. Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme, Solutions: Ending Displacement and Statelessness, 72nd Meeting, EC/69/SC/CRP.10/Rev.1 (7 June 2018) [3], [13]; Procedures for Determination of Refugees and Statelessness (n 8) 106 [289]; Eva Mrekajova, ‘Naturalization of Statelessness Persons: Solutions of Statelessness?’ (LLM Thesis, International and European Public Law, Tilburg University 2012) 5, 52, 54. 62