THE RISK OF STATELESSNESS 88 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J. 2017 [Vol. 19 institutional uncertainty in applying rules of law, suggests that a statelessness determination may not yield a clear response. However, the fundamental nature of the right to nationality and the need for resolution of such matters may require a determination of statelessness whether the inquiry into statelessness gives a clear answer or not. In these circumstances, the risk of statelessness might be so manifest as to require a finding that a person is stateless for purposes of protection under international law. C. A Role for the Risk of Statelessness As the previous section elaborated, there are at least two ways in which a risk of statelessness might influence the outcome of a statelessness determination at birth. First, when laws from multiple jurisdictions operate at the moment of a child’s birth and questions arise as to the applicability of related laws or regulations, the child may face a risk of statelessness. Second, even if there is clarity about how each legal regime operates, wide discretion afforded to the authorities competent to make a nationality determination, or a record of arbitrary application of the law, may create a risk of statelessness. Practically speaking, complex questions of fact and law may be impossible to resolve in a timely manner when a child is born and needs the security of a nationality. In complex cases where component authorities are responsive and apply the law in a predictable manner, the risk of statelessness may be negligible. In other cases, complexity combined with unresponsive officials who apply murky rules of law inconsistently may result in a high risk of statelessness. This final section argues that a person who is more likely than not stateless should qualify as a “stateless person” under international law. The UNHCR has recognized that the importance of guaranteeing the right of everyone to a nationality balanced against the difficulty of proving nationality in some circumstances requires that the standard for establishing statelessness be less than certainty. Specifically, the UNHCR Statelessness Handbook provides that the standard of proof for a statelessness determination is to establish to a “reasonable degree” that an individual would be stateless.272 The UNHCR has further suggested that the “reasonable degree” standard is the same standard that it utilizes in making refugee status determinations.273 The UNHCR does not, however, explain why the standard for a refugee status determination and a statelessness determination should be the same. There are a number of compelling reasons for applying a shared standard. For example, the shared history of the protection regimes for refugees and stateless persons supports the use of a common standard of proof. Indeed, if the concern that prompted the two protection regimes was 272. See UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, supra note 243, ¶ 91; UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 4, supra note 84, ¶ 21. 273. UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, supra note 243, ¶ 91 (2014). Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3111529