THE RISK OF STATELESSNESS 52 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J. 2017 [Vol. 19 decision did not pose statelessness problems because denationalized children of Haitian descent derived Haitian nationality from their parents.23 The Inter-American Court responded to the decision of the Constitutional Court the next year in Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, finding human rights violations stemming from the denial of Dominican nationality documents to persons of Haitian descent born in Dominican territory.24 With regard to the ongoing debate on statelessness, the Inter-American Court took a novel analytical approach and extended protection under the international law of statelessness to individuals who face a “risk of statelessness.”25 Specifically, the Inter-American Court placed the burden on the Dominican state to demonstrate that persons who had been born in the Dominican Republic had access to Haitian nationality.26 In finding that the Dominican Republic had not met this burden, and that certain individuals of Haitian descent faced a “risk of statelessness,” the Court found a violation of the right to nationality and ordered the Dominican Republic to issue Dominican nationality documents.27 In so doing, the Court extended a well-established rule of protection that requires a state to grant its nationality to stateless children born in its territory, such that the rule now encompasses children who are born at “risk of statelessness.” This Article argues that in its notable effort to protect Dominican-born persons of Haitian descent from the systematic human rights violations that they face, the Inter-American Court stretched the international law of statelessness beyond its understood limits. Indeed, there is little disagreement at this point that the law of statelessness was designed to protect de jure stateless persons, who have no nationality under the operation of laws of any country.28 To extend that body of law to protect persons at “risk of statelessness” is to extend it, in effect, to de facto stateless persons who were excluded—rightly or wrongly—from the statelessness treaty regime. Stretching the law of statelessness beyond its understood limits risks creating normative confusion, as well as undermining both the authority of the Inter-American Court and the growing movement to eradicate statelessness. This Article provides a path to realign this jurisprudence with well-established international law norms by returning to the rule that requires a finding of statelessness in order to extend statelessness protection. It makes the further contribution of providing a reasoned framework for the consideration of the “risk of statelessness” as part of that statelessness determination. 23. See TCRD, 25 septiembre 2013, Sentencia TC/0168/13, pp. 77-79. 24. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 282, ¶ 301 (Aug. 28, 2014). 25. Id. ¶ 298. 26. Id. ¶ 297. 27. Id. ¶ 298. 28. See generally Hugh Massey (Sr. Legal Adviser, UNHCR Geneva), UNHCR and De Facto Statelessness, U.N. Doc. LPPR/2010/01 (Apr. 2010) (discussing the origins and evolution of the law of statelessness). Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3111529