The Broadening Protection Gap Because of the faulty mechanisms involved in the determination of statelessness in Belgium, 93 there are no clear legal criteria for determining whether a stateless person, who is recognised as such by the courts, is in need of a residence permit as a form of protection. The Belgian Constitutional Court in judgements of 2009, 2012 and 2018 held that a difference in treatment regarding the right of residence constitutes discrimination. In those cases, the difference was between recognised refugees and recognised stateless persons who involuntarily lost their nationality and could not obtain a legal and durable right of residence in another state. 94 The Court of Cassation held that judges are obliged to remedy the legislative gap identified by the Constitutional Court through investigation. Courts are thus obliged to inquire as to whether a recognised stateless person has involuntarily lost their nationality, and if they have demonstrated that they could not obtain a durable residence permit in another state with which they have ties. 95 Thus, the protection offered to stateless persons by the jurisprudence described above is limited to the verification of whether the person in question can obtain a ‘legal and durable right of residence in another state’, without the additional requirements required by UNHCR’s guidelines — such as a full range of civil, economic, social and cultural rights, and a reasonable prospect of obtaining the nationality of that state. 96 Therefore, Palestinians who do not receive refugee or subsidiary protection status are not assured of specific, effective and predictable protection in line with UNHCR guidance based on their statelessness. CONCLUSION AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS This contribution has shown how different actors in Belgium diverge on the question of whether, and in which circumstances, Palestinians may be stateless for the purposes of international law. It has become clear that some of the reasoning in the jurisprudence cited is faulty. At the very least, the jurisprudence fails to address specific issues that arise when applying the definition of a stateless person to Palestinians, such as the identification of a competent authority, or the concept of nationality itself. Moreover, we have shown that the diverging approaches described above are problematic, as they often present faulty reasoning and unjustified unequal treatment between identical situations — a divergence determined by territorial competence. 93 94 95 96 See above Part III(A)(1). App No 198/2009, 17 December 2009 (Belgium Constitutional Court), in French: <http://www.const-court.be/public/f/2009/2009-198f.pdf>; in Dutch: <http://www.constcourt.be/public/n/2009/2009-198n.pdf>. See also App No 1/2012, 11 January 2012 (Belgium Constitutional Court), in French: <http://www.const-court.be/public/f/2012/2012-001f.pdf> <http://www.const-court.be/public/n/2012/2012-001n.pdf>; in Dutch: App No 18/2018, 22 February 2018 (Belgium Constitutional Court) <http://www.constcourt.be/public/f/2018/2018-018f.pdf>. MZ v Ville d’Eupen, Bourgmestre de la Ville d’Eupen et l’État belge, App No C.13.0042.F, 27 May 2016 (Court of Cassation), in Dutch: <http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/pdfapp/download_blob?idpdf=N-20160527-2>; in French: <http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/pdfapp/download_blob?idpdf=F-20160527-2>. The Court later clarified that should judges refuse to apply the existing regulations because these violate the principle of equal treatment, it does not mean that stateless persons automatically fall under the category of aliens authorised to stay on the territory by law. They still need to be granted leave to remain; BM v Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn van Roeselare, App No S.14.0014.N1, 27 June 2016 (Court of Cassation) <http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/pdfapp/download_blob?idpdf=N-20160627-2>. UNHCR Statelessness Handbook (n 40) [157]. 315