1.2 Definitions and distinctions 8. For the purposes of this report, nationality6 will be defined as legal membership of a State.7 A stateless person, according to Article 1 of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, is someone “who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”. This has sometimes been referred to as “de jure” statelessness. Following this classification, persons who strictly speaking do have a nationality but enjoy none of the benefits normally associated with it (such as the right to reside, leave and return, receive diplomatic protection abroad, etc.) are not considered to be stateless. However, many scholars have argued that a purely technical nationality, that is in many or all respects ineffective, in practice equals having no nationality at all.8 Persons with such a “useless” nationality are commonly referred to as de facto stateless persons, but this group is much less clearly delineated and much more conceptually ambiguous than stateless persons as defined by the 1954 Convention. If one visualizes a continuum on which full, legal citizenship takes up one end of the spectrum, statelessness occupies the other – unfavourable – end. 9. In practice, “de facto statelessness” is a problematic concept. Put simply, one is only considered de facto stateless when one’s nationality is ineffective. There is, however, no consensus as to when this criterion of ineffectiveness is met. Furthermore, even if this were the case, no legal imperatives exist to grant rights to de facto stateless persons on grounds of their statelessness, even though the Final Act to the 1961 Convention does include a resolution recommending “that persons who are stateless de facto should as far as possible be treated as stateless de jure to enable them to acquire an effective nationality”. The utility of the concept thus remains rather limited. Whereas the absence or denial of a nationality is covered by the two Conventions on statelessness, the denial of rights attached to a nationality (de facto) is an issue addressed by the existing human rights regime.9 All in all, this report aims to avoid using the term “de facto” as much as possible and unless mentioned otherwise the word “stateless” refers to those persons who fall under the international definition of a stateless persons given in the 1954 Convention. 10. It should be noted though that the report does not only cover officially recognized stateless persons. As will become apparent, there may be many reservations about the way statelessness is (or is not) determined in the Netherlands. Instead, in the absence of a procedure, individuals who are at particular risk of statelessness according to UNHCR’s interpretation of the international treaty regime on the matter are also considered. 11. Another distinction, more tailored to the Dutch context than that between stateless persons under the 1954 Convention and de facto stateless persons, is that between stateless persons and “unreturnable” persons. This report elaborates on cases in both categories. The former refers to persons who fall under the definition of a stateless person outlined above. The latter category refers to persons who, despite their own express wishes or the attempts of the host State, can neither return (nor be returned) to their country of nationality, nor are legally entitled to reside in their current host country. Some of these people cannot be returned because their government does not cooperate or assist 6 6 The terms “nationality” and “citizenship” are treated interchangeably in this study. 7 P. Boeles, “Het nut van nationaliteit”, Nederlands Juristenblad, no. 42 (2007), 2666-2671. 8  .A. Batchelor, “Stateless Persons: Some Gaps in International Protection”, International Journal C of Refugee Law 7, no. 2 (1995), 180. See also Equal Rights Trust, “Unravelling Anomaly: Detention, Discrimination and the Protection Needs of Stateless Persons”, (2010), 10, 78. 9 L. van Waas, Nationality Matters. Statelessness under international law (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2008), 25. Mapping statelessness