142. While the no-fault procedure is currently the most important Dutch way of granting a form of legal stay to those who are stateless and others who cannot return due to lack of consular or other support from their government, it is in fact not a statelessness determination procedure. As Batchelor observed, allowing people to stay in the country on non-removability grounds “does little to identify cases of statelessness generally and, therefore, misses an opportunity to address the broader question of identifying increased flows of stateless persons due to changed circumstances in their countries of origin”.193 Consequently, she adds, it is “impossible to determine the magnitude of the problem of statelessness within EU Member States as there is no consistent way of identifying cases”.194 A dedicated statelessness procedure would solve problems both related to the unclear status of stateless persons in the Netherlands, as well as give visibility to the problem. Furthermore, it could decrease the number of ill-fated asylum applications made only because no more appropriate procedure exists. Experiences in countries which have instituted a statelessness determination procedure, such as France, Hungary, and Spain, demonstrate that procedural improvements enhance awareness, protection standards, and the identification of stateless persons.195 Also, it should be noted that the situation of being stateless, like that of being a refugee, is governed by international law. There should be a mechanism that allows individuals to have their claim to be stateless assessed and recognized.196 143. In the Netherlands, proper recognition of statelessness does not take place and the burden of proof used by the GBA is high. For example, repeated statements by foreign embassies denying any attachment to, or responsibility for, an individual are usually not sufficient for the Dutch authorities to consider the person stateless. Similarly, the repeated unreturnability of a person, due to lack of cooperation by the country of origin, does not result in responsibility being assumed by the Netherlands. The burden of proof of establishing statelessness is also put squarely on the individual. While a requirement to cooperate in establishing statelessness should be expected, at present the burden on the individual is so onerous that it is precluding some stateless persons from being recognized and therefore undermines the 1954 Convention. As the Geneva Conclusions note: “The 1954 Convention requires proving a negative: establishing that an individual is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law. Because of the challenges individuals will often face in discharging this burden, including access to evidence and documentation, they should not bear sole responsibility for establishing the relevant facts. In statelessness determination procedures, the burden of proof should therefore be shared between the applicant and the authorities responsible for making the determination. It is incumbent on individuals to cooperate to establish relevant facts. … “Determination procedures should adopt an approach to evidence which takes into account the challenges inherent in establishing whether a person is stateless. The evidentiary requirements should not be so onerous as to defeat the object and purpose of the 1954 Convention by preventing stateless persons from being recognized. It is only necessary to consider nationality in relation to States with which an individual applicant has relevant links (in particular by birth on the territory, descent, marriage or habitual residence).”197 193 C.A. Batchelor, “The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons”, 39. 194 Ibid., 40. 195 G. Gyulai, “Remember the forgotten, protect the unprotected”, Forced Migration Review, no. 32 (2009), 48. 196  NHCR “Stateless Determination Procedures and the Status of Stateless Persons”, Summary U Conclusions, of the Expert Meeting, Geneva, 6–7 Dec. 2010, para. 1. 197 Ibid., paras. 13-14. in the Netherlands 57