Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2019 1(1) presents the methodology of the research undertaken to identify stateless persons in Malaysia. Part IV focuses on Malaysian nationality law. Part V presents the findings of the research. While this paper does the preliminary work of identifying who is stateless, it does not present potential legal routes to citizenship for each category and/or how the different pathways may be applied differently to different categories of stateless persons in Malaysia. That is beyond the scope of this paper and I invite other scholars and advocates to provide this work. STATELESSNESS AND DOMINANT AND EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY A In Situ Statelessness and the Various Kinds of Statelessness Scholars have described statelessness as occurring in two different contexts: in the migratory context and statelessness in situ. 9 As Gábor Gyulai states, in situ stateless persons include, ‘[p]ersons [who] are in their “own country”, meaning a country with which they have significant and stable ties (through birth, long-term residence, etc.)’. 10 This article is not preoccupied with creating an exhaustive list of factors that would be used to determine what constitutes stable ties or genuine and effective links. However, the article considers birth, long-term residence and birth to a parent with citizenship as important factors that do suggest genuine and effective links with a country. In this research project, I use a few terms to refer to persons stateless in situ. First, I refer to a stateless person and de facto stateless synonymously as a person who is either stateless and is a migrant or a stateless person in situ; persons who have no legal recognition as a citizen in any state. Second, I refer to three terms, de jure stateless, ‘administratively’ stateless persons and de facto citizens, synonymously as persons who have no legal recognition as a citizen in any state but may have legal entitlement to citizenship; that is persons who are entitled on the face of the law but due to various administrative or legal barriers, are unable to obtain the legal proof of citizenship. Some scholars may question my use of the term ‘stateless’ for persons who appear to meet the legal requirements for citizenship and prefer to use the term ‘undocumented citizen’. My view, informed from this wider research project of legal barriers to obtain citizenship, is that the legal fact of being conferred citizenship is important. As such, persons should be considered stateless until they are legally recognised as a citizen. This 9 10 See generally, Kristy Belton, Statelessness in the Caribbean: The Paradox of Belonging in a Postnational World (University of Pennsylvania Press 2018); Gábor Gyulai, ‘Statelessness in the EU Framework for International Protection’ (2012) 14(3) European Journal of Migration and Law 279; Mark Manly, ‘UNHCR’s Mandate and Activities to Address Statelessness in Europe’ (2012) 14(3) European Journal of Migration and Law 261; Laura Van Waas and Monica Neal, ‘Statelessness and the Role of National Human Rights Institutions’ (Legal Studies Research Paper Series No 022/2013, Tilburg Law School, October 2013). Gyulai (n 9) 279. See also United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘Expert Meeting — Statelessness Determination Procedures and the Status of Stateless Persons’ (Summary Conclusions, 7 December 2010) 6 [24]. 98