404 Melbourne University Law Review [Vol 40:401 persons, on the other, with the refugee challenge accorded priority.7 While some stateless persons were also refugees, others were not, and notwithstanding differences of opinion among delegates, the majority felt that the needs of refugees were so pressing that they should be dealt with first.8 This approach resulted in the relegation of the two statelessness Conventions, adopted in 1954 and 1961, to relative obscurity for decades. However, the identification, recognition and legal protection of stateless persons has undergone a renaissance in the past decade, chiefly led by the work of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’),9 and supported by a flourishing emerging body of academic research on the plight of stateless persons internationally.10 As two leading thinkers in this area recently concluded, ‘statelessness has now “arrived” as a recognised focus of both academic and policy-oriented study.’11 Yet, notwithstanding Australia’s active role in the formulation of the relevant international legal treaties, and its early ratification of them,12 there is virtually no academic analysis or research on the extent, predicament or protection of stateless persons in Australia.13 Further, despite a pledge in 2011 7 See James C Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed, 2014) 64–5. 8 See the analysis in Goodwin-Gill, Introductory Note: Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, above n 2. 9 We acknowledge that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has not always had responsibility for de jure stateless persons. Unlike the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954), the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, opened for signature 28 September 1954, 360 UNTS 117 (entered into force 6 June 1960) does not repose supervisory authority in the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. However, in 1995 it was given such responsibility via a General Assembly resolution: see generally Mark Manly, ‘UNHCR’s Mandate and Activities to Address Statelessness’ in Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 88. 10 See Laura van Waas, ‘“Are We There Yet?” The Emergence of Statelessness on the International Human Rights Agenda’ (2014) 32 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 342, who notes that ‘[w]hile even a decade ago it was not easy to find much in the way of resources or analysis on statelessness, research projects and academic writing on statelessness has mushroomed’: at 345. 11 Mark Manly and Laura van Waas, ‘The State of Statelessness Research: A Human Rights Imperative’ (2014) 19 Tilburg Law Review 3, 3. 12 See below Part III. 13 A thorough literature search revealed only three publications. Christopher Richter’s article from 2005 focuses very much on the potential for a complementary protection regime to protect stateless persons: Christopher Richter, ‘Statelessness in Australian Refugee Law: The (Renewed) Case for Complementary Protection’ (2005) 24 University of Queensland Law Journal 545. The other two publications are Susan Kennedy, ‘Statelessness Matters 10 Years