2016] The Protection of Stateless Persons in Australian Law 447 simultaneously avoid violations of Australia’s international obligations with respect to arbitrary detention. As noted above, although the 1954 Convention does not set out a procedure for determining who is stateless, a dedicated mechanism is crucial to identify who is owed the rights and entitlements provided for in that treaty, and thus ensure that states fulfil their protection obligations under that instrument.246 Indeed, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has interpreted that treaty as necessarily involving a ‘duty to identify … as well as protect’ stateless persons,247 also noting the importance of determining statelessness beyond the refugee context.248 In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the number of states that have adopted a domestic procedure for statelessness status determination.249 At least 15 states have some kind of process in place,250 while several others have signalled their intention to create one.251 The UNHCR’s goal is Asylum in Australia: Immigration Detention, Human Rights and Mental Health Care’ (2013) 21 Australasian Psychiatry 315. 246 UNHCR, Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons, above n 20, 6 [8]; UNHCR, Geneva Conclusions, above n 136, 2 [1]. See generally van Waas, Nationality Matters, above n 39, 423–32, who outlines a number of the issues subsequently adopted in various guidelines. 247 Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection (Advisory Opinion) [2014] Inter-American Court HR (ser A) No 21, 38 [94]. 248 Ibid 39 [95]–[96]. 249 For an overview see Gábor Gyulai, ‘The Determination of Statelessness and the Establishment of a Statelessness-Specific Protection Regime’ in Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 116, 120–3. 250 See Gyulai, ‘ENS Guidelines’, above n 136, 7. These include France, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Mexico, Moldova, the Philippines, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. In Finland, although there is no dedicated statelessness determination procedure, statelessness may be identified through the determination of citizenship procedure under s 36 of the Nationality Act 2003 (Finland). That procedure was not specifically created to identify stateless persons, but the Supreme Administrative Court has interpreted the section broadly, emphasising the need to prevent statelessness and highlighting this as one of the procedure’s purposes: UNHCR Regional Representation for Northern Europe, Mapping Statelessness in Finland (2014) 29, citing 30.4.2012/1046 KHO:2012:28 (Finland). Details on process and status are explained at 29–44. In addition, according to the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, Statelessness: Monthly Bulletin (online), April 2016 <http://www.institutesi.org/stateless_bulletin_2016-04.pdf>: Both Costa Rica and Bulgaria introduced statelessness determination procedures (SDPs) into their legal systems [in April 2016]. On 7 April Costa Rica signed the relevant decree … [t]wenty days later, on 27 April, Bulgaria’s council of Ministers approved draft amendments, introducing the notion of ‘stateless status’ and a SDP. 251 For example, at the 2011 Ministerial Intergovernmental Event, Belgium, Brazil, Peru, the United States and Uruguay pledged either to introduce or to encourage the introduction of