the national courts.114 At minimum, international jurisprudence—like comparative jurisprudence—may encourage or empower judges to accept arguments that are not yet commonly taught in national law schools and argued before national courts. The decisions and the soft law documents of treaty bodies and UN agencies have been quite widely incorporated into national law or cited in decisions of national courts. For example:  UK Supreme Court: The judgment in the case of Al Jedda challenging deprivation of nationality on national security grounds referred to the UNHCR interpretation in the Handbook of Stateless Persons of the definition of stateless person in the 1954 Convention, which had been incorporated into guidance issued by the British Home Office on applications to remain in the UK as a stateless person.115  Hungarian Constitutional Court: In a case concerning the requirement to prove lawful residence in Hungary before stateless status could be granted, the Constitutional Court considered the obligations imposed by the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, and concluded that the lawful residence requirement unlawfully narrows the definition of “stateless person”. In reaching this conclusion, the court also relied on interpretations of state obligations under the 1954 Convention in the UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons.116 In a more recent decision, the Hungarian Supreme Court (Kúria) also drew on the UNHCR Handbook to confirm that it is not required that statelessness should always be a consequence of explicit gaps in legislation, but that “statelessness that is rooted in practice also corresponds to the definition of statelessness”.117  High Court of Kenya: The High Court judgment in the case brought by the Nubian Rights Forum to challenge the introduction of a new National Integrated Identity Management System (the Huduma Namba) extensively cited submissions relying on the cases brought on behalf of the Nubian community of Kenya before the African Commission and Committee of Experts (although the court ultimately declined to find that the Huduma Namba in itself created discrimination or exclusion).118  Colombia Constitutional Court: The Constitutional Court relied heavily on the Yean and Bosico case against the Dominican Republic, in its decision that the civil registry had violated the rights to nationality and legal personality by omitting to consider the risk of statelessness when the births of children of Venezuelan refugees were registered.119 The requirements of international law in relation to nationality and statelessness are explored further below in u section 7: Legal arguments. 5.3. Building the evidence for systemic change It is very often the case that a particular individual may be assisted to gain recognition of nationality, and issue of the necessary documents, once legal assistance is obtained and an application supported by an advice centre/clinic, advocacy organisation or lawyer.120 Nonetheless, this can be impossible in some cases, even if a person appears to be entitled to nationality in law: for example, if a birth was not registered and the parents also do not have identity documents, and the state argues that it is a reasonable requirement for applicants to produce such evidence of entitlement before nationality is recognised. Moreover, case-by-case assistance is time consuming and never likely to reach all those who need assistance. For litigation to achieve systemic changes that remove risks of statelessness, it is important to match a focus on immediate remedies with arguments that structural problems must also be addressed through law and procedural reforms that will have long-term effect. 114 Kenya’s 2010 constitution, for example, provides in article 2 that: “(5) The general rules of international law shall form part of the law of Kenya. (6) Any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of Kenya under this Constitution.” The courts have referenced international law in cases to recognise the right of movement for refugees: see Kituo Cha Sheria and 8 others v. Attorney General Petitions Nos. 19 and 115 of 2013, High Court, judgment of 26 July 2013, http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/84157; Attorney General v. Kituo Cha Sheria and 7 others, Civil Appeal 108 of 2014, Court of Appeal, 17 February 2017 (affirming the judgment of the High Court), http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/131951/. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v Al-Jedda (AP) (Respondent), U.K. Supreme Court, judgment of 9 October 2013, [2013] UKSC 62, para. 34, https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2012-0129.html. 115 Decision no.6/2015 of 25 February 2015 of the Constitutional Court of Hungary, see Gábor Gyulai, “Hungarian Constitutional Court Declares that Lawful Stay Requirement in Statelessness Determination Breaches International Law” (blog post), European Network on Statelessness, 2 March 2015, https://www. statelessness.eu/updates/blog/hungarian-constitutional-court-declares-lawful-stay-requirement-statelessness. 116 117 Judgment no. Kfv.II.37.715/2021/6 of 25 May 2022 of the Supreme Court of Hungary (Kúria); see ENS caselaw database summary available at https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/hungary-applicant-v-national-directorate-general-alien-police-budapest-and-pest-county. 118 Nubian Rights Forum and 2 others v. Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society and 9 others (Interested Parties), Petitions 56, 58 and 59 of 2019 (Consolidated), High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Judgment of 30 January 2020, eKLR, http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/189189/. 119 Sentencia T-006/20, supra n 29, pp.17-18, 40-41, 58-59. 120 For an important resource for such work, see the Community-Based Practitioner’s Guide, supra n 67. U N H C R | L I T I G AT I N G T H E R I G H T T O A N AT I O N A L I T Y: A G U I D E F O R P R AC T I T I O N E R S 43