442 • Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom 7 8 9 10 11 Framework for International Protection’ (2012) 14 European Journal of Migration and Law 279; Gábor Gyulai, ‘The Determination of Statelessness and the Establishment of a StatelessnessSpecific Protection Regime’ in Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press 2014). European Network on Statelessness (ENS), ‘Statelessness Index: Hungary’ (February 2019) <https://index.statelessness.eu/country/hungary> accessed 10 March 2020; ENS, ‘Statelessness Index: United Kingdom’ (March 2019) <https://index.statelessness.eu/country/ united-kingdom> accessed 10 March 2020. Katia Bianchini, Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in the United Kingdom (ENS 2016); Valeria Ilareva, Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in Bulgaria (ENS 2016); Ostap Tymchiy, ‘Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention in Ukraine (ENS 2016); Bianchini (n 5); van Waas (n 2) 9–10. ibid. Maartje van der Woude, Vanessa Barker, and Joanne van der Leun, ‘Crimmigration in Europe’ (2017) 14 European Journal of Criminology 3–4; Alice Edwards, ‘Detention and Security’ (2013) 44 Forced Migration Review 4; Lucy Fiske, Human Rights, Refugee Protest and Immigration Detention (Palgrave MacMillan 2016) 191–92; ENS, ‘Statelessness Index’ (as at 1 May 2020) <https://index.statelessness.eu/> accessed 1 May 2020. Stephanie J Silverman and Amy Nethery, ‘Introduction: Understanding Immigration Detention’ in Amy Nethery and Stephanie J Silverman, Immigration Detention: The Migration of a Policy and Its Human Impact (Routledge 2015). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 studies specifically criticize the existing SDPs for poor procedural guarantees, administrative and practical barriers to accessing the procedure, inadequate coordination with other immigration procedures, unclear and complex rules of evidence, and restrictive interpretations of the definition of ‘stateless person’ which deviate from international standards.6 Studies also identify gaps in protection against the arbitrary detention of stateless persons.7 Much of the research dealing with immigration detention is largely theoretical or written by non-governmental organizations (NGOs).8 In particular, it shows that immigration detention policies are often developed without considering the specificity of the situation and the degree of vulnerability of stateless persons.9 In many States, it appears that statelessness and the legal problems that the stateless face are normally disregarded when authorizing detention. Academic research has given little consideration to the interconnection between the problem of identification of the stateless, its connection to immigration detention, and its impact on access to justice. To be precise, academic scholarship and regulatory policies have not adequately appreciated the nexus of these areas, leading to neglect of this issue on multiple levels. Immigration detention is widely used in Europe and justified on the ground that it is necessary to fulfil or execute an expulsion order to the country of origin or habitual residence.10 It is extrajudicial in the sense that it mostly operates outside the framework of judicial incarceration and guarantees existing in the criminal justice system. Being in immigration detention means that certain rights, such as the right to access a legal aid lawyer and to have one’s rights read, among others, are not automatically provided,11 which further exacerbates how stateless persons, asylum seekers, and vulnerable