Mai Kaneko-Iwase, Ph.D. (Law) grounded in different factors, such as the non-reciprocal nature of human rights law, which is distinct from other treaties20, with their aim being human rights protection of third parties.21 The content of each human right is often ambiguous, and there is no authoritative adjudicative body22 whose interpretations are binding for state parties. A prominent manifestation of this trend is seen in the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). This is a ‘living instrument’23 whose ‘evolutive’ interpretation the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) develops24 so that it ‘is most appropriate in order to achieve the objective of the treaty, and not to restrict to the greatest possible degree the obligations undertaken by parties’.25 The UN and regional human rights treaty mechanisms generally adopt this approach.26 Emma Dunlop, as echoed by other refugee law scholars, has specifically asserted that the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘1951 Convention’) warrants this teleological, normative and evolutionary approach. This allows the development of human rights law to be more broadly considered in its interpretative process, ensuring its effectiveness in achieving its object and purpose, i.e., the widest possible exercise of fundamental rights by refugees.27 As Jane McAdam notes, this has the effect of giving weight to domestic state practice, including court decisions, as evidence of state practice in its interpretative exercises.28 The same applies to the 1961 Convention, which is interconnected with the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (the 1954 Convention), which is substantively identical to the 1951 Convention.29 The 1961 Convention’s preamble states that its object and purpose is to ‘reduce statelessness’, which is ultimately aimed at protecting the right to a nationality.30 This, in turn, serves to assure ‘stateless persons’ widest possible exercise of (…) fundamental rights and freedoms’, which is the objective and purpose as stated in the preamble of the 1954 Convention. Indeed, the conclusions of the meeting of experts convened by UNHCR to discuss the interpretation of Articles 1 to 4 of the 1961 Convention acknowledge that the provisions must be read in light of subsequent developments in international law, in particular international human rights law. 31 Among other issues, the following sections will clarify key interpretational issues that may arise out of this article, i.e. its intentions behind referring to (i) The trends of domestic foundling provisions and legal precedents; (ii) legislation and practice of non-state parties to the 1961 Convention and (iii) Article 7 of the CRC and other relevant standards in defining the term ‘foundling’ under Article 2 of the 1961 Convention including the maximum age when found. 20 Tobin, ‘Seeking to Persuade’ (n 15) 220-221. 21 Dunlop, ‘Applying the Rule of Treaty Interpretation’ (n 16) 55. 22 Goodwin-Gill, ‘The Search’ (n 16) 207. Jane McAdam and Emma Dunlop ‘Interpretation of the 1951 Convention’ in Andreas Zimmermann (ed), The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (Second edition, OUP 2024) 79-80. 23 See for example Tyrer v United Kingdom, Application no 5856/72, ECtHR (25 April 1978) para 31. 24 Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (n 15) 471. 25 Wemhoff v. Germany, Application No. 2122/64, ECtHR (27 June 1968) para 8. 26 Tobin, ‘Seeking to Persuade’ (n 15) 220. 27 Dunlop, ‘Applying the Rule of Treaty Interpretation’ (n 16) 55. 28 McAdam and Dunlop (n 22) 118. 29 Laura van Waas, ‘The UN statelessness conventions’, Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas eds., Nationality and Statelessness Under International Law (Cambridge University Press 2014) 65-71. 30 Summary Conclusions of the UNHCR-convened expert meeting, ‘Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention and Preventing Statelessness among Children: (‘Dakar Conclusions’)’ (September 2011) para 1. 31 ibid (n 30) para 2. ‘Reliance on other treaties (...) is thus an important supplement to the 1961 Convention’ by Michelle Foster, ‘The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’, The Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) (2022) 192. 11 Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies