Too old to be a ‘foundling’? – International standards and comparative analysis – acquire nationality of the state where they were ‘born’.126 The Spanish127 and Italian cases discussed in section IV.E below indeed involve children who were likely born abroad. Further, as mentioned above, several countries limit the scope of the foundling provision to ‘infants’ or ‘young children’ who cannot explain their parents’ identities or birthplaces on their own. This distinction, however, is also difficult to justify, because older children are not necessarily able to explain their parents’ identities or their birthplaces, as demonstrated by the case at the outset of this article. Children who do not know their parents in the first place will not ‘recall’ who their parents are and where they were born as they grow up, no matter how old they become. Limiting the scope to ‘infants’ or ‘young children’ also involves the difficult exercise of defining their ages– should it be children under three years old, or why not five years old? Or is it under school age, i.e., six? But why not seven years of age? Or even under 10 years of age, as stipulated in some of the legislation introduced in section IV.D? The only (almost) universal definition of the word ‘child’ under international law is ‘under 18 years of age’ under Article 7 of the CRC (unless majority is domestically attained earlier). Differentiating the treatments on the basis of any lower age limit would lack firm justification, especially from an effectiveness point of view, of fulfilling the objective of reducing statelessness and ensuring the right to nationality of the child. States may understandably have reservations against explicitly legislating to grant nationality to older children, particularly in their late teens, due to the risk of fraudulent cases who claim to be of unknown parents (or minors) when they are not. However, there are ways to address or minimise this risk, starting with proper credibility assessments of the claimants’ assertions.128 If the claimants’ statements as to why and how their legal parents do not exist or cannot be proven are found not credible after a full and fair assessment, then they can be rejected on that basis. If the concerned minor does not raise a refugee claim, or their refugee claim has been rejected, the normal course of action by the determining body would be to contact the authorities of the purported country of origin,129 where at least the minor’s (non-)possession of a foreign nationality can be verified, if not his/her unknown parentage.130 126 See the proposals made by Denmark and Italy concerning the term ‘proof to the contrary’ in Article 2 of the 1961 Convention. To the question from the representative from the Netherlands about what would happen if it were established that ‘a foundling, although of unknown parents, had been born in a country other than that in which he was found,’ The Danish representative responded that: ‘[T] he Danish draft provision did not refer to the place of birth of foundlings. If, for example, it was established that a foundling found in Danish territory had in fact been born in the territory of a neighbouring state, under that draft provision the child would nevertheless be a Danish national. (emphasis added)’. United Nations, Summary Records, 5th Plenary Meeting held on 31 March 1959, A/CONF.9/ SR.5, UN Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness, Geneva, 1959 (31 March 1959) 2 <http://legal.un.org/ docs/?path=../diplomaticconferences/1959_statelessness/docs/english/vol_2/a_conf9_sr5.pdf&lang=E>. See details in sec 6.7 ‘Rationale 2: Is It Justifiable to Include “presumption of birth” in the Definition of Being “found”?’ and sec 7.3.1 ‘Discovery of Birth Abroad Pre Facto [And Post Facto]’ of Kaneko-Iwase (n 2) 258-260; 271-284. 127 While not in the context of a foundling provision, it is notable that the judgment by the Spanish Court of Appeal of Gipuzkoa in May 2022 (appeal no. 2209/2022) <https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/sites/default/files/decisions/SAP_SS_203_2022.pdf> confirmed Spanish nationality of a child under the Civil Code 17(1)(c)(c) (granting nationality to children born in Spain of parents unable to transmit any nationality) who was born abroad i.e. in Morocco. The child’s mother contacted the Cameroonian and Moroccan embassies in Spain but never succeeded in registering her birth nor having her Cameroonian nor Moroccan nationality recognized. The Court recognized the child was stateless and confirmed her acquisition of Spanish nationality by adopting a broad (extensiva) application of Article 17(1)(c) to ensure the right to nationality under art 7 of CRC and the best interests of the child. If the logic of this judgement were to be followed, there would be little difficulty recognizing the Spanish nationality under Article 17(1)(d) of a minor of unknown parents born abroad but found in Spain. 128 Refer to paras 101–7 ((9) Credibility issues) of the UNHCR Handbook on the Protection of Stateless Persons (2014) by analogy. 129 Paras 66, 79–82 and 96–99 of the UNHCR Handbook (2014). 130 See more on 7.3.1.3 ‘The Contemporary Relevance of the Drafters’ Intention Allowing Foundlings Born Abroad to Acquire Nationality,’ especially sec 7.3.13 Link with Unaccompanied Children’ and sec 7.6.1.2 and 8.3.8 of Kaneko-Iwase, Nationality of Foundlings (n 2) 305-309 and 345-348. European University Institute 38