Why Union Law Can And Should Protect Stateless Persons 135 the condition of whether a stateless person is not admissible to his country of former habitual residence. 7 Conclusion The UN Statelessness Conventions of 1954 and 1961 were adopted out of a profound concern for stateless persons and a sincere desire to assure them the widest possible exercise of human rights. Unlike the 1951 Refugee Convention, however, the statelessness conventions have, to a considerable extent, failed to deliver. Their implementation suffers from quite basic shortcomings, such as the absence of statelessness determination procedures, resistance against granting legal residence, a narrow interpretation of the definition of stateless person and ineffective monitoring and supervision. The increased attention in more recent years for the predicament of stateless people by UNHCR, the Council of Europe, the European Union as well as civil society, has revealed how in the area of the EU, systemic deficiencies hamper the effective protection of stateless persons. In this contribution, we have explored the potential of the European Union in acting as a bridge between international obligations of Member States and the action needed to implement those obligations. We have submitted that a common EU policy on statelessness would ensure protection as promised by the 1954 Convention, and that it also fits with the Union’s objectives of setting common conditions for residence in the EU. The development of such a policy meets the principle of subsidiarity and has a legal basis in the Treaties. Even though there is a certain legislative fatigue in the area of EU migration law, and even though statelessness is not mentioned in the recently adopted strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning in the area of freedom, security and justice,128 developments in the Member States demonstrate that there is now sufficient momentum to initiate legislative action at Union level as well. 128 Conclusions of the European Council of 26/27 June 2014. European Journal of Migration and Law 19 (2017) 101–135