Oleksandra Zmiyenko Saggi – DPCE online, 2020/4 ISSN: 2037-6677 5261 Each of the above-mentioned causes may be relevant in the context of forced migration, whether statelessness occurred before or after displacement. At the same time, the attempts to measure the size of the stateless population traditionally lead to a dichotomous division: in situ stateless and stateless migrants9. And whether addressing statelessness within the former category is ‘superficially’ subjected to improving legislation of the country in question as to allow for nationalisation of its endemic stateless persons, the latter is perceived as a greater challenge, coming from external countries. Both of them, however, represent a grave human rights violation that should be addressed at all possible levels. A historical analysis of the development of the UNHCR mandate to address statelessness may indicate that those two categories are interlinked, despite the apparent differences in possible policy responses. In the last century, dual nationality was regarded as an equally negative phenomenon as statelessness10, with the development in human rights law the former became increasingly tolerated11, whereas the latter, being a violation of a human right to a nationality, gained a greater degree of attention. In 1995, nearly four decades after the adoption of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (hereinafter 1961 Convention), UNHCR assumed its global mandate to address statelessness. This did not happen during the Cold War, however the reluctance of the international community to confer a global mandate to UNHCR diminished due to emergence of statelessness cases in Eastern Europe12. Thus, it may be concluded that a situation of in situ stateless population rather than a situation of stateless migrants became a trigger for the international community to provide UNHCR with a greater role in nationality-related issues. Nearly two decades after assuming its global mandate, UNHCR issued the Global Action Plan to End Statelessness13. The document features ten actions to end statelessness, which may be divided among four main topics: resolving existing situations; preventing new ones, identifying and protecting stateless persons. Acknowledging the limitations of the scope of the paper deriving from the context of forced migration and the general topic of the special issue which reflects on the idea of governing through uncertainty, the further analysis focuses on the actions 9 Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI), The World Conference on Statelessness, Grand Challenge 5 Session, 26 – 28 June, the Hague, the Netherlands, available at www.institutesi.org/conference accessed on 7-7-2020. 10 See e.g. League of Nations, Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law, 13 April 1930 in League of Nations, 179 Treaty Series 4137, 89, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b00.html accessed on 7-7-2020. 11 O. Vonk, Dual nationality in the European Union: a study on changing norms in public and private international law and in the municipal laws of four EU member states, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2012,157. 12 M. Seet, The Origins of UNHCR’s Global Mandate on Statelessness, in 28 International Journal of Refugee Law 1, 23 (2016). 13 UNHCR, Global Action Plan to End Statelessness, 2014, available at www.unhcr.org/protection/statelessness/54621bf49/global-action-plan-end-statelessness2014-2024.html accessed on 7-7-2020.