184 Access to Redress for Stateless Persons Under International Law Considering the attention that the issue of statelessness has gained in recent years,12 and the increasing amount of (legal) support available for stateless persons, the likelihood of more stateless persons seeking redress at international level is likely to increase in the future. This article aims to elaborate on the challenges and opportunities regarding access to redress for stateless persons before existing international legal mechanisms. The article focuses on exploring the aspects of the selected mechanisms that can pose a challenge to access to redress and looks at how the practice of these mechanisms has addressed (if at all) these challenges. For this purpose, three different existing international mechanisms with the powers to issue measures for redress have been selected. The first falls under the “traditional approach” to international claims through diplomatic protection (the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC)). The second selected mechanism is one of the existing human rights mechanisms which give victims of human rights violations direct access to seek justice and redress (the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)). The third is an international criminal law mechanism of a permanent nature (the International Criminal Court (ICC)). This is in order to provide readers with a rounded overview and appraisal of the available mechanisms for victims of violations of international legal obligations,13 focusing specifically on access to redress for stateless persons.14 This article takes a doctrinal and historical perspective to explore access for stateless persons to the mechanisms selected and is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the relationship between nationality and statelessness under international law and then discusses the link between “victimization” and statelessness, and reparations. Section 3 provides an overview of the history of the doctrine of diplomatic protection, which was the main mechanism for seeking redress internationally for many decades. It then explores the link between nationality and claims processes, and how the doctrine of diplomatic protection had to adapt to allow for stateless persons to access reparations for violations they suffered. Section 4 contains the 3 selected case-studies and an analysis of the law and practice of each mechanisms, focusing on access for stateless persons. The article ends with concluding remarks in section 5. 2 On nationality, statelessness, victimization, and redress This section provides an overview of the relationship between nationality and statelessness under international law, and later discusses the link between “victimization” and statelessness on the one hand, and redress on the other. The term nationality denotes the membership of an individual to a community, based on various shared factors15 resulting in the legal recognition16 of the individual’s membership. Nationality is a legal concept which has been largely regulated by both domestic and international law, but in practice is granted to individuals through domestic law.17 Nationality serves various important roles under international law,18 among which—in some instances—is that of functioning as distinctive and triggering factor for access to redress. This is due to its usefulness in determining ‘the scope of application of basic rights and obligations of states vis-à-vis other states’19 as well as the scope of application of treaties and diplomatic protection.20 Nationality is the legal link between the individual and the state, and since traditionally only states were subjects of international law, nationality also serves as ‘the link between the individual and the law of 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 With the launch of the UNHCR #ibelong campaign to end statelessness in the next 10 years, the issue has gotten a significant amount of attention over the last 5 years. International norms codified under human rights law, international criminal law, and international humanitarian law instruments. The IACtHR was selected due to the fact that it has taken a progressive and holistic approach in issuing rulings on reparations, not limiting itself to compensation as for instance the ECtHR has done. The UNCC was selected due to its innovative position to overcome the challenged posed by the ‘traditional approach’ to diplomatic protection for access to redress, and the ICC was selected because it is the only permanent international criminal tribunal, which in the future might hear cases concerning stateless persons, including the situations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Myanmar. K Hailbronner, ‘Nationality in Public International Law and European Law’ in R Bauböck (eds), Acquisition and Loss of Nationality: Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries (1st, AUP, 2006). For example, through documents certifying the individual’s nationality like a passport. International law regulates nationality through, for instance, conventions such as the European Convention on Nationality of the Council of Europe. Domestic law ascribes nationality, normally through two principles: through birth on the territory of a state (jus soli) and through birth to parents who are a state’s nationals (jus sanguinis). Acquisition of nationality later in life is guided by the principle of jus domicilli, which requires, for instance, prolonged residence in a state’s territory. RD Sloane, ‘Breaking the Genuine Link: The Contemporary International Legal Regulation of Nationality’ (2009) 50(1) Harvard International Law Journal 1. K Hailbronner, ‘Nationality in Public International Law and European Law’ in R Bauböck (eds), Acquisition and Loss of Nationality: Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries (1st, AUP, 2006). Ibid.