Where there have been grounds for State A to challenge the declaration of State B that a particular individual is not its national, then, if all reasonably available remedies have been exhausted by State A with State B, and State B maintains that it does not consider the individual concerned to be a national under the operation of its law, State A should similarly find that the individual is not a national of State B. If the individual does not have any other nationality, the individual would therefore be de jure stateless. In many cases, the State whose nationality is at issue may not provide a definitive answer to other States as to whether a particular individual is its national or not. This may be because the State whose nationality is at issue requires further evidence before giving an answer, because it lacks the capacity to carry out any necessary investigations, because there is a dispute between it and another State as to which of the two State’s nationalities the individual actually has, or simply because it is being uncooperative.166 If there is no reply at all from the State whose nationality is at issue, the most that can be inferred absent any other evidence is that if the individual concerned is indeed a national of that State, then he or she has been refused its external protection.167 Whether it would be reasonable to additionally infer that the individual really is, or is not, a national of that State would depend upon what other evidence is available in the case, including the individual’s own testimony. Frequently, however, the host State inquiring into the individual’s nationality status may stop short of making a definitive nationality determination and conclude merely that the individual is of “undetermined nationality”.168 The question arises, therefore, as to how a host State should treat a person if it concludes that he or she is of “undetermined nationality”, i.e. that there is insufficient evidence to find that he or she is a national of the State(s) whose nationality is at issue, but also that there is insufficient evidence to find that he or she is not a national of the State(s) concerned. According to the legislation of certain States, including the majority of Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), persons not found to be nationals of any State 166 167 168 Sometimes a country may invoke reasons of protection of personal data for not answering inquiries about whether a given individual is its national. This can be legitimate if the individual concerned has not provided his or her consent to disclosure of relevant personal data held by that country (although note that the right to privacy is not absolute and there may be certain situations where consent is not required). However, where the individual concerned does not have valid reasons for withholding consent, it may be questioned whether he or she is cooperating with the process of establishing his or her nationality, and thus possibly lead to adverse inferences in his or her case. Cf. UNHCR, “Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”, 1979 (re-edited 1992), para. 107, quoted in the text footnoted by footnote 36 above. Just as a State may not confirm that a person is indeed its national, a State may also decline to confirm that a person is not its national. See Nehemiah Robinson, “Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons: Its History and Interpretation”, Institute of Jewish Affairs (1955), republished by UNHCR (1997), pp. 16 17: “[The Conference of Plenipotentairies on Status of Stateless Persons] did not deal with proofs. Nor does the [1954 Statelessness] Convention establish how statelessness is to be proven. Thus it is left to the government of the state of residence to decide whether the person in question has proven the lack of nationality. Although the definition on its face may appear to have such a meaning, it certainly was not the intention of the conference to require a formal proof from states with which the person had no intimate relationship. This would reduce the proofs to the country of origin and/or former permanent residence. Once these countries have certified that the person is not a national of theirs, he would come within the definition of Article 1 [of the 1954 Convention]. If, however, no such certification could be obtained because the relevant authorities refuse to issue it or do not reply to inquiries, the state of residence is expected to accept other proofs, either documentary … or reliable witnesses.” 49