2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) means; and (ii) the child’s ability to legally/factually enter and reside in their parent(s) COFHR.89 In adopting this interpretation, the IPT elaborated that: [t]his interpretation ensures fidelity to purpose, and the equality of status as between adults and children, and between children born with or without a nationality abroad. It also, critically, observes the good faith principle of treaty interpretation and the fundamental obligation of non-refoulement, protecting a child against return to a country where there is a real chance of them being persecuted. As can be seen above, the risk (conveyed through the conduit of a parent) of refouling a child to a territory where they hold a well-founded fear of being persecuted is only too real, should a rigid adult-centric, interpretation of the notion of a COFHR be maintained. The reality is that plethora of rights and freedoms for a young child, such as the son, including freedom of movement across state borders and the right to enter and remain in state territories, is largely contingent upon the actions of their parents as the first benefactors of the child’s rights.90 The IPT’s finding that the stateless child had a country of former habitual residence was defined in relation to other core components of the refugee definition, which included the nature and risk of being persecuted. The affirmative finding was confined, on the facts of that case, to identifying a country of former habitual residence in the instance of a child denied a nationality through discriminatory means. For the reasons that will be elaborated upon in this article, it is the position of the author that a purposive interpretation is not constrained to conceiving of a country of former habitual residence for stateless persons born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s), who face serious harm emanating solely from the discriminatory deprivation of a nationality, but may extend to any other discriminatory infringements of human rights that occasion serious harm. As the following Part will convey, and as discerned in BV (Malaysia),91 it is necessary to fully understand the function of the country of reference (in this case, a country of former habitual residence) and its relationship to other components of the refugee definition. It is the position of the author that the notion of a country of former habitual residence is not a stand-alone concept. Instead, it is an interconnected component of the refugee definition which needs to be interpreted in its totality, in tandem with other integral definitional components, such as the nature and risk of being persecuted and the forward-looking lens of ‘well-foundedness’. IV THE RELEVANCE OF A DESIGNATED COUNTRY OF REFERENCE TO THE INQUIRY The definitional element of being ‘outside’ a country of nationality (or former habitual residence) serves two primary purposes, each threaded with an overarching question of protection. First, the country of reference serves as a backdrop for the assessment of unwillingness or inability to avail oneself of the protection of (in the case of a national) or to return to (in the case of a stateless individual) that country, owing to holding a well-founded fear of persecution. Second, the condition of being outside the country of reference identifies ‘the unqualified protective competence of 89 90 91 ibid 50 [222]. ibid 51 [225]. ibid. 20