2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) holders. The role of the family, the rights that derive from family life and unity and the responsibility of parents to facilitate a child’s access to those rights, amongst others, are intricately woven into the text of the CRC.118 The fundamental role that parents have in the nurturing, protection and development of their child is prominent in the CRC. For instance, art 5 provides that parents have the overarching responsibility and right to direct and guide their child in the realisation of their rights. As Arnold explains, parents are viewed as ‘the first benefactor of individual rights under international law’, as they are ‘the first party with responsibility in realising children’s rights’.119 In particular, for young children, parents are often the conduit through which they access rights. Of particular relevance to this inquiry are states that have adopted nationality laws based on a combination of the principles of jus sanguinis (nationality based on descent) and jus soli (nationality based on birth), the former reflecting the fact of children inheriting a nationality through parentage. Relevantly, in instances where a child would otherwise be born stateless, the CRC and the Statelessness Conventions contain provisions that govern the conferral of nationality through parentage and impose obligations on states that concern not only the state of birth of the child, but to ‘all countries with which a child has a relevant link, such as through parentage or residence’.120 Article 1 of the 1961 Statelessness Convention further specifies that where a child would otherwise be stateless, the Contracting State in which the child is born should grant its nationality to prevent statelessness. Article 4 provides that in the event that a child is born to a national of a Contracting State in the territory of a non-Contracting State, the state of nationality of the parents must grant its nationality if the child would otherwise be stateless.121 Anchoring the previous discussion in the context of refugee status determination — for the stateless child born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s) (denied a nationality according to the jus sanguinis principle owing to discrimination), their unrealised entitlement to a nationality may be best characterised as the ungerminated seed of nationality in the country of former habitual residence of their parent(s). Though unrealised (in actuality, denied), this point is not insignificant, as it concerns a child’s right to a nationality as protected in international human rights law and signals the intersection point between a country territory and the notion of being persecuted. It has further relevance in the context of conjoined family claims, where a forwardlooking assessment anticipates a hypothesised future in the designated country. Some may argue at this juncture that the door is closed on any claim being made, that ‘a nationality denied’ may serve as the designated country of reference for the refugee inquiry. However, entertain for one moment, by way of inequitable comparison, the case of an adult claimant who has been arbitrarily deprived of their nationality and yet has a country of former habitual residence for the purpose 118 Arnold (n 31) 58. 119 ibid 97. 120 See Guidelines on Statelessness No 4: Ensuring Every Child’s Right to Acquire a Nationality Through Articles 1–4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (UNHCR 2 December 2012) 3 [11]. 121 Relevantly, the long-standing historic practice of parents transferring their personal and legal qualities to their children, including their domicile when foreigners in a territory, was noted in the Lake Success Study of Statelessness, a precursor analysis to the 1961 Statelessness Convention (n 12): Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, A Study of Statelessness UN Doc E/1112 (1 August 1949) 28. 28