2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) issue to many. Siegelberg contextualises the lack of international solutions to exclusion and expulsions not simply as an issue of restrictive immigration and asylum policies, but of the unsettled boundaries between statehood and international legal order. She plots how visions of internationalism and global society were sidelined to address migration management concerns. In the process, the boundaries of state membership were cemented. Debates ensued over the state’s legal authority in matters of nationality. Failed attempts to globally systematise nationality laws influenced theoretic and public thinking. Meanwhile legal abstraction and formalism, which had dominated questions of personhood and statelessness, came under assault from a new wave of legal realism influenced by global events. Legal realism sought to expose the power relations inherent in law. Legal abstractions relating to personhood, they argued, when faced with the social realities of the time, were both ‘pointless’ and ‘dangerous’. Siegelberg argues that even as Jews in Nazi Germany retained a formal legal status that enabled other states to turn a blind eye, they were effectively stripped of any semblance of political protection. 12 Chapter 5 takes the reader through to the post-war decades that saw the birth of the UDHR and the conventions that defined what was to be a refugee and a stateless person. This period is usually conceived of as the time when individuals became the subjects of international legal order, and when international law began to influence the sovereign domain of states. The author argues that the status of individuals in international law can only be fully understood by examining the space occupied by statelessness. 13 Statelessness during this period was central to debates about rights and the post-war order. Whilst in previous decades, its significance was for those advocating for the supremacy of international law, in the 1940s and beyond the problem was used to advocate for the validity of the sovereign state as the primary source of rights and law. Siegelberg examines the analysis, correspondence, notes from meetings and scholarship on statelessness to plot the development of a new world order that was premised on the formal equality between sovereign states. In doing so, she explores the debates around the inclusion of the right to nationality in the UDHR, 14 including the arguments of key historical figures including Eleanor Roosevelt and Hannah Arendt. Siegelberg argues that the right to nationality was articulated in the context of entrenching the ‘doctrine of sovereign equality’ and the current international order in which the human rights framework largely deferred to state power and state interests. 15 Chapter 6, ‘Nationalizing International Society’, 16 traces how in the post war era understandings of citizenship as a formal legal status were transformed into more substantive definitions that emphasised social experience and social bonds — a process Siegelberg calls ‘the socialization of citizenship’. 17 She takes the reader through key debates on the boundaries between de jure and de facto citizenship as well as the content and quality of different citizenships. The chapter also explores how, as European empires disintegrated and newly independent states were born, concerns arose about resultant forms of statelessness. Siegelberg shows how these concerns were largely swallowed as the principle of self12 13 14 15 16 17 ibid 151. ibid 155. Now found in UDHR (n 3) art 15. ibid 156. ibid 193. ibid 195. 166