Statelessness: A Modern History determination, which empowered independent states to determine their own membership without international interference. This, she argues, contributed to the ‘stabilization of the boundaries of international politics’. 18 Siegelberg’s conclusion takes us through to the modern day. It invites the reader to connect the big questions of today to the broader transformations of the political and legal order that have characterised our times. The reader is left reflecting on how key debates from within this historic analysis of statelessness remain unsettled and still have pertinence. The global push for ‘legal identit[ies] for all’, 19 for example, leaves us wondering whether the right to nationality has been overwritten by the right to IDs and birth certificates, echoing the old debates of citizenship as an abstract legal status versus the substantive content of citizenship. 20 Increasing incidents of citizenship stripping leave us once again contemplating moral obligations to limit the power of states to define their own membership. 21 Also, the role of multi-national corporations in providing digital technologies for state IDs concerns us, as we again reassess the role of non-state entities that are unregulated by international norms. 22 To reflect back on Amartya Sen’s statement that state borders came to the Rohingya, these borders have significant ramifications today. State borders were drawn around the Rohingya homelands during and after some of the most intense fighting of the Second World War as imperial Britain declined. Boundaries were also drawn between states and the international legal sphere as a result of the processes meticulously documented by Siegelberg. The impacts of these bordering processes are not only felt today by Rohingyas, but also by the international sphere. States and international organisations are confronting the constraints and limitations of an international system that has provided legitimacy to the military state in Myanmar on the one hand, and on the other has failed to protect Rohingyas over decades from state crimes, including genocide and crimes against humanity. 23 At the centre of all the violence is the figure of the stateless and persecuted Rohingya knocking at the door of the United Nations asking for protection and justice, just as her forbearers in the interwar years knocked at the League of Nation’s door, as described in Siegelberg’s book. Siegelberg shows in her book that concepts and ideas about statelessness were central to discussions on the nature of international law and the international order. They remain so today. Contemporary statelessness still arouses concerns about destabilisation and chaos. They still inform debates about reshaping international political structures 18 19 20 21 22 23 ibid 226. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, GA Res 70/1, UN Doc A/Res/70/1 (21 October 2015, adopted 25 September 2015) para 16.9. See Bronwen Manby, ‘“Legal Identity for All” and Statelessness’ (2020) 2(2) Statelessness & Citizenship Review 271; Laura van Waas, ‘The Right to Legal Identity or the Right to Legal ID?’, European Network on Statelessness (Blog Post, 1 May 2015) <https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/blog/right-legal-identity-or-right-legal-id>. See, eg, Amanda Western, ‘Lecture 2: A Fair and Effective Remedy? Shamima Begum, botched legislation and the UK courts’ (Lecture, Global Seminar Series on Citizenship 23 March 2021) <https://www.institutesi.org/resources/global-seminar-series-on-citizenshipstripping-lecture>. See Natalie Brinham et al, Locked in and Locked Out: The Impact of Digital Identity Systems on Rohingya Populations (Briefing Paper, Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion and UN Special Rapporteur on Racism November 2020). United Nations Human Rights Council, Detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar: Report to the 42nd session of the Human Rights Council, UN Doc A/HRC/42/CRP.5 (16 September 2019). 167