38.2 (7) TEMPROSA.DOCX38.2 (7) TEMPROSA.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2020] STATELESSNESS AS RHETORIC 1/16/2021 12:59 PM 261 It's A Statist World, After All: Constituting Statelessness Within and Without Circles of Citizenship 1. Identification of Statelessness States create procedures used to identify stateless persons. During a "stateless status determination," the State formally identifies stateless persons falling either under the 1954 Statelessness Convention's definition or another definition chosen by the State. At the moment, most States do not have a consistent or formal procedure for identifying statelessness in their national jurisdictions. 115 Even States that are parties to the 1954 Statelessness Convention lack such procedures. 116 Only a few determination machineries exist. 117 Other less recognized means of identification of statelessness include quantitative methods—such as censuses, surveys, and the Delphi method—and qualitative methods—such as focus groups, semi-structured interviews, participatory assessment, and life histories. 118 Identification procedures are important for several reasons. First, identification procedures aid the State in complying with international obligations. Identifying people entitled to the protection of the 1954 Statelessness Convention is the paramount initial step in protecting stateless persons and eradicating statelessness. 119 While the 1954 Statelessness Convention does not explicitly obligate the 115. Edwards & van Waas, supra note 30, at 296. 116. Gyulai, supra note 23, at 122–23; see X v. The Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Utrecht, 201302776/1/A3, The Netherlands: Council of State (Raad van State) (2014), http://www.refworld.org/cases,NTL_COS,539085a64.html (last visited Apr. 15, 2019) (explaining that because there is no procedure to determine whether a person without a nationality is stateless, such persons cannot claim the protection of the 1954 Statelessness Conventions or relevant Dutch legislation). 117. See generally Gyulai, supra note 23, at 122. Mechanisms for protection can be grouped into five categories: (1) statelessness-specific mechanisms based on clearly established procedural rules; (2) statelessness-specific mechanisms without clearly established procedural rules, but with a general "consensus" on procedural modalities; (3) statelessness-specific mechanisms without clearly established procedural rules in law and without general consensus; (4) non-statelessness-specific mechanisms where legal and/or practical obstacles to expulsion provide grounds for residence rights; and (5) no protections available. Id. As Gyulai explains, "a handful of countries already have specific identification and protection mechanisms in place (including France, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Mexico, Moldova, the Philippines, Spain, and the United Kingdom." Id. at 123; cf. R (on the application of Semeda) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (statelessness; Pham [2015] U.K.S.C. 19 applied) I.J.R. [2015] U.K.U.T. 00658 (I.A.C.) [hereinafter "Semeda Case"] (referencing previous decisions that cited and deferred to UNHCR's guidance and position). 118. See UNHCR, Guidance Document on Measuring Stateless Populations, https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4f6887672.pdf (last visited May 19, 2020). 119. See Michelle Foster et al., Part One: The Protection of Stateless Persons in Australian Law - The Rationale for a Statelessness Determination Procedure, 40 MELB. U. L. REV. 401, 445–46 (2016) (arguing that the introduction of a specific status determination procedure in Australia could meet the dual objectives of identifying stateless persons and conferring a status that accords rights and the potential for naturalization); Ayane Odagawa et al., Study Group on Statelessness in Japan,