38.2 (7) TEMPROSA.DOCX38.2 (7) TEMPROSA.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 306 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1/16/2021 12:59 PM [Vol. 38:2 international law in the midst of competing policy concerns during statelessness determinations. Aside from these concerns, the definition has stressed formalism and entrenched the absence of rights protection in the discourse of status determinations. Instead of only protecting the unprotected, as originally envisioned, the definition of statelessness can and has been used in other, often competing, ways. It may be argued that the description of rhetoric does not fit statelessness because international law is indeterminate in general and it is only a matter of interpretation and application. However, I respond to this by stressing that not all concepts in international law assume a rhetoric-like discourse. The definition is an ideograph contributing to a discourse around the ideologies of formalism and discretionism. As I have emphasized, the paradox of statelessness is that States decide on statelessness, based on laws that States themselves create and choose to implement. Statelessness, therefore, should be revisioned. While arguing that the current definition of statelessness should not be entirely discarded but reformed, I have laid down a two-pronged framework. First, this framework makes the definition of statelessness more functional and substantive, allowing the piercing of State declarations of status. Second, it limits State discretionism through the creation of a treaty body on statelessness, the ethical development of the State duty to properly inquire on statelessness, and the State duty to cooperate with each other and the proposed treaty body on statelessness matters. I admit that this proposed framework will not completely insulate determinations of statelessness from the vestiges of the politics between and among States. But any reform agenda—for that matter—will not fully insulate law from politics. It is just impossible—politics is a fact of life. However, a clearer conceptual framework of statelessness will reduce room for uncertainty and promote the legitimacy and credibility of the process of identifying statelessness. Inevitably, the revisioning process is a multi-actor effort. It will be a long and arduous process, although some components of the framework could be carried out more easily ahead of others and may even be done outside of a formal revisioning process. But if the formal revisioning process is engaged, at least one State party to the 1954 Statelessness Convention is required to start it by revisioning to the current treaty. Once a State suggests to revision the concept of statelessness, the UN General Assembly is needed to carry it into motion. The UNHCR and other UN bodies and specialized UN agencies have a role to play in supporting and providing technical support to the process. Stateless persons are a boundless source of information for States and other actors as the process unfolds. NGOs could triangulate information and provide pressure points for advocacy. But while no State initiates the process, these other actors could promote and advocate for the revisioning process. In the meantime, States could also change domestic laws to customarily form a more functional and protection-oriented definition of statelessness.