Making Their Days Count so forth, and this was done as late as the second reading of the draft CRC. As a result, inevitably, the content of the 1961 Convention has actually significantly informed the provision that we have under the CRC and, in particular, art 7. 6 Notably, the 1961 Convention continues to inform the jurisprudence that comes from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (‘Committee’). Now, a reading of the provisions of the 1961 Convention must be made in light of subsequent developments in international law and, in particular, international human rights law — obviously the CRC, the ICCPR and so forth have some relevance. But we also should not miss the added value that regional human rights instruments actually bring on board. So, if you want to look at, and appropriately understand, arts 1–4 of the 1961 Convention, you also need to reflect on what the best interests of the child would entail.7 There are also a number of countries that talk about doing child rights impact assessments on their laws, including on nationality legislation, and such an approach requires a reflection in reference to the CRC. If it is an African country, such a state would then need to rely, to some degree, on the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.8 There are multiple examples of where children’s nationality issues are not getting the necessary attention that they deserve, even though a number of states are quick to assert that children’s rights, including issues related to nationality, are a priority within their jurisdiction. If a state is saying that it has the legislation in parliament but it has been pending for too long, or a nationality legislation that would help us to push the boundaries on children’s nationality and eradicating statelessness that is in a similar situation, or otherwise any other related law that has unnecessarily waited too long to see the light of day, how do you actually substantiate the argument that children’s issues are a priority within your government? It is critical to walk the talk. Moreover, appreciating the value of children’s rights principles to interpret nationality-related issues is important. If you are talking about understanding and interpreting arts 1–4 of the 1961 Convention, there is definitely the need to rely on the provisions of the CRC (bests interest, non-discrimination etc) and some other regional instruments.9 Furthermore, the obligations, for example, imposed by the CRC are not only directed to the country of birth of a child, but to all countries where a child has a link, for example, as a result of parentage. We have had cases of state succession, such as the situation in South Sudan and Sudan, where a new country was created, where predecessor and successor states may also have obligations. State succession has led to a number of individuals, including children, being stateless and, again, the understanding of arts 1–4 of the 1961 Convention needs to be able to rely on a number of provisions within the human rights framework. 10 Now let me go one step back and underscore that statelessness is the antithesis to childhood and children’s rights. I am still waiting to see anyone produce any 6 7 8 9 10 ibid. 1961 Convention (n 4) arts 1–4. Organisation of African Unity, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, opened for signature 11 July 1990, OAU Doc CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (entered into force 29 November 1999). 1961 Convention (n 4) arts 1–4. ibid. 199