3.4 Individual registration and status determination Stateless persons and individuals at risk of statelessness can be identified on a case-by-case basis through registration and status determination procedures. Having established that a segment of the population is undocumented or of unknown nationality status, government authorities may proceed by requesting such persons to come forward for registration and nationality verification. This kind of exercise has been implemented, for example, in Thailand, in a bid to address the situation of the large number of undocumented migrant workers.69 The immediate product of registration efforts is a more accurate picture of the magnitude and profile of the population at risk of statelessness. With the subsequent verification and confirmation of nationality it becomes possible to clarify who among this group does, in fact, hold a nationality and who is stateless.70 Legal assistance and community outreach programmes offer a further opportunity for identifying individuals affected by statelessness. In Malaysia, community centres operated by ERA Consumer in Kedah, Perak, Selangor and Negeri Semilan received around 100 cases per month in which they uncovered facts relevant to the identification of statelessness. On the basis of this information, ERA Consumer was able to estimate that approximately 20,000 Indian women lack birth certificates, identity cards or marriage certificates.71 They and their family members are at heightened risk of statelessness. Finally, states can put in place dedicated stateless person status determination procedures that can be accessed on an ongoing basis. There are currently no examples of this practice within the ASEAN region. However, elsewhere, this approach has been very effective, especially where the individual identification of stateless persons has formed the basis for access to the protection regime of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.72 3.5 Challenges in the identification of statelessness As shown, some encouraging examples of identification efforts can be found in the ASEAN region. However, large gaps remain in the information on stateless and at risk populations. This echoes a global trend. For instance, while UNHCR estimates that there are 12 million stateless persons worldwide, it is only able to report data on a far smaller number.73 In many cases, a comprehensive analysis is also lacking of the causes of statelessness, protection problems experienced by stateless persons and existing capacities in building a response. UNHCR has noted that “the absence of a clear assessment in some countries impeded effective planning of responses, underlining the importance of ongoing work on surveys, registration and population censuses”.74 One significant challenge that arises in the context of improving the identification of statelessness is promoting a common understanding of terminology. The majority of ASEAN countries do not define statelessness in their law, so different definitions, procedures or standards of proof may be applied.75 69 The approach to and outcome of nationality verification in Thailand is covered in more detail under section 4 as a tool for the prevention of statelessness. 70 Similar practices can be seen outside the region. For instance, a registration drive formed the basis for the comprehensive identification of statelessness in Turkmenistan. This information was subsequently channelled into the country’s naturalisation procedures to promote the reduction of cases. M.Manly and S. Persaud, “UNHCR and responses to statelessness” in Forced Migration Review, Issue 32, 2009. 71 L. Koya, “Statelessness in Malaysia” in S. Nagarajan (ed.) SUHAKAM after 5 years: State of human rights in Malaysia, 2006; R. Tikamdas, “The Right to Identity and Citizenship under the Constitution and International Law” at ERA Consumer Forum on Statelessness: An Obstacle to Economic Empowerment, Kuala Lumpur, 28 March 2006. 72 G. Gyulai, Forgotten without reason. Protection of non-refugee stateless persons in Central Europe, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2007. Note that the identification of stateless persons may also be the bi-product of national asylum systems where there is provision for looking at statelessness alongside the determination of refugee status. Further discussion of status determination practices can be found in section 6 where the impact on the protection of stateless persons is also considered. 73 UNHCR, 2009 Statistical Report: Trends in displacement, protection and solutions, 2010. 74 UNHCR, Progress Report on Statelessness 2009, EC/60/SC/CRP.10, 26 May 2009. 75 Viet Nam and Lao PDR are currently the only exceptions. Note that Indonesia does also use the term statelessness in their nationality law – for instance to provide that nationality cannot be lost in certain circumstances if this would render the person stateless – but no definition is given. 11