Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/5 pursue cross-border surrogacy,30 not to mention that clinics may choose to ignore such prescriptions when motivated by the primacy of the economic imperative.31 Elsewhere, and in keeping with its responsibilities under ‘Article 3(1)’ of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,32 Japan could resolve the uncertain legal status of these children by treating the child’s best interests as paramount when determining nationality. However, as Margalit33 reminds us, local jurisdictions are free to interpret what those best interests are, thereby undermining the cross-border purchase of such international treaties. Finally, and as Wolf34 has called for, Japan could establish a framework to legalize and regulate surrogacy to avoid the problems discussed herein. If legalized, a more conducive environment for domestic surrogates would likely be created, thereby increasing the number of domestic surrogates and lowering the cost of service.35 As well, because Japan has a highly developed healthcare system and one of the lowest maternal mortality rates globally, it is better able to provide comprehensive health services to the surrogate, the child, and the intended parents alike.36 Furthermore, the thousands spent on overseas services would remain in Japan, and the potential exploitation of surrogates in low-income countries would be altogether avoided.37 5. Conclusion The absence of any formal regulation of gestational surrogacy in Japan has the two-fold effect of compelling those who wish to have children via surrogacy to seek overseas surrogates, which in turn places the children born of such arrangements at high risk of statelessness upon arrival in Japan. Granted, the number of children in such a predicament is likely minimal, but it is precisely because this population is so small that Japan should act to reduce and prevent statelessness brought about by cross-border surrogacy. Nevertheless, until reforms are implemented, children will continue to be arbitrarily punished for the circumstances of their birth, and the number of children so affected will continue to grow. 30 Tina Lin, ‘Born Lost: Stateless Children in International Surrogacy Arrangments’ (2013) 21 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 545. 31 Charles P. Kindregan Jr. and Danielle White, ‘International Fertility Tourism: The Potential for Stateless Children in Cross-Border Commercial Surrogacy Arrangements’ (2013) Suffolk University Law School Research Paper 13-39 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2359775> Accessed 5 September 2017. 32 Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3. 33 yehezkel Margalit, ‘From Baby M to Baby M(anji): Regulating International Surrogacy Agreements’ (2016) 24 Brooklyn Journal of Law and Policy 1 34 Trisha A. Wolf, ‘Why Japan Should Legalize Surrogacy’ (2014) 23 Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 461. 35 yehezkel Margalit, ‘From Baby M to Baby M(anji): Regulating International Surrogacy Agreements’ (2016) 24 Brooklyn Journal of Law and Policy 1. 36 yehezkel Margalit, ‘From Baby M to Baby M(anji): Regulating International Surrogacy Agreements’ (2016) 24 Brooklyn Journal of Law and Policy 1; Trisha A. Wolf, ‘Why Japan Should Legalize Surrogacy’ (2014) 23 Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 461. 37 Raywat Deonandan, ‘Recent Trends in Reproductive Tourism and International Surrogacy: Ethical Considerations and Challenges for Policy’ (2015) 8 Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 111; yehezkel Margalit, ‘From Baby M to Baby M(anji): Regulating International Surrogacy Agreements’ (2016) 24 Brooklyn Journal of Law and Policy 1. 8