From a Traditional International Law Approach to a Human Rights-Based Approach to Statelessness Law (1930 Hague Convention)12 states that “it is in the general interest of the international community to secure that all its members should recognise that every person should have a nationality and should have one nationality only.” According to the Final Conference Act, the Conference “was unanimously of the opinion that it is very desirable that States should, in the exercise of their power of regulating questions of nationality, make every effort to reduce, so far as possible, cases of statelessness.”13 The outcome of the conference was the first multilateral convention on nationality – the 1930 Hague Convention – and two protocols specifically dealing with statelessness. The 1930 Hague Convention laid down a number of rules to prevent statelessness. It addressed in particular the position of (adopted) children, foundlings, and married women.14 Two protocols to the 1930 Hague Convention were also adopted, i.e. the Protocol Relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness15 and the Special Protocol concerning Statelessness16. However, the latter protocol only entered into force in 2004 due to a lack of ratifications.17 Although the 1930 Hague Convention and its protocols provided for some legal safeguards, the number of ratifications was relatively low, and many protection gaps remained. States were reluctant to regulate nationality matters, and concluded that it was the States’ prerogative to determine their own nationals.18 This principle was laid down in Article 1 of the convention, which is considered customary international law.19 State sovereignty remained the overriding principle regarding nationality matters. After World War II, the number of stateless persons exponentially increased. Although the distinction between refugees and stateless persons was not always clearly delineated back then – both categories were often referred to as ‘lacking protection’20 – the number of stateless persons was presumed to be very high.21 The reason for this increase was a series of nationality laws by Nazi Germany, which used denationalisation as a weapon against Jews during the war.22 Yet, denationalisation was still considered to be lawful under international law. Siegelberg observes that “though the mass denationalisation of Jewish citizens in Nazi Germany struck observers as extreme, it remained within the arena of justifiable behaviour.”23 As hundreds of thousands of people had been rendered stateless throughout the war, the issue of statelessness gained a degree of urgency. In 1946, the Intergovernmental Committee on 12 Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law (adopted 12 April 1930, entered into force 1 July 1937) 179 LNTS 89. 13 Final Act of the League of Nations Conference for the Codification of International Law (12 April 1930), as cited by Paul Weis, ‘Statelessness as a legal political problem’ in Paul Weis and Rudolf Graupner (eds), The Problem of Statelessness (World Jewish Congress 1944), 15. 14 Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law (adopted 12 April 1930, entered into force 1 July 1937) 179 LNTS 89, chapters III, IV and V. 15 Protocol Relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness (adopted 12 April 1930, entered into force 1 July 1937) 179 LNTS 116. 16 Special Protocol concerning Statelessness (adopted 12 April 1930, entered into force 15 March 2004) 2252 UNTS 435. 17 Gerard-René de Groot and Olivier Willem Vonk, International Standards on Nationality Law: Texts, Cases and Materials (Wolf Legal Publishers 2016), 100. 18 Siegelberg (n 10), 131-133. 19 De Groot and Vonk (n 17), 87. 20 Hugh Massey, ‘UNHCR and De Facto Statelessness’ (2010) 16 Legal and Protection Policy Research Series 1, 2. 21 Weis, ‘Statelessness as a legal political problem’ (n 13), 20. 22 Eide (n 3), para. 19. 23 Siegelberg (n 10), 140. European University Institute 3