50 By-passing state power and neutralising state bureaucracies ‘rediscovery’ of statelessness (Blitz and Lynch 2011; Edwards and Waas 2014). The re-emergence of the issue was generally understood to have been driven by key personalities within UNHCR who advocated for the issue to be prioritised.25 Between 2011 and 2015, there were 49 accessions to the two Statelessness Conventions (UNHCR). In 2014, UNHCR launched the ‘I Belong campaign’ which aimed to bring different agencies and civil society organisation together to eradicate statelessness by 2024.26 The prominence of statelessness as an international issue, then, had increased internationally, driven predominantly by priorities set within UNHCR. The rediscovery of statelessness has led to both increasingly amorphous meanings attributed to statelessness and an increasingly coordinated and formalised global approach to its occurrence.27 The issue of statelessness was reasserted internationally as a fundamental human rights issue—expanding beyond the 1990s focus on state succession and legal technical solutions addressing gaps between nationality laws (Spiro 2011; Foster and Lambert 2016). This time the scope of the problem was defined more broadly, re-establishing the significance of discrimination in nationality laws and their application (UNHCR 2014:Actions 3&4). The resultant international approach was more comprehensive. UNHCR’s 10-point Global Action Plan (2014–24) that accompanied the I Belong campaign recommended ‘one or two’ of a large scope of measures, depending on the country context (UNHCR). These measures ranged from directly tackling discrimination in citizenship laws and civil registration procedures (Action 3&4), to a softer focus on the administrative procedures relating to birth registration (Action 7), provision of documents to those entitled to citizenship (Action 8), and expanding access to naturalisation procedures to enable stateless persons to regularise their legal status over time (Action 6) (UNHCR 2014). Meanwhile, the global campaign frequently drew on the language that equated statelessness with invisibility. The public-facing campaigns attempted to address discrimination by making the issue more visible to the general public and thus shifting domestic and international opinions. Whilst the action plan recommended tackling discrimination in registration processes and laws, the problem of statelessness was simultaneously reinforced in public campaigns as a problem of invisibility to state bureaucracies and thus a matter of state oversight. Despite the relatively broad scope of the action plan’s approaches, UNHCR’s and other UN agencies’ pragmatic need to continue to engage with states on statelessness and their broader mandates, and the relative power of states vis-à-vis international organisations, established a tendency to veer towards the softer approaches on which international agencies could engage with states. Other international agencies followed the same trajectory.28 Rohingya statelessness was largely approached from within the same paradigms. In selecting the ‘one or two’ measures under the Global Action Plan, the softer approaches were pragmatically chosen by UN agencies in order to engage with Myanmar. This was broadly in line with other approaches to