19. There is no requirement for an individual to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to a refusal to grant nationality or a deprivation of his/her nationality before he or she can be considered as falling within Article 1(1). 20. The definition in Article 1(1) refers to a factual situation, not to the manner in which a person became stateless. Voluntary renunciation of nationality does not preclude an individual from satisfying the requirements of Article 1(1) as there is no basis for reading in such an implied condition to the definition of “stateless person”. Nonetheless, participants noted that diverging approaches have been adopted by States. It was also noted that the manner in which an individual became stateless may be relevant to his or her treatment following recognition and for determining the most appropriate solution. 21. The consequences of a finding of statelessness for a person who could acquire nationality through a mere formality are different from those for a person who cannot do so and a distinction should be drawn in the treatment such persons receive post-recognition. On the one hand, there are simple, accessible and purely formal procedures where the authorities do not have any discretion to refuse to take a given action, such as consular registration of a child born abroad. On the other hand, there are procedures in which the administration exercises discretion with regard to acquisition of nationality or where documentation and other requirements cannot reasonably be satisfied by the person concerned. C) Meaning of “by any State” 22. Given that Article 1(1) is a negative definition, “by any State” could be read as requiring the possibility of nationality to be ruled out for every State in the world before Article 1(1) can be satisfied. However, the adoption of an appropriate standard of proof would limit the States that need to be considered to those with which the person enjoys a relevant link (in particular by birth on the territory, descent, marriage or habitual residence). 23. The meaning of “State” should be based on the criteria generally considered necessary for a State to exist in international law. As such, relevant factors are those found in the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (permanent population, defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with other States) coupled with other considerations that have subsequently emerged (effectiveness of the entity in question, right of self-determination and the consent of the State which previously exercised control over the territory in question). 24. Whether or not an entity has been recognised as a State by other States is indicative (rather than determinative) of whether it has achieved statehood. 25. Where an entity’s purported statehood appears to have arisen through the use of force, its treatment under Article 1(1) will raise issues regarding the obligations of third States with regard to breaches of jus cogens norms. 26. In keeping with the current state of international law, whilst an effective central government is critical for a new State to emerge, an existing State that no longer has such a government because of civil war or other instability can still be considered as a “State” for the purposes of Article 1(1). force by states and the prohibition on racial discrimination. 84 Small Changes ‫ ـ‬Big Gains: An Action Plan to Prevent and Reduce Statelessness in the Kyrgyz Republic