26 5. Refugee Law Initiative Working Paper 76 Conclusion This paper questioned whether “a particular litigation structure, process or pattern” within childhood statelessness cases could be found (Section 1.1). Taking the findings from Section 4.1 into consideration, certain impressions emerged. With respect to litigant structure, children indeed should be separated from other litigants and supported by a dedicated representative, both legally and emotionally however possible in the given jurisdiction. Even if the statistics of the sample at first glance suggest multiple litigants do not harm a child’s chances of success, a deeper dive suggests that may only occur if children are from the Global North and/or if the case is not related to issues of asylum or forced migration. If allowed to participate, third parties may serve as expert voices in complex matters of statelessness, yet their involvement unfortunately promises neither a welcome reception by a court nor a positive outcome. Moving one step beyond litigant choice and representation in Section 4.2, this research suggests a child’s voice will be heard only if the state’s law, court, and family allow it to be. Although the mandate of CRC Article 12 seems straightforward – and according to experts should be straightforward – a child’s age and the lack of appropriate advocacy may stand in the way. Most courts and immigration tribunals are not equipped with protection measures such as special representatives found in family courts within the same jurisdiction. Stateless children suffer from their lack of citizenship and resulting lack of rights. Challenges present themselves in every layer of litigation, from a first instance court in which a child might not be given appropriate support or attention through to appeals courts in which the child is far removed from abstract legal arguments. With respect to the secondary research question regarding correlations between litigation and the characteristics of the jurisdiction, this research in Section 4.3 presents a circular pattern for negative cases. Stateless children’s journeys begin with a denial of their rights to birth registration and/or acquisition of nationality bestowed through the CRC, the ICCPR, the 1961 Statelessness Convention, among other legal instruments depending upon the state. This denial is facilitated by the failure to incorporate the CRC and/or the 1961 Statelessness Convention into a state’s law. The child may then be brought into court by a parent, guardian, third party, or a lawyer, making decisions and determining how or if the child will be heard. These wide-ranging decisions are strategic and attached to unpredictable outcomes. The child’s case may not succeed for any number of reasons, but many (a child’s views ignored, a failure to advocate separately for the child’s rights) can be tied back to the inability for litigants and courts in certain European states to sink their teeth into relevant treaties. The child’s journey thus begins and ends with a state’s failure to genuinely implement treaties such as the CRC and the Statelessness Conventions. In sum, this research shows that children may have the best chance of success if they are separated from other litigants, appointed a special representative, and their arguments are rooted in indisputably binding law. The apparent simplicity of this conclusion is deceiving, as the research showed how rarely such a trifecta occurs despite substantial efforts by children’s advocates. Thus, whether the rights of stateless children are being respected in European courtrooms receives an unsatisfying answer: it depends upon the courtroom. Data from the sample presented more positive cases than negative, yet this data and expert interviews demonstrate much more could and should be done. Negative cases should not exist; children should not be stateless. The path forward for litigators, litigants, and advocates encourages a focus both in and out of the courtroom.