16 Refugee Law Initiative Working Paper 76 experiences of her parents”, and does not explore the child’s best interests.83 In E3, the court acknowledged that “the upshot for ZA [born in the UK] is somewhat harsh and that she is an entirely blameless party”, after being left without citizenship due to a governmental error regarding her father’s legal status.84 In a judgment from Switzerland, three children born in Switzerland were left stateless due to their parents’ alleged lack of credibility without any discussion of the children’s welfare.85 In these cases, the dangers of combining parents and children in litigation warned of by practitioners, judges, and academics indeed manifested and children remained stateless. However, it is difficult not to recall the point made by CRIN that a child’s dependence upon adults to access justice is unavoidable;86 since those adults frequently are parents, the question remains how to allow that dependence to work to the benefit and not the detriment of a child litigant. One response, as noted above by ENS, Goodwin-Gill, Amnesty International, and Fenton-Glynn, is the involvement of a neutral third party.87 4.1.2 Third-Party Litigants: Positive Influence, No Guarantee A third party is defined as “[s]omeone other than the principal parties in a matter; someone who is not a party to a lawsuit…but who is somehow implicated in it.”88 In what capacity a third party may participate in litigation depends upon the jurisdiction. Standing and court rules dictate the ability, the requirements, and the roles of third parties who wish to engage in litigation. If an NGO clears those hurdles, a collective duty remains that the other litigator(s), the litigants, and the NGO(s) all must be on the same page to move forward in a meaningful way. Based on expectations that additional assistance boosts chances of success, one might expect to find more third-party involvement in the successful cases than in those with negative outcomes. This sample, however, appeared indifferent to third-party participation – 30 percent of positive cases included third party involvement, compared to 29 percent of negative cases. Neither litigators nor the NGOs follow precise rules when weighing third-party participation in cases of childhood statelessness.89 If an NGO deals with a constant stream of individual cases, then perhaps its name will not always appear as a primary litigant; on the other hand, if the NGO is attempting to shift a legal paradigm, it may act differently.90 Thus, strategy is developed based upon the political context of the jurisdiction, the demographics of the litigant(s), and the desired outcome. For example, “is this ‘strategic litigation’ intended to change the law, or just helping one individual – where will this case end up?”91 At the same time, it is difficult to predict exactly what consequences may result as a result of NGO involvement; thus, it is of utmost importance to assess each situation on a case-by-case basis.92 In general, NGOs have contributed positively to statelessness litigation, but whether litigants should seek or accept their involvement is a situation-specific determination.93 For stateless litigants, they often have already endured a multitude of procedures and may experience hopelessness, which could result either in welcoming anything suggested by litigators or instead closing themselves off to additional exhausting measures.94 NGOs specialized in statelessness might be able to ease the burdens of litigation. Reasons for including a third party to act as a primary litigant could be to protect the stateless child from active participation in a confusing courtroom. For example, once a child’s statement is produced (which could happen outside the courtroom) they may be spared from enduring the proceedings.95 Or perhaps the NGO will act as an amicus party to submit pleadings with hope to add an objective perspective,96 as also noted by 83 K.A. (n 82) para 23. 84 E3 (n 82) para 92. 85 A,B,C,D,E (n 84). 86 Text to n 21. 87 Text to n 31, n 32, n 33. 88 ‘third party’, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th edn, 2024). 89 Scholar A (n 67). 90 ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 Scholar B (n 69). 93 Scholar B (n 69); Executive A (n 70). 94 Scholar B (n 69). 95 Executive A (n 70). 96 Executive B (n 72).