4 10.1163/22131035-14020001 | enigbokan on stateless persons, they may reinforce the biases of their human developers, thereby compounding existing inequalities and undermining fair outcomes. Thirdly, given that ai lacks the empathy component and ethical awareness characteristics of humans, there is a concern that procedural safeguards, which are essential in administrative decision-making, may be compromised, particularly in cases involving child applicants. Lastly, ai algorithms may be ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of nationality law, which could result in poor decision-making leading to the non-recognition of stateless persons with all the concomitant harms to fundamental rights that involves. Given the potential for future advancements in ai, these arguments are based on its current capabilities and limitations. Despite the concerns highlighted, the use of ai in the statelessness determination process should not entirely be dismissed, as it can help address delays that often result in significant consequences, such as restricted access to basic rights and prolonged uncertainty for individuals awaiting recognition.12 Given ai algorithms’ ability to quickly process large volumes of data that would take humans much longer to analyse, this study argues that ai should not replace human decision-making but complement it. I suggest ways in which ai can assist human decision-makers in handling non-complex tasks that do not involve the determination of an individual’s stateless status – thereby avoiding the complete replacement of human decision-makers. However, it is argued that the partial use of ai may still raise human rights concerns, such as privacy and propose strategies to mitigate these potential risks. Following this introduction, the article is structured in four main sections. The section 2 explores core normative concepts. It defines the term ‘stateless person’ and briefly examines the underlying causes and the consequences of statelessness. It also defines ai and ai machine learning. The section 3 explores scholarship that advocates for the application of human rights frameworks in ai governance and provides the rationale for adopting a human rights approach in this study. In addition, this section examines the potential human rights challenges that may arise from using ai algorithms as a complete replacement for human decision-makers in statelessness determination and the adverse effect this could have on stateless persons. The section 4 examines the possibility for the partial use of ai to assist human decisionmakers with non-complex tasks in the statelessness determination process, while ensuring that statelessness determination remains the responsibility of 12 European Union Agency for Asylum, ‘Statelessness in the asylum context’ Asylum report <https://euaa.europa.eu/asylum-report-2020/711-statelessness-asylum-context> accessed 30 September 2025. International Human Rights Law Review (2025) 1–31