Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/08 ‘critical mass’ for the harmonisation of statelessness determination procedures under the aegis of the CoE. About 200,000 stateless persons live in states that are members of the CoE, but are not (yet) part of the EU. By addressing statelessness on the level of the CoE, the situation in the Western Balkans region and the former socialist federations’ successor states could be improved. Also, the current EU candidate countries (Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey) are all members of the CoE. This is important because these states would want to improve their foreign policy message, and complying with their international obligations to effectively apply the 1954 Convention could be a major step forward. It is not an overstatement to say that states have been reluctant to address nationality and migration matters as a response to international pressure. The low ratification rate of the ECN supports this argument. Soft law tools can serve as a compromise between constitutional sovereignty and the need to create rules to govern international relations.88 According to Lord McNair, they are “instruments with extra-legal binding effect.”89 Taking both legal and political arguments into account, the author concludes that the adoption of a soft-law instrument under the guidance of the Council of Europe is the most feasible way forward for encouraging a wider Europe to identify and protect stateless persons. The author underlines that statelessness is an issue that should be recognised at the highest levels. The adoption of a recommendation either by the Parliamentary Assembly or by the Committee of Ministers would help test the ground and shape the consensus that may eventually lead to directly enforceable European standards.90 Progressively, a convention on the identification and protection of statelessness persons may follow. The leeway for the European Union to adopt a directive on the identification and protection of stateless persons is still there, and perhaps the Council of Europe’s efforts would increase the possibility of this outcome. Ideally, all relevant European regional organisations will push statelessness higher up on their agendas. The sharing of knowledge, experience, and good practices is crucial to this process. The work of the European Migration Network and the European Network on Statelessness continues to highlight good practices. In all circumstances, the harmonised procedures shall be in conformity with the international standards enshrined by UNHCR, and could be built up of the elements of existing SDPs. The development of regionally harmonised statelessness determination procedures would help implement the 1954 Convention according to the international standards. In the view of the author, it is important to underline elements that are commonly recommended, but States should have the opportunity to design and customise their nascent statelessness determination procedures in the light of their own legal systems, and to adjust them to the protection needs of the stateless populations under their jurisdictions. 5. Conclusion The time has come for Europe to address the protection of stateless persons in a harmonised manner. This work argued that the regional harmonisation of standards on statelessness determination procedures would enhance the current national efforts in the identification and protection of stateless persons. To this end, European states should facilitate the creation of a regional instrument by virtue of the powerful international organisations that exist in the region: the European Union and the Council 88 Daniel Thürer, ‘Soft Law’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014. 89 Ibid. 90 Jörg Polakewicz, ‘Council of Europe (CoE)’, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014. 16