2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) such legislative improvements from the start of the #IBelong Campaign in 2014; since then, nine states have included provisions in their nationality law to grant nationality to children born in their territory who would otherwise be stateless; 13 two states have included provisions to grant nationality to children of unknown origin found on their territory;14 and three states have included provisions to grant nationality to children born to nationals abroad who would otherwise be stateless.15 These recent reforms have contributed to a legal landscape in which the majority of states globally do have at least some safeguards in their nationality laws against statelessness, and these are largely patterned on the ones found in the 1961 Convention. States generally behave as if they believe that statelessness should be avoided where possible. There is no state that has vocally opposed UNHCR’s #IBelong Campaign and, to the contrary, the Campaign has been endorsed by the UN General Assembly. 16 This is progress, but there remains a long way to go before all of the safeguards in the 1961 Convention are reflected in most states’ nationality laws or recognised as customary norms. In this regard, the paucity of states parties in certain parts of the world (especially the Middle East, with zero states parties 17 and the Asia– Pacific, with four states parties) 18 is most striking and challenging. But additionally, and just as importantly, there are issues to tackle when it comes to faithful and full compliance with the 1961 Convention by those who are parties. Critically, the nationality laws and nationality acquisition procedures of a great number of states parties fail to meet the obligations contained in art 1 of the 1961 Convention, which provides that parties are to grant nationality to children born on the territory who would otherwise be stateless, either automatically at birth or later upon application. If properly implemented, this provision would, in principle, virtually end statelessness within a generation. The importance of this safeguard is reinforced by provisions on the right of every child to acquire a nationality in the CRC19 and the ICCPR.20 In terms of the flaws in its application, there are problems with respect to how some states interpret and apply the ‘would otherwise be stateless’ language, with some inappropriately looking at whether the person concerned has an entitlement to another nationality as opposed to having another nationality. There are also numerous problems when it comes to the conditions imposed by states in their implementation of the safeguard. While art 1 includes an exhaustive list of conditions and exceptions that may be imposed relating to age, habitual residence and conviction of certain criminal offenses, many states go further in limiting eligibility to the safeguard. Some states apply age limits that are too restrictive. The 1961 Convention specifies that where nationality is granted upon application it needs to be open to applicants until they are at least 21.21 However, numerous states prescribe an age limit of 18 years or younger upon those lodging an 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Albania, Armenia, Chile, Cuba, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg and Tajikistan. See ‘UNTC 1961 Convention Page’ (n 2). ibid. Chile and Panama. Ibid. Cuba, Mexico and Paraguay. United Nations General Assembly, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UN Doc A/RES/70/135 (17 December 2015). Israel signed the 1961 Convention (n 1) in 1961 but never ratified it. Australia, Kiribati, New Zealand and Turkmenistan. See ‘UNTC 1961 Convention Page’ (n 2). CRC (n 6) art 7. ICCPR (n 5) art 24. 1961 Convention (n 1) art 2(a). 196