2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review B 3(2) Too Little? The possible relevance of the 1954 Convention has not only been downplayed due to how late it has been assumed to apply to EDPs, but also by how little it provides.74 The low number of ratifications and lack of domestic implementation through the necessary SDPs mean that availing oneself of stateless status is a complex endeavour, even in states where such a determination procedure exists. This would obviously not be affected by whichever stance the international community adopts on the statehood of potential deterritorialised LLISs. It remains, however, context dependent. Pre-emptive solutions such as bilateral or multilateral agreements, or a new international convention on climate displacement are ultimately all reliant on several premises, one of which is the willingness of at least one other member of the international community to commit to the protection of those who are displaced.75 Were this not to be the case, there is currently very little in terms of legal frameworks to provide any level of protection to potential EDPs from LLISs. While human rights protection theoretically applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of a state, without a legal status to enable those rights, it can be exceedingly difficult for people to benefit from this protection and access the legal remedies needed to enforce it.76 As things stand, it is generally agreed that EDPs from LLISs would eventually find themselves in a ‘legal limbo’ if their state of nationality were to find itself in the impossibility of providing protection and basic services. 77 In summary, their nationality would become ineffective due to the effects of climate change, rendering them de facto stateless.78 Namely, ‘persons outside the country of their nationality who are unable or, for valid reasons, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country’79 and thus left out of the protection afforded both by the 1951 Convention and that offered by the 1954 Convention. Hence, were EDPs from LLISs to find themselves de facto stateless, they could benefit only from general human rights norms and principles that have gained customary status such as the principle of non-refoulement.80 In the absence of a legal status, it may be a challenge to benefit from the protection of human rights, as Agnieszka Kubal 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 For an overview of the few elements of substantive protection provided by the 1954 Convention (n 15) and some of the latter’s shortcomings on the matter, see Dobrić (n 12) 58– 60. Lilian Yamamoto and Miguel Esteban, ‘Migration as an Adaptation Strategy for Atoll Island States’ (2017) 55(April) International Migration 144. Dobrić (n 12) 43. Currently, the only binding international treaty to explicitly address climate change displacement is the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, opened for signature 23 October 2009 (entered into force 6 December 2012). Yamamoto and Esteban, ‘Migration as an Adaptation Strategy��� (n 75) 155. Park (n 12) 14; Torres Camprubí (n 12) 200–01; Alexander and Simon, ‘No Port, No Passport’ (n 32). Stoutenburg disagrees with this assessment, on the dual basis that an EDP’s nationality would not be rendered ineffective through the actions of either the state or the national, as has been implied in the concept of de facto statelessness hitherto, and that it is doubtful whether EDPs would find themselves removed from the protection of their state of nationality: see Stoutenburg (n 6) 423–24. Massey (n 34) 61. Climate change was accepted by the Human Rights Committee as possibly triggering the prohibition against refoulement if conditions in an EDP’s state of origin were sufficiently dire: Teitiota v New Zealand (n 8) 5 [9.11]. 302