Statelessness Working Paper Series 2016/08 5. Defining the rule of law For many years, research on statelessness was largely confined to the analysis, interpretation and identification of gaps in national and international law.23 Academics pointed to constitutional law reform, or state accession to international conventions on statelessness, or new interpretations thereof, to reduce statelessness or better the conditions of stateless people. This approach remains important. If statelessness is the lack of a legal bond to the state, then logically, new laws or amendments must be passed in order to create that bond and end statelessness. Today, however, there is wider recognition that research on statelessness, “must evolve beyond the study of statelessness law. There is an evident need to explore statelessness from an interdisciplinary perspective, to better understand why this extreme form of exclusion is allowed to happen—and why it can so stubbornly persist—and what its true impact is on the lives of individuals, the fabric of communities and the integrity of the modern nation-state system.”24 This sentiment is welcome, if only because it opens the door to more incisive look at the political, cultural, and economic forces behind statelessness, and allows us to hold decision-makers and institutions accountable for their actions. Given its traditional focus on laws, it seems only natural that the research and advocacy agenda on statelessness should consider a rule of law perspective. Indeed, the rule of law provides a conceptual framework for approaching statelessness that may further rationalize an interdisciplinary approach, while providing new impetus for policy formation and programmatic undertakings. The rule of law is not an idea borne of contemporary political scientists. In fact, the first expressions of the principle may have originated around 2000 BCE with King Hammurabi of Babylonia, in current day Iraq. As old as the concept may be, it still lacks an agreed definition between and among academics, advocates and governments. Speaking on behalf of the UN system, the UN SecretaryGeneral has defined the rule of law as: …a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions, and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publically promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal identity, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.25 The definition is by some accounts long-winded, seeking to capture every possible aspect of the concept at the cost of accessibility and perhaps, coherence. Breaking the definition down further, however, three essential elements emerge. Under the rule of law: 1) those who wield power are to be held accountable; 2) laws must clear, stable and just; 3) the ways in which laws are processed and executed must likewise be accessible and just.26 In short, the rule of law is about controlling power and directing it towards positive or just ends, mostly through agreed-upon rules that detail the 23 Laura van Waas and Mark Manly, The State of Statelessness Research: A human rights imperative, January 2014. Id. 25 United Nations Security Council, The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, S/2004/616, 23 August 2004, para.6. 26 See World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index, 2015, available at http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-law-around-world. 24 5