Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2019 1(1) The first group are children who claim Vietnamese nationality (whilst at the same time in some cases still holding their father’s nationality). This group numbered 67 (out of 206). In relation to this group it appears that Vietnamese nationality has been obtained through possibly fraudulent means in order to secure permanent registration under the ho khau system for the children. The second group is the largest (136 out of 206) and hold only the nationality of their father: they are not registered. For this second group the claim that they lack effective nationality is strong. Thirdly, there were two children who identified as having two nationalities; that of their father’s nationality and the mother’s Vietnamese nationality. Finally, the fourth group of three children were born in China and had returned home without any proof of their birth (although it is potentially available). We argue that these four groups manifest different vulnerabilities both currently and in the future. For this reason, we describe the case study as involving ‘degrees of statelessness’. The issues related to these ‘returned’ children result from gaps in policies and laws, lack of understanding of the laws and inconsistencies in application of the laws. The results of our research show that the context allows for a high degree of discretion to be exercised in applying the laws and policies described below. As a result, these cases raise questions about the adequacy of national and local responses to the issue, and consistency between levels of administration. We argue that there is a need for further investigation into this underexplored consequence of the phenomenon of marriage migration in this region. II ‘DE FACTO’ STATELESSNESS OR ‘INEFFECTIVE NATIONALITY’: A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS The 1954 Convention defined statelessness in terms of lack of nationality. 11 Reflecting the historical circumstances of its drafting, it did not use the terms de jure or de facto statelessness; however de facto stateless persons have been traditionally assumed to be refugees. 12 For example, the 1946 Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees defined de facto stateless persons as being ‘outside the state of their nationality’, 13 while a 1949 United Nations Secretary-General study broadened the definition to include persons who ‘having left the country of which they were nationals, no longer enjoy the protection and assistance of their national authorities’. 14 The link between lack of protection and geographic separation from a person’s state of origin is reflected in the definition of a refugee in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘1951 Convention’). 15 11 12 13 14 15 Defined within the 1954 Convention as ‘individuals not considered as nationals by any State under the operation of its law’: 1954 Convention (n 3) art 1. See also Massey (n 3) 15–22. Carol Batchelor, ‘Stateless Persons: Some Gaps in International Protection’ (1995) 7 International Journal of Refugee Law 232, 257. See also Michelle Foster and Helene Lambert, ‘Statelessness as a Human Rights Issue: A Concept Whose Time Has Come’ (2016) 28(4) International Journal of Refugee Law 564, 574. United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, A Study of Statelessness, (Study E/1112; E/1112/Add.1, 1 August 1949) <https://www.unhcr.org/enau/protection/statelessness/3ae68c2d0/study-statelessness-united-nations-august-1949-lakesuccess-new-york.html>. Massey (n 3) 4. See Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954); 1954 Convention (n 3) art 1A(2). 72