Degrees of Statelessness The 1954 Convention contains the only legal definition of statelessness, which has attained the status of customary law. 16 However, in recent decades the limits of this definition have been challenged in several ways. First, there is a debate over the meaning of ‘nationality’ under the 1954 Convention, which is related to the scope of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (‘UNHCR’) mandate. Secondly, there has been increasing concern for individuals lacking ‘a particular nationality rather than lack of any nationality’ 17 — a phenomenon also referred to as de facto statelessness. 18 This issue is often discussed as one of ‘effective protection’ or ‘effective nationality’, 19 as these are persons whose nationality does not provide effective rights or protections. Our study is located within this concept of ‘effective nationality’ which, we argue, falls within the scope of the UNHCR’s statelessness mandate which includes the prevention of statelessness. We argue that the mandate extends to issues addressing possible causes of future (de jure) statelessness such as: addressing gaps in nationality legislation, administrative obstacles to obtaining nationality, birth registration, issuance of identity documentation and determination of nationality status. 20 Most literature on statelessness (particularly guidance coming directly from UNHCR) is focused on de jure statelessness or lack of nationality as defined within the 1954 Convention. 21 That is, it focuses on nationality as an international law concept of a formal link to a state rather than the concept of citizenship, which is more often linked to national or municipal law, to membership of a community with attendant rights and duties. A string of scholars has argued that a broader mandate on statelessness has the potential to weaken and to undermine the authority and limits of the existing international law principles and UNHCR mandate. 22 However another group of scholars has argued that the focus of statelessness studies should be expanded beyond the ‘traditional’ definition of de facto statelessness (as referring to persons that have left or are otherwise located outside their state of nationality). 23 The ‘traditional’ understanding of de facto statelessness fails to address individuals residing within the state to which they have a claim to nationality but live without full protection and/or rights associated with their nationality. This would include, for example, Nepali nationals who are unable to access citizenship certificates due to Nepal’s restrictive nationality laws. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Katia Bianchini, Protecting Stateless Persons: The Implementation of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons across EU States (Brill Nijhoff 2018) 74. Alison Harvey, ‘Statelessness: The ‘De Facto’ Statelessness Debate’ (2010) 24(3) Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law 257, 258. Open Society Institute, ‘De Jure Statelessness in the Real World: Applying the Prato Summary Conclusions’ (Report, March 2011) 4 <https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/de-jure-statelessness-real-world-applyingprato-summary-conclusions>. Batchelor (n 12) 233. Massey (n 3) 15–22. ibid 298. Bianchini (n 16) 81–83. Sharita Gruberg, ‘De Facto Statelessness among Undocumented Migrants in Greece’ (2011) 18(3) Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy 533, 535–36. 73