Chapter 2. Europe and Statelessness Ethnic nationalism, including its shift to the right, and the bureaucratization of membership thus clearly point towards a trend of exclusion of those who do not ‘belong’ to the nation – or even to no nation at all. That these developments contributed to – or even were the root cause – of statelessness developing into a significant problem for states is confirmed when considering literature that focuses on statelessness more explicitly. William Conklin, for instance, says: “Hannah Arendt and Margaret Somers have especially decried how the conquest of the state by the ethnic nation has factored into the stateless condition”.302 Not only does this provide a background to World War I, it also relates to the emergence of statelessness on a larger scale than ever before in the context of this war in that it led to further demarcation between people of certain ethnicity and prioritization of the principle of nationality – articulating the belonging to a nation, also in the peace agreements after this war.303 The account by John Roberts of the period of 1880–1945 confirms how fundamental the principle of nationality was for the structure of Europe, as well as to political changes: “[i]ts spread had already produced great wars and upheavals; even greater ones were still to come.”304 In terms of administration and controlling movement of people, it was already touched upon that the late nineteenth century saw the relaxation of passport controls (which had existed in some countries) because of economic prosperity. In view of mass migration taking place at the end of the 19th century, legal norms were deemed important by some to address this. Indeed, “[i]n the 1880s and 1890s, the Institut de Droit International305 codified standards for the treatment or removal of refugees and for the power of the state to determine entry and exit. The group put forward a set of recommendations to mitigate the harsh consequences of mass migration and the conflict of nationality laws, recommending that states refrain from forbidding entrance to those without national status and condemning mass expulsion of minority groups.”306 The Institut de Droit International also held that denationalization could never be imposed as a punishment.307 There was already legal thinking at the international level 302 303 304 305 306 307 William E Conklin, Statelessness. The Enigma of the International Community (Hart Publishing 2015) 11. Cf EJ Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780 (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 1990) 123. JM Roberts, A General History of Europe. Europe 1880–1945 (ed Denys Hay, 2nd ed, Longman 1977) 19. He also notes that separating one nationality from the other was much more difficult in eastern Europe. The Institut de Droit International is an independent institution that aims to contribute to the development of international law. It was founded in 1873 and still exists today. See also <https://www. idi-iil.org/en/> accessed 19 September 2021. Mira L Siegelberg, Statelessness. A Modern History (Harvard University Press 2020) 36. For instance, Institut de Droit International, ‘Règles Internationales sur l’Admission et l’Expulsion des Étrangers’ (1892) Session de Genève <https://www.idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2017/06/1892_gen_01_fr.pdf> accessed 19 September 2021. Institut de Droit International, ‘Résolutions Relatives aux Confl its de Lois en Matière de Nationalité (Naturalisation et Expatriation)’ (1896) Session de Venise, Art 6 <https://www.idi-iil.org/app/ uploads/2017/06/1896_ven_02_fr.pdf> accessed 19 September 2021. Intersentia 59