Part I. Introduction and Context guidelines on the interpretation of the Statelessness Conventions478 and reference being made to statelessness by different UN treaty bodies.479 At the European, regional level we also see new case law on statelessness emerging, both from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relating to the ECHR and from the CJEU concerning EU law.480 This case law considers issues and gaps in nationality laws in European states as well. Indeed, technical causes, relating to the confl ict of and gaps in nationality laws, still cause statelessness in Europe today. This is also related to Europe’s preference for jus sanguinis as the main principle of nationality acquisition, as described in paragraph 1.4.2 as well. This means that children born to parents that have no, an unknown or foreign nationality in Europe may be more vulnerable to problems in acquiring a nationality. Research has shown that some European states do not provide adequate safeguards in their laws to prevent statelessness among children born on the territory and ensure every child’s right to acquire a nationality, for instance because they only provide safeguards for children who are born in the country and have legal residence, or because they leave children with an undetermined or unknown nationality.481 Indeed, when considering the national laws of European states on granting nationality to otherwise stateless children born in the territory of the state, problems can indeed be encountered: not all European states provide a (complete) a safeguard.482 Most European states have a safeguard that provides for the grant of citizenship to foundlings of unknown parentage found in the territory of the country though.483 Cyprus, however, has no safeguards for children born on the territory who would otherwise be stateless, nor for foundlings. And not too long ago, the ECtHR had to take a strong stance on nationality laws concerning children born out of wedlock in Malta, because this amounted to differential treatment in violation of the ECHR.484 Further challenges with regard to nationality matters of a more technical nature are presented by modern reproductive techniques, such as surrogacy, as well as adoption and foundlings.485 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 88 See para 1.5.1. See para 1.5.1. See ch 3 & 4. ENS, ‘No Child Should Be Stateless’ (ENS 2015) <https://www.statelessness.eu/sites/www. statelessness.eu/fi les/ENS_NoChildStateless_final.pdf> accessed 26 September 2021. Cf ENS, ‘Statelessness Index’ (2021) <https://index.statelessness.eu/> accessed 3 October 2021. Theme ‘Prevention and Reduction’ was selected, and note that only 27 countries are included; Olivier Vonk & Maarten Vink, ‘Global Protection Against Statelessness Database’ (EUI Research Data 2015) <https:// cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/64601> accessed 3 October 2021. ‘Mode S01: born stateless’ was used and only member states of the CoE were selected. Unfortunately, six European states are not included (Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Monaco, San Marino). Cf ENS, ‘Statelessness Index’ (2021) <https://index.statelessness.eu/> accessed 3 October 2021. Theme ‘Prevention and Reduction’ was selected; Olivier Vonk & Maarten Vink, ‘Global Protection Against Statelessness Database’ (EUI Research Data 2015) <https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/64601> accessed 3 October 2021. ‘Mode S02: foundling’ was used and only member states of the CoE were selected. Genovese v Malta App No 53124/09 (ECHR, 11 October 2011) ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1011 JUD005312409. See also para 3.3.1. Cf Case C-490/20 V.M.A. v Stolichna Obshtina, Rayon ‘Pancharevo’ [2021] ECLI:EU:C:2021:1008, discussed further in para 4.3.1. Intersentia