Part I. Introduction and Context From a human rights perspective, however, it has been held that a nationality that results in no rights is undesirable: nationality cannot be just a status or ‘label’. An article on solving statelessness in relation to the right to a nationality, which draws on international (human rights) law, as well as scholarship and reports on these matters, demonstrates this aptly: “[T]he right to a nationality, and therefore solutions to statelessness, are about so much more than just ‘a’ nationality. They are about giving people rights, dignity, identity, inclusion, equality, and a home. (…) other solutions may fail to achieve the function of nationality as the heart of democratic legitimacy of States, disregard the individual’s valid interests, and fail to address the deeper issues attached to statelessness. In order to solve statelessness, it is necessary to recognise but also move beyond a State-centric understanding of the right to nationality toward an understanding of nationality as the content of a human right to citizenship. What is necessary is a nationality that represents a meaningful connection between a person and a State that enables the person involved to actively enjoy the full array of rights and to take part in society as a citizen.”67 The above considerations show that nationality (or citizenship) is a concept of a versatile and variable nature. For the purpose of this research, the definition of this notion is approached from a legal perspective, i.e. nationality is the legal bond between a person and a state, the nature of which can vary depending on the (municipal, national, European, international) ‘level’ on which it is studied, the content of which can differ from one situation to another, and the parameters of which keep changing.68 At the same time, it is a legal status that implies certain rights and duties. In this way, the approach to nationality in this research wants to acknowledge the different dimensions to this concept. In light of the focus on Europe – i.e. the 47 member states of the CoE69 – the conception of nationality used in this study presumes citizenship in a state that is (aspiring to be) a democratic state and acknowledges existing territorial borders. With the former explication of this research’s definition of nationality, the democratic dimension to nationality, meaning membership in a political community70, is explicitly included. This research thus concerns itself with forms of ‘full’ nationality or citizenship that lead to the aforementioned rights and duties between the individual and state. As such, certain types of, for instance, British nationality71, are in principle excluded from this study. Furthermore, even though questions around unrecognized or partially 67 68 69 70 71 20 Caia Vlieks, Ernst Hirsch Ballin & María José Recalde Vela, ‘Solving Statelessness: Interpreting the Right to Nationality’ (2017) 35 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 158, 175. See also Kristin Henard, ‘The Shift ing Parameters of Nationality’ (2018) 65 Netherlands International Law Review 269. See also para 1.4.4. Cf Rainer Bauböck, ‘Political Membership and Democratic Boundaries’ in Ayelet Shachar, Rainer Bauböck, Irene Bloemraad & Maarten Vink (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship (Oxford University Press 2017) 60–82. See Gov.uk, ‘Types of British nationality’ <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/britishcitizenship> accessed 22 August 2021. Intersentia