Part I. Introduction and Context distinction, also because some European norms use these terms.31 Even if this study is primarily focused on de jure statelessness, and as such on the norms that address this situation, it is aware that the line between de jure and de facto is not always easily drawn, for instance when we think of situations where someone is at risk of statelessness. Some of the norms on de facto statelessness may therefore also be relevant to fully understanding the concept of nationality. Conversely, some of the findings of this research may be relevant for those who remain factually without protection of a state or rights that are generally associated with nationality. In academic literature as well as in reports on statelessness, a distinction is sometimes made between statelessness in situ (i.e. in the original place) and statelessness in a migratory context.32 These terms are used to indicate a difference in the situation and context in which statelessness occurs, and also say something about the level of attachment of a stateless person to the country where he or she resides.33 This is evident when attempting to provide definitions for the two concepts. Statelessness in situ concerns persons who remain stateless in their ‘own country’, often since birth and thus (usually) in a non-migratory context. Their situation is characterized by the fact that they are long-standing residents or were residents at the time of state succession and they have (personal and/or family) ties to the country, which they have with no other country. Persons who are stateless in a migratory context are migrants or have a migratory background with no or no significant ties to the country they live in (yet).34 It has furthermore been held that the response to the two contexts of statelessness should differ in view of the (stronger) level of attachment to the country of residence. Persons who are stateless in a migratory context should be identified as such (through statelessness determination procedures) and be afforded protection as a stateless person. 31 32 33 34 12 Staatloosheid of de Uitdaging van Onuitzetbaren’ [De facto Statelessness or the Challenge of Undeportable Persons] (2013) 5/6 Asiel & Migrantenrecht 281; Katja Swider, ‘A Rights-Based Approach to Statelessness’ (PhD, University of Amsterdam 2018); Alison Harvey, ‘Statelessness: the “de facto” Statelessness Debate’ (2010) 24 Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law 257; UNHCR (Hugh Massey), ‘UNHCR and de facto Statelessness’ (April 2010) LPPR/2010/01 <www.refworld.org/ docid/4bbf387d2.html> accessed 22 August 2021; Equal Rights Trust (ERT), ‘Unravelling Anomaly. Detention, Discrimination and the Protection Needs of Stateless Persons’ (July 2010) chapter 2 <www. equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/UNRAVELLING%20ANOMALY%20small%20file.pdf> accessed 22 August 2021. Eg Recommendation CM/Rec (2009) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the nationality of children (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 December 2009 at the 1073rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) and Explanatory Memorandum, which mentions de facto statelessness. Eg Laura van Waas, ‘Stateless Children’ in Jacqueline Bhabha, Jyothi Kanics & Daniel Senovila Hernández, Research Handbook on Child Migration (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018) 213–228, 213; Gábor Gyulai, ‘Statelessness in the EU Framework for International Protection’ (2012) 14 European Journal of Migration and Law 279, 279–280; Mark Manly, ‘UNHCR’s Mandate and Activities to Address Statelessness in Europe’ (2012) 14 European Journal of Migration and Law 261. Caia Vlieks, ‘Contexts of Statelessness. The Concepts ‘Statelessness in situ’ and ‘Statelessness in the Migratory Context’ in Tendayi Bloom, Katherine Tonkiss & Phillip Cole, Understanding Statelessness (Routledge 2017) 35–52, 36. Ibid 35–52, 50. Intersentia