because of the choices of other states in international community.40 Thus the prohibition of statelessness is crucial and logical for international cooperation and to avoid unfairly burdening other states in international community. In addition, the prohibition on statelessness implicates human rights. All persons, especially children, have a right to be recognized as a person before the law,41 especially children,42 and the holding of nationality is a necessary precondition for enjoying many civil and human rights and protections,43 for example, stateless persons have no diplomatic protection.44 It is a “right to have rights”.45 In accordance with the human right of every child to acquire a nationality,46 of particular interest are the legislative and administrative measures concerning the acquisition of nationality by a child who would otherwise be stateless.47 It might even be that the elementary considerations of humanity dictate that all people should have a nationality.48 In line with these concerns, states have adopted several multilateral declarations at conferences that reaffirm the prohibition on statelessness and urge state to 40 See P. WEIS, NATIONALITY AND STATELESSNESS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 65 (2nd ed., 1979) The good faith of a State which has admitted an alien on the assumption that the State of his nationality is under an obligation to receive him back would be deceived if by subsequent denationalisation this duty were to be extinguished…. the doctrine of the survival of the duty of readmission after the loss of nationality follows…from the principle of territorial supremacy: this supremacy might be infringed by such unilateral action in so far as that action would deprive other States of the possibility of enforcing their recognised right to expel aliens supposing that no third State, acting in pursuance of its legitimate discretion, was prepared to receive them. 41 See UNGA Res. 217A(III), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), art. 6 (Dec. 10, 1948); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966 (ICCPR), art. 16, 999 UNTS 171; American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, OAS Res. XXX (May 2, 1948), art. XVII, reprinted at BASIC DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc.6 rev.1 at 17 (1992) (Am. Decl.); American Convention on Human Rights (“Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica”) (B-32), Nov, 22, 1969, art. 3, OAS TS No. 36, 144 UNTS 123, reprinted at BASIC DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc.6 rev.1 at 25 (1992) (AmCHR). Also see Trop v. Dulles, 356 US 86, 101 (1958). ( “the total destruction of the individual’s status in organised society” 42 See ICCPR, supra note 41 at art. 24(3); Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, arts. 7(1)-(2), 8, 1577 UNTS 3, (CRC); AmCHR, supra note 41 at art. 3; Am. Decl., supra note 41 at art. XVII. 43 See Andrejeva v Lat., Appl. No. 55707/00, Judgment (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., Gr. Ch., 2009) (“nationality is a basis for a clear entitlement to a number of important rights”); Case of Expelled Dominicans & Haitians v Dom. Rep., Prelim, Objs., Merits, Repars. & Costs, Judgment, para 253 (Inter-Am. Ct. Hum. Rts., Aug. 28, 2014) Nationality is “a legal and political bond that links a person to a particular State, allows the individual to acquire and to exercise the rights and responsibilities inherent in membership in a political community. As such, nationality is a prerequisite for the exercise of certain rights”); Yean & Bosico Children v. Dom. Rep., Ser. C, Case 130, Judgment, para. 137 (Inter-Am. Ct. Hum. Rts., Sep. 8, 2005); Proposed Amendments to the Naturalisation Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Adv. Op. OC-4/84, Inter-Am. Ct. Hum. Rts., Ser. A, No. 4, paras. 32-33 (Inter-Am. Ct. Hum. Rts., Jan. 19, 1984); Inst. for Hum. Rts. & Dev. in Afr. (IHRDA) & Open Soc’y Just. Init. on behalf of Children of Nubian Descent in Kenya v. Kenya (Nubian Children case), Comm. No. Com/002/2009, Dec. on the Merits, paras. 46, 57 (Afr. Union., Afr. Comm. Experts on the Rts & Welfare of the Child, Mar. 22, 2011); Hum. Rts. Council, UN Sec’y-Gen., Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, UN Doc. A/HRC/19/43, para. 4 (Dec, 19, 2012) (HRC & UNSG, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality (Dec. 19, 2012)); Hum. Rts. Council, UN Sec’y-Gen., Impact of the arbitrary deprivation of nationality on the enjoyment of the rights of children concerned, and existing laws and practices on accessibility for children to acquire nationality, inter alia, of the country in which they are born, if they otherwise would be stateless, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/31/29 (Dec. 16, 2015); Afr. Union, Afr. Comm. Experts Rts & Welf. of Children, Gen. Comm. 2 on Art. 6 of the Afr. Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, AU Doc. ACERWC/GC/02 (2014) (Afr. Comm. Children, Gen. Comm. 2). 44 See C. E VANS , T HE R IGHT TO R EPARATION IN I NTERNATIO NAL L AW FOR V ICTIMS OF A RMED C ONFLICT 92-3 (2012) (“stateless victims are left entirely without any recourse.”) 45 See H ANNAH A RENDT , T HE O RIGINS OF T OTALITARIAN ISM 177 (1968); Trop v. Dulles, supra note 41 at 102 (opining that a person deprived of nationality “has lost the right to have rights”). 46 See ICCPR, supra note 41 at art. 24; CRC, supra note 42 at art. 7; HRC & UNSG, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality (Dec. 19, 2012), supra note 43 at para. 27. 47 See UNGA, UN Sec’y-Gen., UN High Comm’r Hum Rts., Annual report: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development: Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/28 (Dec. 19, 2013); HRC & UNSG, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality (Dec. 19, 2012), supra note 43 at para. 27. 48 See Corfu Channel case. 7 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3091912