2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) answered by reference to other norms, such as the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of nationality, as well as general anti-discrimination norms.29 The third provision worthy of specific attention is art 9, which provides that ‘a Contracting State may not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds’.30 As the Commission explained at the time, ‘[t]he obligation is an absolute one’ as it does not depend on whether the prohibited discrimination would result in statelessness.31 Such discrimination is prohibited absolutely with no qualifications or exceptions. The Commission explained that it had ‘considered whether in a convention the sole object of which is the elimination of statelessness it is proper to introduce an obligation of this kind’.32 However, ‘it came to the conclusion that any other formulation of this article would be open to serious objection’. 33 In the Commission’s view, such discrimination could never be justified. Compliance with this provision would go a long way to eliminating statelessness, given the prevalence of discrimination, especially on racial, ethnic and religious grounds, as a cause of statelessness.34 It is also significant because some other international human rights treaties are not as absolute in their prohibition of discrimination in relation to nationality laws.35 However, it must be acknowledged that a significant omission from the list was gender as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The drafting history does not illuminate the reason for its omission as it was simply never discussed, although the absence of women amongst the drafters is no doubt an explanatory factor. Given the ongoing prevalence of gender discrimination in nationality laws today, this can be viewed as a serious gap.36 Reliance on other treaties, especially the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which provides that states parties shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality, is thus an important supplement to the 1961 Convention.37 THE 1961 CONVENTION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TODAY Article 13 makes clear that the 1961 Convention operates as a floor, rather than a ceiling. Indeed, I have already indicated some ways in which it is supplemented 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) arts 9, 24(1), 26 (‘ICCPR’); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976) art 2(2). 1961 Convention (n 6) art 9. Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of its Fifth Session, 1 June– 14 August 1953, UN Doc A/2456 (1953) 226 [152]. ibid. ibid. See Michelle Foster and Timnah Rachel Baker, ‘Racial Discrimination in Nationality Laws: A Doctrinal Blind Spot of International Law?’ (2021) 11(1) Columbia Journal of Race and Law 83. See ibid; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature 21 December 1965, 660 UNTS 195 (entered into force 4 January 1969) art 1(3). See UNHCR, Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2020 (Background Note, 14 July 2020) 2. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, opened for signature 18 December 1979, 1249 UNTS 13 (entered into force 3 September 1981) art 9. 192