1961 Convention: History, Evolution and Relevance It is a relatively concise treaty, comprising just 10 operative articles in four parts. Articles 1–4 are concerned with the avoidance of statelessness at birth; arts 5–8 outline obligations designed to avoid statelessness through loss, renunciation or deprivation of nationality; art 9 prohibits discrimination in deprivation on grounds of race, ethnic, religious or political grounds; and art 10 is concerned with the avoidance of statelessness through transfer of territory. How did it fare with addressing the middle course, as advocated by the UK representative? While a thorough analysis is beyond the scope of this commentary, I highlight three key features. First, art 1 is the central provision, stating that ‘a Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless’. 22 This is a rare positive obligation, as it focuses on the state’s obligation to deliver the right to nationality at birth for those who would otherwise be stateless. If fully complied with, this obligation would, in principle, eliminate statelessness in one generation. However, as mentioned previously, the treaty that was ultimately adopted was the reduction, not elimination, version. The latter provided for no exceptions, whereas the adopted version does allow states to impose some, albeit limited, additional requirements, such as habitual residence in order to obtain nationality under art 1.23 Yet, many states implement art 1 with no qualification and, in practice, it is a vital tool in the quest to reduce statelessness by seeking to ensure nationality at birth,24 as outlined in Katie Robertson’s contribution to this volume.25 The second noteworthy feature is art 8, which provides that ‘a Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless’.26 This provision has proven particularly important in recent years, as many states have adopted citizenship stripping as a method of addressing counterterrorism concerns.27 While there is an exception in art 8(3), which permits deprivation that causes statelessness in several very limited circumstances, this can only be relied upon where a state made a relevant declaration at the time of ratification. 28 Fewer than 20% of state parties have made such a declaration; thus, art 8 has operated as a constraint, by ensuring that citizenship stripping powers apply only to dual nationals. Of course, whether or not a state should be permitted at all to deprive a person of nationality on security grounds remains a live issue, which may be 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1961 Convention (n 6) art 1(1). ibid art 1(2); cf Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of its Sixth Session, 3 June–28 July 1954, UN Doc A/2693 (1954) 143 [25]. See also the three other commentaries on the 60 th anniversary of the 1961 Convention in this volume: Benyam Dawit Mezmur, ‘Making Their Days Count: The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Convention on the Rights of the Child’ (2022) 4(1) Statelessness & Citizenship Review 198; Khanna and Rouweler (n 20); Katie Robertson, ‘Practical Measures to Meaningfully Implement Article 1(1) of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in Australian Law and Practice’ (2022) 4(1) Statelessness & Citizenship Review 194. Robertson (n 24). 1961 Convention (n 6) art 8(1). See, eg, Sangeetha Pillai and George Williams, ‘Twenty-First Century Banishment: Citizenship Stripping in Common Law Nations’ (2017) 66(3) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 521, 522–23; ISI and GlobalCit, Instrumentalising Citizenship in the Fight Against Terrorism (Report, 29 March 2022) <https://files.institutesi.org/Instrumentalising_Citizenship_Global_Trends_Report.pdf>. 1961 Convention (n 6) art 8(3). 191