One option to prevent statelessness would be for other States to cede territory to the affected State for its continued existence. Full cession of sovereignty over certain territory would be required in such a case. Additionally, in such a situation, other States would have to agree that it is the same State establishing itself in a new territory.129 In such a case, the population could maintain its nationality and would not be rendered stateless. The President of the Maldives has reportedly announced plans to purchase land in Sri Lanka or India. Nations which have been approached are said to have been receptive to the idea.130 It is, however, not clear whether such discussions addressed the possibility of full cession of State sovereignty over certain territory.131 Another option would be to establish a union with another State. Such a union could result in the creation of a new State or lead to one State being subsumed into an existing State. In either scenario the establishment of a federation or a confederation would be possible.132 Regardless of whether the State resulting from the union would be a new State or an existing State, and regardless of the nature of the constitutional arrangement within the State, the 1961 Convention and the Draft Articles on the Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to Succession of States would offer relevant guidance. The 1961 Convention provides that in the absence of a treaty specifying otherwise, citizens of the predecessor State should acquire the nationality of the successor State if they would become stateless otherwise.133 The Draft Articles on the Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to Succession of States, which are broader in scope, have extended this approach to all nationals of the predecessor State, stating that in the case of unification of States, ‘the successor State shall attribute its nationality to all persons who, on the date of the succession of States, had the nationality of a predecessor State’.134 The International Law Commission has indicated that it considers this http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA47/001/2008/en/75b4fa2c-6e1b-11dd-8e5e43ea85d15a69/asa470012008eng.html (last accessed 25 January 2011). To the extent that such stateless persons were present, their situation would need to be tackled separately, although in some cases they may form part of special arrangements as outlined infra. 129 Crawford, note 27 above, 667-678. 130 See Toomey, note 14 above; also R. Ramesh, ‘Paradise almost lost: Maldives seek to buy a new homeland’, Guardian, 10 November 2008, available online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change (last accessed 25 January 2011); AFP, ‘Maldives saves for new homeland amid flooding fears: report’, 10 November 2008. Indonesia's Maritime Minister also reportedly suggested that uninhabited Indonesian islands could be rented to affected populations, although there has not been a formal proposal; see S. Holland, ‘Indonesia's rent-an-island answer to climate change’, ABC News, 3 June 2009, available online at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/03/2588165.htm (last accessed 25 January 2011). 131 See also the historically analogous case of Nauru, which was offered resettlement of its entire population on Curtis Island (Australian Territory) because of the environmental decimation of its own island, but refused because the resettlement terms did not grant the Nauruans sovereign independence. Examples of Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Maldives having approached the Governments of Australia and New Zealand respectively with proposals for the latter two to take entire populations in case of total loss of territory, have consistently been met with refusal: Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, A Pacific Engaged: Australia’s Relations with Papua New Guinea and the Island States of the South-West, 12 August 2003, para 6.78 and B. Crouch ‘Tiny Tuvalu in “Save Us” Plea Over Rising Seas’ Sunday Mail, 5 October 2008. 132 See Crawford, note 27 above, 479-500. While a federation or a confederation would be possible, the former island State would presumably require the granting of new territory within the Union. 133 See Art. 10 of the 1961 Statelessness Convention, note 109 above. 134 See Art. 21 of the Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to the Succession of States, note 25 above, and commentary (3) to above Article. Habitual residents of the island State, including stateless persons, should also have the right to choose whether or not to acquire the nationality of the successor State. See also Commentary 5 to Art. 21 of the Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to the 18