to be a rule of customary international law.135 Inasmuch as the union occurred prior to the complete uninhabitability of the island State, questions of displacement and relocation would still arise, although they would then be internal within the same State.136 Unless there was a cession of territory or union with another State, continuity of statehood would depend largely on continued recognition by other States. As noted, de facto statelessness could be an issue nonetheless with continued recognition; should recognition cease, de jure statelessness would arise. The only option to prevent such statelessness from occurring would be the acquisition of the nationality of a third State. Neither the 1961 Convention nor international instruments on State succession provide for specific safeguards against statelessness in such a situation.137 The principle that statelessness should be prevented should nonetheless be applicable. Thus, a situation-specific approach would need to be pursued, ideally through multilateral comprehensive arrangements. Based on the principle that statelessness is to be avoided, such arrangements should include provisions on where, and on what legal basis affected populations would be permitted to move and integrate.138 Situations which would trigger the initiation of such an arrangement would also need to be agreed upon. Several receiving States could be foreseen. Solutions would have to apply to all members of the population would and possible bars to immigration would need to be waived. Such arrangements should include measures to prevent the entire population concerned from being rendered effectively stateless. Specifically, they should offer the option to all nationals of the State threatened by submersion to acquire another nationality, ideally before the dissolution of the State to avoid temporary statelessness. They would also ideally allow dual citizenship, at least for a transitional period.139 A waiver may be required as regards formal requirements applicable to renunciation or acquisition of citizenship, which might be difficult to fulfil for affected people. Such arrangements would also need to include a right of residence, to health care, pensions and other social security benefits in addition to other services and rights. In elaborating these arrangements, the status of people who might have been displaced to States not necessarily party to specific arrangements, as well as habitual Succession of States, ibid. Such an approach could also include those stateless habitual residents who left the State due to climatic change. 135 See commentary (6) to Art. 21 of the Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to the Succession of States, note 25 above. 136 While questions of statelessness would not arise, internal displacement and relocation raise a host of other legal issues; see for example, UNHCR, ‘Forced displacement in the context of climate change: Challenges for States under international law’, note 102 above; see J. R. Campbell, M. Goldsmith, K. Koshy, ‘Community relocation as an option for adaptation to the effects of climate change and climate variability in Pacific Island countries (PICs): Final report for APN project 2005-14-NSY-Campbell’, Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research, 2005, available online at: http://www.sprep.org/att/irc/ecopies/pacific_region/643.pdf (last accessed 25 January 2011); see Field, note 12 above. 137 The 1961 Convention would apply to the children of stateless persons born abroad. 138 Such an approach would also be in line with UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No. 95 (LIV) of 2003, which in para. (v) ‘[e]ncourages States to cooperate with UNHCR on methods to resolve cases of statelessness and to consider the possibility of providing resettlement places where a stateless person’s situation cannot be resolved in the present host country or other country of former habitual residence, and remains precarious;…’, although the population could be resettled prior to actual statelessness arising. 139 Although this is not a requirement under international law, such an approach would prevent uncertainty in situations where nationality would be acquired and the previous one would cease, particularly in the context where cessation of statehood may be contested and persons could be rendered stateless with respect to some States but not others. 19