international law, international conventions on statelessness, refugees and migrant workers nor general human rights instruments provide effective protection for stateless persons on the move. And the majority of the stateless remain on the move. As a case in point, since its creation, UNHCR has strived to provide international protection regime and sought durable solutions for statelessness .4 Specifically, UNHCR actively participated in the drafting of the two global legal instruments concerning ending statelessness the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Furthermore, in 1974 the UN General Assembly designated UNHCR as the organisation to which persons claiming the benefit of the 1961 Convention may apply for examination of their claims and for assistance in presenting those claims to state authorities (Manly and Persaud 2009). And yet, UNHCR, or any other INGO with a clear international mandate cannot produce solutions to problems created by states and normalized by societies chronically producing stateless populations and benefitting from their ordeal. If we are to rewrite the script, contra the dictum of durable solutions in international law, statelessness itself must be presented as a manmade solution to nation-state maintenance and global capitalism s fervent need for subhuman forms of extraction rather than being a burden to be alleviated. Coming back to the prototypical treatment of statelessness, particularly since 1989, questions concerning the resolution of statelessness in Europe have once again gained traction. On the one hand, exclusionary forces have become reinvigorated, as a result of which new forms of status have been created, severel limiting participation and inclusion rights. On the other hand, Europe s own minorities have been systemically targeted for exclusion, with Roma and ethnic Russians being affected in particular. No doubt, there are developments in the areas of regional and international lawmaking to counteract these developments represented by the case law of European Court of Human Rights and Council of Europe law. However, none of these jurisdictional interventions address the sources and caleidoscopic proliferation of statelessness in Europe and As summari ed b Manl and Persaud, [i]n the end it is action by states that is required to prevent and reduce statelessness. UNHCR cannot substitute for states. What UNHCR can do, however, is document gaps in legislative and administrative frameworks and provide assistance to address them. (2009, 7). 4 6