118 Gábor Gyulai grounds, such as ethnic affi liation. The Summary Conclusions from UNHCR’s roundtable held in 2011 summarize the ‘two different contexts, [as] the first consisting of countries – many industrialized – that host stateless persons who are predominantly, if not exclusively, migrants or of migrant background; and the second consisting of countries that have in situ stateless populations (i.e. those that consider themselves to already be “in their own” country)’.7 The response to statelessness will need to vary, depending on these circumstances. However important it is, international protection is not always the appropriate response to the statelessness of a certain population. Many people who are currently living without a nationality have strong ties to a certain country, many in fact having been living there since birth, the nationality of which they have reasonable and well-founded grounds to claim. In such situations the most suitable resolution of their statelessness is to move towards naturalization or recognition of the nationality of the population concerned, instead of creating a specific ‘stateless person’ protection status, which would maintain their situation of statelessness.8 Examples of where recognition of nationality is the most appropriate response would include stateless Rohingyas in Myanmar, the stateless Kurds in Syria and stateless Nubians in Kenya. Other stateless populations may not, or may not yet, have sufficiently strong ties with the country where they live (or with any other country).9 This is commonly the case in a migration context. For example, a number of migrants originating from the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia remained stateless after the dissolution of these states in the 1990s, but were not able to apply for a new nationality in their country of residence. In such circumstances a meaningful and rights-based protection mechanism may be advisable where the state in question refuses to naturalize its residents to avoid statelessness. Such a mechanism could lay a pathway to a durable solution (i.e. the elimination of statelessness) later on. 7 8 9 UNHCR, ‘Expert Meeting – Statelessness Determination Procedures and the Status of Stateless Persons (Summary Conclusions)’ (December 2010) – hereinafter referred to as the ‘Geneva Conclusions’, p. 2. Geneva Conclusions, para. 24 (‘For stateless individuals within their own country, as opposed to those who are in a migration context, the appropriate status would be one which reflects the degree of attachment to that country, namely, nationality.’), see also UNHCR, ‘Guidelines on Statelessness No. 2: Procedures for Determining whether an Individual is a Stateless Person’ (5 April 2012), para. 6. Consider that different states may have highly diverging views of what can be considered as ‘sufficiently strong ties’. 9781107032446c05_p116-143.indd 118 6/16/2014 3:12:01 PM