124 COLUM. J. RACE & L. [Vol. 11:83 generally appear to have been relied upon by states parties as a justification or defense of discriminatory nationality laws. Rather it has been the Committee that has occasionally identified a potential conflict with Article 1(3). Yet, there is no in-depth analysis in these reports of the scope of Article 1(3); rather Article 1(3) is most commonly cited without discussion. For instance, in relation to the discrimination against Dominicans of Haitian origin mentioned above, the Committee observed that the various practices “all lead to a situation of statelessness (art. 1(3) and art. 5 (d) (iii)).” 174 However, in two instances, the Committee’s relatively more detailed remarks reveal that its focus is indeed on instances where it appears that a state’s discriminatory nationality law or implementation thereof singles out a particular nationality or ethnic group. For example, in relation to France, the Committee recommended in 2010 that the state “ensure that, in conformity with article 1, paragraph 3, of the Convention, any measures taken in this area should not lead to the stigmatization of any particular nationality.”175 In relation to Iraq, the Committee noted that it asked the state party “whether the special provision which referred specifically to Arab citizens of other countries met the requirements of article 1, paragraph 3, of the Convention.”176 While the Committee’s increasing willingness to examine and critique nationality laws that may have a discriminatory object or effect is laudable, it is difficult to discern the interpretive methodology applied by the Committee in arriving at its interpretation of Article 1(3).177 Of course, as an exception and Sierra Leone)—a total of seven reports (twice regarding Sierra Leone). See sources cited infra notes 174–176. 174 Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on Dominican Republic, ¶ 19, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/DOM/CO/13-14 (Apr. 19, 2013). See also Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on Cote d’Ivoire, ¶ 11, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/62/CO/1 (June 3, 2003); Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on Namibia, ¶ 28, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/NAM/CO/13-15 (June 10, 2016); Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Rep. on the Work of Its Forty-Sixth Session, ¶ 280, U.N. Doc. A/46/18 (Feb. 27, 1992) (regarding Sierra Leone); Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Rep. on the Work of Its Fiftieth Session, ¶ 588, U.N. Doc. A/50/18 (Sept. 22, 1995) (regarding Sierra Leone). 175 Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on France, ¶ 11, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/FRA/CO/17-19 (Sept. 23, 2010) (emphasis added). 176 Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Rep. on the Work of Its Forty-Second Session, ¶ 303, U.N. Doc. A/42/18 (Aug. 7, 1987) (regarding Iraq). 177 But see THORNBERRY, supra note 2, at 158.