Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/9 and significance of international law in many important cases.34 However, in the sensitive area of citizenship, it could be deemed ground-breaking for treaties like CRC to be treated as a persuasive source of judicial interpretation of the related constitutional provisions, for instance, by having regard to the best interests of the child in its Article 3(1) to uphold that every child has to have a nationality and therefore must not be left stateless.35 4. Conclusion Learning from the engagement and advocacy to address statelessness in West Malaysia, it is clear that a sufficient level of political will combined with inclusive strategies and sustained support from all stakeholders especially the Government—the main duty bearer to identify and measure stateless persons—are needed as the basic recipe in realising the goals of the #Ibelong Campaign. A systematic framework of shared responsibility and interstate cooperation targeting access to birth registration and establishment of nationality will be highly desirable in the context of finding effective solutions to the long-standing situations of statelessness and situations placing populations at risk of statelessness in Sabah. More focused engagement to educate high-level actors among the legislators and judges who may have not been adequately exposed to the human face of statelessness should be developed and pursued. Aside from a consistent push to reform citizenship provisions that contain discriminatory elements, the developing jurisprudential pattern around the safeguard against childhood statelessness needs reshaping. Mindful of the broader perspectives of the underlying social, political and economic reasons behind the laws and policy that could manufacture statelessness and its associated anomalies, a human rights cognitive paradigm must be harnessed and strongly promoted to prevail over austere technical interpretations that thrive within the country’s state security and sovereignty framework. 34 See some of the cases such as Sagong Tasi & Ors v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors [2002] 2 MLJ 591; PP v Yuneswaran A/L Ramaraj [2015] 6 MLJ 47. For more related discussion, see Equal rights Trust, Confined Spaces: Legal Protections for Rohingya in Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand <http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Confined%20Spaces_0.pdf in> accessed 28 November 2017, p 88-90 35 Lee Chin Pon & Anor v Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, Malaysia [2010] (unreported); Raymond Mah, Citizenship For Adopted Children- A Malaysian Perspective [2013] 1 MLJ xiii; Navin A/L Moorthy v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara, Malaysia & Ors MTKL Saman Pemula No: 24NCvC-2011-12/2013 (Unreported). The judge in Navin’s case chose to be guided by Article 7 of the CRC on the right of a child to his legal identity, read with Article 3 on the best interests of the child principle in construing “special circumstances” in Article 15A. See para 36-38. 10