including in light of international human rights standards. In the context of this guide, it is not possible to exhaustively or explicitly cover all relevant international human rights standards. Moreover, it is important to emphasise that in its policy work more generally, ENS advocates for a rights-based approach and a progressive interpretation of relevant international standards relating to the protection of stateless persons. B) Summary of existing state practices that may serve as a model for other countries (see more details below). C) Some key practical questions and factors to consider when a state is preparing to establish its own system. These non-exhaustive lists are inspired by both UNHCR guidance and practical experience. They aim to support states to find the most appropriate model to copy or to identify the best way of adaptation of existing good practices to their specific needs and circumstances. When using this document it is important to keep in mind that statelessness may arise both in a migratory and nonmigratory context. Many large stateless populations in the world have strong and long-established ties to a certain country, the nationality of which they have reasonable and well-founded grounds to claim (for example they have been living in the country since birth and have no significant links with any other state). In case of such in situ stateless populations, targeted nationality campaigns with the objective of resolving the statelessness situation through grant of nationality, is more appropriate than identifying persons as stateless and providing them with status as such.8 The means and modalities to address these in situ stateless populations are beyond the scope of this guide, which instead focuses on the protection needs of stateless persons who are in a migratory situation with no or relatively weak ties with the country in which they live. In these cases, the grant of a protection status may be the suitable solution and a statelessness determination mechanism is critical to achieving this. The guide takes a global perspective; the examples included and the lessons which can be drawn from it are not limited to Europe only. I.2 Source of “good practice” The 1954 Convention establishes a number of concrete standards regarding the legal status and rights states parties shall ensure for stateless persons. However, the Convention remains silent about how to determine who is actually stateless. UNHCR holds that dedicated statelessness determination mechanisms are indispensable in order that a state determination procedures. 8 See UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines 2, Paras 6 and 7 (“Some stateless populations in a non-migratory context remain in their “own country” and may be referred to as in situ populations. For these groups, determination procedures for the purpose of obtaining status as stateless persons are not appropriate because of their long-established ties to these countries. Based on existing international standards and State practice in the area of reduction of statelessness, such ties include long-term habitual residence or residence at the time of State succession. Depending on the circumstances of the populations under consideration, States might be advised to undertake targeted nationality campaigns or nationality verification efforts rather than statelessness determination procedures.”, footnotes omitted) 5