SAHNI ARTICLE 3.3.21 (WORD) (DO NOT DELETE) 144 Gonzaga Journal of International Law 5/6/2021 7:21 PM Vol. 24:2 never applied for her own Dutch passport even though her mother’s passport expired in 2005 and was not renewed.294 As a Swiss citizen, she did not have EU citizenship as Switzerland is not an EU Member State. She and her mother applied for their respective Netherlands passports in Switzerland when she was nineteen years old.295 This occurred one year after Ms. Duboux reached her age of majority.296 Ms. Duboux’s application was rejected mainly due to Article 16(d) of the Netherlands Nationality Law.297 Article 16(d) deprives a child of Dutch nationality if a parent foregoes her nationality under Article 15(1)(c).298 The ECJ agreed with the observations of the referring court that a child depends on its parents to act on its behalf. 299 A minor child does not have the psychological, financial and legal autonomy to decide if, when, and how to apply for nationality or meet residence requirements. He or she is not at fault for any loss of citizenship. Yet, this does not mean that courts should not consider similar cases cautiously. It is imperative that parents of Applicants do not misuse the Tjebbes precedent. Guardians who delay their decision-making responsibilities because they anticipate that the Applicant can rely on Tjebbes are not acting in the best interests of the child. III. CONCLUSION The current absence of a right to nationality clause that is enshrined in a binding global treaty impairs access to justice under both international and domestic law. This omission disadvantages all persons. There is no transnational legal guarantee that adults and children are entitled to nationality or citizenship. The lack of a statutory definition of ‘nationality’ or ‘citizenship’ under international law also aggravates the likelihood of intentional or random causes of statelessness. The working effectiveness of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness depends on whether individual member states take initiative to prevent statelessness and redress victims. The above drawbacks reinforce that it is yet another great loss to the international legal system that the UDHR is not binding.300 At present, the scope of Article 15 is instructive but restricted. Article 15 makes three statements that identify fundamental protective rights. 301 If binding, Article 15 would comprise adequate nationality rights. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. Id. Id. ¶¶ 14, 16. Id. ¶ 16. Id. ¶¶ 11, 27. Id. ¶ 29, 36. Id. ¶¶ 25, 44. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union Of India, (2018) 494 SCC 196 (India). UDHR, supra note 1, at art. 15; Dollinger, supra note 9; American Declaration, supra note 10.