YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J. 2017] The Risk of Statelessness VOL. XIX 91 Nevertheless, human rights advocates have seized upon the statelessness discourse, and some have pressed statelessness protection as a solution for Bahamians of Haitian descent that have suffered discriminatory citizenship practices.284 The campaign to extend international protection to Bahamians of Haitian descent faces an uphill battle considering the resistance of the Bahamas to international oversight. In this context, it seems sensible to advocate for rules and standards that balance individual rights against the interest of states to regulate nationality. Another important regional example is that of Chile, where children born to indigenous migrants have faced challenges in accessing Chilean nationality.285 Notably, the Chilean Constitution does not grant jus soli nationality to children born to foreigners “in transit,”286 which makes the Inter-American jurisprudence arising from the Dominican context quite relevant. Chile has not ratified the 1954 or 1961 Conventions,287 but it has ratified the American Convention and is under the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court.288 Moreover, Chile, like many countries in the Americas, has a mixed record of complying with Inter-American Court decisions, tending to implement those decisions that are less controversial, but being slow to implement those that have broader social or political implications.289 Chile offers another example of why caution is appropriate in setting a standard for the level of risk that that will trigger statelessness protection. Of course, one must consider the likely position of states that would prefer a higher degree of certainty that an individual is stateless before they are compelled to grant nationality at birth. One could easily imagine a state standing firmly by the proposition that certainty, or perhaps something just short of certainty, is the appropriate standard for statelessness http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights_sign.htm [https://perma.cc/7JNB-3XR7] (listing states that have signed, ratified, and/or acceded to the American Convention on Human Rights). 283. The Bahamas has failed to ratify both the 1954 Convention, see Status of the 1954 Convention, supra note 81, and the 1961 Convention, see Status of the 1961 Convention, supra note 85. 284. See, e.g., Grand Bah. Human Rights Assoc., Bahamas ‘Risks Causing Statelessness,’ NASSAU GUARDIAN (July 15, 2015), http://www.thenassauguardian.com/news/57570bahamas-risks-causing-statelessness [https://perma.cc/2M3T-RP98]. 285. See Claudio Fuentes Maureira et al., 3.000 Niños Esperando su Nacionalidad. La Necesidad de Contar con Remedios Colectivos para Resolver Vulneraciones Individuales de Derechos [3,000 Children Waiting for Their Nationality. The Need for Collective Remedies to Resolve Violations of Individual Rights], ANUARIO DE DERECHO PÚBLICO (UNIVERSIDAD DIEGO PORTALES) 549, 550 (2016). See also Chile, AMERICAN NETWORK ON NATIONALITY & STATELESSNESS, http://www.americasns.org/chile/ [https://perma.cc/FD5Y-VUYB]. 286. Chile, supra note 285. 287. See Status of the 1954 Convention, supra note 81; UNTC, Status of the 1961 Convention, supra note 85. 288. See OAS, supra note 282. 289. David C. Baluarte & Christian M. De Vos, From Judgment to Justice: Implementing International and Regional Human Rights Decisions, OPEN SOC’Y FOUNDS. 74-76 (2010), https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/from-judgment-to-justice20101122.pdf [https://perma.cc/HT7T-L4LY]. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3111529