Why Union Law Can And Should Protect Stateless Persons 103 as States have committed themselves to taking action under the UN treaties on statelessness. It is incumbent on them to transpose the relevant international obligations into national laws and policies. The EU Council conclusions underline, furthermore, that the acquisition of nationality falls within the competence of Member States and they do not go further than calling for the exchange of good practices among Member States. In this contribution, we make the argument, however, that the European Union, which itself is not a party to any treaty dealing with statelessness, can and should establish a common legal framework for identifying and protecting stateless persons. That argument rests on two pillars. First, studies indicate that dedicated protection mechanisms for stateless persons are lacking in most EU Member States and that several Member States violate international standards regarding protection against statelessness.4 In Member States where identification or protection frameworks are in place, their accessibility and functioning is subject to criticism.5 The formulation of binding rules at the level of the European Union has the potential to contribute to the full and inclusive application by Member States of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (hereafter: the 1954 Convention). Minimum standards for identifying and protecting stateless persons set by the European Union would promote a common approach to such issues as the interpretation of the definition of stateless person, the functioning of identification procedures and the content of protection. They would contribute to guaranteeing that stateless persons residing in a Member State have access to meaningful protection. Second, the common immigration policy of the European Union is premised on the idea that the conditions for admission and residence of third country nationals must be approximated. As a matter of Union law, stateless persons are equated with third-country nationals (Art. 67(2) TFEU). A failure to regulate the status of stateless persons at the level of the European Union would result in stateless persons being left out in the EU’s immigration policy. 4 Groot, G.R. de, K. Swider, O. Vonk, Practices and Approaches in EU Member States to Prevent and End Statelessness, Study for the LIBE Committee, Nov. 2015 (Brussels, European Parliament, 2015), p. 42, 53; Manly, M., ‘UNHCR’s Mandate and Activities to Address Statelessness in Europe’, 14 European Journal of Migration and Law (2012) 274–275; Waas, L. van, ‘Statelessness: A 21st Century Challenge for Europe’, 2 Security and Human Rights (2009) 137–141. 5 See, for example, the criticism on the French determination procedure Chassin, C.-A., ‘Panorama français du droit de l’apatridie’, 2 Revue française de droit administratif (2003) 324–330; Likibi, R., Le droit de l’apatridie: pratiques et controverses (Paris, Publibook, 2013), pp. 257–303. The Belgian system of determination through courts also has drawbacks, see UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Belgium (Geneva, UNHCR, 2012), pp. 47–63. European Journal of Migration and Law 19 (2017) 101–135