A Teleological and Child-Sensitive Interpretation stateless and a refugee, the reality that not all stateless persons (and children) can qualify for refugee status must be appreciated. Notably, two parallel protection regimes have been conceived under the Refugee Convention and the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (‘1954 Statelessness Convention’),6 respectively. It is apparent from the drafting histories of these regimes that the drafters intended that stateless persons who feared persecution for a Refugee Convention reason would be protected as refugees, while other stateless persons would look to the 1954 Statelessness Convention. At the heart of the overlay and distinction between the regimes is the discrimination that refugees experience. Of the many contributors to global statelessness, discrimination in nationality laws and practice — in particular, gender discrimination (as concerns that commonly ignite the refugee definition) — remains a significant problem. 7 The effects of such discrimination are compounded in instances of children born abroad,8 a predicament exacerbated through ongoing conflict and political instability.9 As may be anticipated, the question of access to the Refugee Convention for these children is a pressing one and as will be demonstrated, their inability to access such protection is principally unsound. This denial in access to refugee status for stateless children born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s) cuts across fundamental principles of equality of status amongst refugees, stateless persons and nationals, as expressed in the principle of non-discrimination, underpinning 6 7 8 9 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, opened for signature 28 September 1954, 360 UNTS 117 (entered into force 6 June 1960) (‘1954 Statelessness Convention’). Hélène Lambert, ‘Comparative Perspectives of Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality and Refugee Status’ (2015) 64(1) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 1. By way of example, gender discrimination in Syrian nationality law (where the paternal jus sanguinis principle is operative) has dramatically increased the stateless population, where a quarter of refugee households are led by Syrian women: Nationality Law, Legislative Decree 276 (1969) (Syrian Arab Republic) (‘Syrian Nationality Law’). In response to this predicament, art 3 of the Syrian Nationality Law was enacted, enabling the acquisition of a nationality by children born to Syrian mothers in Syria. However, this provision only addresses the plight of children born in Syria and not those born abroad, where some 1 million children have been born into exile: Malak Benslama-Dabdoub, ‘Colonial Legacies in Syrian Nationality Law and the Risks of Statelessness’ (2020) 3(1) Statelessness & Citizenship Review 6, 21–22. Further examples can be seen in Iraq’s 2006 nationality law, which limits the ability of Iraqi women to confer nationality on children born outside the country: Iraqi Nationality Law No 26 of 7 March 2006, Iraq Official Gazette 4019 art 4 (Iraq). In such cases, the child of an Iraqi mother can apply for nationality within a year of reaching majority if the child’s father is unknown or stateless and the child resides in Iraq at the time of the application. In Liberia, children born abroad to Liberian mothers are excluded from acquiring Liberian citizenship under the Aliens and Nationality Law 1973 art 20.1(b) (Liberia). In the Bahamas, only children born abroad to Bahamian fathers can acquire Bahamian nationality: Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas art 6. In Barbados, only Barbadian fathers can confer nationality on their children born abroad: Constitution of Barbados art 5(1). As one final example, in Malaysia, children born to Malaysian mothers outside of the country may only acquire Malaysian citizenship through registration at an overseas Malaysian consulate or at the National Registration Department in Malaysia at the discretion of the Federal Government: Constitution of Malaysia art 4(1)(b). But note recent developments in the High Court in Malaya challenging these laws: Suriani Kempe (President of the Association of Family Support & Welfare Selangor & KL (Family Frontiers)) & Ors v Government of Malaysia & Ors [2021] MLJU 1864. See UNHCR, Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2021 (Report, 5 March 2021) 8–11; UNHCR, Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2019 (Report, 14 July 2020). To again take the example of Syria, 1 million Syrian children have been born in exile as a result of ongoing conflict, which has dramatically increased the stateless population: see Benslama-Dabdoub (n 8) 7. 9