2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) convincing evidence that says that ‘there may be exceptional reasons why statelessness would promote children’s best interests’. Absolutely not! What statelessness and its severe consequences for children involve would probably require days to discuss, books to write and so forth and, as a result, only the surface can be scratched here. The reasons that lead to childhood statelessness are actually multitudinous. We are talking about discrimination based on, for example, race, religion, minority status and gender. The right of nondiscrimination, the right to education, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to identity, the right to be protected from abuse and neglect and the right to freedom of movement (and currently in the context of COVID-19 too) are indeed some of the rights that are often at stake when children are left stateless. It is also important, and it is actually something we emphasise as the Committee on the Rights of the Child, that the right to acquire a nationality is actually an enabling right that is similar to the right to education. This is because it has implications for a whole range of rights that are provided by the CRC. Being stateless has lifelong and intergenerational negative impacts — and, as a result, it is possible to compare its effects to intergenerational poverty, stunting or wasting. Quite a number of things that those of us with a nationality take for granted (some people even have dual nationality) are things that children as well as adults who are stateless struggle to enjoy. Make no mistake about it, the statelessness situation that we currently face at the global level is a child rights crisis. We often say that ‘there is no second chance to make a first impression’ and unfortunately, the first impression that these children born into statelessness experience is that of a world that shamelessly labels them as ‘illegal’, ‘non-belonger’, ‘Bidoon’, ‘unwelcome’, ‘unwanted’ and so forth. Now, as a Committee, what is it that we have actually tried to reflect and give guidance on? I will come to that in a moment with the limited time that I have. Let me first spend a couple of minutes and build on what the previous speaker has kindly and clearly articulated in relation to arts 1–4 of the 1961 Convention.11 As a Committee, we need to pay very close attention, for example, to art 1(3) of the 1961 Convention, which provides for safeguards.12 It would have limited importance if states took the major steps that are required under both the CRC and the CEDAW. It makes reference, for example, to ‘mothers’, but, as the Committee on the Rights of the Child, we want to expand it to say that it should not only be about mothers, but also include fathers. The concept that says ‘otherwise stateless’ also requires evaluating the nationality of the child and not simply examining whether a child’s parents are stateless. This argument reinforces the point that was made earlier that the child is absolutely central to the work that we do on the basis of the CRC. The notion of ‘undetermined nationality’ deserves attention here: for how long should children be labelled with such a status? We have often emphasised the point that the one thing that children do not have is time. One year in the life of a child is 6% of his or her childhood. There are a number of countries where children are categorised under the notion of ‘undetermined nationality’ for a long period of time. For the application of arts 1 and 4 of the 1961 Convention, such a period actually should not exceed five years, which is the maximum period of residence 11 12 ibid. ibid art 1(3). 200