Nationality of Foundlings is legally unknown, they cannot receive nationality because their nationality is factually known. This would go against both the protective purpose of the 1961 Convention and the principle of the best interests of the child. In Chapter 5, Kaneko-Iwase discusses the burden and standard of proof that is required to determine that a child is of unknown parentage. In discussing how states should expect applicants to prove a negative, this chapter has broad implications in statelessness determination proceedings and refugee status determinations generally. In particular, Kaneko-Iwase explores the concept of the burden of proof and demonstrates that this term encompasses two distinct concepts. First, it includes the burden of production, or the obligation to provide reasonably available evidence. 12 Significant forms of evidence are likely to be in the possession of the state, so the UNHCR recommendation of a ‘shared burden of proof’ is really arguing for a shared burden of production. Second, it includes the burden of persuasion, or which side bears the legal consequence if the evidence does not meet the standard to establish a given conclusion. 13 Only one side can bear this consequence. Kaneko-Iwase argues that the UNHCR should be clear in its discussion of these two terms and distinguish between the two.14 She further asserts that ‘the State concerned should bear and fulfil both the burden of production and persuasion regarding the existence of a legally recognized parents’.15 She recommends that states carry a higher burden than the UNHCR’s guidance currently recommends: if a child’s legal parentage is unknown, the child should receive nationality unless the state can demonstrate that the child’s parentage is legally established. 16 Finally, Chapter 5 also argues that determinations of a child’s nationality and conveyance of nationality should generally be completed within six months, to be extended for up to one year.17 Chapter 6 discusses what it means to be ‘found’ in territory and by what age a child must be found. It concludes that being ‘found’ includes any encounter by a person other than the child’s parents. It argues that the child should be granted nationality if found at any time prior to reaching the age of nationality, even if the child then presents to or is discovered by state authorities after reaching adulthood. Chapter 7 assesses when ‘proof to the contrary’ is established such that a child of unknown parentage will not receive nationality. Kaneko-Iwase argues that ‘proof to the contrary’ exists only where it is conclusively established that the person has another nationality.18 The chapter also discusses the extensive limitations, including the obligation to avoid statelessness, that states should adopt for revoking or cancelling nationality after granting it. The book culminates in Chapter 8, which provides a model provision for granting nationality to children of unknown parents: ‘[a] person whose legal parentage cannot be proven who is found as a child in the territory shall acquire the nationality of X [the state where found], unless her or his possession of a foreign nationality is proven’.19 Summarising the lessons learned from the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ibid 186–88. ibid 187. ibid. ibid 334. ibid 338. ibid 223–26. ibid 267–332. ibid 336 (emphasis omitted). 185