10 • International Journal of Refugee Law, 2026, Vol. 00, Issue 00 3.2. Obligations in respect of the grant or deprivation of nationality generally Beyond the situation of stateless children born in their territory, States have obligations in respect of nationality more broadly. The right of everyone to a nationality and to not be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality is set out in article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR). A variety of international and regional human rights treaties repeat this right, although with varying formulations. Article 20(1) of the ACHR affirms the right of every person to a nationality. Other international human rights treaties protect the right to a nationality of particular groups. For example, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) provides the right of persons with disabilities ‘to acquire and change a nationality’,86 while article 29 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICPRMW) provides that ‘[e]very child of a migrant worker shall have the right to a name, to registration of birth and to a nationality’.87 The right to a nationality has been described as a fundamental human right and a fundamental legal right by the UN Human Rights Council88 and the Council of the European Union respectively.89 Given this broad codification and degree of recognition, the argument has been advanced that the right to a nationality in general has acquired the status of customary international law.90 Regional human rights courts have affirmed the customary nature of this right. For example, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACtHR) has stated that ‘[t]he right of every human being to a nationality has been recognized as such by international law’,91 William Thomas Worster, ‘The Obligation to Grant Nationality to Stateless Children Under Treaty Law’ (2019) 24 Tilburg Law Review 204. 83 William Thomas Worster, ‘Customary International Law Requiring States to Grant Nationality to Stateless Children Born in Their Territory’ (2022) 4 The Statelessness & Citizenship Review 113. 84 CRC (n 59) preamble. 85 These include uncertainty, lack of rights protection, difficulties in travel and accessing justice, and obstacles to realising socio-economic rights. See, eg African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, IHRDA and Open Society Justice Initiative on behalf of children of Nubian descent in Kenya v. Kenya Communication No. 002/2009 (22 March 2011), [42]. 86 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 13 December 2006, 2515 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 May 2008) art 18(1)(a). 87 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, opened for signature 18 December 1990, 2220 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 July 2003). 88 See eg Resolution 20/5: ‘Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality’, UN Doc A/HRC/ RES/20/5 (16 July 2012), 2 89 Council of the European Union, ‘Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on Statelessness’, 14978/15 (4 Dec 2015). 90 Barbara von Rütte, The Human Right to Citizenship: Situating the Right to Citizenship within International and Regional Human Rights Law (Brill Nijhoff 2022) 97–99. 91 Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica (Advisory Opinion) (Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Series OC-4/84, 19 January 1984), [34]. 82 Downloaded from academic.oup.com/ijrl/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijrl/eeag028/8767365 by guest on 08 October 2026 of the corresponding article 7 CRC. Indeed, it has been argued in scholarship that these different treaty obligations are ‘coalescing into a coherent obligation’ for States to grant their nationality to a child born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless,82 such that this obligation should be recognized as a forming part of customary international law.83 Given the object and purpose of the CRC in extending special protection to children,84 and the recognition of the negative impacts of statelessness upon children in ­ articular,85 it is arguable that the UAE’s arrangement with the Comoros was not consistent p with the letter of the obligation of article 7, nor its purpose or intent, and as such did not amount to a good faith interpretation of this obligation.