International Journal of Refugee Law, 2026, Vol. 00, Issue 00 • 7 for naturalization in the UAE.56 Between 2008 and 2012,57 tens of thousands of individuals residing in the UAE were issued passports from the Union of the Comoros.58 3. Legal analysis of bilateral responses to statelessness 3.1. Obligations in respect of nationality for stateless children States’ obligations regarding the grant of nationality are the most pronounced in respect of children born in a State’s territory who, without the grant of nationality by that State, would otherwise be stateless. This obligation is set out in the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961 (1961 Convention);63 under article 1(1), a State Party is required to grant ibid 203. ibid 214. 58 Estimations of the number of passport recipients vary: one source reports that ‘at least 50,000 stateless residents’ of the UAE received Comorian passports, while a second source puts the figure at approximately 80,000–120,000 people: Kuzmova (n 8) 276; Lori (n 8) 204–205. 59 Convention on the Rights of the Child (opened for signature 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3 (CRC), art 7(1). 60 ibid, art 8. 61 Additionally, while there is burgeoning interest in the right to ‘legal identity’ (Target 16.9 of the Sustainable Development Goals) as a means of addressing statelessness, it is generally accepted that ‘legal identity’ is not synonymous with nationality and for this reason has been omitted from this legal analysis: see Bronwen Manby, ‘Legal Identity for All and Statelessness: Opportunities and Threats at the Junction of Private and Public International Law’ (2020) 2(2) Statelessness & Citizenship Review 248. 62 Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (French Zone) on November 8th, 1921 (Great Britain v France) (Advisory Opinion) [1923] PCIJ (ser B) No 4, 24. 63 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (opened for signature 30 August 1961, entered into force 13 December 1975) 989 UNTS 175 (1961 Convention). 56 57 Downloaded from academic.oup.com/ijrl/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijrl/eeag028/8767365 by guest on 08 October 2026 The UAE’s arrangement with the Comoros was ostensibly adopted as a way of regularizing the legal status of the bidun population and thus as a means of resolving the problem of in situ statelessness within the country. But to what extent was this approach consistent with the UAE’s existing obligations in respect of nationality towards the bidun population under international law? These obligations can be classified as (1) obligations in respect of the grant of nationality to stateless children; (2) obligations in respect of the grant or deprivation of nationality more broadly; (3) obligations in respect of a particular nationality; and (4) obligations relating to the quality or substance of nationality. These obligations derive from international human rights treaties, statelessness specific treaties, and customary international law. Related obligations, including obligations to register children after birth59 and the protection of a child’s identity,60 while important, are excluded from this analysis due to space constraints.61 The classic position in international law is that States determine their own nationals through setting the conditions for the grant or withdrawal of nationality within their domestic law. However, as was established by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1923, a State’s laws on nationality must comply with developing international law related to nationality.62 As this section will demonstrate, the scope of States’ domaine réservé in respect of nationality has been constrained through the adoption of a range of treaties and through customary international law establishing obligations owed in respect of nationality in certain circumstances. This section also advances the argument that States’ obligations in respect of nationality imply a territorial component, meaning these obligations cannot be fulfilled through the substitution of another State’s nationality.