Relevance and Impact of the 1961 Convention application. Some states also apply legal residence requirements, while only a habitual residence requirement is permissible. 22 Residency requirements are likewise imposed on the applicant’s parents in some states, whereas the 1961 Convention only considers the situation of the child. 23 Consideration of the status of parents in other respects is taken into account by some states, such as those imposing requirements that the parents themselves need to be stateless or be of unknown citizenship for the child to be eligible for nationality through the safeguard. Finally, some states impose conditions that simply bear no resemblance to those set out in the 1961 Convention, such as a requirement that the applicant has not received economic assistance in the recent past or a requirement that the applicant has knowledge of a certain language. All of the issues identified above may be found in certain states’ legislative frameworks for implementation of the 1961 Convention. In addition, there are issues in the application of some domestic legal frameworks that pose further challenges. For one thing, many states have no separate procedures dedicated to determining eligibility for the art 1 safeguard; in some of these, an assessment is made as part of civil registration procedures where facts relating to a person’s ‘otherwise stateless’ status are manifest. Where they are not manifestly obvious, they may not be thoroughly assessed. For another, in states parties where nationality through the safeguard is granted only upon application, information about the availability of this pathway to nationality and the procedures to pursue it is not always readily available, requiring a high degree of initiative (and usually the retention of a lawyer) on the part of applicants. Finally, in countries where information on the nationality of parents and/or the newborn is reflected on birth certificates, the failure to accurately identify and register the nationality status of the child as stateless can result in states not applying the safeguard. These issues with compliance, especially those that are clearly reflected in a flawed legislative framework, are ones a treaty body could help address if the 1961 Convention had one, but of course it does not. In the absence of a dedicated treaty body, these problems in the application of the 1961 Convention are an important area for future work by the UNHCR and others. Indeed, given the difference it has made that the General Assembly gave the UNHCR an explicit role to promote accessions to the statelessness conventions, it seems logical that a role monitoring and promoting compliance with it would further assist. There is scope for many more improvements in the years ahead, both with respect to attracting more states parties and strengthening implementation of the treaty’s safeguards against statelessness. The trajectory to date has been a positive one, with states now generally willing to accept that there are limits on discretion in this area and that statelessness should be avoided. Indeed, many states that are not party to the 1961 Convention have laws that show its influence, while many that are party are presumably applying it imperfectly as a result of a lack of understanding or capacity rather than a wilful determination to do so. It can therefore be hoped that further investments in this area by the UNHCR and others in the years to come will bear additional fruit. 22 23 ibid art 2(b). ibid arts 3–6. 197