Part II. European Law on Nationality and Statelessness Council of Europe member states”.642 States have therefore made declarations on how they see this concept in relation to their situation or even announced that the FCNM only applies to a certain minority within their borders (e.g. Denmark stating that the Framework Convention only applies to the German minority in South Jutland).643 At the same time, inspiration was to be drawn from existing international law on this. Even though there is no authoritative definition of a ‘national minority’ in international law either, but different attempts at defining this concept have indicated that “the minority might need to consist of nationals of the state, it might need to be numerically smaller than the rest of the population, nondominant and loyal to the state, and have objectively distinguishing characteristics based on nationality, ethnicity, religion, language, or culture – or some combination of those elements”.644 How the FCNM is applied and who are the minorities it applies to, is not up to the states entirely. On the first point, that minorities also need to have the nationality of the state concerned, the ACFC has held that this is not “an a priori requirement for the enjoyment of minority rights” and that the inclusion of non-citizens should be considered separately for each article of the Framework Convention.645 In light of this interpretation of the FCNM, the ACFC has also been able to make observations and recommendations on statelessness. In its Fourth Opinion on Estonia, for example, the ACFC recommended explicitly that Estonia should “continue with efforts to further reduce statelessness and to facilitate access to citizenship for long-term residents in Estonia”.646 In particular, the “Advisory Committee reiterates its call on the authorities to facilitate further the acquisition of citizenship by all stateless persons with the view to enabling their full participation in the political life of the country and relevant decision making processes”.647 The ACFC thus seems to recognize that nationality is important to full participation in society. Even though the FCNM does not seem to deal with issues of nationality and statelessness in its text, the example above demonstrates that the ACFC is able to address these when monitoring implementation of the Framework Convention. Where making specific recommendations to reduce statelessness and recognizing the importance of nationality to the full enjoyment of rights, the FCNM can thus contribute towards preventing and solving statelessness. 642 643 644 645 646 647 122 CoE, Explanatory Report to the to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Strasbourg, 1 February 1995, CETS No. 157) para 12. See CoE Treaty Office, ‘Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No. 157’ <https://www.coe.int/en/ web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/157/declarations?p_auth=14p5vz9O> accessed 28 May 2021. Geoff Gilbert, ‘The Council of Europe and Minority Rights’ (1996) 18 Human Rights Quarterly 160, 165. Julie Ringelheim, ‘Minority Rights in a Time of Multiculturalism – The Evolving Scope of the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities (2010) 10 Human Rights Law Review 99, 114. ACFC, ‘Fourth Opinion on Estonia, Adopted on 19 March 2015’, ACFC/OP/IV(2015)002, 28. ACFC, ‘Fourth Opinion on Estonia, Adopted on 19 March 2015’, ACFC/OP/IV(2015)002, para 99. Intersentia