2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(1) retained the idea that married women’s nationality was conditional. This, the campaigners understood, implied inferior. 62 It is worth noting here that while campaigners prioritised equality, choice, autonomy and in particular the disestablishment of male marital authority, 63 they also recognised the risks of proliferating childhood statelessness through GDNL. 64 International jurists at the Hague Conference were in fact more open to preventing statelessness than they were to engaging with feminist principles of equality, wanting to find solutions to statelessness with ‘as little disruption as possible to male headship of marriage’. 65 Image 2: From Washington, National Women’s Party members telephone their colleague, Doris Stevens, in The Hague to ascertain whether the World Code being drawn up on nationality laws will be based on sex discrimination. 66 Manley O Hudson’s role in the feminist history of statelessness is once again noteworthy. It appears for Hudson that the Hague Convention was a significant achievement, if not least because it had been the only codification convention 62 63 64 65 66 Irving (n 7) 173. DuBois (n 7) 207. In 1934, Blanch Crozier noted: There are already thirteen countries in the world in which men and women transmit nationality to children upon the same terms (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Soviet Russia, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela), and no greater difficulties have been encountered than in countries where the father alone has the right to transmit nationality. Crozier (n 7) 152. DuBois (n 7) 207. ‘Media’, Picryl (Web Page) <https://picryl.com/media/feminists-telephone-the-hague-todetermine-their-status-in-proposed-world-code>. 52