2018] NATIONALITY AND DEFINING “THE RIGHT TO HAVE RIGHTS” S897 tory places political rights squarely within the pantheon of human rights, as opposed to citizen rights. CONCLUSION The international law of nationality is particularly relevant in today’s political climate. Individuals’ legal status has been, since World War I, an important safeguard against States’ infringements of individual wellbeing and abuses of individual rights. Rises in nationalism, coupled with reduced access to free travel, or more stringent border control, have set the stage for two of the greatest mass displacements and human tragedies of the past century. For this reason, the campaign against statelessness is ever the more important. In light of the ambitiousness of the #IBelong campaign and increasing international resistance to municipal-level acceptance of ethnic others, UNHCR and scholars must expend their resources and political capital judiciously. This may mean returning to the traditional, albeit limited, articulation of nationality, as a distinct concept from enfranchised citizenship. This not only would comport with the consent-based model of international law but would also deemphasize the role of nationality or citizenship in our political rights dialogue. Katherine Ebright* with the universality of human rights, as advanced in the ICCPR preamble. The preamble states, “[T]he ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights” (emphasis added). * Law Fellow at the Public International Law & Policy Group; J.D., Columbia Law School, 2018. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2954729