THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF

THE STATELESS PERSONS

POLITICAL SCIENCE- II
NITESH MISHRA, 43 BALLB 17
SUPERVISED BY: PROF. (DR.) MAHESHWAR
SINGH
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this chance to express my thankfulness towards Prof. (Dr.) Maheshwar
Singh, who is my Political Science professor as well. He provided me with insights, which
were truly contributory and is quite essentially entrenched within this project. His
consultation was of enormous help and provided me with insights of planning out my project
and the areas which could be worked upon. The magazine suggested by him forms the base
of this article.

The guidance provided by the Teaching Assistants, Kartik Ashta and Mohit Chaudhury, has
been the guiding principles throughout the course of this paper. The help they have rendered
is something I cannot thank them enough for.

I would also express my thanks to my associated colleagues, with whom I could deliberate
and formulate the article. Our deliberations turned out to be of great help to each and every
one, as it provided all of us with plenty quantity of insights to proceed with the project.

~Nitesh Mishra, 43 BALLB 17,

National Law University, Delhi

1|Page
 CONTENTS
Acknowledgements..................................................................1

Chapter-1: Author’s View........................................................3

Introduction...........................................................................3

De Jure & De Facto Statelessness.........................................4

Mechanisms of Statelessness.................................................5

Plights of the Stateless...........................................................7

Addressing the Problems of Statelessness.............................9

Chapter-2: Reflections on the Article....................................10

Chapter-3: Theoretical Analysis............................................13

Bibliography...........................................................................15

Articles................................................................................15

U.N. Documents..................................................................15

2|Page
 CHAPTER-1: AUTHOR’S VIEW
INTRODUCTION
Statelessness, or the state of having no lawful or operative citizenship, is an enormous and a
critical problem. The ways to reduce or prevent statelessness have been suggested by a lot
many provisions of International stature, with the most primary one being, the Article 15 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that, “everyone has a right to a
nationality” and that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality”.

The article has brought into light various provisions of different international treaties which
concern itself with the stateless persons and their rights.

“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights addresses the problem of
statelessness by providing that "[e]very child has the right to acquire a nationality." The
Convention on the Rights of the Child further elaborates on the child's right to a nationality
by stating that children "shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right
from birth to a name, [and] the right to acquire a nationality.... States Parties shall ensure
the implementation of these rights ... in particular where the child would otherwise be
stateless." This right must be enforced regardless of the parent's gender. Similarly, the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women provides that
states parties should ensure that "neither marriage to an alien nor change of nationality by
the husband during marriage shall . . . render [a woman] stateless." In much the same
manner, the Convention on the Nationality of Married Women protects women from
automatically losing their nationality upon marriage or divorce, or from being rendered
stateless by changes in a husband's nationality.”1

” … under the 1961 Convention, states parties must curb situations in which persons
may lose their citizenship without gaining another. Additionally, states parties also must
afford the means for persons born on their territory to obtain citizenship.”2

“The 1954 Convention does, however, prescribe that "contracting States shall as far
as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of stateless persons."”3
1
David Weissbrodt and Clay Collins, The Human Rights of Stateless Persons, 28 Human Rights Quar. 247
(2006).
2
id at 247.
3
id at 248.

3|Page
The right to nationality is vital because many states across the globe permit only their citizens
to exercise social, economic, civil and political rights within the lands of that particular
nation. It also enables the individuals to obtain national protection both, domestically and
internationally, and gives the right to the states to intervene on behalf of the person, in global
scenario. In fact, the right to nationality has also been called by many scholars as the “right to
have rights.”

However, this view of the Right to Nationality has been opposed by another set of scholars,
who state that the humans possess the human rights by the mere virtue of being humans and
they do not necessarily need the citizenship to have the basic human rights. The Right to
Nationality can be considered as one of those basic human rights but, the not the umbrella
right from which rest of the rights would sprout. The 1954 Convention and many other
international conventions support this and are drafted in such a manner so as to not make
citizenship as the basic criteria for possessing human rights. Some scholars are of the view
that they tenaciously reduce the position of nationality so as to avoid statelessness being used
as a basis for discrimination.

DE JURE & DE FACTO STATELESSNESS

A stateless person is defined as, by the 1954 Convention, “a person who is not considered as
a national by any State under the operation of its law.” This meaning of statelessness is
considered to a de jure definition because of its purely legal description. It is well suited for
solving the technical questions of law as it narrows down the legal description of
statelessness to something certain and definite. But the value of an individual in her particular
home state is irrelevant in this description. Hence, according to the views of some legal
scholars, the concept of statelessness should have a wider connotation, encompassing more
than the mere de jure definition.

There also arises a large number of cases where the people do possess citizenship of one of
the States, but, this citizenship for all practical purpose is useless or they might not be able to
prove or verify their nationality. The de jure definition of statelessness excludes these persons
from its purview. Hence, this calls for broadening the definition into de facto definition of
statelessness. The people who stand de facto stateless often have a nationality bestowed by
the law, but this nationality is not operative for any practical purpose. It can occur due to a
variety of reasons including, the actions of the government when they deny the normal

4|Page
welfares of citizenship or when people surrender the facilities, benefits and protection of the
country. These persons are, effectively, without a nationality.

The Conventions of 1954 and 1961 required a strong meaning of statelessness and hence,
they excluded the de facto statelessness from its purview.

MECHANISMS OF STATELESSNESS
There is a variability of reasons that can lead to statelessness. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees lists ten reasons for statelessness. They are: conflict of laws;
transfer of terrain; laws related to matrimonial; administrative practices; discrimination; laws
associated to registration of births; jus sanguinis; denationalization; abandonment of
citizenship; and automatic forfeiture of citizenship by process of law.4

MECHANISMS OF DE JURE STATELESSNESS:

The two basic principles under this happen to be: Jus soli and jus sanguinis. Jus soli plainly
implies ‘law of the land’ and refers to process of acquiring nationality through birth. Jus
sanguinis refers to the process where an individual is given citizenship only if she has a
certain legacy or her parent, usually father, is a citizen of that state. Most nations follow a
combination of these two ideologies.

However, jus sanguinis citizenship laws of some nations grant citizenship only through
paternal descent. Independently, the nationality of a mother cannot be passed on to her
children. Hence, if a woman espouses a stateless person or if a child is born out of the
matrimony even with a man of her own population, then the child is rendered stateless. In
fact, the new-born children are rendered stateless right from their birth, against the provision
of the Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not only does
statelessness emanate from it, but also, continue it from one generation to the next. To
overcome this issue, the principle of jus soli should be universally applied, irrespective of the
gender of the parents.

Dependent nationality refers to the exercise of connecting the nationality of a wedded woman
to her husband, thus rendering her nationality reliant on that of her husband. Thus, the woman
can be reduced to statelessness by divorce or the demise of her husband. Furthermore, if upon
her marriage, woman losses her citizenship of a particular state as per the norms of that state,
and the state of her husband does not automatically grant her a citizenship, then the woman is
4
id at 253.

5|Page
again rendered stateless. In case, the husband losses, gives up or changes his nationality, then
the nationality of the woman is automatically lost.

The combined result of dependent nationality, principle of paternal descent and jus sanguinis
is that statelessness is hereditary and is “passed from generation to generation regardless of
place of birth, number of years of residency, cultural ties, or the fact that in some cases the
individuals concerned have neither entered nor resided in another state.”5

Another common means of losing the citizenship happens to be the change in the citizenship
laws of the states. It often creates a danger that people who were considered as nationals as
per the old laws, would be left stateless as per the novel laws. Zaire and Zimbabwe happen to
be a couple of examples.

People can also be converted into stateless by relinquishing their citizenship before obtaining
alternative nationality. But, the bigger problem with this mechanism is that some countries
have the laws requiring that one has to surrender the citizenship of the previous nation, as a
pre-condition to acquiring the citizenship of that particular country. In such a scenario, an
individual is forced to surrender the citizenship of her nation even before acquiring the
citizenship of another nation.

People may also become stateless if their government annuls their citizenship and they do not
possess a additional citizenship. Often, states annul citizenship from acclimatized citizens for
performing dissident actions, for generally being a danger to state security, for voting in
alternative country's elections, or for giving improper or imprecise information when
registering for citizenship.6 In fact, many countries denaturalise and exile their own nationals
if naturalisation was got by means of misrepresentation, or if an individual or a group is a
threat to national security. The countries and which has been perpetuated by the international
conventions itself. When the countries do not strip their nationals from the citizenship even if
they are convicted of heinous crimes then, the practice of depriving the naturalised citizens of
their citizenship is a blatant form of discrimination and it creates a reduced class of people
whose citizenship can be rescinded.

Statelessness can also occur when the states are thawed, succeeded or fragmented or when
the territory is transferred. Transfer of territory, owed to any of the above causes is the utmost
well-known and common cause of statelessness. After a state is dissolved, the newly formed

5
Carol A. Batchelor, UNHCR and Issues Related to Nationality, 14 REFUGEES URV. Q. 91 (1995).
6
Weissbrodt, supra note 1, at 260.

6|Page
states create a new set of laws which redefine the requirements of citizenship. This leads to a
lot many people being disqualified to get citizenship and the right to stay in the place where
that had been staying for generations. They are forced to flee to the other newly formed state
to seek citizenship. If their citizenship is rejected there as well, or if they do not have enough
resources to travel to that other place, then, they are rendered stateless.

State succession is also challenging because the anew formed replacement states have had
less period than established states to ratify and implement the human rights treaties which
may provide protection against statelessness. Certainly, when state succession occurs without
constitutional or legislative provisions in place to confirm citizenship to all former citizens of
the dissolved state, large numbers of persons are often left de jure stateless.7

MECHANISMS OF DE FACTO STATELESSNESS:

The class of de facto stateless persons is adequately large to comprise all that people who
have a citizenship and yet do not obtain its aids and defence from the respective governments.
Consequently, most of the victims of de facto statelessness are a victim of state repression
and discrimination.

One of the means of de facto statelessness if slavery and trafficking of humans. This is a
prime problem amongst the females marketed to work in the sex trade. 8 Sometimes, the
government itself renders the people stateless by a variety of means. This is called as
administrative ethnic cleansing, or erasure.

PLIGHTS OF THE STATELESS

Statelessness is a very pertinent and hard problem for those who face it. There is an
augmented susceptibility that often escorts statelessness and the women in this category of
people are prone to be subjected to the grossest of the human rights violations.

During the World War II, the Nazi government had tenaciously had reduced all Jews in its
terrain stateless. This was done to serve dual purpose. Firstly, it made it beyond possibility
for any country to query into the Jew’s fate and secondly, it permitted the state to confiscate

7
Michael R. Geske, State Building, Citizenship and Statelessness (1997),
available at: www2.soros.org/fmp2/html/buildintro.html.
8
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, Ms. Radhika
Coomaraswamy, Addendum: Report on the Mission of the Special Rapporteur to Poland on the Issue of
Trafficking and Forced Prostitution of Women (24 May to 1 June 1996), U.N. ESCOR, Comm'n on Hum. Rts.,
53d Sess., Agenda Item 9(a), 1 6, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1997/47/Add.1 (1996).

7|Page
the properties of the Jews. This incident was one of the worst defilement of the human rights
of the stateless in the history of the civilisation.

Without identity documents, many stateless people also find it difficult to obtain political
asylum. And it also makes it difficult for the people to obtain basic social services. In fact,
lack of identity documents often pre-empts stateless people from getting jobs, getting medical
care, wedding and starting a family, relishing legal protection, traveling, possessing property,
getting an education, or registering the birth of their children.9

Unnecessary imprisonment is one of the most pertinent difficulties faced by the stateless
persons. According to the UNHCR, when stateless people are inept to coming back to their
countries of habitual dwelling after having left them, often in quest of asylum or refugee
status, the result is often protracted detention outside of the country in which they usually
reside.10 The reason for such detention is that, without proof of identity or nationality,
stateless persons often cannot re-enter their state of habitual residence. Furthermore, the
detaining state cannot resolve the question of where to extradite the stateless detainee, and it
is unwilling to let them illegally reside within its territory. 11 This problem often has its roots
in the failure of the states to resolve where to send a specific stateless person, in an effort to
get themselves rid of that person. The stateless person may spend years in detention, being
passed from state to state.

There are other forms of civil and political rights infringement that the stateless people face
like high rates of criminal convictions. For example, the 2001 statistics gathered by Estonia’s
Ministry of Justice indicate that over a quarter of criminal conviction is Estonia were imposed
upon the stateless persons, even though they comprised only 13% of Estonia’s population.
The stateless persons are also denied the right to leave and enter one’s country. Despite
having ratified international conventions which state otherwise, few countries continue to
deny the stateless persons this right.

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS OF STATELESSNESS

The problems of statelessness can be addressed in a variety of ways. They are categorised as
pre-emptive measures, minimization remedies and naturalization remedies.
9
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR), WHAT WOULD LIFE BE
LIKE IF YOU HAD NO NATIONALITY? (1999),
available at ww.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/protect/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PROTECTION&id= 3b8f92124.
10
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR), UNHCR’S GUIDELINES ON APPLICABLE
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS RELATING TO THE DETENTION OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS (1999).
11
Id, at ¶6.

8|Page
Pre-emptive measures involve stopping the statelessness before it develops, if properly
implemented. One of the ways of implementing this can be to ensure by the respective state
governments that the children born in their respective states are registered upon birth and
provided with birth certificates, irrespective of the citizenship or the statelessness of the
parents of the children. The international conventions are made in a similar spirit and endorse
the similar values. This remedy has been cited by a lot many times by International
Organisations like Human Rights Watch.

Minimization methods of remedy do not result into prevention or elimination of statelessness

and thus, can never be a spare for citizenship. They involve extension of certain rights to the
stateless persons, which are generally associated with nationality, in order to curb their
persecution. These rights include voting rights, employment of non-citizens on a State’s
territory and issuing identity papers to the stateless persons without valid travel document.

Naturalising remedies for statelessness focus on securing citizenship for those who are
previously rendered stateless. Interestingly, none of the UN treaties, including the 1954 and
1961 treaties, obligate the states parties to implement the naturalising remedies for
statelessness. Though there is an Article 32 in the 1954 Convention which states that the state
parties should “as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of stateless
persons.” But, this provision is quite weak and flexible to have any significant impact.

“As long as statelessness exists, all three of the remedies mentioned above are
important and essential. Preventative remedies are necessary for the total eradication of
statelessness. Minimization remedies, while they should never be seen as a replacement for
pre-emptive and naturalizing remedies, should be in place to alleviate the difficulties of
statelessness while persons are naturalized or seek naturalizing. Finally, naturalizing
remedies offer the only complete remedy for stateless persons.”12

CHAPTER-2: REFLECTIONS ON THE ARTICLE

The concept of statelessness and the various conventions surrounding the concept has been
extensively covered by the author in his article. The stance of the various states and the
statutes have been taken a consideration of while describing the issue of statelessness.

The concept of de jure and de facto statelessness has well brought out the principle
distinction between the two kinds of statelessness. The author has also ventured into
12
Weissbrodt, supra note 1, at 272.

9|Page
describing the mechanisms of statelessness and the plights of the stateless people. I would
like to make further comments about the plights of the states because the issue of
statelessness has become a pressing global concern all the more, in current times, with a
number of countries facing the wrath of the issue.

Nationality is a practical prerequisite for getting the political and judicial processes, and for
obtaining social, economic and cultural rights. The stateless persons have to face this kind of
problems as well. Often, they are not issued with valid identity documents by their states of
habitual residence and hence, they face such problems.

The lack of proper identity documents has been pushing large number of people into
statelessness and the problems that come with it. This problem has been significantly faced
by the Kuwaiti Bidun population, who number into lakhs. They were made to suffer the
administrative harassments for ensuring that they got even basic of their social needs and for
upholding their human rights.

The Rohingya population of Myanmar bears a similar kind of fate. They do not get proper
employment opportunities because the employers do not hire the undocumented people. They
are declined access to healthcare services and the schools are turning away their children.
They face enormous difficulties in obtaining any kind of housing. They are also subjected to
civil and political rights violations, wherein, they are subjected to arbitrary detentions. Often
described as the world’s most persecuted minority, these people do not seem to find relief, no
matter where they go. They are subjected to the grossest of the human rights violations in
their very own state, which is marred by the internal ethnic conflicts between the Arakan
Rohingya Salvation Army, the Arakan Army and the Myanmar Army (Tatmadaw). The
population which has nothing to do with all the violence is rendered stateless and are forced
to flee from their homes in Myanmar. Although the International Conventions bind the states
that they see to it that the stateless persons are naturalised, no state seems to be willing to take
over the responsibility of over six million people. The very state that they call “home” refuses
to accept them as their citizens and Bangladesh has an even more defensive stand.

The women are subjected to worst forms of human rights violations. They are subjected to
physical and sexual violence. The spouse, on whom her nationality depends in some
countries, often subjects her to domestic violence.

10 | P a g e
There are a few contemporary issues of wide scale statelessness, apart from the Rohingyas.
This includes the refugees from the conflict and violence-ridden state of Syria and that of
Sudan.

The civil wars and the terrorist activities in Syria has forced over 5.4 million people to flee
Syria since 2011, seeking safety in Lebanon, Turkey Jordan and beyond.13 Millions more are
displaced inside Syria and the as the war does not seem to be ending anytime soon, the
number are bound to rise. The people, who originally belonged to Syria, now have taken
refuge in other countries and with no hope of returning to their countries in any near future,
they are rendered de facto stateless. The living conditions of these people in various countries
is disheartening and their struggle for survival continues.

In South Sudan, the brutal conflicts since December, 2013 has claimed thousands of lives and
driven nearly 4 million people from their homes.14 While many remain displaced inside the
country, more than two million have fled to neighbouring countries in a desperate bid to
reach safely. The political emergency has led to a humanitarian crisis, which has made the
lives of the stateless people far more worse.

The ways to address the issue of statelessness as suggested by the author is quite a
comprehensive one. A few further suggestions that I would like to make are as follows.

The laws should be made such that the women are not dependent on their spouses for their
nationality and are able to register themselves as the nationals of a state independently. Thus,
they would also be able to pass their nationality to their children and thus, further curb the
issue of statelessness.

One way to ensure that the stateless persons realise their right to a nationality is through the
doctrine of the genuine and effective link.15 According to this, a person should be granted
citizenship from states with which she has a substantial connection or a genuine and effective
link. At the minimum, the person should be eligible for the citizenship of the country with
which she shares the closest link or connection. The connections could include long-term

13
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR), Syria Emergency,
available at www.unhcr.or/syria-emergency.html .
14
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR), South Sudan Emergency,
available at www.unhcr.or/south-sudan-emergency.html .
15
Jeffrey L. Blackman, State Successions and Statelessness: The Emerging Right to an Effective Nationality
Under International Law, 19 MICH. J. INT'L L. 1141 (1998).

11 | P a g e
habitation in a state without a more substantial link to another state, descent from a state’s
citizens, birth within a state’s territory, or citizenship in a country’s former federal state.16

The problem of the stateless persons is a very pertinent one and not something that the states
do not come across in their everyday affairs. At this very moment, as I am typing this paper,
there are hundreds of stateless people being killed in Syria and subjected to gross human
rights violations. What is worse is that the children are being subjected to equally brutal
behaviour and the there is no such “superpower’ countries which is willing to come forward
and give these people some sort of protection.

The crisis of Rohingyas is equally distressing. Amidst a politically and ethnically fuelled
violence, the ordinary people have become the victims. They fled from their long-term
habitats and the places that they have taken refuge at, have subjected them to equally gross
conditions. Without an identity and any state’s citizenship, they continue to be a subject of
international political debate, with a little benefit of those words reaching these people.

What the need of the hour is that the nations should come together and join hands to fulfil the
obligations that they have upon them as per the various international conventions that they
are a party to. Mere lip-service is not going to serve the purpose, heal the wounds or feed the
empty stomachs of the stateless persons across the globe, who are living in most inhuman
conditions.

It is hard to imagine for me, at least, how it would feel to not belong to any nation and be
continuously rejected by various governments from being granted citizenship. This is not just
a human rights violation; this is also an identity crisis, which these persecuted people do not
realise, because the empty stomach and the fresh wounds of theirs is far bigger a problem for
them than, identifying themselves as a citizen of any nation.

CHAPTER-3: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

The study of International Relations has been broadly described under two schools of
thoughts: Realism and Liberalism. The two schools of thoughts have opposite stance on some
key concepts, which I would briefly describe below.

Realism, as a concept, considers the States to be the most important actor in the International
System. It moves ahead with the assumption that the States are motivated and their actions

16
Geske, supra note 7.

12 | P a g e
are guided for the sole purpose of reaching achieving their ‘enlightened self-interest’ or the
‘national interest’. National interest, in an attempt to describe simply, is the basically
common for all States in the international system, which makes the States equal to each other,
despite the difference in the resources and the individual capacities that they possess. The
States pursue the national interest of territorial sovereignty and integrity, in order to be
prevented from being selected out of the International system. The national interest of the
States is co terminus with the national power of the states and as for realism, the emphasis is
on the relative powers of the states and not the absolute powers. The realists do not stand for
the centralised authority of any state unless that authority emanates from the domestic setting
and is limited to one’s own state. So, realism, basically, deals with the primacy of the States
as an actor in International Relations.

Liberalism is also referred to as pluralism, which adequately marks the principle difference
between the two schools of thoughts. Majority of the International Organisations, are founded
on the principle of liberalism. It considers that non-state actors are highly important in the
international political scenario, unlike the realists who do not consider anything other than the
States to be important actors in the International Relations. Hence, according to the liberals,
there is a plurality of actor in the international politics. It does not talk about the national
interests as a whole, rather says that the individuals have their own interests which may not
be in consonance with the interests of the State as a whole, hence, the actions of the
individuals or the groups are important in the context of international politics. There exists no
unified state, with a common national interest, according to the liberals. For liberals, the
absolute power of the actors in international politics is of far greater importance, than the
relative power. Both the schools of thought agree that the States exist in an anarchical system
but, the liberals do not believe that the States compete for power and resources, unlike the
realists. The liberals argue that in an anarchical system, the States shall be better off by means
of cooperation, rather than by competition.

The current article which had been up for reflection is primarily based on the realist school of
thought. The article deals with the issue of Statelessness of the large masses of people, which
primarily stresses upon the importance of state as an actor in the International systems and
hence, the nationality of the people being paramount. The author has talked about the
mechanisms of statelessness, the problems of statelessness and the ways in which the issue of
statelessness could be addressed. All these sub-themes covered under the paper, places states
at the centre of the international politics. The author even talks about how there are certain

13 | P a g e
scholars that consider nationality as the basic right from which all other rights emanate from.
There is no distinction made between the States in the course of the paper, thereby
considering them all equal to each other and hence, equally responsible for the stateless
people around the world. This caters to the fundamental principle of the realist school of
thought.

The author also talks about the various International Conventions and Treaties, which
relegate the roles of the States in their working, hence, to a small extent, we also see the
glimpses of liberalism in the article. The argument that the author presents that human rights
of the people should emanate from the mere virtue of being a human and should not be
dependent on the States and nationality, as such, relegates the roles of the States in the
International system and presses upon the role of individual, thus, serving the purpose of
liberalism.

14 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES
 David Weissbrodt and Clay Collins, The Human Rights of Stateless Persons, 28
Human Rights Quar. 247 (2006).
 Carol A. Batchelor, UNHCR and Issues Related to Nationality, 14 REFUGEES URV.
Q. 91 (1995).
 Michael R. Geske, State Building, Citizenship and Statelessness (1997).
 Jeffrey L. Blackman, State Successions and Statelessness: The Emerging Right to an
Effective Nationality Under International Law, 19 MICH. J. INT'L L. 1141 (1998).

U.N. DOCUMENTS
 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and
Consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, Addendum: Report on the Mission of
the Special Rapporteur to Poland on the Issue of Trafficking and Forced Prostitution
of Women (24 May to 1 June 1996), U.N. ESCOR, Comm'n on Hum. Rts., 53d Sess.,
Agenda Item 9(a), 1 6, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1997/47/Add.1 (1996).
 UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR), WHAT
WOULD LIFE BE LIKE IF YOU HAD NO NATIONALITY? (1999),
 UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR), UNHCR’S
GUIDELINES ON APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS RELATING TO THE

DETENTION OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS (1999).

 UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR), Syria
Emergency.
 UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR), South Sudan
Emergency.

15 | P a g e