How Isolationist Policies Deepen the Plight of Stateless Communities

Lack of legal identity, limited access to rights, discrimination, and exclusion are just some of the consequences of being a stateless person. However, in almost all cases, more than just a single or a few stateless persons face these challenges. These challenges are faced on the scale of entire communities globally. While the UNHCR’s official count of stateless persons as of 2022 is estimated to be 4.4 million persons, the actual number is likely much higher due to data collection complications.

Stateless communities have existed throughout our history, but only since the mid-20th century has it been an international crisis. Boundary changes combined with population displacement in the aftermath of World War II left a magnitude of people without nationality. Adding to the process of decolonization during this period, certain groups were increasingly excluded from citizenship. These issues have continued to the present day, with statelessness remaining a crisis.

The World's Hesitant Stance and Shift in Perspective

The international target is ambitious; they aim to end statelessness through inclusivity policies by 2030 by providing legal identity for all with SDG Goal 16.9. This SDG Goal tackles the root causes of statelessness by ensuring “legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030." Despite this, not all states have ratified the 1954 and 1961 statelessness conventions. This shows weakness in the chain in the universal effort of tackling statelessness, as it limits their legal obligations to adhere to and implement international standards. Adding, contemporary international perception is a mixture of invisibility, vulnerability, and suspicion. Due to the lack of data and state affiliations, stateless persons are often not included in national surveys or national planning; this makes it a challenge to access their numbers and needs accurately and promptly. This invisibility factor is usually the cause of their inaccessibility to international aid and protection.

The international community also shows a hesitant stance towards stateless communities due to perceived security concerns. Some states view stateless populations with suspicion due to the fear of security threats, and this leads to discriminatory policies and practices. Further negative perceptions also stem from potential association with terrorism and crime; in some cases, stateless individuals have been wrongly affiliated with terrorism and crime. The role of the international community in promoting stateless communities is vital. Their shifts in perspective are equally vital to the rate of development of stateless communities.

There is a growing shift in the perception of stateless people from a security threat to victims of human rights violations, from exclusion to inclusion, from refuting the responsibility of stateless persons to emphasizing the importance of belonging. However, the rate of change in perception is slow. This has led to the issue of stateless communities being in a state of limbo due to the complex interplay of causes from legal, political, and socioeconomic challenges.

The Paradoxical Effect of Nationalism

The rise of nationalism is often affiliated with positive effects on national unity and pride. On the other hand, it is paradoxical as it has also contributed to the growth of stateless communities. Due to the nature of nationalism, the effect of this can lead to the emphasizing of the interest of a particular state or ethnic group. This leads to the exclusion of people who are seen as “outliers,” which has ultimately led to the denial of their fundamental rights. The Kurds are a minority in all the countries they reside in, and this “outlier” effect has led to their discrimination and suppression of their culture within the country that they inhabit.

One form of exclusion from nationalism is through exclusionary citizenship laws. These laws can be considered as exclusive nationalism, where citizenship laws prioritize specific ethnic or religious groups, which in turn makes other groups much more vulnerable to statelessness. We can observe this form of discriminatory law during the Rohingya crisis. The passing of the 1982 Citizenship Law denied all forms of citizenship to the Rohingya population as well as denying Burmese citizenship to children born to those considered noncitizens based on their ethnicity, which the Rohingya were no longer recognized as part of Myanmar’s ethnic groups due to this exclusive law.

Nationalism towards the more extreme spectrum can create a climate of fear and xenophobia. Hyper-nationalism can turn fear and xenophobia into perception of minorities and migrants as threats to national security and cultural identity. There is a construction of a “Us vs. Them” mentality when there is an extreme form of nationalism; the narratives through political rhetoric and media portrayals emerge, causing increased perception of outsiders as threats. The Kurds are often portrayed as outsiders, even in states where they have resided for generations (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria). There are present negative stereotypes about Kurds, depicting them as backward and uncivilized, and these notions are often used by politicians, religious leaders, and media outlets to suppress the Kurds in their population. The Kurds are one of the victims of nationalist practices in their aspirations to establish their independent state, having been consistently denied by nationalist agendas in states where they have resided for centuries.

Continuous Movements Towards Isolationism

First and foremost, multilateral institutions are the key pieces in the coordination of humanitarian and development efforts. The agreement of multilateral cooperation often involves the provision of monetary assistance and humanitarian aid to the state facing statelessness issues. A reduction in international humanitarian aid and development assistance would concur with a decline in funding towards the efforts of ending statelessness. The decline of dialogue with development partners has also led to fragmentation and lack of coordination of efforts, reducing the effectiveness of established projects aiming to support stateless communities. Recently, we saw the United States withdraw from the Global Compact on Migration in 2017; while this is a non-binding agreement, it served as a signal of their retreat from multilateral solutions. The Global Compact on Migration agreement aimed to improve international cooperation in addressing the challenges of stateless migrants, and the withdrawal of the United States gave a clearer picture of their isolationist outlook.

The UK’s withdrawal from the EU further highlights the significant powers in the international arena moving towards nationalist and isolationist movements. These unilateral actions and policies can also be highly impactful on the stateless population. The United States “Muslim Ban” in 2017 portrays how unilateral action toward migration issues fueled by xenophobia can create uncertainty for those who are stateless or at risk of statelessness. Given the fact that over 100 countries have ratified the 1954 Convention, even fewer countries have ratified the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Notable states that have not ratified the 1961 Convention include China, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Bangladesh, the United States, and Canada. Not ratifying these conventions could be a result of various factors. It could be the lack of awareness; some states may be unaware of the importance of such conventions. Ratifying could require longer domestic reforms that some state governments may find undesirable. These challenges need to be addressed towards the way forward in encouraging more states to ratify and implement these Statelessness Conventions.

Given the scenario that isolationism and unilateralism policies are set to continue as an international agenda of states, the phenomenon of statelessness crossing over generations will likely continue. This would trap stateless communities in further legal limbo and put them in a cycle of exclusion and vulnerability.

The Path Forward

Ultimately, the path forward toward solving statelessness would require a multifaceted policy approach with solid policies on both national and international frameworks. Firstly, a universal plan for ratifying and implementing statelessness conventions must be a consistent fixture in international dialogues. These dialogues are advised to include the provisions of the incorporation of the convention’s elements into domestic law to achieve effective implementation. Secondly, to combat the issue of registration, it is advised that there are pathways established to improve civil registration and documentation. States that have the capacity for digitalization should explore the possibility of utilizing the digitalization of civil registration and documentation systems, which may speed up the process.

This method will ensure that the individual's data is in a permanent and protected system. Additionally, states should provide universal access to identity documents, removing barriers such as registration fees and redundant procedures. Thirdly, there must be a strengthening of international cooperation, not just between states but also between international developmental agencies, civil societies, and local NGOs. The required effort is a holistic effort; there must be information flow between parties that ranges from data collection and sharing to technical assistance and capacity building. The main theme of these recommendations is inclusivity as well as the elimination of discrimination on the basis that all stateless persons are guaranteed the right to a nationality.