In contrast, the right to freedom from arbitrary detention is much easier to intuitively understand””plus there is lots of international law and jurisprudence, developed over decades, defining it.Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) says “[e]veryone has the right to a nationality” and that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality”. In practice, it depends on the context and country. The right to a nationality and the need to enjoy an effective nationality – nationality serving as the basis for the enjoyment of many other rights – was developed progressively throughout the 20th century.
The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination:He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights:The 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, as well as his social, economic and cultural rightsUniversalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. For a country that is truly sovereign the UN and international law is meaningless.Another basic problem is that the right to nationality is not well-defined in international law, and not intuitively understood. Protection of most human rights is, quite logically, the responsibility of the state in which individuals reside, or the state that is violating the right. But many of the world’s “˜non-citizens’ may in fact be citizens whose right to citizenship is being violated by not being recognized by their state. Article 7 sets out children's right to be registered immediately after birth, to a name, nationality and - as far as possible - to know and be cared for by their parents. The human rights enshrined in the UDHR, the Geneva Conventions and the various enforced treaties of the United Nations are enforceable in law.
Both are very widely ratified (only the US and Somalia have yet to ratify the CRC, and in Africa 45 of 53 states have ratified the African Children’s Charter). The Kuwaiti nationality law discriminates against women, preventing them from passing on their nationality to their children and spouses on an equal basis with men. Because the right to citizenship is poorly defined, we should be suspicious of states’ claims as to who the non-citizens are.Despite these weaknesses, international human rights law does constrain states in granting and withholding citizenship in some ways.
What can be done in this regard?You wrote, “So the question of which state is violating the right of any particular stateless person (and by implication, responsible for giving her citizenship) isn’t clear from the Universal Declaration.So the question of which state is violating the right of any particular stateless person (and by implication, responsible for giving her citizenship) isn’t clear from the Universal Declaration.” Since the source of the UDHR is the UN it is no wonder that the law is vague and incomplete. In the case Both of these treaties address a specific population, children who are born on the territory of a state who would otherwise be stateless. While these human rights violations are recognised in general terms, little research has considered the extent to which
In absolute monarchies, all may be citizens but no one has the right to political participation. Determining to which nationality a person may have a right remains, however, a major challenge in the 21st century. To a certain extent, they are right””it is permissible to make distinctions between the rights of citizens and the rights of non-citizens. CEDAW formerly held all its sessions at United Nations headquarters in New York but now frequently meets at the United Nations Office in Geneva; the other treaty bodies meet in Geneva. But many of the world’s stateless people would not be stateless at all if their country’s laws were non-discriminatory or properly implemented.expecting the UN to solve problems is a bit like expecting McDonalds to solve obesity.As the international human rights regime has grown stronger and stronger and the culture of respecting rights has grown, lack of citizenship has become one of the few grounds upon which states can deny individuals their rights and not be called to account.