Rutgers Model United Nations - IDIA
Rutgers Model United Nations 11 that these nations will be willing to accept to deal with the problem. It is clear that these nations have already set up standards of practice that allow for the permanent or temporary inclusion of stateless populations that can reach their border, but the area for compromise within a national government or international politics is vague. There is no reason to believe that a nation which accepts refugees, including stateless refugees, would be unwilling to promote basic services for stateless people in their current residence, but there is also no reason to believe that these nations will push other nations to change their policies. The room for negotiation in which these nations partake can only be found in the international treaties and UN resolutions that they have signed. From this, we can determine that sympathetic nations will actively work in international forums to promote citizenship. Antagonist States In addition to the sympathetic states that alleviate the situation of stateless people, there exist nations that create the problem of subsequent statelessness by enacting policies that retroactively deny citizenship to populations that once enjoyed the nationality of that government. These nations have not signed either the 1954 or 1961 Conventions or both and have actively attempted to deny citizenship to populations within their borders for ethnic, 36 political, 37 racial, 38 and misogynistic reasons. 39 It is difficult to determine the preferred policy of an antagonist state. This is due largely to the fact that each state which has created a stateless problem has done so for different reasons and with different intentions. It can also be assumed that a state which has a significant stateless population has already achieved their preferred policy, that of denying said population citizenship. It is important to note, however, that an antagonist state, while only being able to control their own policies, may desire other nations to change theirs. For example, Bangladesh would rather see Pakistan review their standards 36 Lynch, M. “Lives on Hold: The Human Cost of Statelessness.” 8. 37 Amnesty International. “Slovenia: Amnesty International’s Briefing to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 35th Session, November 2005.” Index # 68/002/2005, 2. 38 Lynch, M, 10. 39 Ibid, 5.
Rutgers Model United Nations 12 for citizenship so that the Biharis remove themselves from Bangladesh’s population. 40 In instances such as this, while the state in question has achieved their desired policy, they would like to see a third party take responsibility for the issue, regardless of whether the third party feels the same. To further the preferred policy of an antagonist state, the optimal outcome would be the removal of the population being denied citizenship from the state’s control or general population. A state which actively denies citizenship to any of its population has done so because it does not feel it needs to protect that population. Given that citizenship is a state’s approval to protect and provide for an individual, 41 it is true that any state that denies citizenship has positively affirmed that they do not feel responsible for that individual. This means that the state feels that individual should be the responsibility of another government, whether the state has a different government in mind or not, because that individual is not recognized as a person with any tie to the nation in which they are currently being refused citizenship. Motivations for these policies can vary greatly. The most generic motivation is that the state does not feel responsible for the rights of the individual or population. More specifically, however, states reach this conclusion for a number of different reasons. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Banyarwanda were stripped of their citizenship after “the majority of the constituency in the eastern provinces” put pressure on President Mobutu to remove the Banyarwanda population’s citizenship and because they are recognized as Rwanadans with no ancestral tie to the DRC. 42 In other cases, such as “the erased” in Slovenia, former citizens are denied their former status because of political changes that result in the creation of a new state. In Slovenia, after the break up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, people who were recognized as Yugoslav and Slovenian citizens before the upheaval were stripped of their citizenship for both political and ethnic reasons. Some were simply “from other former 40 Sokoloff, 9. 41 Ibid, 5. 42 Ibid, 8.