Topic: Rights of Stateless Persons
Country: India
Delegate Name: Collin Sharpe
School: Royal Oak High School
Topic page: background guide and all position papers All India position papers GLIMUN 2016 committees
Over 10 million stateless persons, people without a nationality, face hardship around the world. The problem is truly global, and one which requires an equally global response.
The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons was a breakthrough in the international definition and recognition of the statelessness problem, as well as being one of the first international attempts to address it. But there are many areas in which the Convention falls short, in particular by making the mistake of trying to solve a global problem which manifests itself differently in different contexts and regions with a single approach.
The Convention attempts to address the issue by attempting to get states to hold themselves to standards by giving stateless persons the same rights as their citizens in some areas of administration and law. But India, while it recognizes the need to uphold basic human rights where applicable, questions the reason why some believe that because a person happens to be in India without documents or evidence of another nationality, that they somehow should become endowed with Indian rights. The rights and privileges accorded to a national are those only citizens can and should receive as part of the reciprocal relationship between the state and the national. For a country to use this idea is to undermine the entire concept of citizenship.
Another problem with the Convention is that it asks emerging or developing nations to turn their attention and resources away from those who are its citizens, whom it is obligated to help in its basic purpose as a government, towards people who are not, denying its people the right to development. Without a single clause mentioning, much less accommodating, the circumstances of emerging economies, this also undermines the concept of citizenship as it asks developing nations to put others ahead of their own people, the opposite of which is the point of citizenship at its most fundamental level.
This is not to say that India or other nations should ignore their moral and legal obligations. Quite the opposite. India has remained one of the most generous refugee-hosting countries in Asia, and is even praised by the UNHCR, which recognizes that despite the fact that India is not a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, it is responsible in conforming to moral and legal principles in its treatment of refugees. This is because basic protections and freedoms are protected in India’s Constitution.
However, as a refugee hosting country in its region, India has become painfully aware of the intricacies of the South Asian context in which it is located. Migration is common in the region, and borders are permeable. Illegal immigration is something that India cannot stop, and is a growing problem. 10 to 15 million people from Bangladesh alone are estimated to be illegally residing in India. It promotes instability and harms economically and socially the people in the regions it affects. Human trafficking, and the many abuses that come with it, is common. Migrants and refugees (who are different from migrants) alike are prone to radicalization by terror groups, sometimes state-sponsored. At the same time, the socioeconomic condition, the threats and opportunities they bring with them, and many other characteristics about the people that come across India’s border are incredibly diverse. It is precisely because of this diversity in the problem that India requires a diversity in approach, avoiding documents like the Conventions, which at best would restrict India from following the correct action for the situation an/or function as a medium for ill-informed or ill-intentioned attacks against India and relying instead on its own Constitution and laws that it creates, such as the Foreigner Act, to guide its way through each situation on a case-by-case basis. India has had, in the absence of an adequate document that allows it the freedom it needs, to rely on bilateral negotiations, such as the talks that facilitated the repatriation of hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan Tamil in the Indo-Ceylon Pact. India will have to rely on bilateral and regional frameworks until a better document more applicable to India's situation is produced.
The citizenship laws of states have come under fire as well. Aside from a few extraordinary circumstances, India would like to remind member states that the determination of what does and does not constitute citizenship and actions that have earned its removal is determined by the history, context, and society of its people and the bond unique to each country between the State and the citizen, and is well within the sovereignty and responsibility of the state. Citizenship law is, with the exception of a few cases, a carefully considered code that is best applicable that state’s society and values. Imposing values and practices that are this steeped in a society’s situation and history only accomplishes the goal of antagonizing the states involved.This is part of India’s unwillingness and refusal to accede to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
So, given the diversity of the statelessness situation worldwide, what can the United nations do to create a better legal and political regime for dealing with the problem? How can it foster regional and international cooperation in solving the problem? How can the rights of stateless people, and the rights of everyone through precedent set for future agreements, be promoted in a constructive and global way?
Though India hopes and expects policy to be debated and changed extensively as committee progresses, it does have a few ideas on where the committee might go. A good and effective resolution will need to include a call for a new document or a revision of the 1954 Convention, one which makes clear that developing nations will not have to overtax themselves and their people by signing on, and takes into account the differing security, cultural, and political contexts that exist and recognizes that universal rights cannot be promoted in a universal way. At the same time, poverty and instability compounded by terrorism, causes of statelessness, need to be addressed as well. States can easily do some of their part to address both by refusing to support neither through their actions, or merely by withdrawing their support of organizations that contribute to these. Development of societies and economies, as well as capacity building are necessary parts of promoting human rights worldwide and cannot be ignored.
India also wants to make clear that it cannot on principle support a country-specific resolution. India understands that the topic of human rights is an emotional one which means far more to many people than most other issues. But this is all the more reason not to point fingers. As much as one state may hate another, no progress in promoting human rights can be made in the United Nations by dividing the committee into camps and destroying the only hope for constructive work. It particularly wants to make this clear for the issues of the Palestinian and Rohingya peoples. Their lives will not get better via mudslinging, and this is the sort of thing India will act to prevent as much as possible.
Above all, India would like to see a more productive and constructive committee that works to cooperate as international partners rather than enemies to work towards a real, global solution that genuinely promotes human rights around the world.
