UNHRC – What is for people without nationality recognition ?


The firsts human rights declarations had been developed in the 17 centuries individually by certain country. The rights as the notion of human, are not approach in the same ways depending the country. United Nation had so pointed the necessity of a more universal declaration of Human Right. The specific absence of rights in countries where there is a declaration of human rights reminds the critic of Hannah Arendt: “humans rights who, physically, never have been establish but only formulate, who, politically never have be guaranty but only proclaimed, had, on their traditional form, lost all validity”. Which, at the time was referring to concentration camp is relevant today for migrant people. They are, by their conditions, not relevant to the human rights of the countries where they migrate. As if they were not considered as humans. This quote reminds us that the notion “human” is not universal and require some conditions in most countries. Thus, it’s not the fact to be human that is important to have right in a country which aren’t “yours” but to be citizens. We don’t all born free as we not all born equals by the international vision of rights. We are considered equal to others when we are recognized by the concern group so the state of migration. We have to keep in mind that the Human Right Council is constitute of countries who don’t all respect the rights of people who are in their borders.

The countries represented during the debate of today are: Afghanistan, Argentine, Australia, Austria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Czech Republic, Denmark, Island, Qatar, Japan, India, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Spain and United Kingdom. In the first minutes, delegates have to present how their country see the migrator question. Indeed, must countries, if not all, declare wanting to help and eradicate the staleness and try to the best to respect the migrant rights.

 

 

Who can have the nationality?

Debate are starting with Qatar against Australia, Austria and others States who defend the opening of citizenship and rights given to everyone including every sexuality orientation and gender. Qatar answer them that their statement was hypocrite because their countries close their borders to refugees and migrants. They defend themselves by saying that their objective it’s to give a future to everyone that are in the country, which are impossible considering the large number of people who need help. They can’t help everyone.

When Austria declare that the urgency is not human in general but women and children. They propose as first goal to give citizenship exclusively to women, that he considered fragile. UK agree but add children, victim of war or discrimination, or other minorities.

Provide nationality of birth country to staleness babies.

In the second part of the morning, the debate started on the citizenship and more precisely on the topic of providing the nationally of the birth country at baby in situation of stateless. Did the child born in a State which are not conform to his parents nationalities can have the nationality of his born country? This tobic confront the vision of jus soli which relate to nationality by soil right and jus sanguine which relate to blood right. Nationality it’s important because it give to the person the same rights than other citizens of the State to access education, health and other rights.

Austria and Uganda agree on giving the nationality to born country children which will give them the possibility to have a similar future than people who have the nationality by blood, as health access, education, … Australia give a variant, claiming that they will not give the nationality to every born child in their country, but only to children who have non nationality at all. India, in the opposite, reminds the current position on this matter without showing the willingness to change it. This country is giving nationality by blood and none by soil. It proposes to register born baby which doesn’t have the nationality and then find a state to welcome the child and his family. At what Austria argue that it’s impossible to move people everywhere from everywhere.

Qatar defend his county policies which give the nationality to child by blood and men. A woman can’t give her nationality to her child. Only men can prevent his nationality to his child. The Democratic Republic of the Congo explain than in his country, nationality can be easily took such as by marriage. The delegate of the country claim that everyone should fellow his league.

Solution at Migration problem.

Qatar will then propose to interest on the money that will be fund. Which are presented as the only solution to migration problem to provide money to buy basic needs such as food, clothes, healthcare… he proposes himself to give money to necessity countries. At which the Democratic Republic of Congo answer that they didn’t need money from a country that don’t respect human right. Countries such Qatar should see what to change to his country and change it if he had the opportunity before try to help other. For her the fight against stateless should be, in a first time, to a national level, and then to an international level. For India it not possible. Some Sates can’t help everyone in their boundaries. They should in the first time manage to deal with the poor citizens and then migrants and refuges.

Some other delegates such as Spain and Congo disagree on the propose that the only solution is money. They pointed the importance of an international law on the topic. We should provide Human rights to migrants and refuges and not only something that last one time such food. Spain gave importance on the necessity that every States had to sign the Convention. Qatar disagree by saying that a paper will do nothing. He thinks that State need to something directly.

During the writing of an agreement some ideas are choose as construction of the United Nations agreement. The delegates choose to keep, as nationality definition, that each child can have the nationality of the born country. They agree on the possibility of everyone to have the right to ask for asylum in every States of United Nation. When, at the majority, a child access to the nationality, he should be able to ensure a legal procedure to give the nationality to their parents. But also, migrants or refugees who need help can access to a particular assistance.

Mathilde Perle

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *