{"id":322834,"date":"2025-11-03T09:09:32","date_gmt":"2025-11-03T08:09:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/?p=322834"},"modified":"2025-11-03T09:16:04","modified_gmt":"2025-11-03T08:16:04","slug":"the-stateless-worker-problem-linking-nationality-law-discrimination-to-eu-corporate-due-diligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/?p=322834","title":{"rendered":"The Stateless Worker Problem: Linking Nationality Law Discrimination to EU Corporate Due Diligence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This contribution is part of our joint online symposium with the V\u00f6lkerrechtsblog<\/a> on the topic: \u201cTackling Human Rights, Environmental Protection and Business \u2013 A Multilevel Approach\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Click here<\/strong> to view all contributions to our symposium.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A contribution from Ghaith Alkurdi <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citizenship is often taken for granted as a gateway to rights, protections, and opportunities. Yet, for millions of people around the world, access to nationality is denied not because of individual choices but because of discriminatory nationality laws that refuse women the equal right to transmit citizenship to their children or spouses. For example, in Egypt<\/a>, women cannot automatically confer nationality to their children if the father is foreign, while men can. Similar restrictions persist in Lebanon<\/strong> and Kuwait<\/strong>, leaving children of national mothers and foreign fathers effectively stateless or at risk of statelessness. The problem is not confined to the Middle East or Africa; until a few decades ago, European states themselves also imposed gender-based restrictions on nationality transmission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This contribution argues that statelessness is not only a violation of human rights under international law but also a structural problem for labor markets that remains largely overlooked in corporate governance. Exclusion from nationality results in the emergence of a class of \u201cstateless workers\u201d<\/em><\/strong> \u2014 individuals without legal identity, formal employment rights, or social protection. While the European Union\u2019s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive <\/strong>(CSDDD)<\/a> and other international frameworks address many labor-related abuses, they fail to recognize how discriminatory nationality laws themselves generate systemic vulnerabilities that corporations may exploit. Closing this gap requires integrating the risks of nationality-based exclusion into the architecture of corporate due diligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citizenship and Equality under International Law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The right to nationality has long been recognized as fundamental. Article 15<\/a> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/strong> proclaims that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of it. Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights <\/strong>(ICCPR)<\/a> affirms the right of every child to be registered and to acquire a nationality. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women <\/strong>(CEDAW)<\/a>, adopted in 1979, specifically requires in Article 9 that women enjoy equal rights with men to pass their nationality to their children and spouses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite these obligations, more than two dozen states<\/a> \u2014 including Brunei, Barbados, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Nepal, and Malaysia<\/strong> \u2014 still deny women equal rights in nationality transmission. Some have lodged explicit reservations to Article 9 of CEDAW, undermining its universality. The result is a persistent gap between international commitments and domestic laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The European context demonstrates that discriminatory nationality laws are not immutable. France<\/strong> only reformed its nationality law in 1927 to allow women to retain their nationality after marrying a foreigner and to transmit it to their children. Ireland<\/strong>, prior to reforms in the 1980s, maintained paternal primacy in nationality transmission. Today, by contrast, all EU states permit gender equality in nationality law, in line with the European Convention on Nationality (1997)<\/a>, which explicitly affirms equal rights for men and women in transmitting citizenship. This comparative lens underscores that discriminatory laws can be reformed \u2014 but also that their persistence elsewhere demands stronger international pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Practical Consequences \u2013 From Stateless Child to Stateless Worker<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal denial of citizenship is not an abstract issue; it produces direct, measurable consequences for those affected. Without nationality, children are often unable to obtain birth certificates, identity cards, or passports. According to the UNHCR Global Report 2024<\/a>, at least 4.4 million people worldwide<\/strong> are known to be stateless, though the real number is likely much higher. The UNHCR\u2019s 2024 Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness<\/strong>confirms that 24 states<\/strong> still deny women equal rights to pass nationality to their children, perpetuating intergenerational cycles of exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practical terms, a stateless child grows into a stateless adult. Without legal identity, individuals cannot sign formal employment contracts, access social security, or benefit from labor protections. Many cannot attend public universities, obtain driving licenses, or travel freely. Even where governments provide limited access to healthcare or education as a \u201cprivilege,\u201d<\/em> these measures stop short of guaranteeing enforceable rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This distinction between rights and privileges is critical. In several states, non-national children may be allowed to access schools or basic healthcare services as a matter of policy rather than right. However, such access is administrative and discretionary, not guaranteed by law, meaning it can be withdrawn at any time. Reports from the International Labor Organization (ILO)<\/a> on migrant workers in the Gulf confirm that non-citizen dependents often have only partial access to social services, contingent on employer or government discretion. Upon reaching adulthood, the absence of nationality means exclusion from the formal labor market. Stateless individuals are pushed into informal, precarious employment, where exploitation is common and legal remedies are absent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The outcome is the creation of a parallel labor class<\/strong> \u2014 a workforce that exists within national borders but remains outside the protection of national laws. Studies by the ILO<\/strong> describe how non-citizen and stateless workers in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)<\/strong> states are systematically excluded from core labor protections and social security schemes, leaving them dependent on informal employment relationships. This has profound implications not only for human rights but also for the global economy, as corporations may rely \u2014 directly or indirectly \u2014 on this vulnerable labor pool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corporate Due Diligence\u2019s Blind Spot<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

International business law has, in recent years, taken significant steps to address the human rights responsibilities of corporations. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011)<\/a> establish that companies must respect human rights throughout their operations and supply chains. The OECD<\/a> Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises<\/strong>reinforce this expectation. Most significantly, the European Union has advanced the CSDDD<\/strong>, which will require companies operating in the EU to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their global value chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet despite this progress, there remains a significant blind spot. Corporate due diligence laws typically assume that states provide equal access to rights within their jurisdictions and that corporations must avoid exploiting deviations such as forced labor, child labor, or unsafe working conditions. They do not, however, anticipate situations in which the state itself structurally excludes segments of the population from citizenship and, therefore, from formal employment rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For instance, EU multinationals operating in Gulf states<\/strong> may employ both citizens and non-citizens. Citizens enjoy full labor rights, while the stateless or <\/strong>\u201cBidoon\u201d<\/em><\/a> communities<\/strong> \u2014 particularly in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE<\/strong> \u2014 are restricted to informal or insecure jobs, often at lower wages and without access to legal protections. A company may technically comply with local labor laws while still perpetuating a system of discrimination rooted in nationality law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This creates a paradox: corporate due diligence frameworks designed to protect human rights do not account for structural statelessness, leaving a category of vulnerable workers\u2019 invisible to compliance mechanisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Multilevel Legal Failure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The stateless worker problem is best understood as the product of failures across three levels:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. National failure:<\/strong> States that maintain discriminatory nationality laws deny women equality and deprive their children and spouses of basic rights. Even when partial privileges are granted, these are insufficient substitutes for citizenship.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. International failure:<\/strong> Although treaties such as CEDAW and the ICCPR clearly prohibit such discrimination, weak enforcement mechanisms and broad reservations allow states to maintain the status quo.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Corporate failure:<\/strong> Business law frameworks, including the CSDDD, do not consider nationality-based exclusion as a relevant human rights risk. This allows corporations to operate in countries with discriminatory laws without addressing the structural exclusion embedded in their labor markets.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    These layers of failure reinforce each other. The state denies nationality, international law lacks effective enforcement mechanisms, and corporations overlook the resulting vulnerabilities. The consequence is a cycle in which stateless workers remain excluded from both legal protection and corporate accountability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Conclusion and Call for Reform<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Statelessness caused by discriminatory nationality laws is not only a pressing human rights issue but also a significant business law concern. It creates a workforce excluded from legal protections and labor rights, exposing individuals to exploitation and corporations to reputational and compliance risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The European Union<\/strong>, having eliminated gender discrimination in nationality law within its own member states, is uniquely positioned to extend this standard beyond its borders. Under the forthcoming CSDDD<\/strong>, companies will be legally required to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse human rights impacts in their value chains. Incorporating nationality-based exclusion<\/strong> as a risk factor would ensure that due diligence captures situations where state laws themselves create structural discrimination. This would transform the CSDDD from a compliance tool into a driver of equality, aligning EU business regulation with its human rights diplomacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Addressing the stateless worker problem therefore requires action on multiple fronts: reform of nationality laws at the national level, stronger enforcement of international human rights norms, and an expanded vision of corporate responsibility<\/strong> that acknowledges and remedies harms linked to government discrimination. In practice, this means developing remedial mechanisms such as non-discriminatory hiring criteria, human rights audits, and engagement with local authorities or NGOs to offset the exclusionary effects of nationality laws. As the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights emphasize, companies have a responsibility to use their leverage to address systemic, state-led inequalities when their operations are directly linked to such harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Stateless workers are not invisible; it is the law \u2014 both public and corporate \u2014 that chooses not to see them. Closing this gap will require targeted legal reform<\/strong>, most notably by broadening the definition of <\/strong>\u201cadverse human rights impact\u201d<\/em> in the CSDDD to include risks arising from nationality-based exclusion and statelessness. Explicitly recognizing nationality discrimination as a due-diligence risk category would compel corporations to examine how their supply chains intersect with stateless or at-risk workers. Such clarification would strengthen the coherence between EU human rights policy<\/strong> and corporate law<\/strong>, ensuring that the promise of human rights and the practice of responsible business genuinely align.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Suggested Citation<\/strong>: Ghaith Alkurdi<\/em>, The Stateless Worker Problem: Linking Nationality Law Discrimination to EU Corporate Due Diligence, jean-monnet-saar 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    DOI<\/strong>: 10.17176\/20251103-091413-0<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft<\/strong> (DFG, German Research Foundation) \u2013 Project No.: 525576645<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    This contribution examines how gender-discriminatory nationality laws create stateless populations excluded from formal labor markets, revealing a major blind spot in corporate governance and due diligence frameworks. By linking this issue to the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), it calls for expanding the directive\u2019s scope to address nationality-based exclusion as a core human-rights risk.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":322831,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[983],"tags":[492,989,957,990,174,988],"class_list":["post-322834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-online-symposium-tackling-human-rights-environmental-protection-and-business-a-multilevel-approach","tag-blog","tag-citizenship","tag-csddd","tag-due-diligence","tag-europarecht","tag-stateless"],"cc_featured_image_caption":{"caption_text":"","source_text":"","source_url":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/322834","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=322834"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/322834\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":322837,"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/322834\/revisions\/322837"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/322831"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=322834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=322834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jean-monnet-saar.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=322834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}