By exploring the analytical approaches applied by the Courts in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, this article attempts to demonstrate the ways in which stateless persons have been excluded from effective international human rights protection. Specifically, the article argues that states have not considered their own human rights obligations when making individual refugee status decisions. Further, it observes that, in some cases, decision makers have tended to refer to international compendia on international refugee law and international human rights law rather than to reflect directly on the law itself. This in turn has encouraged an increasingly restrictive approach to refugee determination.

In its conclusion, this article offers suggestions for reintegrating the foundations of international human rights law into claim determinations for stateless persons. It suggests that a return to first principles and foundational concepts will realign the implementation of international refugee law with its intended purpose: the protection of the world's most vulnerable people.