his article critically considers the prominent “ending statelessness” framing within global statelessness work to expose potential risks around such dominant approaches—both for advocacy efficacy and discursively (primarily for those directly impacted by the issue: i.e., stateless individuals). In probing the focus on “eradication” framing, the article focuses on the IBelong campaign launched by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to end statelessness in a decade (2014–2024). Drawing comparatively from lessons learned from other global initiatives seeking to end a perceived global ill (specifically 2005’s Make Poverty History and the UN target to End AIDS by 2030), I question whether the eradication framing is, in fact, the most effective way to address statelessness, while considering the—sometimes negative—implications this can have for people with lived experience of statelessness. Reflection on the discursive implications of such framing should complement more programmatic considerations given to the IBelong campaign within existing evaluations. This analysis is timely given that, following the end of IBelong campaign’s implementation period, the next phase within the ending statelessness endeavor is already under way. Although ending statelessness is undoubtedly desirable for (most, if not all) people affected by it, alternative framing approaches more sensitive to, and privileging, the insights and experiences of such individuals may provide a basis to recalibrate ongoing efforts to address statelessness worldwide, and ultimately better serve their interests.

Thomas McGee, Questioning the eradication framing of global statelessness work: IBelong and beyond, Journal of Human Rights, 2026.