Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems, Elimination of Statelessness - Memorandum Prepared by the Secretary-General

Introduction

On 8 August 1949, the Economic and Social Council adopted resolution No. 248 (IX) which set up "an ad hoc Committee consisting of representatives of thirteen Governments, who shall possess special competence in this field1, and who, taking into account comments made during the discussions on the subject at the ninth session of the Council, in particular as to the distinction between displaced persons, refugees and stateless persons, shall:

(a)....................................

"(b) Consider means of eliminating the problem of statelessness including the desirability of requesting the International Law Commission to prepare a study and make recommendations on this subject;

(c)....................................

This document deals only with point (b). Point (a) has been dealt with in another document. (See E/AC.32/2, 3 January 1950.)

The problem of statelessness raises two questions. If statelessness is to be eliminated, the causes of statelessness must be removed and the number of persons now stateless must be reduced. The first question is the more important and the more complicated.

PART I REMOVAL OF THE CAUSES OF STATELESSNESS

Chapter I - What are the causes of statelessness?

(1) Synopsis of the causes of statelessness

The causes of statelessness are well known and are discussed in the Secretary-General's Study (E/1112/Add.1) of 16 May 1949 (see pages 7 to 29).

They may be states as follows:a2

Section I - Inadequacy and conflict of national legislations concerning nationality

Sub-Section I - Statelessness at birth

A. Children born abroad

B. Child born in a jus sanguinis country whose father or mother is stateless

C. Child born in a jus sanguinis country whose father and mother are stateless or without known nationality

D. Children born of unknown parents in a jus sanguinis country

E. Foundlings

Sub-Section II - The effect of marriage upon the nationality of the married woman

A. The effect of the conclusion of marriage upon the nationality of the woman

B. The effect upon the nationality of the wife of the husband's change of nationality during the marriage

C. The effect of the dissolution of the marriage upon the nationality of the wife

1. Widowed or divorced women

2. Invalid or fictitious marriages

Sub-Section III - Effect of the legitimation upon nationality of the illegitimate child

Sub-Section IV - The effect of adoption

Sub-Section V - The voluntary renunciation of nationality

Sub-Section VI - Prolonged sojourn abroad

Section II - The deprivation of nationality as a penalty

Section III - Racial, religious or political persecution

Section IV - The exodus of nationals caused by changes in political or social regimes

Section V - The inadequacy of treaties governing territorial settlements or their defective application

A. Treaties Regulating the Austro-Hungarian Succession

B. The Treaty of Versailles of 20 June 1919

If the problem is viewed as a whole, disregarding marginal cases, it will be found that stateless persons can, as a rule, be placed in two major categories, stateless persons who are not refugees, and refugees.

A. Stateless persons who are not refugees

This, the traditional, category comprises stateless persons falling into three main groups:

1. The first group includes persons who are stateless as a result of the application of the various national legislations on nationality, under which nationality may be granted or withdrawn at discretion.

In this way, individuals do not receive nationality on birth or lose their nationality later in life without acquiring a new one. This is the classic case of statelessness.

2. The second group includes persons deprived of their nationality as a penalty. So far as the traditional practice is concerned, this case has much in common with the preceding one. It affected, for example, persons who entered the service of foreign governments without the authorization of their own government or naturalized persons who had committed non-political offences. The cases concerned are special and not very numerous.b3

3. The third group includes persons who have lost their nationality as a result of territorial settlements effected by treaties. This is an accidental cause of statelessness.

It seems evident that the three groups of stateless persons mentioned must be taken into consideration by the Committee.

B. Refugees

From the point of view of nationality, refugees, the number of whom is at present very large, may be divided into two groups: those who are stateless de jure and those who are merely stateless de facto.

De jure stateless refugees are refugees who have been deprived of their former nationality by their country of origin. De facto stateless refugees are refugees who have nominally retained their nationality but who not longer receive the aid or protection of their Government. Obviously the case of de jure stateless refugees must be considered.

The question arises, however, whether the Committee should propose to consider the case of refugees who are merely stateless de facto and who comprise the great majority of refugees.

Some considerations on this question follow.

In point of fact, the status of de facto stateless refugees (the majority) is the same in practice as that of de jure stateless refugees (the minority). Both live outside their country of origin and receive neither aid nor protection from the authorities of that country. Unlike de jure stateless refugees, de facto stateless refugees are still attached to their country of origin by the link of nationality, but the link is purely nominal.

The distinction of great importance in practice is not that between de jure and de facto stateless refugees but that between de facto or de jure stateless refugees on the one hand and stateless person who are not refugees on the other. This distinction is of considerable importance: the treatment to be accorded to the two categories of stateless persons will in fact differ. This is apparent if one considers the two aspects of the problem of the elimination of statelessness: the removal of the causes of statelessness and the elimination of existing statelessness the two problems dealt with, respectively, in the first and second parts of the working document.

(a) Removal of the causes of statelessness. The "technical" cause of statelessness can be removed by the concerted revision of national legislations. This would be the purpose of international conventions.

By contrast, it is not easy to see how international conventions or recommendations can be used to put an end to the exodus of refugees.

In his study on statelessness, the Secretary-General said4:

"The exodus of refugees arises from political and social causes over which no technical process can have any influence. We can only note the effects of historical changes and vicissitudes. Until the present critical period is over, it seems likely that exodus movements will continue."

The Committee might simply note that this cause of statelessness cannot be removed by international action.

(b) Elimination of existing statelessness. The great body of existing stateless persons consists of de jure or de facto stateless refugees. That being so, the question cannot be completely ignored. There are two means of restoring an effective nationality to refugees5: one is restoration of nationality of origin and the other is naturalization in the country in which the refugee has settled.

Finally, while recognizing that ordinary stateless persons (technically stateless persons) must be treated differently from stateless refugees, the Committee may feel that in the beginning the problem should not be systematically confined to the case of non-refugee stateless person. Initially, the problem should undoubtedly be considered as a whole, what can or cannot be done in the two cases being noted.

(2) Study of the causes of statelessness

It seems unnecessary to make long preliminary studies for the purpose of defining and classifying the causes of statelessness which have been examined in the study of the Secretary-General mentioned before.6

At some stage of the proceedings, it would, of course be desirable to request Governments to submit full accounts of their law on nationality. But an inquiry of this nature should occur at the point when the issue has ceased to be one of stating the problem and has become that of finding a solution. Proposals would be submitted to Governments which would at the same time be requested to state whether their legislation in force is or is not in keeping with the proposals and to outline the salient features of their legislation.

Chapter II - Can the causes of statelessness be removed or diminished?

The Committee will probably find that the problem of removing the causes of statelessness generally in practice concerns only stateless persons of the classic type and not refugees. Chapter II is based on this premise.

The general problem may be subdivided into a number of individual problems each corresponding to a separate question. The solution of these problems raises difficulties, either technical or political or both. Thus, the question of granting nationality to a child at birth is both a political and a technical problem. It is political because it affects the State's conception of nationality, and technical because it requires consideration of varying situations of fact. It is extremely difficult to ensure that every child possesses a nationality on birth and at the same time to respect the diversity of legislative systems, some based on the jus soli and others on the jus sanguinis. On the other hand, such solutions as the ruling, for example, that every child who does not receive a nationality by the application of jus sanguinis has the nationality of the country in which he is born, that marriage does not affect the wife's nationality, that deprivation of nationality may not be imposed as a penalty and that each person retains the nationality he possesses until so long as he does not acquire another nationality - all these are technically simple solutions and can be stated in a line or two; in this case the difficulty of the problem is exclusively political.

But even where they exist, it is not he technical difficulties which are likely to stand in the way of the solution of the problem of statelessness. The real difficulties are political. The question is whether States are prepared to change their rules of law in order to remove particular causes of statelessness.

It should be noted that the choice does not lie between two extreme positions, of which one would be to solve the problem of statelessness entirely by eliminating it outright and the other to abandon any attempt to make any changes whatsoever in the present situation. There is a whole series of problems of statelessness. If some apparently defied solution at the present time, others might perhaps be solved. Failing a complete solution, each individual problem can receive an individual partial solution.

In any case, the wishes and intentions of governments are the decisive factor in this matter and it is above all essential to know what these wishes and intentions are.

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 provides that: "(1) Everyone had the right to a nationality". The Members of the United Nations have thereby already settled the principle which underlies the problem.

Chapter III - Recommendations or Conventions?

If the causes of traditional statelessness, which are apparently the only ones removable in practice, are to be removed, States must amend their legislation. Yet the isolated action of one State, however, valuable, cannot suffice. To obtain a complete result, concerted action by all States would be necessary. The more States collaborate in the work, the greater the result obtained will be.

There are two possible methods of inducing States to act together to reform their legislation with a view to the elimination of statelessness: the method of recommendation and that of the convention.

In the case of statelessness the method of recommendation would appear to be of extremely limited efficacy. The arguments advance in the Secretary-General's study in connexion with the advantages of conventions as against recommendations as a means of providing refugees with legal status are, broadly speaking, equally valid in the present case. In this case there is, however, a particularly strong argument in favour of conventions. The elimination of statelessness will require States to amend their nationality laws, to relax, or allow exceptions to, principles to which they are attached. They will consent to do so only if other States consent to do likewise to attain the common goal7

Chapter IV - Purpose of conventions to be concluded

The purpose of the conventions must be defined. Must this purpose be strictly limited to the elimination of statelessness? Two questions arise in this connexion:

(1) Statelessness and dual nationality

In matters of nationality there is another evil, namely, dual nationality. Dual nationality is a less serious anomaly than statelessness. For the individual, statelessness is a "diminutio capitis". For that matter Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims the right of everyone to a nationality but does not specify that he should have one only. In fact, for its possessor, the disadvantages of dual nationality are much slighter than those of statelessness and are balanced by advantages which may substantially outweigh the disadvantages. Dual nationality, which is not a violation of the rights of man, is merely a threat - and a very limited one - to international order, because of the complications it involves and the conflicts of sovereignty to which it gives rise.

Steps for the elimination of statelessness could therefore be taken independently of the elimination of dual nationality. In practice it is sound methodology to group problems in order to solve them more easily.

It will be objected that if one attempts to effect an international settlement of the question of nationality, it is not possible to ignore the question of dual nationality which comes next in importance to that of statelessness. This is true. But experience shows that it has so far been possible only to conclude conventions with limited objectives. By aiming at several purposes, the difficulties, which are in any case great, ate multiplied as are the risks of failure. The surest method is to aim at the conclusion of multiple conventions in the manner described below.

(2) Equality of men and women as regards nationality

If the principle of the equality of men and women in respect of nationality was established and it was decided that marriage in no way affects the nationality of the wife, one of the causes of statelessness would be completely removed.

However, it would be unsound to make the elimination of this cause of statelessness dependent on the acceptance by all States of this cause of equality of the sexes in respect of nationality. A great number of States has not yet accepted the principle with the result that, for many women, marriage is a cause of statelessness.

In resolution 242 (IX) C, to which resolution 248 (IX) B refers, the Economic and Social Council, "considering that a convention on the nationality of married women, which would assure women equality with men in the exercise of these rights and especially prevent a woman from becoming stateless...should be prepared as promptly as possible", requested the Secretary-General to provide the Commission on the Status of Women with "suggestions as to alternative articles which might be on the Status of Women with "suggestions as to alternative article which might be incorporated into such a convention, with a view to the final drafting of a convention at an early date".

Pending the conclusion of such a convention binding on all States, steps can be taken, as was done in the Hague Convention of 12 April 1930 (Article 8)8 to ensure that marriage will in no case cause married women to become stateless.

A precaution is necessary; in attempting to eliminate statelessness, great care must be taken not to do anything which might make it more difficult to achieve the other two purposes, the elimination of dual nationality and the equality of men and women in respect of nationality.

Chapter V - Number of Conventions to be concluded

There are two methods, that of the single convention and that of a multiplicity of conventions.

(1) Single convention

Consideration might be given to the conclusion of a single convention in an attempt to remove all the causes of statelessness. It would regulate, if not all cases of statelessness, at least all the cases regarding which agreement could be reached.

This would have the advantage of making it necessary to refer to a single instrument.

As it is obvious that all States would not be prepared to accept all parts of the convention, which would cover widely divergent cases, States would be allowed to accede, subject to restrictions of varying scope. If, for example, the convention included eight chapters (in addition to final clauses) States, on becoming parties to the convention, would have the right to exclude particular chapters from the obligations assumed by them.

(2) Multiplicity of conventions

Consideration might be given to the conclusion of a series of conventions or protocols each dealing with one of the causes of statelessness: stateless children, statelessness as a result of marriage, deprivation of nationality as a penalty etc. The various instruments would of course be drafted and adopted simultaneously and wold form a connected whole. Once adopted and open to the signature and accession of States, the instruments would however each be independent. Each would enter into force when it had received the number of ratifications or accessions required, regardless of the fate of the others.

Although in practice both the methods here described would permit the same results, the second is clearly preferable. Some States might perhaps be reluctant to accede to a single convention of some of the provisions of which they might disapprove, even if they were not bound by these provisions, while the accession of a State to a convention most of whose chapters it had rejected might appear an illusory gesture. The situation would certainly be more clear and straightforward if there were a series of instruments, and if States acceded only to those all of whose provisions they approved.

Chapter VI - Subsequent outcome of Agreements concluded at The Hague on 12 April 1930

As is known, the Conference for the Codification of International Law held at the Hague under the auspices of the League of Nations concluded four agreements on nationality, namely, a Convention and three Protocols.

The Convention on "Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws" deals with both statelessness and dual nationality.

The "Protocol relating to a certain Case of Statelessness", applicable to countries other than countries of jus soli, has the effect of giving the nationality of the State in whose territory he was born to the child of a mother possessing the nationality of that State and of a father without nationality or of unknown nationality" (Article 1).

The "Special Protocol concerning Statelessness" provides for the return of an indigent or delinquent stateless person to the country whose nationality he last possessed (Article 1). In spite of their limited scope the usefulness of these agreements is beyond question. two of them are in force.9 It should be noted that no new ratification or accession had been received since 4 April 1939. It would be interesting to know whether this abstention is due to the fact that States find the obligations provided under these agreements too burdensome, or whether the attention of Governments and public opinion has been so engrossed by other matters that the problems of nationality have failed in recent years to attract. If this is the case, the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council might invite States to accede to these agreements or state why they do not feel able to do so. However this may be, an increase in the number of States signatories to the Convention and the Protocol relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness would undoubtedly represent some progress towards the elimination of statelessness.

It will rest with the competent authorities to examine the present situation of these agreements and to consider whether they might not be embodied in a new system of agreements, or whether they should be replaced by new and more comprehensive agreements.

Chapter VII - Procedure to be followed

The procedure adopted should make possible a systematic and detailed study of the problem, while at the same time avoiding duplication and unnecessary delays.

The preparatory work should consist mainly in consultation with Governments with a view to ascertaining their present arrangements and views; and they could if necessary be asked to describe their existing legislation on the matters to be dealt with.

The procedure could be as follows:

(1) - Preparation of a memorandum embodying a systematic statement of the present causes of statelessness and a list of provisions which might be included in future Conventions.

It would be futile to undertake any further studies or initiate any further discussion on the causes of statelessness; they would not provide any more information than we already possess.

(2) - Dispatch of a questionnaire to Governments

In this questionnaire, which would be attached to the memorandum referred to above, Governments would be asked (1) to signify their approval of the foregoing provisions or suggest such other provisions, likely to achieve the desires ends, as seem to them preferable, and (2) to describe their existing legislation as compared with the foregoing provisions.

It would of course be possible to ask Governments to describe the body of their legislation on nationality; but experience shows that government departments are not very fond of this type of general statement. A fairly large number of Governments fail to reply, and others reply after pong delay. Replies are not drafted uniformly, omit to deal with a number of points and leave room for doubt.

It would therefore be preferable to consult Governments on a programme of action and to concentrate their attention on the points it is proposed to deal with.

(3) - Decisions on the basis of replies from Governments

The replies from Governments would be an essential consideration in deciding future action.

If it appeared that there was not event the minimum agreement required to achieve results, the question would be deferred.

Otherwise it would be decided to prepare draft conventions on the basis of the governmental replies.

(4) - Preparation of draft conventions on the basis of replies from Governments. These drafts would be submitted to Governments for their study and comments.

(5) - Adoption of conventions by the General Assembly itself or calling of a Diplomatic Conference with a view to the adoption of conventions.

Two methods are open for the preparation and adoption of these conventions:10

(a) Preparation and adoption of conventions by the General Assembly itself. This was the procedure followed for the Convention on Genocide adopted on 9 December 1948 and the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others adopted on 2 December 1949.

This method had certain disadvantages. The Assembly is called upon to deal with a fairly large number of items, and its Committees have to cope with crowded agendas and cannot devote all their time to a single item requiring long and detailed examination. The conventions on genocide and on prostitution were relatively brief and simple11 The conclusion of conventions on statelessness would be a much more comprehensive and complex matter.

(b) The calling of a diplomatic conference to prepare and adopt the conventions.

This method has some advantages. The Conference would be composed of representatives appointed by virtue of their special qualifications and would sit as long as necessary to fulfil its task. It would be bent on achieving results and determined to avoid ending in failure.

Chapter VIII - Organs to which the preparatory work would be assigned

It will clearly rest with the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly to take any decisions of principle.

What body would be entrusted with the preparatory work?

At its first session (12 April - 9 June 1949), as is known, the International Law Commission included "Nationality, including statelessness" in the "provisional list of fourteen topics selected for codification"12 but "Nationality, including statelessness" was not among the three topics to which the Commission gave priority.13 On 6 December 1949 the General Assembly approved "Part 1 of the Report of the International Law Commission", which included the selection of topics.

It would be quite normal for the International Law Commission to deal with this subject. This is essentially a question of law, and any conventions concluded would represent one element in the progressive development of international law and its codification which it is, in point of fact, the object of the International Law Commission to promote.14

It should be noted that the Statute of the International Law Commission provides expressly that proposals regarding the progressive development of international law may be submitted not only by the General Assembly itself but also by the other principal organs of the United Nations. Article 17 of the Statute of the Commission15 lays down special procedure for the treatment of proposals emanating from the other principal organs of the United Nations. This procedure, which is supplemented by that laid down in Article 16, to which Article 17 refers, corresponds quite well, generally speaking, to the various operations enumerated in Chapter VII of the present document.

Nevertheless, the principal organs of the United Nations may, if they see any special reason for doing so, adopt a different procedure and assign the task of dealing with the question of statelessness to some organ other than the International Law Commission.

Other organs which might be resorted to are the United Nations Secretariat or an ad hoc committee, if it was considered advisable to set up such a body.

The United Nations Secretariat, it would appear, is qualified to undertake only that part of the work which is mainly technical.

With regard to the utilization of the International Law Commission, it will be noted that there are two possibilities. One would be to give it full responsibility for the task, while the alternative method would be to use its services only for the preparation of the drat convention. It may be pointed out in this connexion that if the preliminary studies were entrusted to some organ other than the International Law Commission, it would send Governments a questionnaire, and Governments would presumably submit their replies. At a later stage, when the question reached the International Law Commission, this body might consider the questionnaire inadequate. It might therefore be preferable for the Commission itself to prepare and circulate the questionnaire.

It will be recalled that the ad hoc Committee was instructed to "b. consider means of eliminating the problem of statelessness, including the desirability of requesting the International Law Commission to prepare a study and make recommendations on this subject". It will rest with the Committee to decide.

PART II REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF EXISTING STATELESS PERSONS

The aim is to grant a nationality to existing stateless persons - in the case of de facto stateless persons, an effective nationality.

Chapter I - Methods of reducing the number of existing stateless persons

In his Study on the Position of Stateless persons the Secretary-General stated in this connexion:

"A. Remedies

To reduce the number of existing cases of statelessness it would be necessary:

(1) To accord the right of reinstatement in their nationality of origin to persons deprived of that nationality for racial, political, or religious reasons16;

(2) To recognize as similarly entitled to this right stateless persons whose nationality has been withdrawn, wither as a penalty or owing to a prolonged stay abroad;

(3) To reinstate in their nationality of origin persons who have obtained an expatriation permit but not acquired a new nationality

(4) To guarantee in all circumstances to a woman who has become stateless by marriage or through events consequent upon it (e.g. dissolution of the marriage, change of nationality of the husband) the right to be reinstated in her nationality of origin;

(5) To grant every person stateless by birth (children of unknown parents, children of stateless persons or of parents whose nationality is unknown, children who have not received their parents' nationality) the right to obtain, by means of a simple declaration, the nationality of the country on the territory of which they were born, foundlings being presumed to have been born in the country on the territory of which they were found;

(6) To allow stateless persons who have lost their nationality as a result of territorial changes, further reasonable periods during which they may opt either for the nationality of their country of origin or for that of the successor country;

(7) To facilitate the naturalization of stateless persons who have spent a number of years in the country receiving them;

(8) To grant special facilities for that purpose to certain categories of stateless persons, in particular:

(a) a stateless person whose spouse or one of whose children possesses the nationality of the receiving country;

(b) stateless persons who have served in the armed forces of the receiving country;

(c) stateless persons able to furnish sufficient evidence that their language and culture are those of the receiving country.

"B. Means of applying these remedies

Governments could apply certain of these remedies without the conclusion of international agreements. In other cases wither general or special agreements would be necessary.

In almost all cases, however, the desired result would be attained with much more certainty through agreements.

If the measures suggested above were adopted, they would considerably reduce the number of existing stateless persons by permitting them either to regain a former nationality or to acquire a new one."

Chapter II - Procedure to be followed and organs to which the preparatory work would be assigned

The procedure proposed in Part I with a view to removing the sources of statelessness might, it would appear, be applied in this case. The same organs which it is proposed to utilize at the various stages of the procedure would also deal with this second question.

They would prepare any draft conventions or draft recommendations which they thought fit.

1 The resolution is concerned with the improvement of the status of refugees and stateless persons and the elimination of statelessness.

2 The list reproduces the table of contents (Title I, Chapter I) of document E/1112/Add.1.

3 In modern practice, deprivation of nationality is fairly frequently imposed by government on refugees, i.e. on nationals who have fled abroad. Deprivation of nationality as a penalty, which traditionally was an exceptional measure, has thus assumed considerable dimensions.

4 Doc. 2/1112/Add.1, 16 May 1949, page 51.

5 In the case of de facto stateless refugees, refugees have retained their nationality of origin but that nationality is purely nominal.

6 Doc. E/1112/Add.1, 16 May 1949.

7 In this connexion, it should be noted that the international agreements concluded at The Hague on 12 April 1930 require ten ratifications or accessions before entering into force.

8 This article provides:
"If the national law of the wife causes her to lose her nationality on marriage with a foreigner, the consequence shall be conditional on her acquiring the nationality of her husband."

9 Only the Convention and the Protocol relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness entered into force. The Special Protocol has so far filed to come into force, requiring two further ratifications or accessions.

The situation of these three instruments on 31 July 1946 was as follows:

(1) Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws.

1. Ratifications or definitive Accessions: 12

BELGIUM

Subject to accession later for the Colony of the Congo and the Mandated Territories.

Excluding Article 16 of the Convention.

BRAZIL

With reservations as regards Articles 5, 6, 7, 16 and 17, which Brazil will not adopt owing to difficulties with which it has to contend in connexion with principles forming the basis of its internal legislation.

GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations (6 April 1934)

Burma

His Majesty the king does not assume any obligation in respect of the Karenni States, which are under His Majesty's suzerainty, or the population of the said States.

CANADA (6 April 1934)

AUSTRALIA (10 November 1937)

Including the territories of Papua and Norfolk Island.

INDIA (7 October 1935)

In accordance with the provisions of Article 29, His Britannic Majesty does not assume any obligation in respect of the territories in India of any Prince or Chief under his suzerainty or the population of the said territories.

CHINA (14 February 1935)

Subject to reservation as regards Article 4.

MONACO (27 April 1931 a)

THE NETHERLANDS (2 April 1937)

Including the Netherlands Indies, Surinam and Curaçao.

Excluding the provisions of Article 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention.

NORWAY (16 March 1931 a)

POLAND (15 June 1934)

SWEDEN (6 July 1933)

The Swedish Government declares that it dose not accept to be bound by the provisions of the second sentence of Article II, in the case where the wife referred to in the article, after recovering the nationality of her country of origin, fails to establish her ordinary residence in that country.

2. Signatures not yet perfected by Ratification: 27

UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

CHILE

COLOMBIA

Subject to reservation as regards Article 10.

CUBA

Subject to reservation as regards Articles 9, 10 and 11.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FREE CITY OF DANZIG

(through the intermediary of Poland)

DENMARK

Subject to reservation as regards Articles 5 and 11.

EGYPT

ESTONIA

FRANCE

GERMANY

GREECE

HUNGARY

ICELAND

IRELAND

ITALY

JAPAN

Subject to reservation as regards Articles 4 and 10 and as regards the words "according to its law" of Article 13.

LATVIA

LUXEMBURG

MEXICO

Subject to reservation as regards paragraph 2 of Article 1.

PERU

PORTUGAL

SALVADOR

SPAIN

SWITZERLAND

Subject to reservation as regards Article 10.

URUGUAY

YUGOSLAVIA

(2) Protocol Relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness

1. Ratifications or definitive Accessions: 10

BRAZIL (19 September 1931 a)

GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations (14 January 1932)

Burma

His Majesty the King does not assume any obligation in respect of the Karenni States. Which are under His Majesty's suzerainty, or the population of the said States.

AUSTRALIA (8 July 1935)

(Including the territories of Papua and Norfolk Island and the mandated Territories of New Guinea and Nauru.)

UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (9 April 1936)

INDIA (28 September 1932)

In accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of this Protocol, His Britannic Majesty does not assume any obligation in respect of the territories in India of any Prince or Chief under his suzerainty or the population of the said territories.

CHILE (20 March 1935)

CHINA (14 February 1935)

THE NETHERLANDS (2 April 1937)

Including the Netherlands Indies, Surinam and Curaçao.

POLAND (15 June 1934)

SALVADOR (14 October 1935 a)

2. Signatures not yet perfected by Ratification: 20

BELGIUM

Subject to accession later for the Colony of the Congo and the mandated Territories.

CANADA

COLOMBIA

CUBA

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FREE CITY OF DANZIG

(through the intermediary of Poland)

DENMARK

EGYPT

ESTONIA

FRANCE

GREECE

IRELAND

JAPAN

LATVIA

LUXEMBURG

MEXICO

PERU

PORTUGAL

SPAIN

URUGUAY

III. Special Protocol concerning Statelessness

1. Ratifications or definitive Accessions: 8

BELGIUM (4 April 1939)

With the reservation that the application of this Protocol will not be extended to the Colony of the Belgian Congo or to the Territories under mandate.

BRAZIL (19 September 1931 a)

GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations. (14 January 1932)

Burma

His Majesty the King does not assume any obligation in respect of the Karenni States, which are under High Majesty's suzerainty, or the population of the said States.

AUSTRALIA (8 July 1935 a)

Including the territories of Papua and Norfolk Island and the mandated Territories of New Guinea and Nauru.

UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (9 April 1936)

INDIA (28 September 1932)

In accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of this Protocol, His Majesty does not assume any obligation in respect of the territories in India of any Prince or Chief under His suzerainty or the population of the said territories.

CHINA (14 February 1935)

SALVADOR (14 October 1935)

The Republic of Salvador does not assume the obligation laid down by the Protocol where the Salvadorian nationality possessed by the person and ultimately lost by him was acquired by naturalisation.

2. Signatures not yet perfected by Ratification: 12

CANADA

COLOMBIA

CUBA

EGYPT

GREECE

IRELAND

LUXEMBURG

MEXICO

PERU

PORTUGAL

SPAIN

URUGUAY.

10 f On 3 December 1949 the General Assembly adopted a resolution on Rules for the Calling of International Conferences of States.

Rule 1 reads:
"The Economic and Social Council may at any time decide to call an international conference of States on any matter within its competence, provided that, after consultation with the Secretary-General and the appropriate specialized agencies, it is satisfied that the work to be done by the conference cannot be done satisfactorily by any organ of the United Nations or by any specialized agency."

11 i The Convention on Genocide occupied 51 meetings of the Sixth Committee at the 1948 General Assembly.

12 These fourteen topics are:

1. Recognition of States and Governments;

2. Succession of States and Governments;

3. Jurisdictional immunities of States and their property;

4. Jurisdiction with regard to crimes committed outside national territory;

5. Regime of the high seas;

6. Regime of territorial waters;

7. Nationality, including statelessness;

8. Treatment of aliens;

9. Right of asylum;

10. Law of treaties;

11. Diplomatic intercourse and immunities;

12. Consular intercourse and immunities;

13. State responsibility;

14. Arbitral procedure.

(General Assembly - Official Records - Fourth Session - Supplement 10 (A/925) 1949).

13 Priority was given to the following three topics:

1. Law of treaties

2. Arbitral procedure

3. Regime of the high seas

h Article 1 of the Statute of the International Law Commission provides as follows:
"1. The International Law Commission shall have for its object the promotion of the progressive development of International law and its codification."

14 Article 1 of the Statute of the International Law Commission provides as follows:
"1. The International Law Commission shall have for its object the promotion of the progressive development of International law and its codification."

15 Article 17 of the State of the International Law Commission provides as follows:

1. The Commission shall also consider proposals and draft multilateral conventions submitted by Members of the United Nations, the principal organs of the United Nations other than the General Assembly, specialized agencies, or official bodies established by Inter-governmental agreement to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification, and transmitted to it by the Secretary-General.

2. If in such cases the Commission deems it appropriate to proceed with the study of such proposals or drafts, it shall follow a procedure on the following lines:

(a) The Commissioner shall formulate a plan of work, and study such proposals or drafts, and compare them with any other proposals and drafts on the same subject;

(b) The Commission shall circulate a questionnaire to all Members of the United Nations and to the organs, specialized agencies and official bodies mentioned above which are concerned with the question, and shall invite them to transmit their comments within a reasonable time;

(c) The Commission shall submit a report with its recommendations to the General Assembly. It may also, if it deems desirable, before doing so make an interim report to the organ, agency or body which has submitted the proposal or draft;

(d) If the General Assembly should invite the Commission to proceed with its work on a proposal, the procedure outlined in article 16 above shall apply. The questionnaire referred to in paragraph (c) of that article may not, however, be necessary.

16 This would not include transfers of population under international agreements.