In this light, Finland’s reservation does not seem to be necessary but serves more as a clarification. The other Nordic countries that are parties to the 1954 Convention, i.e. Denmark, Norway and Sweden, did not make the same reservation. With regard to the reservation to Article 8, it should be noted that this Article was drafted in the context of the aftermath of the Second World War and principally refers to the possibility to exclude persons, for instance from Germany and Japan. In addition, as noted by Robinson in his commentary: “Under its first sentence, Article 8 does not preclude the application of exceptional measures to stateless persons, it only prohibits (within the limitation of the second sentence) their application to a stateless person ‘solely on account of his having previously possessed the nationality ...’. In other words, a state is free to apply to a stateless person exceptional measures if they are taken on grounds other than his former nationality. Thus Article 8, sentence one, would not hinder the application of exceptional measures on account of the economic or political activity or special unwanted contacts of a stateless person, if such activity or contacts are, in general, a reason for applying all or some of the exceptional measures.”93 Since 1954, developments in international human rights law have strengthened non- discrimination principles. For instance, under Article 2(1) of the ICCPR, by which Finland is bound, each State Party undertakes “to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as ... national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. Bearing in mind Robinson’s commentary and subsequent developments in international human rights standards, it is recommended that Finland withdraw this reservation to the 1954 Convention. With regard to Article 7(2), Robinson’s commentary notes that Article 7(2): “deals with an important element in the legal status of stateless persons…. [A]liens enjoy only the most elementary rights (protection of person and property) on the basis of accepted international rules. In all other instances every state is free to treat them as it pleases. Generally, a state is inclined to grant aliens broader rights if its own citizens will be treated in the same way. This is the meaning of ‘reciprocity’ - ‘I treat your citizens as you treat mine’. ‘Exemption from reciprocity’ means that a person is to be granted rights which ordinarily are accorded on the basis of reciprocity, without requiring reciprocity. The justification for applying the exemption from reciprocity to stateless persons lies in the fact that they do not enjoy the protection of a foreign country. Consequently, they could not qualify under the rule of reciprocity.” The Finnish reservation therefore appears to ignore the fact that stateless persons are in a fundamentally different position to aliens when it comes to the rule of reciprocity, which as a matter of definition, cannot apply to stateless persons who do not enjoy the rights, privileges or protections afforded to aliens who are nationals of a foreign country. It is therefore recommended that Finland review and consider lifting this reservation. Finland’s reservation to Article 25 with regard to granting of documents in the place of the authorities of a foreign country may lead to situations where stateless persons residing in Finland who cannot expect to receive assistance in obtaining documents from the authorities of their former nationality or residence cannot access important personal documents. Such documents may include documents relating to family position (birth, marriage, divorce, adoption or death certificates) or special position of the person (school or professional certificates). Lack of such documents is likely to cause serious challenges for a stateless person. It is therefore recommended that Finland review its reservation to this article as well. Reservations to Article 24 and 28 will be looked into more closely in the below sections concerning public relief, social security and travel documents. 93 Ibid. UNHCR STOCKHOLM, NOVEMBER 2014 27