“4. It shall refuse the confirmation if there are grave reasons for believing, on the ground of the behaviour of the person concerned that he or she may constitute a danger to public order, public morals or the security of the Kingdom, unless this is in conflict with international law obligations.” 116. It is arguable that Article 6(1)b DNA is not in accordance with the 1961 Convention, since the latter does not allow the State to require lawful residence. As the September 2011 Summary Conclusions of the expert meeting in Dakar on preventing statelessness among children affirm, the “1961 Convention does not allow Contracting States to make an application for the acquisition of nationality of otherwise stateless individuals conditional on lawful residence”. The Conclusions also note that habitual residence “should be understood as stable, factual residence”.160 As UNHCR noted in a memorandum to the Ministry of Justice in 2007: “‘habitual residence’ is determined solely by factual criteria and does not depend upon whether an individual is lawfully or unlawfully resident within the territory of a Contracting State to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Therefore … Article 1(2)(b) of the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, in requiring ‘lawful and habitual residence’, imposes more stringent criteria for the acquisition of nationality than Article 1(2)(b) of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.”161 117. Although a requirement of lawful and habitual residence is allowed under the ECN, De Groot also submits that the Netherlands is bound by the stricter rule as laid down in the 1961 Convention.162 He therefore concludes that where an individual applies for Dutch nationality under Article 6(1)b, Article 94 of the Dutch Constitution requires that the requirement of “admission” be set aside in order to avoid a violation of the 1961 Convention.163 The same has been argued by Busser and Rodrigues,164 as well as by Evers and De Groot.165 This view is reinforced by the fact that the 2006 Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in Relation to State Succession provides in Article 1d that habitual residence means “a stable factual residence”. In private international law, finally, it is common knowledge that the term habitual residence refers to a factual situation.166 160  NHCR, “Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention and Preventing Statelessness among U Children”, Summary Conclusions, Expert Meeting, Dakar, Senegal, September 2011, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e8423a72.html, para. 28. See also, G.-R. de Groot, “The acquisition of nationality by potentially stateless children: Observations on the Articles 1–4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness”, UNHCR paper (forthcoming). 161  NHCR Statelessness Unit, memorandum to Ms van Hoppe, Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands, U 21 Dec. 2007. 162 It is also subject to doubt whether the ground for refusal in Article 6(4) DNA is compatible with Article 1(2)c of the 1961 Convention. See G.-R. de Groot, “Weer verder op weg naar een vernieuwd Nederlands nationaliteitsrecht”, Migrantenrecht 9, no. 10 (1994), 214. 163  .-R. de Groot, “A clarification of the fundamental rights implications of stateless and persons G erased from the register of residents”, 8. On the practical application of Article 6(1)b, see G.-R. de Groot, Achtentwintig Nederlanders? Bewerkte adviezen en casus over de toepassing van de Nederlandse nationaliteitswetgeving (‘s-Gravenhage: Elsevier Overheid, 2007), 17-21, 257-272. 164 A. Busser and P.R. Rodrigues, “Staatloze Roma in Nederland”, 389. 165  . Evers and G.-R. de Groot, “Staatloos of van onbekende nationaliteit of nationaliteit in L onderzoek?”. 166 L. Strikwerda, Inleiding tot het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht 9th ed. (Deventer: Kluwer, 2008), 81. See also the explanatory report to the 2006 Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessnes in Relation to State Succession. in the Netherlands 47