Although the [1954] Convention’s drafters felt it was necessary to make the distinction between de jure stateless persons (those who have not received nationality automatically or through an individual decision under the operation of any State’s laws) and de facto stateless persons (those who cannot establish their nationality), they did recognize the similarity of their positions. The Final Act of the Convention addresses the issue of de facto stateless persons …56 Not only is it incorrect to equate “persons who cannot establish their nationality” with the reference in the recommendation to “persons renouncing the protection of the State of which they are nationals”, the Conference actually discussed the problem of persons of indeterminate nationality not as one of de facto statelessness but as a separate issue.57 Also problematic is that a number of pronouncements made by UNHCR suggest that the recommendation in the Conference’s Final Act applies to de facto stateless persons generally. For example, in a second passage in the Handbook for Parliamentarians, UNHCR says “[t]his recommendation was included on behalf of de facto stateless persons who, technically, still hold a nationality but do not receive any of the benefits generally associated with nationality, notably national protection.”58 Similarly, according to UNHCR’s Guidelines on Field Office Activities Concerning Statelessness, “[t]he Final Acts of both the 1954 and 1961 Conventions recommend to Contracting States that persons who are stateless de facto (who have a nationality in name which is not effective) should as far as possible be treated as stateless de jure”.59 However, it is clear that the recommendation in the Conference’s Final Act does not cover all persons lacking the protection of their State of nationality, but only those persons who have renounced that protection and whose reasons for doing so are considered valid by the foreign State concerned.60 At a point when the Conference was still considering including de facto stateless persons within the Convention’s definition of a stateless person, the United Kingdom had in fact sought to broaden the scope of the definition that had provisionally been agreed upon so as to include not only persons who are de facto stateless because they have renounced the protection of their State of nationality, but also persons who are de facto stateless because they have been “refused” or “deprived” of such protection.61 The Conference did not agree with the proposal, and when de facto stateless persons were moved out of the provisional definition of a stateless person into the recommendation contained in the Conference’s Final Act, the Conference agreed to a proposal from Denmark that the 56 57 58 59 60 61 UNHCR and Inter-Parliamentary Union, “Nationality and Statelessness: A Handbook for Parliamentarians”, 2005, p. 11. See discussion in section 7 below. UNHCR and Inter-Parliamentary Union, “Nationality and Statelessness: A Handbook for Parliamentarians”, op. cit., p. 25. UNHCR, “Guidelines: Field Office Activities Concerning Statelessness”, IOM/66/98 – FOM/70/98, 28 September 1998, p. 4, para. 9. See Paul Weis, “The Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons”, op. cit. at p. 262: “In order to include de facto stateless persons, this recommendation seems incomplete, as it refers only to persons who have renounced the protection of the State of their nationality, and does not mention persons who have been refused protection by the State of their nationality.” See the United Kingdom proposal in E/CONF.17/L.21 and the ensuing discussion in E/CONF.17/SR.13 at pp. 5 - 16, and also the revised United Kingdom proposal in E/CONF.17/L.21/Rev.1 and the discussion in E/CONF.17/SR.14 at pp. 1 - 10 which led to the final rejection of the proposal that de facto stateless persons be included within the Convention definition of a stateless person. 18