qualify as stateless persons. Thus, for example, Article 3 of Federal Law No. 62-FZ of 31 May 2002 on Citizenship of the Russian Federation defines a stateless person as “a noncitizen of the Russian Federation who has no proof of possessing the nationality of a foreign State” (unofficial translation). Similarly, Article 1(f) of the 2006 Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on Readmission provides that a stateless person “shall mean any person who does not hold the nationality of the Russian Federation or one of the Member States, and who has no evidence of holding the nationality of any other State”. Within the European Union (EU) itself, the citizenship legislation of at least one Member State, Austria, provides that subject to certain exceptions – e.g. foundlings – a person whose nationality cannot be determined is to be treated as a stateless person.169 Norway in fact proposed at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Stateless Persons that Article l of the 1954 Statelessness Convention might be amended “to the effect that the term ‘stateless persons’ should be interpreted as meaning persons not found to be nationals of any State.”170 Similarly, the representative of Germany to the Conference noted that “it was sometimes difficult to determine whether a person was or was not a national of a particular State” and proposed that “[t]hat disadvantage might be avoided by the addition of the words: ‘or whose nationality cannot immediately be established’”.171 The German representative later added: No country of residence could dispute the declaration of a country of origin that it had deprived a person of its nationality. The status of such a person was clear. The difficulty arose in cases where there was no definite resolution of the question of status owing to the unwillingness of the country of origin to reply to inquiries or for other reasons. It would be dangerous to define such persons as stateless. The best way to provide for the latter contingency would be the inclusion of a clause giving the contracting States the option of granting the benefits accorded to stateless persons to any person who renounced his nationality or who was not claimed by his country of origin, or the use of some other formula along similar lines.172 Neither the German nor the Norwegian proposals were substantively discussed by the Conference in plenary, and one can only speculate about what discussions may subsequently have taken place in the Drafting Committee which produced the core text of Article 1. As a matter of logic, persons not found to be nationals of any State are not the same as persons found not to be nationals of any State; nevertheless, in light of the above it is submitted that: 1. If, after having examined the nationality legislation and practice of States with which an individual enjoys a relevant factual link (in particular by birth on the territory, descent, marriage or residence) – and/or after having checked as appropriate with those States – the individual concerned is not found to have the nationality of any of those States, then he or she should be considered to satisfy the definition of a stateless person in Article 1 of the 1954 Statelessness Convention. 2. Foundlings are an exception. In the absence of proof to the contrary, foundlings should be presumed to have the nationality of the State in whose territory they are found (see below). Point 1 above assumes that the individual concerned is cooperating in the process of establishing his or her nationality. It provides for an inclusive interpretation of Article 1 of 169 170 171 172 Article 3 of the 1985 Austrian Citizenship Act. The exceptions are listed in Article 8 of the Act. E/CONF.17/SR.4, p. 7. Norway’s proposal was also supported by Yugoslavia. E/CONF.17/SR.3, p. 17. E/CONF.17/SR.4, p. 4. 50