The Commission did produce two draft Conventions on Future Statelessness, one on the Reduction of Future Statelessness and the other on the Elimination of Future Statelessness.43 These drafts were later to provide a starting point for discussion at the UN Conference that drew up the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (see section 3 below) – but again, neither of the drafts referred to de facto statelessness. With respect to the question of the granting of international protection by an international agency to stateless persons, the Commission’s final report noted: In considering the problem of present statelessness, the Commission was aware of the fact that stateless persons who are refugees as defined in the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees receive international protection by the United Nations through the High Commissioner. The suggestions contained in the present report are without prejudice to the question of granting international protection by an international agency, as distinguished from diplomatic protection by States, to stateless persons pending their acquisition of a nationality.44 2. THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS On 26 April 1954 ECOSOC decided by resolution 526 A (XVII) that a second conference of plenipotentiaries should be convened to revise the draft Protocol relating to the Status of Stateless Persons in light of the observations made on it by Governments and in light of the provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention. A Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Stateless Persons was duly convened in September 1954, leading to the adoption of the Convention – rather than a Protocol – relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. The 1954 Statelessness Convention sets out the definition of a stateless person and specifies the treatment to be accorded to stateless persons by Contracting States.45 The standard of treatment required was much lower than had been proposed by the International Law Commission with regard to “present statelessness” and is essentially the same as that required for refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention.46 The Refugee Convention is however more favourable than the Statelessness Convention in certain respects, most notably because of its prohibition against refoulement and its requirement of non-penalization for illegal entry or presence of refugees coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened.47 A stateless person who is a refugee should be treated as such. Unlike the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1954 Statelessness Convention does not provide that Contracting States shall facilitate supervision by UNHCR of the application of its provisions. Carol Batchelor has written that “there is every indication this was an 43 44 45 46 47 Ibid., pp. 143 - 147. Ibid., p. 147, para. 34. For an article-by-article analysis of the 1954 Convention, see “Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons: Its History and Interpretation: A Commentary by Nehemiah Robinson”, Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1955, republished by UNHCR in 1997. For a more succinct overview, see Paul Weis, “Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 10, 1961, pp. 255264. The UN Secretary-General drew the attention of the Conference to the suggestions of the International Law Commission on present statelessness, but the Conference did not pursue them. See United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Stateless Persons, “Work of the International Law Commission on the Problem of Present Statelessness: Note by the Secretary-General”, E/CONF.17/4, 26 August 1954. See 1951 Convention, articles 33 and 31 respectively. There are also certain other respects in which the 1951 Convention is more favourable than the 1954 Convention: see, for example, articles 15 and 17 of both Conventions regarding the right of association and wage-earning employment. 15