complete its work in New York in August 1961, the result of which was the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.80 Broadly speaking, the 1961 Convention establishes a set of rules according to which a person is entitled to acquire the nationality of a Contracting State, or not to be deprived of the nationality of a Contracting State, if he or she would otherwise be stateless. The rules with regard to the acquisition of nationality strike a balance between the obligations to be undertaken by jus soli and jus sanguinis countries: persons who would otherwise be stateless should acquire nationality through the subsidiary application of jus soli in jus sanguinis countries and, where this would not lead to acquisition of nationality, by the application of jus sanguinis by jus soli countries.81 Thus, acquisition of the nationality of a Contracting State by a person who would otherwise be stateless requires a link by birth or descent with the State concerned. The 1961 Convention itself does not define the term “stateless”. However, Resolution No. I of the Final Act of the Conference that drew up the Convention recommends that persons who are stateless de facto should as far as possible be treated as stateless de jure to enable them to acquire an effective nationality. This implies that the Convention is legally binding with respect to de jure statelessness only. The Resolution was introduced as a humanitarian measure by Belgium, with the strong support of UNHCR, both of whom were primarily concerned with ensuring that the children of refugees should be able to acquire the nationality of the country of refuge. As Dr. Paul Weis said at the Conference on behalf of UNHCR: The scope of the provisions of the Convention […] was not clearly defined, since their application depended on the fact that the persons concerned would otherwise be stateless. Very often it was difficult to determine a person’s nationality or lack of nationality. Similarly, the distinction between persons who were stateless de jure and those who were stateless de facto was hard to determine. The international instruments relating to refugees, be it the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or the Convention relating to the Statute of Refugees, did not distinguish between those who were considered de jure or de facto stateless. To enable the refugees within the competence of the United Nations High Commissioner and, particularly, those refugees’ children, to benefit from the provisions of the Convention, it was desirable that the term “statelessness” should be interpreted as broadly as possible and, consequently, that persons who were stateless de facto should be regarded as stateless de jure. That was why the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner, prompted by the desire that the application of the Convention should enable as many persons as possible to acquire an effective nationality, was very anxious to see the Conference support the draft resolution which had been submitted to it.82 80 81 82 For a summary of the drafting history of the 1961 Convention, see Paul Weis, “The United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 11 October 1962, pp. 1073 – 1096. Paul Weis, “The United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 11 October 1962, p. 1082. Summary Record of the Conference’s Twenty-Third Plenary Meeting on 25 August 1961, A/CONF.9/SR.23, pp. 13 - 4. See also A/CONF.9/11, “Observations transmitted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”, 30 June 1961, para. 7: “The United Nations High Commissioner hopes that persons who are refugees within his mandate and who are de jure or de facto stateless, as well as persons who derive their nationality from such persons, will be enabled to benefit equally from the provisions of the Convention on the Reduction of Future Statelessness.” 23