2. The International Law Commission has observed that the definition of a stateless person contained in Article 1(1) is now part of customary international law. 3. The issue under Article 1(1) is not whether or not the individual has a nationality that is effective, but whether or not the individual has a nationality at all. Although there may sometimes be a fine line between being recognized as a national but not being treated as such, and not being recognized as a national at all, the two problems are nevertheless conceptually distinct: the former problem is connected with the rights attached to nationality, whereas the latter problem is connected with the right to nationality itself. 4. The definition in Article 1(1) applies whether or not the person concerned has crossed an international border. That is, it applies to individuals who are both inside and outside the country of their habitual residence or origin. 5. Refugees (under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or the extended definitions in relevant regional instruments and under UNHCR’s international protection mandate) may also, and frequently do, fall within Article 1(1). If a stateless person is simultaneously a refugee, he or she should be protected according to the higher standard which in most circumstances will be international refugee law, not least due to the protection from refoulement in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention. 6. While the definition of a “stateless person” should be interpreted and applied in a holistic manner, paying due regard to its ordinary meaning, it may also be helpful to examine its constituent elements. 7. When applying the definition it will often be prudent to look first at the question of “State” as further analysis of the individual’s relationship with the entity under consideration is moot if that entity does not qualify as a “State”. In situations where a State does not exist under international law, the persons are ipso facto considered to be stateless unless they possess another nationality. B) Meaning of “not considered as a national…under the operation of its law” 8. “National” should be given its ordinary meaning of representing a legal link (nationality) between an individual and a particular State. 9. For the purposes of the 1954 Convention, “national” is to be understood by reference to whether the State in question regards holders of a particular status as persons over whom it has jurisdiction on the basis of a link of nationality. Several participants were of the view that in practice it is difficult to differentiate between the possession of a nationality and its effects, including, at a minimum, the right to enter and reside in the State of nationality and to return to it from abroad, as well as the right of the State to exercise diplomatic protection. Otherwise, according to this view, nationality is emptied of any content. 10. Article 1(1) does not require a “genuine and effective link” with the State of nationality in order for a person to be considered as a “national”. The concept of “genuine and effective link” has been applied principally to determine whether a State may exercise diplomatic protection in favour of an individual with dual or multiple nationalities, or where nationality is contested. It is therefore possible to be a “national” even if 82 Small Changes ‫ ـ‬Big Gains: An Action Plan to Prevent and Reduce Statelessness in the Kyrgyz Republic