other countries (diplomatic reciprocity) these rights would be accorded to refugees also”. This view was also expressed by the Ad Hoc Committee in its second session, stating that “it was the understanding of the Committee that Article 4, para. 2, does not apply to rights 75 conferred by treaty on nationals of a particular country only”. The provision of Article 4 of the Ad Hoc Committee’s draft was, however, considered 76 inappropriate by the Refugee Conference and two amendments were introduced, restricting the exemption from reciprocity to “legislative” reciprocity. In introducing his amendment, the Belgian representative stated that there were two kinds of reciprocity: “diplomatic”, established by a bilateral treaty, and “legislative” the principle of which was 77 embodied in the national legislation of the various countries. He stated that his government could not agree to confer on refugees the rights which certain aliens enjoyed in Belgium by virtue of a bilateral treaty concluded between Belgium and another state; exemption from reciprocity should be confined to rights which were accorded solely on the 78 basis of legislative or administrative reciprocity. The privilege of exemption from reciprocity (having regard to Article 10) is granted 79 stateless persons who have resided in the country for three year 5. Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Refugee Convention was introduced in the second session of the Ad Hoc Committee in accordance with the general tendency not to impair already existing rights. It makes it obligatory upon states to continue to grant to stateless persons rights ordinarily accorded on the basis of reciprocity only. This relates to rights granted not only on the basis of domestic law but also on other bases. 6. Paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the Refugee Convention (which is now para. 4, of the present Convention) was the result, on the one hand, of the contention of the framers of the Convention that exemption from reciprocity is a very important condition for enjoying a tolerable status, and, on the other, of the contention that some state may not be willing to grant all refugees exemption from all kinds of reciprocity. This contention is also valid as regards “stateless persons”. Paragraph 4 stipulates that the states shall consider favourably the possibility of granting broader exemptions than are obligatory under paras. 2 and 3. This extension could be done in several ways: (a) the states might apply to “old” stateless persons also the exemption from all kinds of conventional reciprocity or from some of them; (b) they might do so, too, in regard to all stateless persons covered in paras. 2 and 3, or to some of them; (c) they might extend the exemption from legislative reciprocity to other groups than those referred to in para. 2. The second Ad Hoc Committee draft of the Refugee Convention did not contain a proviso similar to this paragraph, but the Committee expressed the hope that states would give 75 E/1850, para. 22. The idea was that if reciprocity treaties existed with many countries the situation was equivalent to legislative reciprocity (E/AC.32/SR.34, p. 16 and ibid. SR.36, p. 19). For Belgian opposition toward granting refugees rights resulting from special conventions see E/AC.7/SR.156, p. 13. 76 Belgium (A/CONF.2/11) and Belgium and France (A/CONF.2/32). 77 On another occasion he admitted the existence of de facto reciprocity (SR.24, p. 22 and E/AC.32, SR.36, p. 18). The Dutch representative distinguished three kinds of reciprocity: "legislative", "diplomatic", and "de facto" (SR.24, p. 21): so did the representative of Venezuela in the Ad Hoc Committee (SR.11, para. 8). 78 SR.6, pp. 7-8. Cf. the identical statement by the French representative (ibid., p. 9). 79 The Convention deals in detail with exemption from reciprocity in favour of stateless persons, but does not clarify a problem which may be of great practical importance for their treatment, viz., whether a state can accord them certain rights without involving its obligation to afford the same right to foreigners with a functioning nationality, on the basis of the most favoured nation clause. The question was raised in the Ad Hoc Committee by the Chinese and Belgian representatives but never answered. It is obvious that the reluctance of a state to be liberal toward stateless persons would increase if the answer were in the affirmative. However, this assumption would be incorrect because "stateless persons" are not treated as foreigners with a nationality but sui generis aliens, independent of nationality. Therefore, the special treatment accorded to them is not something which comes within the scope of the most favoured nation clause.