treatment as favourable as possible, and in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to foreigners in general in the same circumstances. 1. This article was the object of considerable discussion at the conference. The relevant article of the Refugee Convention grants refugees the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country in the same circumstances. These words mean “the best treatment which is given to nationals of any other country by treaty or usage”. Most favourable treatment includes also rights granted under bilateral or multilateral conventions whether on the basis of specific conventional provisions or on that of the “most favoured nation” clause. It should, however, be considered that the treatment afforded under Article 15 of the Refugee Convention is qualified by the words “in the same circumstances”. This qualification means that refugees lawfully staying in the country are not granted the most favourable treatment accorded any foreigners but only the most favourable treatment granted a specific kind of foreigner. In other words, refugees may claim only such rights as are granted the most favoured aliens of the same qualification (length of stay, etc.) 2. The main opposition to the article as included in the Refugee Convention was based on the contention that, under it, a stateless person would enjoy more favourable treatment than nationals of other countries - a position which the opponents did not want to accept. When the President (rightly) stated that this principle, which was adopted regarding refugees, was equally applicable to stateless persons, the Belgian representative countered that before an individual is granted the status of a refugee a careful study is made of his life, etc. while such study may not find application regarding stateless persons. The Scandinavian, Benelux, and Latin American countries thought that they could not apply the provisions without a reservation regarding the special treatment accorded to nationals of their regions, although this problem, as the President properly pointed out, was also thrashed out in the Refugee Convention. Another objection was raised by the Yugoslav representative, who feared that this article would not serve to encourage stateless persons to acquire the nationality of their country of residence. The German representative proposed to replace the words “the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country” with the words “ to treatment accorded to aliens generally”. But the British representative pointed out that stateless persons should be accorded more favourable treatment than nationals of other countries because they had no government to protect them. If they were granted only the rights accorded to aliens in general, the provision of the Convention would not improve their position, at least in most countries. As regards regional privileges, reservation could be entered by the respective governments. To meet both points the Belgian representative suggested to grant stateless persons the most favourable treatment possible, and, in any case, not less favourable than that 130 accorded to foreigners in general, in the same circumstances. The Turkish representative also introduced an amendment. Although it was correctly pointed out by the British and Australian representatives that both amendments were equivalent in practice since both provided for the same minimum treatment and that, in the case of countries which do not at present accord stateless persons a more favourable treatment than the minimum provided by the Convention, it would in fact be difficult to induce the competent authorities to exceed that minimum, the Belgian amendment was adopted by 17 votes to 1, 131 with 1 abstention. The amended provision was adopted unanimously. This article provides for a much less favourable treatment of stateless persons than refugees enjoy under Article 15 of the Refugee Convention. 130 E/CONF.17/L.7. 131 SR.6, pp. 4-7; SR.7, pp. 2-5; SR.9, pp. 6-8