of such documents; a fourth, that it would not be possible to recognize documents issued on the basis of a treaty to which the state was not a party (reference was made to the second paragraph of Article 28 contained in the Refugee Convention, referring to the 1946 Agreement on travel documents to refugees). On the other hand, the British representative rightly stated that Article 28 was one of the most important in the whole Convention and that its elimination would be highly undesirable. The President pointed out that - in order to alleviate the difficulties envisaged differences between the two documents (for “refugees” and “stateless persons”) could be introduced, independently of the identity or near-identity of their validity and contents. At the suggestion of the Yugoslav representative the words “and the provisions of the Schedule to this Convention shall apply with respect to such documents” were at first eliminated. This elimination created considerable confusion. The President interpreted the deletion as meaning that the conference had refused to include, or to refer to, the provisions of the Schedule to the Refugee Convention in the document relating to stateless persons, and that the conference still had to decide whether it would lay down or 187 recommend to the Parties relevant regulations and, if so, of what kind. The Yugoslav representative at first maintained that the purpose of his proposal was that some states did not wish to modify their right to regulate the movement of stateless persons in their territory 188 and that by way of compromise he suggested to exclude that clause, but thereafter admitted that his amendment (meaning the exclusion of that clause) had referred only to 189 the form of the document, and that his intention had been to leave the conference free to deal as it chose with the schedule, on the understanding that the matter would be discussed at a later time. The British representative maintained that without a schedule Article 28 would hardly be of any use, and he proposed, at a later meeting, to reconsider the previous decision, and to reinsert the excluded phrase in Article 28. By 11 votes to 190 none and 3 abstentions the phrase was reinstated. 3. Under sentence 1, the Contracting States assume the obligation to issue a travel document to every stateless person lawfully staying in their respective territory, if he applies for it 191 and needs it for a journey abroad; It contains, however, a restriction of the obligation, viz., that it is not to apply if compelling reasons of national security or public order militate against the issue of a travel document. Since ordinarily a stateless person cannot leave the country without a travel document (except on the basis of special arrangements between neighbouring states, if they apply to foreigners in general) this means in essence that every Contracting State may forbid the egress of a stateless person if the prohibition appears to be in the interest of national security or public order. Although para. 14 of the Schedule attached to Article 28 explicitly states that the provisions of the Schedule (which govern in detail the issuance of the travel document and are part of Article 28) do not in any way affect the laws and regulations governing the conditions of departure from the territories of the Contracting States, this rule (as regards the Refugee Convention) was not considered to be an additional restriction of the obligation to issue a travel document to every refugee lawfully staying in a Contracting State. The same must apply here, i.e., the obligation is unconditional, except as Article 28 itself states otherwise. The restriction regarding national security and public order was introduced in the Refugee Convention on a Belgian motion which was explained to allow of a temporary 187 SR.9, p. 15. 188 SR.9, p. 12 189 SR.9, p. 16 and SR.11, p. 10. 190 SR.11, pp. 10-11. 191 Despite the clear wording of Article 28 of the Refugee Convention the representative of Venezuela, while dealing with para. 11 of the Schedule attached to this article, maintained that states like his own could not admit that it was mandatory for them to issue a travel document to refugees while a similar obligation did not exist in respect of their own nationals (SR.33, p. 5). On the strength of his opposition, the conference replaced the words "the obligation" (to issue a document) proposed in para. 11 of the Schedule with the words "the responsibility" (SR.33, p. 6). This change, cannot, however, modify the clear wording of Article 28.