3. The uncertainty about the specific rules which govern the personal status of an alien creates difficulties not only for the alien but also for all persons who maintain legal relations with him (for instance, in making a contract with a married woman or a person under age). For these reasons, all pre-Second World War conventions dealing with refugees contained a specific rule defining their personal status. 4. The applicable law need not necessarily be that of the country where the stateless person finds himself at a given moment or where his status must be determined: if a stateless person is settled in country A but is either temporarily in country B or has dealings there, his status will be governed by the law of country A, not of country B. But if he establishes a permanent domicile in another country, his personal status changes. It may not always be easy to determine when the former domicile was given up and a new one established because domicile is usually characterized by one objective (residence) and one subjective (intention of remaining indefinitely in a given place) element. The same difficulty may arise if it cannot be established with certainty whether the stateless person has a domicile or none. Furthermore, “domicile” does not mean the same thing in various legal systems, especially in Anglo-Saxon and in continental 111 law. There is therefore a possibility of having a domicile in several countries or a domicile in 112 one country and a residence in another. In order to avoid these difficulties, at least in part, Art. 12 provides that the law of the country of domicile is to be applied in the first instance and the law of the country of residence only if the country of the refugee’s domicile was unknown or the refugee has no domicile. The notion of residence was introduced because residence is often 113 easier to establish than domicile. As a rule, each state will decide, in accordance with its own law, when a domicile exists 114 and when it does not. The difference between the various concepts of domicile may provoke certain conflicts, especially when a stateless person moves from the area of one concept to that of another or when the personal status of a stateless person residing in one area is to be established in another. In doubtful cases, the law of the country of the habitual residence of the stateless person must be decisive. 5. Article 12 does not deal with cases where there exist different laws governing the personal status of a person in one and the same state based on either geographical units (federal or other states with different civil codes) or on the religious law of the person involved (for instance, the Moslem countries). The first category of cases does not represent any difficulty because domicile or residence is established in a certain locality and the status of a stateless person would depend on the locality of domicile. More difficult is the second contingency, which could be resolved on the basis of the religious affiliation of the stateless person, provided this 115 particular religious faith prevails in the given country. 6. Despite all the possible difficulties, the principle applied in this Article is the most simple because in the majority of cases a stateless person adopts the country of residence as his domicile and thus the personal status will easily be established and reference to foreign law will be avoided. It also has the advantage of freeing stateless persons from the application of the law of the country of whose nationality they were deprived or whom they have repudiated (in the case of de facto stateless persons). 111 Under British law every person has a domicile (E/AC.32/SR.8, para. 19) because domicile in English law is equivalent to permanent residence (SR.9, para. 2 of the Refugee Conference). 112 The representative of Israel in the Ad Hoc Committee (SR.8, para. 19) pointed this out in connection with the Secretariat's draft and the French proposal (E/AC.32/L.3). 113 E/AC.7/SR.8, para. 14. 114 This view was held by the framers of the Refugee Convention (E/AC.32/SR.9, paras. 2 and 10). 115 This problem was touched upon by the Egyptian representative in the Refugee Conference, but, owing to its complexity, was not even discussed (SR.7, p. 10).