2. The total separation of the two related Conventions and the wording of Article 1 simplified one of the problems which the acceptance of the Draft Protocol would have created and to which reference was made both in observations of governments on the Draft Protocol and in discussions during the Conference: should this Convention apply only to such stateless persons who are not “refugees” within the meaning of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention, or to all stateless persons who do not in fact enjoy the status of a refugee under the Refugee Convention (because they are not refugees or because the state of their residence is not a Party to that 1 Convention)? The first alternative was suggested in the observations of Finland and apparently 2 3 also in those of Great Britain and the suggestion by the United Kingdom of September 13, 1954, 4 while the second was stated in the observations of Japan and may have been implied in the 5 Australian proposal of September 14, 1954. The British proposal said that the Protocol (there was no intention at that time to have a separate Convention) “shall apply to stateless persons who are not refugees within the meaning of Article 1 of the (Refugee) Convention”. The Australian proposal suggested that the Protocol be applied to stateless persons who are “not covered by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees dated 28 July 1951” - the words “not covered” were apparently used not in terms of an abstract definition but of a practical application, although the representative of Ecuador understood it to mean that under the Australian proposal the Protocol was to deal with such stateless persons only who do not come under the definition of a refugee in 6 accordance with the Refugee Convention. The adoption of the first alternative would in practice mean that if a state adhered only to this Convention but not also to the Refugee Convention, a stateless person who theoretically qualified as a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention would not be eligible for protection under this Convention because of his theoretical eligibility under the Refugee Convention. To avoid such a possibility the Israel proposal of 7 September 15, 1954, suggested that the Protocol (or Convention) be applied to all stateless persons who do not enjoy in the Contracting State the status of a refugee under the 1932, 1938 or 1951 Conventions. The question of “stateless persons” versus “refugees” was discussed in detail in the 8 Conference. The British representative pointed out that it would be impossible to apply both Conventions to one and the same person and that the afore-mentioned British proposal was drafted with this end in view. But when most of the delegates opposed the definition of a "stateless person” contained in the suggestion of Australia as restrictive, he agreed to consider deleting his own restrictive definition, explaining that it was drafted at a time when he thought that a single instrument would be prepared relating to both refugees 9 and stateless persons (he apparently meant that the same states would adhere to both documents). It became clear to all concerned that the most advisable course was not to deal, in the definition of a “stateless person”, with “refugees” at all, rather than to draft a definition which would exclude those stateless persons who are or could become eligible under the Refugee Convention. This point of view was accepted by the Drafting Committee which was set up to draft a definition of a “stateless person”. The British representative sought, in 1 E/2373/Add.2. 2 E/2373/Add.11. 3 E/CONF.17/L.1. 4 E/2373/Add.3. 5 E/CONF.17/L.2. 6 SR.3, p. 7. 7 E/CONF.17/L.4. see also the statement of the Israel representative in SR. 3, p. 11. 8 SR.3, p. 3. 9 Ibid., p. 14