36 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first session occurrence of a succession of States. Questions of nationality related to situations which occurred prior or after the date of the succession are therefore excluded from the scope of the present draft articles. However, the Commission recognizes the need for an exception from the rigid definition ratione temporis of the present draft articles and for addressing also the problem of children born after the succession of States from parents whose nationality following the succession has not been determined. Given the fact that, in a considerable number of legal orders, the nationality of children depends to a large extent on that of their parents, the uncertainty about the parents’ nationality may have a direct impact on the nationality of a child. The latter is generally determined after the final resolution of the problem of the parents’ nationality, but, in exceptional situations, can remain undetermined if, for example, a parent dies in the meantime. That is why the Commission considered that a specific provision concerning the nationality of newborn children was useful. (2) The inclusion of article 13 is justified in the light of the importance that several instruments attach to the rights of children, including their right to acquire a nationality. Thus, principle 3 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child provides that “[t]he child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality”.86 Article 24, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees every child the right to acquire a nationality. Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child87 provides that “[t]he child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have . . . the right to acquire a nationality”. From the joint reading of this provision and article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, according to which “States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction* without discrimination of any kind”, it follows that, unless the child acquires the nationality of another State, he or she has, in the last instance, the right to the nationality of the State on the territory of which he or she was born. (3) It is also useful to recall that, according to article 9 of the Draft Convention on Nationality prepared by the Harvard Law School, “[a] State shall confer its nationality at birth upon a person born within its territory if such person does not acquire another nationality at birth”.88 Likewise, article 20 of the American Convention on Human Rights: “Pact of San José, Costa Rica” stipulates that “[e]very person has the right to the nationality of the State in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality”. (4) There is a strong argument in favour of an approach consistent with the above instruments, namely that, where the predecessor State was a party to any such instruments, their provisions could be applicable, by virtue of the rules of succession in respect of treaties, to the successor State, including as regards the situation envisaged in article 13. 86 General Assembly resolution 1386 (XIV) of 20 November 1959. Paragraph 2 of the same article provides, moreover, that “States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights . . . in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless”. 88 Research in International Law . . . (footnote 19 above), p. 14. 87 (5) Article 13 is limited to the solution of the problem of the nationality of children born within the territory of States concerned. It does not envisage the situation where a child of a person referred to in article 13 is born in a third State. Extending the scope of application of the rule set out in article 13 to situations where the child was born in a third State would mean to impose a duty on States other than those involved in the succession. While it is true that those third States that are parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child may already have such obligation in any event, it is also true that this problem exceeds the scope of the present draft articles which should remain limited to problems where a “person concerned” is on one side of the legal bond and a “State concerned” on the other. (6) While the application ratione temporis of article 13 is limited to the cases of children born after the date of the succession of States, there is no further limitation in time. The Commission is of the view that such an unlimited application is justified by the main purpose of this article, that is, avoidance of statelessness, and by the fact that the rule contained in article 13 is the same as the rule found in several other international instruments applicable to children born on the territory of a State, even outside of the context of State succession. Article 14. Status of habitual residents 1. The status of persons concerned as habitual residents shall not be affected by the succession of States. 2. A State concerned shall take all necessary measures to allow persons concerned who, because of events connected with the succession of States, were forced to leave their habitual residence on its territory to return thereto. Commentary (1) Paragraph 1 of article 14 sets out the rule that the status of habitual residents is not affected by a succession of States as such, or in other words, that persons concerned who are habitual residents of a territory on the date of the succession retain such status. The Commission considers that a succession of States, as such, should not entail negative consequences for the status of persons concerned as habitual residents. The question addressed in paragraph 1 is different from the question whether such persons may or may not retain the right of habitual residence in a State concerned if they acquire, following the succession of States, the nationality of another State concerned. (2) Paragraph 2 addresses the problem of habitual residents in the specific case where the succession of States is the result of events leading to the displacement of a large part of the population. The purpose of this provision is to ensure the effective restoration of the status of habitual residents as protected under paragraph 1. The Commission feels that, in the light of recent experience in Eastern Europe, it was desirable to address explicitly the problem of this vulnerable group of persons.