1961 Convention: History, Evolution and Relevance A Why Was a Treaty Needed to Reduce Statelessness? International law recognises that states have the discretion to devise their own nationality laws — this is understood as central to state sovereignty. 7 However, the exercise of the discretion to confer and withdraw nationality can result in statelessness for a range of reasons, including discrimination, arbitrary deprivation of nationality, state succession or gaps in nationality laws. Yet, statelessness was recognised as a problem for international order — it contravened the notion that every individual was allocated to a state — and, most significantly, it was beginning to be understood as a contravention of individual rights, in line with the emerging focus of the United Nations on human rights. In 1948, the seminal Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’) proclaimed in art 15 that everyone has the right to a nationality. 8 Yet, determining which state has the obligation to deliver that right was not addressed in the UDHR. It was therefore necessary to translate this principle into binding form by setting out specific, legally binding standards that would impose an obligation on states to deliver the right to nationality in a particular case. B How was the 1961 Convention Negotiated? In 1953, the Special Rapporteur on the topic of nationality, including statelessness, presented a report containing two possible drafts of a treaty to the International Law Commission (‘Commission’) and then later in the same year, the Commission ‘provisionally adopted’ the two drafts: one on the elimination of statelessness and one on the reduction of statelessness.9 The drafts were similar but, as one would expect, the Draft Convention on the Elimination of Future Statelessness provided less discretion for states and fewer exceptions.10 At a 1959 conference to decide between the two drafts and finalise the text, the Acting President of the Committee noted that: to agree on a formulation of … principles [to reduce or eliminate future statelessness] … the nationality laws of various countries based on different conceptions of national allegiance and citizenship would have to be reconciled as far as possible in the interests of the international community as a whole.11 This statement nicely summarises the magnitude of the task of the conference participants. The UK representative observed that the Committee was confronted with ‘two dangers’: ‘[f]irst, in its eagerness to eliminate statelessness altogether, it might draw up a convention which only a few States would be prepared to sign’, or that a convention may attract large numbers of ratifications but ‘improve the condition of stateless persons only in a very small degree’. 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 Foster and Lambert (n 1) 53. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948) art 15(1). Roberto Córdova, Special Rapporteur, Report on the Elimination or Reduction of Statelessness, UN Doc A/CN.4/64 (30 March 1953). See Laura van Waas, ‘Nationality Matters: Statelessness under International Law’ (PhD Thesis, University of Tilburg, 1981) 42–43. UN Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness, Summary Record of the First Plenary Meeting, UN Doc A/CONF.9/SR.1 (24 April 1961) 3. UN Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness, Summary Record of the Second Plenary Meeting, UN Doc A/CONF.9/SR.2 (24 April 1961) 2. 189