September 13 and 23, 1954, in New York. Twenty-seven countries sent representatives, and five countries including Japan attended as observers. The conference was called to revise the Draft Protocol, but as it had been compiled as an appendix to the Refugee Convention, the Draft Protocol was incomplete as an independent document. The conference of plenipotentiaries reviewed the Refugee Convention to redraft its provisions as a separate convention for stateless persons. 45 The protocol draft for stateless persons was adopted unanimously 19-0 (with 2 abstentions) on the final day of the conference, and opened for signature.46 (2) The 1954 Stateless Persons Convention: Who Determines Statelessness? Several important provisions in the 1951 Refugee Convention have not been included in the 1954 Stateless Persons Convention, although the latter was modeled after the former. These include for example, provisions regarding penalties for illegal entry and presence (Article 31 of the Refugee Convention), the principle of non-refoulement (Article 33 of the Convention), and a supervisory body (Article 35 of the Convention). The absence of provisions equivalent to Article 31 and 35 of the Refugee Treaty must not be overlooked when considering the status quo of stateless persons. Since the treaty lacks a supervisory mechanism, it is often described as an “orphan convention” along with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. This issue will be discussed later.47 Three points need to be confirmed concerning Article 1, which provides the most common definition for statelessness in international law. The first is the problem of application when the same person is both a refugee and a stateless person. Article 1 A (2) of the Refugee Convention includes stateless persons in its application. This is confirmed in the third paragraph of the Preamble of the Stateless Persons Convention. The Stateless Persons Convention includes all stateless persons as its subject. Seemingly, this would cause a problem of conflict of application for signatory states to both Conventions. 45 See Robinson, supra note 9, Part one. See Collection of International Instruments and Other Legal Texts Concerning Refugees and Displaced Persons, Vol. I (1995), pp.95-98 for countries participating in the Conference of Plenipotentiaries and the Final Act and resolution adopted. 47 Information and Accession Package, supra note 16, para 5. The problem of the supervisory body was not discussed during the conference, as representatives did not raise it as an issue. Time pressures also contributed to the failure to discuss the subject. Batchelor, supra note 16, 245-47. The Final Act mentions that the drafters did not regard it necessary to include the generally accepted principle of non-refoulement. Collections of International Instruments and Other Legal Texts Concerning Refugees and Displaced Persons, supra note 48, p.97. 46 21