claiming violation of rights set forth in relevant treaties. To assure thorough protection of stateless person’s rights, it would be most desirable for Japan to recognize the competence of these bodies. Sixthly, it is time for Japan to re-examine the significance of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness．I have already mentioned that the UN General Assembly and the Executive Committee of the UNHCR, where Japan is an active member in both, have encouraged member States to accede to these Conventions. Examination of the substance of the two Conventions would help to clarify the concept of statelessness and no doubt sensitize decision-makers to the need of establishing a well-refined method to determine statelessness. It would also help to recognize the need to extend protection to de facto stateless persons as discussed by the drafters of the two Conventions. In this context, it is recalled that the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Japan should revise the nationality and other related laws and regulations to conform with Article 7 of the Children’s Convention to avoid statelessness for children born in Japan. As most East and Southeast Asian countries are not party to the two Conventions or the Refugee Convention, it may be necessary to start a discussion on the possibility of establishing a regional mechanism working on the problem of nationality and protection that occurs from the movement of people across borders. The problem of statelessness cannot be solved by a single nation. Cooperation with related international organizations such as the UNHCR is indispensable to encourage solutions with a paramount respect for human dignity. 63