The “protection” afforded to nationals while abroad is based upon international law, and the principle of reciprocity. In many cases there exist bilateral treaties between two States regulating the legal status of their nationals residing in the territory of the other. But even where no such specific treaties exist, a national residing abroad enjoys, according to general principles of international law, the protection of the consular and diplomatic representatives of the country of his nationality. Stateless persons are deprived of this “protection”, although their sojourn may come under the general provisions made by a sovereign State in respect of aliens residing on its territory. He is generally under a so-called “régime de tolérance”. He can be expelled by administrative measure or by Court decree, in some countries even if he is not in possession of a valid entry permit into another country. He is unable to get a national passport as a valid travel document enabling him to move from one country to the other. Frequently he is unable to move freely from one part of the country to the other (résidence assignée, internment, etc.). Very often he is refused access to the labour market, and thus deprived of the possibility of earning a livelihood. Even civil acts like marriage and divorce, conclusion of contracts, and acquisition and possession of real estate may be impossible for stateless persons, or cause them great inconvenience and expense. 2. Besides de jure stateless persons there are also at present an increasing number of de facto stateless persons. These, too, are “unprotected persons”, as they do not enjoy in fact the ‘protection’ of any Government, although they have not been formally denationalised by the State of their nationality. Thus, up to the time of entry into force of the denationalisation decree of the Nazi Régime, dated November 25th 1941, the bulk of the refugees of German and Austrian origin were still so-called ‘German nationals’ (Staatsangehörige). A distinction must also be made between temporary lack of “protection” and de facto statelessness. The former relates to nationals of a given country deprived of diplomatic and consular protection because the State concerned is unable, for the time being, to maintain diplomatic and consular representatives in the territory where the person resides at present (military occupation by a foreign power, absence of diplomatic recognition or of resumption of diplomatic relations etc.). Thus, at the time of writing this outline, a Polish citizen in the Iberian Peninsula or a Soviet citizen in Switzerland does not temporarily enjoy “protection”. On the other hand, de facto statelessness is based upon the refusal of the State of nationality to afford protection to some of its nationals. This was the case with German refugees prior to the en masse denationalisation of November 25th 1941 referred to above.12 Chapter VI of the Memorandum elaborates further on the situation of the German Jews, in particular regarding the precise point in time at which they became de jure stateless: The racial (Nuremberg) laws of 15th September, 1935, did not provide, as is often assumed, for the en masse denationalisation of German Jews. The law introduced a new conception, namely the division of all German nationals into (a) citizens of the Reich (Reichsbuerger) and (b) other German nationals (Staatsangehoerige). Those having Aryan nordic blood were citizens with all civic rights, while Jews became mere nationals with no civic rights nor the obligation of military service. Subsequently the notion of “Staatsangehoerige” applied to the Jews was gradually emptied of any positive content whatsoever by various persecution measures and acts of dispossession and spoliation. Mere German nationals or “Staatsangehoerige” of Jewish origin were able to leave the country with valid German passports stamped with a big “J”. Up to the war and even, in some cases, up to 1941, Jews abroad were able to obtain renewal of the validity of their passport from German Consulates. However, such holders of “J” passports were otherwise denied the right to ask for German consular and diplomatic protection, so that both the League High Commission and the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, as well as most Governments, rightly considered them as persons who, in fact, did not enjoy the protection of their Government. 12 Ibid., pp. 3 - 4. 3