protection gap with respect to the acquisition of an effective nationality.96 Nevertheless, just as with the 1954 Convention, subsequent events have proven Belgium’s concerns unfounded: whereas as of March 2010 there were only 37 States Parties to the 1961 Convention, there were 147 States Parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol. Only two States were party to the 1961 Convention without also being party to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol.97 Lastly, it should be noted that in 1974, in readiness for the entry into force of the 1961 Convention in 1975, the UN General Assembly provisionally designated UNHCR as the body to which, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, “a person claiming the benefit of the Convention may apply for the examination of his claim and for assistance in presenting it to the appropriate authority.” 98 In 1976, the General Assembly confirmed that decision in the light of experience of one year’s implementation of the 1961 Convention and requested UNHCR “to continue to perform these functions.”99 Given the Resolution in the Conference’s Final Act, UNHCR arguably therefore has the mandate to assist de facto stateless persons as well as de jure stateless persons in presenting their claims to the appropriate authority – although this does not mean of course that the authority concerned would therefore be bound to apply the Convention to persons who are, or would otherwise be, de facto stateless. 4. CONCLUSIONS OF PART I According to the “traditional” view of de facto statelessness described above, de facto stateless persons are by definition outside the State of their nationality and lacking in that State’s protection. The protection in question is diplomatic and consular protection and assistance, i.e. “external protection” vis-à-vis the host State, not “internal protection” within the territory of the State of nationality.100 In other words, de facto stateless persons have a nationality in name, but their nationality is ineffective because they are unprotected by the State of their nationality.101 96 97 98 99 100 101 Although Article 34 stops short of providing a right to naturalization, it is legally binding, is of benefit to all refugees instead of only to the children of refugees, and does not necessarily require a link by birth or descent to the country of refuge for purposes of acquisition of nationality. Kiribati and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (UN Treaty Collection: http:/treaties.un.org). UN General Assembly resolution 3274 (XXIX) of 1974 on “Question of the establishment, in accordance with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, of a body to which persons claiming the benefit of the Convention may apply”. UN General Assembly resolution 31/36 of 1976 on “Question of the establishment, in accordance with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, of a body to which persons claiming the benefit of the Convention may apply”. For a fuller discussion of the distinction between “external protection” and “internal protection”, see Antonio Fortin, “The Meaning of ‘Protection’ in the Refugee Definition”, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2000, pp. 548 – 576. See also, for example, UNHCR, UNHCR, “Training Package: Statelessness and Related Nationality Issues”, op. cit., p. 9: “De facto statelessness refers to those who have a nationality in name but who do not have national protection”; UNHCR, “Guidelines: Field Office Activities Concerning Statelessness”, op. cit., p. 4, para. 9: “people who are stateless de facto (who have a nationality in name which is not effective)”. 26