38.2 (7) TEMPROSA.DOCX38.2 (7) TEMPROSA.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 252 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1/16/2021 12:59 PM [Vol. 38:2 agree on a definition. 58 A drafting committee was designated to address the impasse. 59 States realized that the 1954 Statelessness Convention needed a definition to delimit its field of application. 60 Some States, including Israel, argued that without a definition, States would have unbridled discretion to include and exclude beneficiaries from the treaty's provisions. 61 Another relevant question for our purposes was the substance of the definition. States struggled with how to define statelessness. 62 The Secretary-General's memorandum on the draft protocol, 63 which referred to a definition of statelessness in a report by Manley Hudson, the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission (ILC), attracted much attention. 64 States integrated Hudson's definition into the 1954 Statelessness Convention. However, the Hudson definition was not declarative of the concept of statelessness per se, but more about statelessness in its "strict, legal sense." 65 Notably, the UN study on statelessness contained "definitions" of stateless persons, which were longer and more elaborate than Hudson's strict, formalistic, and legalistic definition. The UN study defined stateless persons as "persons who are not nationals of any State, either because at birth or subsequently they were not given any nationality, or because during their lifetime they lost their own nationality and did not acquire a new one." 66 This definition is more specific than that of Hudson, containing causes of statelessness and without qualifying "national" with "considered." Notwithstanding this difference, the framers of the 1954 Statelessness Convention chose Hudson's definition despite the reservations of States like Israel and Norway. 67 58. See generally Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, U.N. Doc. Nos. E/CONF.17/SR.1 to E/CONF.17/SR.15. 59. The President of the Conference (Denmark) and the representatives of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, France, Israel, and the UK formed the committee. See Final Act of the United Nations Conference on the Status of Stateless Persons, at 120, New York, Sept. 26, 1965, https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ae6b3840.pdf (last visited Apr. 15, 2019). 60. See debates in U.N. Doc. No. E/CONF.17/3, pages 5 onwards; see also U.N. Doc. No. E/CONF.17/21. States were concerned about the relationship between the definition of statelessness and the concept of a refugee. States resolved to draft a definition of statelessness that would exclude persons who are or could become subject to the refugee treaty. 61. ROBINSON, supra note 48. 62. Id. 63. Id. 64. Id.; see Report on Nationality, Including Statelessness by Manley O. Hudson, Special Rapporteur, at 17, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/50 (Feb. 21, 1952). ("Stateless persons in the legal sense of the term are persons who are not considered as nationals by any State according to its law.") 65. Hudson, supra note 64. 66. United Nations, A Study of Statelessness, supra note 52, at 7. (The study also advances that: "Stateless persons de facto are persons who, having left the country of which they were nationals, no longer enjoy the protection and assistance of their national authorities, either because these authorities refuse to grant them assistance and protection, or because they themselves renounce the assistance and protection of the countries of which they are nationals.") 67. ROBINSON, supra note 48. Israel argued that the definition should be about the State's lack of proof of a person's citizenship. Meanwhile, Norway foresaw that the "negative aspect" would affect a person's ability to claim stateless status.