not thoughtlessly expanded, resulting in the scope of the protection under the 1954 Convention being inappropriately narrowed.71 In the case analysis in Chapter 2, the following may arise as interpretational issues, in considering whether or not the individual concerned falls within the definition of the 1954 Convention. (2) “by any State” “Any State” does not mean all the States in the world but is limited to the States with which a person enjoys a relevant link, in particular by birth on the territory, descent, marriage, adoption, or habitual residence.72 Because it is common to have nationality granted based on such factors, normally it is deemed adequate to limit the investigation to that extent in considering nationality. Regarding the definition of “State”, the criteria set forth in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States are adopted. 73 According to this convention, a State is constituted when an entity has a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other States. For an entity to be a “State” for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention, it is not necessary for it to have received universal or widespread recognition of its statehood by other States or to have become a member State of the United Nations.74 (3) “not considered as a national… under the operation of its law” Who is a national is normally defined by each State by its law. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the law of the State in question in order to determine whether or not an individual is its national. The “law” in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention encompasses not just legislation enacted by the parliament, but also ministerial decrees, regulations, orders, judicial case law in countries with a tradition of precedential jurisprudence, and, where appropriate, customary practice.75 Depending on how the laws are operated, there are cases in which an individual is not treated as a national even though he or she meets the criteria for acquiring nationality provided by a country’s laws and should have acquired its nationality. Since the 1954 Convention defines a stateless person as someone “not considered as a national… under the operation of its law”, it is necessary in statelessness determinations to consider not just the country’s law but the “operation of its law��� as well. To determine which cases actually fall under the definition of “not considered as a national… under the operation of its law”, it is necessary to identify which institution(s) 71 Id, para. 7. On the changes in the concept of “de facto statelessness”, see Kaneko, supra note 17d, “Commentary on UNHCR’s New Handbook and Guidelines Relating to Statelessness”, pp. 47-48. 72 Id, para. 18. 73 Id, para. 19. 74 Id, para. 20. 75 Id, para. 22. 40