Much discussion took place on this issue at the conference. However, as the Chairman of the conference of plenipotentiaries has confirmed and Robinson stresses, the state must apply the more favorable provisions of the Refugee Convention. Signatories of the two Conventions apply the Refugee Convention to all refugees, including stateless persons, and apply the Stateless Persons Convention to stateless persons who are not refugees. This is also justified by the circumstances where the Stateless Persons Convention was originally intended to cover such persons to whom the Refugee Convention is not applicable.48 The second refers to the reasons for limiting the definition of stateless persons to de jure stateless persons. Among several factors,49 the most important lies in the drafters’ intention to avoid an overlap between the two Conventions. It was thought that de jure statelessness occurred from a conflict of nationality laws, and de facto statelessness from intentional action such as escape from persecution of the country of nationality. In other words, de facto stateless persons and refugees were placed in the same category. The premise that de facto stateless persons are refugees and should be dealt with as such led to the thinking that the application of the Stateless Persons Convention should be limited to de jure stateless persons.50 Others reasons are that a clear definition was necessary to prevent discrepancy among contracting parties in determining statelessness. The drafters did not want the Convention to be the impetus for persons to attempt to secure a second nationality if they felt they were de facto stateless. In addition to these circumstances, the conference of plenipotentiaries hoped to secure as many signatory countries and ratifications as possible without reservations.51 The third problem lies in the administrative practices determining statelessness. The 48 Robinson, supra note 9, Article 1, para.1 Batchelor, supra note 3, pp.172-73; Batchelor, supra note 16, pp.247-48 50 The Final Act recommends contracting States to extend the rights accorded to de jure stateless persons under the Convention to de facto stateless persons, if it decides that the reasons for renunciation of nationality is valid. Worthy of note is that while determination as a de jure stateless person will have extraterritorial effects, voluntary treatment as a de facto stateless person may not always do so. Therefore, it may be said that States are not under an obligation (no violation of Article 28) to recognize the validity of travel documents issued by other states to de facto stateless persons. However, signatory states are expected to recognize the validity of this travel document based on the recommendation. Robinson, supra note 9, Article 1, para. 5. 51 As of November 1, 2007, only 62 countries have become signatories to this Convention. Asian countries including Japan have not signed the Convention. http://www/unhcr.ch/html/menue/b/o_c_sp.htm. 49 22