CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF ... - Refworld

of such documents; a fourth, that it would not be possible to recognize documents issued on the
basis of a treaty to which the state was not a party (reference was made to the second paragraph
of Article 28 contained in the Refugee Convention, referring to the 1946 Agreement on travel
documents to refugees). On the other hand, the British representative rightly stated that Article 28
was one of the most important in the whole Convention and that its elimination would be highly
undesirable. The President pointed out that - in order to alleviate the difficulties envisaged -
differences between the two documents (for “refugees” and “stateless persons”) could be
introduced, independently of the identity or near-identity of their validity and contents.
At the suggestion of the Yugoslav representative the words “and the provisions of the
Schedule to this Convention shall apply with respect to such documents” were at first
eliminated. This elimination created considerable confusion. The President interpreted the
deletion as meaning that the conference had refused to include, or to refer to, the
provisions of the Schedule to the Refugee Convention in the document relating to stateless
persons, and that the conference still had to decide whether it would lay down or
recommend to the Parties relevant regulations and, if so, of what kind. 187 The Yugoslav
representative at first maintained that the purpose of his proposal was that some states did
not wish to modify their right to regulate the movement of stateless persons in their territory
and that by way of compromise he suggested to exclude that clause, 188 but thereafter
admitted that his amendment (meaning the exclusion of that clause) had referred only to
the form of the document, 189 and that his intention had been to leave the conference free to
deal as it chose with the schedule, on the understanding that the matter would be
discussed at a later time. The British representative maintained that without a schedule
Article 28 would hardly be of any use, and he proposed, at a later meeting, to reconsider
the previous decision, and to reinsert the excluded phrase in Article 28. By 11 votes to
none and 3 abstentions the phrase was reinstated. 190
3. Under sentence 1, the Contracting States assume the obligation to issue a travel
document to every stateless person lawfully staying in their respective territory, if he applies for it
and needs it for a journey abroad; 191 It contains, however, a restriction of the obligation, viz., that
it is not to apply if compelling reasons of national security or public order militate against the issue
of a travel document. Since ordinarily a stateless person cannot leave the country without a travel
document (except on the basis of special arrangements between neighbouring states, if they
apply to foreigners in general) this means in essence that every Contracting State may forbid the
egress of a stateless person if the prohibition appears to be in the interest of national security or
public order. Although para. 14 of the Schedule attached to Article 28 explicitly states that the
provisions of the Schedule (which govern in detail the issuance of the travel document and are
part of Article 28) do not in any way affect the laws and regulations governing the conditions of
departure from the territories of the Contracting States, this rule (as regards the Refugee
Convention) was not considered to be an additional restriction of the obligation to issue a travel
document to every refugee lawfully staying in a Contracting State. The same must apply here,
i.e., the obligation is unconditional, except as Article 28 itself states otherwise.
The restriction regarding national security and public order was introduced in the Refugee
Convention on a Belgian motion which was explained to allow of a temporary
187 SR.9, p. 15.
188 SR.9, p. 12
189 SR.9, p. 16 and SR.11, p. 10.
190 SR.11, pp. 10-11.
191 Despite the clear wording of Article 28 of the Refugee Convention the representative of Venezuela, while dealing with
para. 11 of the Schedule attached to this article, maintained that states like his own could not admit that it was mandatory
for them to issue a travel document to refugees while a similar obligation did not exist in respect of their own nationals
(SR.33, p. 5). On the strength of his opposition, the conference replaced the words "the obligation" (to issue a document)
proposed in para. 11 of the Schedule with the words "the responsibility" (SR.33, p. 6). This change, cannot, however,
modify the clear wording of Article 28.