text: words “may not” to “shall not” in the Finnish proposal, the representative of Australia stated his clear preference for the original “may not”. 60. The concept of reciprocity was discussed by the Working Group in connection with the Finnish proposal. The representative of Australia stated that, if no reciprocity clause was included in the Convention, the citizens of a country which was not a party to it would have privileges in another country which was a party to the Convention. On the other hand, since the Convention contained fundamental human rights, a reciprocity clause could have negative implications for such riqhts, which would be unacce& table. Such a reciprocity clause should therefore / . . . A/C.3/45/1 English Page 16 not be included. He agreed with the Finnish proposal since the Ccnvention was an all-inclusive one in terms of the cateogries of workers covered. That in fact differentiated it from IL0 Convention No. 143, which could be ratified in parts. 61. On the same issue, the represe-tative of Italy stated that corollary of the idea of universality was the indivisibility of the Convention. He thus supported the Finnish proposal, which reflected that idea. 62. The representative of the Netherlands pointed out that the word “Part” in the Finnish proposal should be spelled with a capital “P” so that any exclusion of certa:n categories of migrant workers could be prevented. 63. The representative of China also spoke in favour of the indivisibiiity of the Convention. The Convention should be applied to all migrant workers and their families from wherever they came. If reciprocity was established, it would mean different treatment of migrant workers coming from different countries, something which would contravene the letter and spirit of the Convention. 64. The representative of the USSR, referring to the phrase “without prejudice to 
analysis: This text appears to be discussing a United Nations Convention related to the rights of migrant workers and their families. The representatives of various countries are debating the inclusion of a reciprocity clause and the language used in the proposal. The conversation highlights the importance of universality, indivisibility, and all-inclusivity in the Convention, suggesting that it is a document focused on human rights and social issues.