CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 36
Mr. Reinstein (U.S.) explained the general peacetime restoration intentions of the provisions in Annex 4A (Industrial Property). Paragraph 6, he said, was aimed at Rumanian wartime collaborators with the Axis. The disagreed portion of paragraph 4 was felt by the United States to be necessary in order to avoid the effect of otherwise obligating certain countries to grant Rumania greater benefits than they granted under their own laws to the Allies. Paragraph 7, the second disagreed provision, simply recognized that it was only fair to the other United Nations not signatories to the Treaty that they should obtain the benefits of the Annex to the extent that they granted reciprocal benefits to Rumania. The United States was thinking here especially of the American Republics which had broken relations with the Axis and in other ways had supported the Allied war efforts. M. Lychowski (Poland) asked why Annex 4A referred for the most part to Allied and Associated Powers while Article 24 referred to United Nations. Mr. Reinstein said that the Annex referred to the restoration of rights additional to those restored under Article 24 and that if paragraph 7 of the Annex were adopted, the Annex likewise could apply to other United Nations prepared to grant reciprocity to Rumania. M. Lychowski said that a United Nations national in Rumania would not get the same rights under the Annex to sue third parties in Rumania as an Allied national. M. Alphand (France) suggested the appointment of a technical group to consider legal questions of the type just raised. M. Gerashchenko (USSR) saw no need for a special subcommittee since the main questions at issue, he felt, were not technical but involved rather the issue of reciprocity and Rumania’s relations to other countries. The USSR opposed the last part of paragraph 4, he said, because it annihilated the first part granting full reciprocity to Rumania. The USSR thought paragraph 7 unnecessary since the subject matter could be handled outside of the Treaty by bilateral agreements. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) also saw no need for a subcommittee but supported the United States position on paragraphs 4 and 7. M. de Carbonnel (France) likewise favored the United States position, pointing out that France was one of the non-signatory United Nations which would only gain benefits from the Annex by a provision similar to paragraph 7. Mr. Reinstein said that unless language along the lines of the disagreed portion of paragraph 4 were adopted by the Conference, the [Page 396] United States would ask for special exemption from the application of certain parts of the Annex. In reply to M. Gerashchenko’s statement on reciprocity he said that the United States Delegation had originally proposed complete reciprocity when the Annex was being drafted but that its proposal had not been accepted. He offered to present to the Commission for its consideration at the next meeting the exact proposal originally circulated at the CFM committee meetings. The Commission accepted this offer and agreed to consider the United States proposal as the first item on its agenda at the next meeting.