CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 44
Mr. Hodgson (Australia) presented his amendment to Article 2 on Human Rights [C.P. (Gen) Doc.1.B.34]. The Australian amendment provided that the obligations of Article 2 should become part of the fundamental law of Bulgaria. Mr. Hodgson characterized the present text of the Article as a pious expression of an objective and argued that his amendment would provide some possibility of its being put into effect. He denied that his proposal represented an infringement of Bulgarian sovereignty any more than did the obligations contained in Articles 3 and 4. M. Rotomskis (USSR) spoke against the Australian amendment, calling it a restriction on Bulgarian sovereignty and arguing that there was no need for it since the new democratic Bulgaria had already repealed discriminatory laws and was ready to fulfill the obligations concerning human rights. The Yugoslav and Byelo-Russian Delegations stated the same view. Mr. Hodgson then withdrew the amendment not because it was useless, as had been said by its opponents, but because he saw little likelihood of its adoption. He continued to think that it represented a noble concept which should be kept in mind for the future.
The Commission then discussed the UK proposal for a new article aimed at protecting the position of the Jews (C.P.(Bul/P Doc. 8).27 Mr. Jebb (UK) stated that this was a new proposal on which there was no agreement among the members of the CFM and that each was at liberty to vote as it wished. M. Novikov (USSR) considered the position of the UK Delegation strange, since this was obviously an amendment to an agreed article for which the UK Delegation was bound to vote. He believed that in any case the subject covered by the UK proposal was already taken care of in Article 3 of the draft treaty. The Delegate of Czechoslovakia proposed that the UK amendment be transmitted to the Bulgarian Delegation for comment. It was then decided that it would be sent officially to the Bulgarian Delegation, which would be asked to present its views in writing within two days.
[Page 473]The Commission then adopted without discussion Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. Hodgson spoke in support of the Australian amendment to Article 7 providing for Bulgarian adherence to certain international organizations. He said that it was advisable to make sure that Bulgaria cooperate in the work of rehabilitation and reconstruction alongside the United Nations. In view of the lack of support of this amendment in other Commissions, the Australian Delegation was willing to withdraw the amendment if its statement could be included in the Record. Article 7 was then adopted.
Articles 8 and 19 were then adopted without discussion.
Mr. Hodgson presented the Australian amendment [C.P. (Gen.) Doc. 1.B.43] to Article 33(C.P.Bul/P Doc. 6).28 He set forth the view that there should be uniform procedures for the execution and interpretation of the treaty and for the settlement of disputes arising under it. These arguments were valid not only for the Bulgarian Treaty but for all five treaties. Australia believed that there should be a Treaty Executive Council which would serve as a body to maintain uniformity and consistency in dealing with problems arising from the treaties. Such a body would be a step toward a better organization of European affairs. Mr. Hodgson, after stating his Delegation’s reasons for making such a proposal, then said he was willing to withdraw it in view of the opposition to it if his statement could be included in the Record. The Commission then adopted Article 33 without further discussion.