Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 25, 1946, 9:30 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 52

A letter was received from the Rumanian Delegation asking that it be allowed to express its views in writing on the admendment adopted at the previous meeting of the Commission regarding restoration of property rights of Rumanian nationals who had been subjected to racial persecution. It was further requested that the Rumanian views be annexed to the Rapporteur’s report to the Plenary Conference. The Commission agreed that the Rumanian observations should first be circulated to the members and that a decision could then be taken on what further action, if any, was desirable.

The Commission then resumed its discussion of Article 26 (property in Allied territory) and of the Ukraine amendment which would have provided for the restoration to Rumania of her property rights and interests in Allied territory. After a speech by the Ukraine representative, the amendment was defeated by a vote of 10 to 3 (Byelorussia, Ukraine, and Yugoslavia voting for the amendment, with one abstention).

The Australian representative then raised questions regarding the scope of paragraph 1 of the Article, suggesting that it be changed to limit the claims, against which assets in Allied territory could be applied, to commercial claims; and regarding paragraph 4, which he suggested should include a further exception which would provide for the return of industrial, artistic and literary property. Mr. Thorp (US) said it was not possible in the U.S. at least to do anything about patents since they had been taken over by the Government and widely used in the war effort, thereby destroying their value as patents. However, the U.S. Delegation had sympathy with the Australian viewpoint regarding literary and artistic property and an effort was now being made to work out some modification of paragraph 4 in this regard. He suggested that action be deferred. The U.K. and Soviet representatives opposed any change in paragraph 1. The U.K. representative said it was made quite clear in the Council of Foreign Ministers when this paragraph was drafted it was intended to cover claims in addition to commercial and financial claims. The Commission agreed to defer action on Article 26 pending consideration of the redraft of paragraph 4 now in progress.

The Commission then discussed Article 31 (settlement of disputes), for which there were two main proposals, one by the U.K. and one by the U.S.S.R., the difference being in the method of appointing the third member of the Conciliation Commission in the event the two other members of the Commission were unable to agree. M. Gerashchenko (USSR) said the Soviet Delegation could not imagine a case arising when the heads of the three missions in Bucharest would be unable to agree on a third member (the procedure proposed in the Soviet proposal). Mr. Gregory (U.K.) said the U.K. considered it essential that a means be provided for the final determination of a dispute and had therefore proposed that the third member of the Conciliation Commission be named by the President of the International Court of Justice. The U.K. proposal was then approved, and the Soviet proposal defeated, by votes of 8 to 5 (Australia abstaining).

Article 32 was amended at the suggestion of the U.S. representative (pursuant to an amendment introduced by Norway) to conform to the wording previously agreed for paragraph 7 of Annex 4 A.⁵⁰ Article 32 as amended was then approved unanimously.

Article 33 was then considered (“The provisions of Annexes 4, 5 and 6 shall, as in the case of the other Annexes, have force and effect as integral parts of the treaty”). The Yugoslav representative suggested that the Committee should not approve the words underlined above since these other annexes were not related to economic articles of the treaty. The Chairman suggested that General Secretariat had been in error in referring this article exclusively to the Economic Commission and suggested that it be referred to the Political Commission for consideration of the appropriate part. It was agreed to defer action, however, when M. Gerashchenko pointed out that the Economic Commission should not approve the reference to Annexes 4, 5 and 6 in this Article until the Commission had considered the Annexes themselves.

50. Mr. Thorp proposed that the words “which have broken off diplomatic relations with Rumania” be replaced by the words “whose diplomatic relations have been broken off during the war.” (CFM Files: United States Delegation Minutes).