CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 54
The Commission received the report of the subcommittee set up to study the definition of “United Nations shipping” and to prepare an agreed text to replace paragraph 1 of Annex 4 C.79 (The other paragraphs of this Annex had been rejected by the Commission). The report contained three proposals for addition to paragraph 8(c) of Article 24: (A) a text prepared by Drafting Committee and supported by the majority of the subcommittee, (B) a U.S. text supported by the U.S. and Greece, and (C) a Greek text, also supported by the U.S. and Greece. The Greek Representative at the outset withdrew proposal (C), however.
Proposal (A) defined as UN property vessels registered in a United Nation or flying the flag of a United Nation, while the U.S. proposal (B) added vessels owned by United Nations or their nationals. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) explained that he considered it necessary that no definition should have the effect of restricting the benefits of Article 24 (restoration of UN property) to vessels registered in UN ports or flying UN flags. It was clear that proposal (A) might be so construed and in fact some members of the subcommittee had so construed it. The U.S. amendment, Mr. Thorp said, would not permit recovery by collaborators whose vessels flying Rumanian flags remained in Rumanian service with the full consent of their owners after Rumania entered the war. In order for a UN owner whose vessel was flying the Rumanian flag to be entitled to the benefits of Article 24, it would be necessary to establish that the vessel was treated as enemy property by Rumania or ceased to be at the free disposal of the owner as the result of Rumanian wartime control measures. The U.S. was opposed to the argument that UN nationals who for business reasons before the war registered their vessels in ports other than those which later became UN ports or flew flags other than those which later became UN flags, were ipso facto to be considered collaborators. The U.S. accepted an amendment to the draft, proposed by the U.K. representative to clarify the relationship of the definition to the other provisions of Article 24. The Czechoslovak representative defended the subcommittee majority draft, stating that it was hard to believe there were any ships in Rumania belonging to UN nationals, but flying the [Page 579] Rumanian flag or registered in Rumania, which at the same time had been subjected to special Rumanian measures of control. These ships were considered Rumanian ships and the fact they were in Rumania and flying the Rumanian flag proved their owners had placed them at the disposal of the Rumanian Government. M. Gerashchenko (U.S.S.R.) also spoke for the subcommittee draft. He said that Greek ships (for example) had been registered in Rumania at the free will of their owners. The ships might well have been used for war purposes, and their owners probably made profits. Though no one had confiscated them, the U.S. proposal would require that they be returned under Article 24, with compensation for loss or damage. The conditions of return ought to be effected by bilateral agreement between Greece and Rumania. There was furthermore no reason why Greece should get compensation for loss or damage to such ships.
Proposal (B), the U.S. text, with the modification proposed by the U.K., was adopted by a vote of 8 to 5 (France abstaining). It was agreed the text would become the second subparagraph of paragraph 8(c) of Article 24.
The U.K. reservation in the footnote to Article 23, paragraph 7, was thereupon withdrawn and Article 23 as a whole was approved unanimously.
The U.K. footnote to Article 24, paragraph 1, was also withdrawn, and this paragraph was approved unanimously (completing the action on Article 24).
- See C.P. (Plen) Doc. 29, Report of the Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, pp. 434, 449.↩