CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 57
Discussion of Article 72 continued. The Ukrainian representative suggested that the U.S. proposal (CP IT/EC Doc 74)20 Article 72 (Settlement of Disputes) should include Article 69 in its scope as had been recommended by the Italian Delegation. Mr. Alexander (Australia) and M. de Carbonnel (France) spoke in favor of the U.S. proposal, M. de Carbonnel emphasizing the advantages deriving from the fact the Italian Delegation was in favor of this procedure.
Mr. Thorp (U.S.) responded to certain remarks, pointing out that none of the proposals suggested excluded the Settlement of Disputes [Page 607] by direct bilateral negotiations or any other procedure agreed upon by the parties concerned; and that the Commission had already defeated a previous suggestion to put the liquidation of Italian assets in the Allied and Associated Powers under the aegis of the Four Ambassadors. He considered, therefore, that the Commission had decided to retain Article 69 in the form it was drafted, providing that the state in which the assets were held would have the right to decide on the disposition of the assets. The U.S. proposal, he said, would merely provide a rapid final procedure which would have the advantage of continuity. He asked the Commission not to ignore former precedents for the settlement of the types of claims likely to arise under the treaty. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) said, although the U.K. proposal and the Soviet proposal were very similar, he would find it difficult to vote against the U.S. proposal.
M. Aroutiunian (U.S.S.R.) regretted that the U.S. proposal had widened the differences between the drafting powers. During the CFM discussions the U.S. had suggested a mixed arbitral tribunal procedure. However, this had been discarded and a large area of agreement had been achieved in the U.K. and Soviet proposals. He maintained the Soviet proposal was based on the new type of conciliation procedure adopted in Article 30 of the Charter of the United Nations and upheld the Soviet proposal.
The Ukrainian representative then suggested the U.S. proposal be amended to include within its scope Article 69. The Ukrainian suggestion was defeated 13 to 6 with one abstention, Byelorussia, China, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia voting for and Czechoslovakia abstaining.
The U.S. proposal was carried 14 to 6, Byelorussia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia voting against. The U.K. proposal was lost 4 to 13 with 3 abstentions, U.S., France, U.K. and Greece voting for. The Yugoslav proposed amending the Soviet draft to include annexes 6, 7 and 8 and the U.S. amendment to the draft text. This was lost 6 to 6 with 8 abstentions, the U.S., Belgium, Brazil, France, New Zealand and Yugoslavia voting for. The Soviet proposal was defeated 6 voting for 13 against and 1 abstention.
The Norwegian representative introduced his amendment (CP (IT/EC) Doc 45)21 to Article 73 (Scope of Application) providing that for the words “those who have broken diplomatic relations” there be substituted the words “those whose diplomatic relations with Italy have been broken off during the war”. M. Aroutiunian suggested this formula would be too wide and suggested, therefore, that the following [Page 608] be added to the draft text “or with whom Italy had broken diplomatic relations. These Articles and Annexes shall also apply in the case of Albania and Norway.” The Belgian representative moved the Norwegian amendment which was lost 11 voting against 7 for and 2 abstentions. The Soviet proposal was carried, 16 voting for, 2 against and 2 abstentions. Article 73 as amended was carried unanimously.
- For substance, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, vol. iv, pp. 338, 368.↩
- Not printed.↩