Article 13

Delete the words: “In accordance with legislation to be introduced to that effect by that State within three months of the coming into force of the present Treaty.”

Article 13 to read as follows:

“The Italian citizens who were domiciled on June 10th, 1940, in territory transferred by Italy to another State, under the present Treaty, and who are still domiciled in this territory at the date of the present Treaty shall, except as provided in the following paragraph, become citizens of the State to which the territory is transferred with full civil and political rights as granted to nationals of the successor State. Upon becoming citizens of the State concerned, they shall lose their Italian citizenship.”

(The words underlined have been added to the existing text.)

Delete paragraph 3.

Maintain paragraph 4, as proposed by the United States Delegation.


The alteration proposed would appear to be necessary, since otherwise the new nationality which is being imposed would be conferred on Italian nationals who, subsequent to 10th June 1940, had transferred their domicile elsewhere. But there would seem to be no reason to impose a new nationality on such persons: for by changing their domicile they would have severed the legal tie which bound them to the territory and which would justify imposing on the nationality of the State to which the territory is being transferred;
The words “in accordance with legislation”, etc., have the disadvantage of possibly restricting the “full civil and political rights” referred to above, all the more so as, under the original text, the manner of determining or guaranteeing such rights would be left to the discretion of the successor State.
The possibility of requiring persons who have opted for Italian nationality to move into Italy is unjust, particularly if it applies to the [Page 686] Free Territory of Trieste. There is no objection to such persons remaining in the territory where they have elected domicile. The late French jurisconsult Paul Fauchille in his “Traité de Droit international public” has explained why certain peace treaties insist on this requirement; and referring to the nationality imposed as the result of annexation of territory, he states: “If the States which have agreed to a cession of territory continue to maintain good neighbourly relations, it is of little moment to the State to which the territory is transferred that persons who have remained the nationals of the State ceding the territory should remain on its own. But this is not the case when cession is imposed by force as the result of conquest. The continued presence in the ceded territory of persons who have remained citizens of the defeated State might be seriously inconvenient and embarrassing to the victorious State.”
It may be added that, if the State to which the territory is transferred is given the right to require all persons who have opted in favour of Italian nationality to withdraw, this measure might result in serious difficulties arising from a very large number of persons being compelled to change their domicile.
The United States’ proposal referred to (Article 13, § 4) speaks for itself. Everyone at this Conference must agree that the rights of man and the fundamental freedoms should be universally guaranteed; but to avoid possible difficulties in this connection, it should be laid down as clearly as possible that the State to which the territory is being transferred must take all necessary measures for ensuring that persons inhabiting the ceded territory should enjoy those rights and freedoms which are specified in the proposal of the United States Delegation.