Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy
Mr. Chairman: I formally present the report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy. It records the work of 43 meetings, during the course of which the Commission studied the various parts of the treaty allocated to it, together with the large number of amendments submitted by various delegations.
The primary purpose of this document is to present to the Conference the positive decisions and recommendations of the Commission insofar as these relate to the amended texts of the Articles of the treaty.
The material contained in the report is arranged in the following manner:
Chapter I covers the terms of reference, including the list of proposed amendments submitted to the Commission.
Chapter II sets out the manner in which the Commission disposed of the Articles of the Draft Treaty allocated to it. The number of votes by which the amended texts were adopted is recorded, and the texts as amended are given in full. In certain instances, and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, majority and minority viewpoints are expressed. These majority and minority reports have been submitted by delegations and are reproduced in the form in which they were submitted.
Chapter III contains the decisions and recommendations on the Free Territory of Trieste. The reason for the segregation of this material is a technical one arising from the fact that the earlier sections had been prepared and translated before this section had been completed.
Chapter IV. As a result of a decision of the Commission a Fourth Chapter has been added containing the viewpoints of delegations on certain of their proposed amendments which had not been adopted. The purpose of this Chapter IV is to enable delegations to record and [Page 300] to convey to the Plenary Conference this information on questions to which they attach particular importance. These comments have been reproduced in the form and language in which they have been submitted.
Chapter V records the votes taken on proposals relating to the Free Territory of Trieste, and on certain other important items referred to in the final paragraph of the conclusion.
The concluding section contains a summary of results of the Commission’s labours in a form which it is hoped will be most convenient for the consideration of the Plenary Conference.
In short, the report is a working document and is arranged as such, and it is in no sense a narrative of the course of discussions.
Chapter I. Terms of Reference of the Commission
The Political and Territorial Commission for Italy held 43 meetings, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Leif Egeland, Delegate of the Union of South Africa. It elected as Vice-Chairman M. Manuilsky, Delegate of Ukraine, in whose absence M. Baranovsky assumed the functions of Vice-President and as rapporteur, Mr. McIntosh, Delegate of New Zealand.
The Commission was composed of Delegates of 20 countries, as follows: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia; the representatives of Albania, Egypt and Italy were invited to state before the Commission their points of view on the relevant sections of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy.
The Commission had the task of considering certain parts of the Draft Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Italy, drawn up by the Council of Foreign Ministers and of submitting, eventually, recommendations to the Plenary Conference.
The parts of the Draft Treaty studied by the Commission were as follows:
- Part I —Territorial clauses (Articles 1 to 13, Annexes 1 and 2)
- Part II —Political clauses (Articles 14 to 37, Annex 9)
- Part III—War Criminals (Article 38)
- Part V—Withdrawal of Allied Forces (Article 63)
- Part IX—Settlement of disputes (Article 72)
- Part XI—Final clauses (Articles 75 and 78)
In the course of its work the Commission took into consideration the following amendments, proposals and resolutions:
|Preamble:||1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.5)|
|2 Netherlands amendments (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.6 and Doc.8)|
|1 Amendment submitted by the Chinese delegation in the name of the Belgian, Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese and Netherlands Delegations (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.14)|
|1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B.1)|
|1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.1)|
|Articles 1 to 12:|
|1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B.1)|
|Art. 1||1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.2)|
|Art. 2||1 Australian proposal (See record of Decisions of the 8th meeting, III b)|
|1 French proposal (see record of Decisions of the 10th meeting, II d, and record of Decisions of the 11th meeting, Rev.1, I)|
|Art. 3 & 4||1 Brazilian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.E.2)|
|1 Brazilian amendment (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.23)|
|2 Czechoslovak proposals (see records of Decisions of the 20th and 27th meetings)|
|1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.3)|
|1 Byelorussian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.D.1)|
|1 South African amendment (C.P.(IT/P)Doc. 21 Rev. 1)|
|1 Yugoslav proposal (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.98)|
|Art. 4 & 5||1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.4)|
|Art. 5||1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B. 3)|
|Art. 9 & Annex 2||1 French proposal (see record of Decisions of the 11th meeting, Rev.1, III c)|
|Art. 10a||1 Joint proposal of the Belgium and Netherlands Delegations (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.44)|
|Section IV (Special Clauses and Art. 11.)|
|1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.C (GEN) Doc.1.U.5)|
|1 Yugoslav proposal (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.6)|
|Art. 12||1 Greek amendment (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.60)|
|1 Ukrainian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.R.1)|
|Art. 13||1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B. 4)|
|1 Brazilian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.E.3)|
|1 Greek amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.J.2)|
|1 Yugoslav amendment (C.F.(GEN) Doc.1.U. 7)|
|Art. 13a||1 Yugoslav proposal (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.8)|
|Art. 14||1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B.5)|
|1 Greek proposal (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.79)|
|1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P. (GEN) Doc.1.U.9)|
|Art. 14a||1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P. (GEN) Doc.1.U.9)|
|1 Joint draft, Polish-Ukrainian (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.69)|
|Section II||1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U. 10)|
|Art. 16||1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B.6)|
|1 Byelorussian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1. D.2)|
|1 Brazilian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.E.4)|
|1 Greek proposal (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.1.J.3)|
|1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.10)|
|1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.11)|
|1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.103)|
|1 French proposal (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.105, Rev. 1.)|
|1 United States proposal (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.16.)|
|1 USSR proposal (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.46.)|
|1 Polish resolution (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.106.)|
|Annex 9||Yugoslav proposals (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.27, 1.U.28 and 1.U.29)|
|Art. 17||1 South African amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc. 1.S.1)|
|1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B.7)|
|1 Chinese amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.G.1.)|
|1 Ethiopian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.H.1.)|
|1 Greek amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.J.4.)|
|1 Brazilian amendment (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.73)|
|1 New Zealand amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.M.1)|
|1 Chinese amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.G.2)|
|Art. 21||1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.12)|
|1 Polish amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.0.3)|
|Art. 22||1 Greek amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.J.5)|
|Art. 25a||1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.13)|
|Art. 28||1 Ethiopian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.M.2)|
|Art. 31||1 Ethiopian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.M.3)|
|Art. 38||1 Polish amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.0.4)|
|1 Greek amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.J.6)|
|1 Yugoslav amendment (taken from Albanian proposal, (C.P. (GEN) Doc.7)|
|New Part X|
|1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B.13)|
|1 New Zealand proposal (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.95)|
|Art. 75||1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B.15)|
|Art. 76||1 Australian amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.B.16)|
|1 Anglo-French-American proposal (Draft Peace Treaty, page 53)|
|1 U.S.S.R. proposal (Draft Peace Treaty, page 54)|
|1 Greek amendment (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.J.19)|
|Art. 77||1 Yueoslav amendment (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.97)|
|New Article between 77 &78||1 U.S.A. proposal (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.92)|
|Art. 78||1 Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.93 and 96)|
|New Part XII|
|1 Australian amendment (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.88)|
The observations of the Italian Delegation (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.1 and 12), oral statements of Italian, Albanian and Egyptian representatives and the memorandum of the Albanian Delegation (C.P. (GEN) Doc.7) were also taken into consideration in so far as they concerned Articles within the competence of the Commission and were taken up by one of the Delegations member of this Commission.
The Members of the Council of Foreign Ministers had agreed in advance upon most of the Articles submitted for the consideration of the Commission.
However, the Four Powers were not able to reach prior agreement in the case of the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste, and submitted to the Conference four different texts on that question. On Article 76, also, the Commission had to make a choice between a French-United Kingdom-United States [Page 304] proposal and a proposal sponsored by the U.S.S.R.
Chapter II. Decisions of the Commission on the Articles of the Draft Peace Treaty Allocated to It
The Commission disposed of the Articles of the Draft Treaty allotted to it in the following manner:
Section I. Articles Referred to Other Commissions or Adopted Without Modification
- Articles 15—32—33—34—35—36—77 and 78 were referred to the Legal and Drafting Commission for consideration and decision.
- Article 72 and Annexes 9 and 13 were referred likewise to the Economic Commission.
- Articles 6—7—10—14—23—24—25—26—27—29—30—37—63 and 75 were adopted unanimously.
- Article 17 was adopted unanimously with 2 abstentions, (Australia and Brazil), the Chinese, South African, Australian, Ethiopian and Greek Delegations having withdrawn their respective amendments, in consideration of the assurances contained in the declaration of the Four Powers (C.P. (IT/P)Doc. 65), which is to be attached to the Treaty in the form of an Annex. Article 22 was adopted by 15 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions, Articles 3 (Frontier between Italy and Yugoslavia), 4 (Frontier between Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste) and 16 paragraph 1 by 12 votes to 5 with 3 abstentions.
- The majority and minority reports on Articles 3, 4 and 16 will be found in Chapter III of this report.
Section II. Modifications Proposed by the Commission
As regards the preamble:
- Para. 1 was adopted unanimously.
- Para. 2 was adopted unanimously as amended by the Netherlands
Delegation (C.P.(IT/P) 5th meeting) and reads as follows:
“Whereas Italy under the Fascist regime became a party to the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Japan, undertook a war of aggression and thereby provoked a state of war with all the Allied and Associated Powers and with other United Nations, and bears her share of responsibility for the war; and”
- Para. 3 as amended by the proposal submitted by the Chinese
Delegation in the name of the Belgian, Brazilian, Canadian,
Chinese and Netherlands Delegations (C.P.(IT/P)Doc. 14),
slightly modified, was unanimously adopted. The amended
paragraph reads as follows: [Page 305]
“Whereas, in consequence of the victories of the Allied forces, and with the assistance of the democratic elements of the Italian people, the Fascist regime in Italy was overthrown, on July 25, 1943, and Italy, having surrendered unconditionally, signed terms of Armistice on September 3 and 29 of the same year; and”
- Para. 4 as amended in terms of the proposal of the Netherlands
(C.P.(IT/P)Doc. 8) (which was modified in the meeting) was
adopted unanimously, with one abstention (Yugoslavia). The
amended paragraph 4 reads as follows:
“Whereas after the said Armistice the Italian armed forces, both of the Government and of the Resistance Movement, took an active part in the war against Germany and Italy declared war on Germany as from October 13, 1943, and thereby became a co-belligerent against Germany, and”
- Para. 5. Following a discussion on the Australian amendment to
para. 5 (C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 15), a motion by the Chairman was
adopted by the Commission, Yugoslavia alone voting against it,
and para. 5 as amended reads as follows:
“Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers and Italy are respectively desirous of concluding a treaty of peace which, in conformity with the principles of justice, will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the events hereinbefore recited and will form the basis of friendly relations between them, thereby enabling the Allied and Associated Powers to support Italy’s application to become a member of the United Nations and also to adhere to any convention concluded under the auspices of the United Nations;”
The Preamble as amended was formally adopted as a whole on October 1, 1946.
Article 1, as amended by the second part of the Yugoslav amendment (C.P. (GEN) Doc. 1.U.2), slightly modified, was adopted unanimously. Article 1 should therefore read:
“The frontiers of Italy shall be those existing on January 1, 1938, subject to the modifications set out in Articles 2, 3. . . . . .1 These frontiers are traced on the maps attached to the present treaty. In case of a discrepancy between the textual description of the frontiers and the maps, the text shall be deemed to be authentic”
The Yugoslav Delegation agreed to withdraw the first part of its amendment on condition that the following text was adopted by the Commission:
“The Commission assumed that adequate and sufficiently detailed maps corresponding to the various territorial clauses will be annexed to the treaty”.
This text was adopted without discussion.
As regards Art. 2:
- Para. 1 (Little St. Bernard Pass) was unanimously adopted.
- Para. 2 (Mont Cenis Plateau) was adopted by 15 votes, 5 Delegations abstaining.
- Para. 3 (Mont Thabor-Chaberton) was adopted unanimously, subject
to frontier adjustments in the region of Mont Thabor to be examined
by the Legal and Drafting Commission, in accordance with the terms
of the following statement by the French Delegation:
“The French Delegation is ready to modify the text of the detailed description of the frontier in the Mont Thabor region, leaving to Italy the dam and the water catchment situated in this region.”
- Para. 4 (Upper Tinée, Vésubie and Roya Valleys) was unanimously
adopted, subject to the frontier adjustments to be examined by the
Legal and Drafting Commission, according to the following text
adopted by the Commission:
“The French Delegation having agreed to leave the village of Olivetta under Italian sovereignty, the Drafting Commission shall make the necessary changes in the relevant annex of the draft peace treaty”.
- It was decided that the detailed description of the Franco-Italian frontier (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.20) and the corresponding maps should be annexed to the Draft Peace Treaty and that the Legal and Drafting Commission should mention the annex and the corresponding maps in Article 2.
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the U.S. proposal having been withdrawn Article 5 was adopted unanimously with the addition of a new paragraph 5 proposed by the Yugoslav Delegation (C.P. (GEN) Doc.1.U.4) as revised according to the Chairman’s suggestion (C.P.(IT/P) 27th meeting). The new paragraph 5 of the Article 5 reads as follows:
“For the purpose of determining on the spot the exact frontier laid down in Articles 3, 4 and 16, the Commissioners shall be allowed to depart by 0.5 kilometer from the line laid down in the present treaty in order to adjust the boundary to local geographical and economic conditions, provided that no village or town of more than 500 inhabitants, no important railroads or highways, and no major power or water supplies are placed under a sovereignty contrary to the delimitations laid down in the present treaty”.
Article 8 was unanimously adopted with the following modification, proposed by the Delegation for France: addition of the words “the [Page 307] necessary arrangements shall be concluded in due time between the two Governments” at the end of sub-para. 2 of Article 8.
As regards Article 9 which was adopted unanimously and the Annex 2 to which it refers, the Commission decided to refer section IV of annex 2 to the Legal and Drafting Commission, who should modify it according to the following statement made by the Delegate for France at the 11th meeting:
“The Delegate for France has stated that he would have no objection to the addition of a phrase in section IV of annex 2 which would give Italy guarantees as to the security conditions applying to the dam of Mont Cenis. This phrase would make clear that it would be the task of the technical supervisory Commission to cooperate with the appropriate French technical authorities to ensure that the safety of the lower valleys is not endangered”.
As regards Article 10a, a joint proposal by the Belgian and Netherlands Delegations for the addition of Article 10a (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.44 Rev.1) was adopted by 13 votes to 6 and one abstention.
The text of Article 10a is as follows:
“The Allied and Associated Powers have taken note of the provisions (of which the text is annexed to the present treaty) agreed upon by the Austrian and Italian Governments on September 5, 1946, giving certain guarantees to the German speaking inhabitants of the province of Bolzano and the neighbouring bilingual townships of the province of Trente”.
According to the resolution issued by the General Secretariat (C.P. (Sec.) N.S. 131), the two following reports putting the respective point of view of the majority and of the minority are submitted to the Conference.
a) Majority report by Belgian and Netherlands Delegations
“On September 5, 1946, in Paris, the Premier of the Italian Republic and the Foreign Minister of the Austrian Republic agreed on a text regarding the status of the German speaking inhabitants of the Province of Bolzano and the bilingual border communes of the Province of Trente. This agreement, communicated to the Conference in letter of 6 September from the two signatories and circulated to members of the Conference by the Secretariat General (Doc.C.P.(SEC) N.S. 119) guarantees to German-speaking citizens complete equality of rights with Italian-speaking citizens, to safeguard their ethnical character and cultural and economic development.
With this object in view, the Italian Government promises to grant them autonomous regional legislative and executive power. It undertakes further to review the question of the options for citizenship resulting from the 1939 agreements, to seek agreement on the mutual [Page 308] recognition of the validity of certain university diplomas, to draw up a convention for free transit between the Northern and Eastern Tyrol and to make special agreements to facilitate traffic across the frontier between the two countries.
The Belgian and Netherlands Delegations believed that this agreement, by obviating certain difficulties in the South Tyrol, makes an important contribution to the development of peaceful and friendly relations between Austria and Italy. They therefore considered it appropriate that the Allied and Associated Powers should take note of the agreement in a special Article of the Peace Treaty with Italy and should annex the text of the Austro-Italian agreement to the Treaty. The Belgian and Netherlands Delegations therefore tabled a draft amendment (Doc. 44, Rev. 1) for insertion in Section III of Part I of the Peace Treaty, under the heading AUSTRIA.”
b) Minority report by the U.S.S.R. Delegation:
The following is the point of view of the minority:
- This Agreement has no connection whatsoever with the Peace Treaty with Italy as the task of the Conference is to study the Draft Peace Treaties which are to regulate the relations between the United Nations and the country in question.
- The Agreement between Italy and Austria does not fall within these terms of reference as it is a bilateral agreement concluded between States which were in one and the same camp in the war against the United Nations; it should not therefore be included in the documents of this Conference.
- The Council of Foreign Ministers accepted Article 10 which provides for the conclusion of an agreement between Italy and Austria guaranteeing the free movement of passenger and freight traffic between North and South Tyrol. The Italo-Austrian Agreement of 5th September does not deal with this question and has nothing in common with Article 10.
- Moreover, it has been stated that the Agreement in question does not supply a satisfactory solution of the problem of the national rights of the German-speaking population of the South Tyrol.
- No concrete measures are laid down in the Agreement to secure a review of the system of option which was introduced under the Hitler-Mussolini Agreement of 1939 and which has had a very unfavourable effect on the life of the German-speaking population of the South Tyrol.
- The Agreement of September 5, 1946 is to be put into effect not on a broad democratic basis but mainly with an eye to the interests and views of a narrow circle of persons indicated by the authorities. The question of the frontiers of the autonomous territory remains open, as do the means by which the autonomy desired by the people of South Tyrol will be realized.
- The terms of the Agreement are too vague and it is not exactly clear to which territory it is applicable.
- The insertion of the Austro-Italian Agreement in the Peace Treaty with Italy would create the undesirable and even harmful illusion that the Agreement constitutes even in a small degree a solution of the problem of the national rights of the German-speaking population of the South Tyrol, whereas in reality this is not the case.”
Heading of Section IV.
The heading of Section IV was modified, with unanimous consent, by the adoption of the proposal contained in the Yugoslav amendment (C.P. (GEN) Doc. 1.U.5). The heading should therefore read:
“Section IV, People’s Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (Special Clauses)
Article 11 was unanimously adopted following the acceptance of the report from a sub-commission of two (France and Yugoslavia) (C.P. (IT/P)Doc. 62 revised) which revised the proposals in the Yugoslav amendment (C.P. (GEN) Doc. 1.U.5).
Paragraph b) of Article 11 was therefore replaced by the following text:
“b) The area bounded
On the north by parallel 45° 17’ N.
“south “44°23’ N.
“west by a line connecting the following points:
- 1) 45°17’ N—13°27’ E
- 2) 44°51’N—13°37’E
- 3) 44°23’ N—14°18'30" E
On the east by the west coast of Istria, the islands and the mainland of Yugoslavia”.
As regards Article 11a, the proposed Yugoslav amendment to add four new articles (11a, 11b, 11c and 11d) (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1.U.6) having been revised by the sub-commission of three (Belgium, France and Yugoslavia) (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.100), the new article 11a was adopted by the Commission by 19 votes to 1 together with the first paragraph of Ann. 3, which was adopted unanimously and referred to the Economic Commission for Italy for observations.
Article 11a as amended by the Commission reads as
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Provisions relating to ceded territories.
1. The Successor State shall receive, without payment, Italian State and para-statal property within territory ceded to it under the present Treaty, as well as all relevant archives of an administrative character or historical value concerning the territory in question.
The following are considered are [as] State or parastatal property.…”
Article 12 was amended in terms of the proposal put forward by the Greek Delegation (C.P.(IT/P)Doc. 60), which was unanimously adopted as modified by the Commission.
The Ukrainian amendment to the second sentence of para. 1 of Article 12 (C.P.(GEN.)Doc. 1.R.1) was withdrawn.
Article 12, as amended is as follows:
“Italy hereby cedes to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodecanese Islands indicated hereafter, viz. Astypaloa, Rhodes, Chalk, Scarpanto, Cassos, Piscopi (Tilos), Nisyros, Calymnos, Zeros, Patmos, Lipsos, Symi, Cos and Castelloriso as well as the islets depending from all the above islands. These islands shall be and shall remain demilitarized.
The procedure and the technical conditions governing the transfer of these islands to Greece will be determined by agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and Greece and arrangement shall be made for the withdrawal of foreign troops not later than 90 days from the date of coming into force of the present Treaty.”
The Commission proposed that the Greek Delegation should prepare a text and map defining the draft maritime frontier of Greece in the region of the Dodecanese Islands and that such text and map should be submitted to the Plenary Conference for approval.
The Commission decided likewise to refer to the Legal and Drafting Commission the consideration of the text and map of the draft maritime frontier of Greece in the region of the Dodecanese Islands to be prepared by the Greek Delegation, such observations as the Legal and Drafting Commission might make thereon to be submitted direct to the Plenary Conference.[Page 311]
Article 13 as amended by the addition of a new para. 4, proposed by the Australian Delegation (See C.P.(GEN.)Doc.1.B.4), and identical with the U.S. proposal contained in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy as U.S. proposal, was adopted by the Commission by 12 votes to 2 with 6 abstentions. With a slight drafting alteration, it reads as follows:
“The State to which the territory is transferred shall secure to all persons within the territory, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of opinion and public meeting.”
According to the resolution issued by the General Secretariat (C.P. (SEC)N.S.131), the two following reports, putting the respecting [respective] points of view of the majority and of the minority, are submitted to the Conference.
a. Majority report by the United States Delegation.
In putting forward the majority point of view, the United States and also the Australian Delegation, “drew attention to the fact that the Australian amendment, which is identical with that of the United States, was accepted in the Commission on September 23, by 14 votes to 6, i.e., a two-thirds majority. When the Article, as amended was adopted by the Commission, it received 12 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions. Amongst the delegations abstaining were those who had voted against the United States proposal, together with Brazil and Greece, whose amendments to those Articles had been rejected by the Commission. The abstention of the Brazilian and Greek Delegations was not because of disagreement with the American proposal, but because the Article did not reflect their own amendments.
However, in support of the proposal for a new paragraph to Article 13 (which it must be remembered received an affirmative two-thirds vote of the Commission), the United States delegation states that it is designed to secure for persons in ceded Italian territories equal treatment and the enjoyment of human rights and the fundamental freedoms. The new paragraph 4 to Article 13 is not restricted to any one country but applies to all countries receiving Italian territory. People who live in territory which passes from one sovereignty to another are entitled to the enjoyment of the fundamental freedoms and human rights and it appears obvious that the receiving sovereign State should guarantee these rights and freedoms to the new citizens whom they acquire in the same measures as to their own citizens. All the peace treaties should guarantee, fortify and strengthen the rights of human beings, and thus, while the United States proposal is a simple one, it is fundamental in character. All nations represented at the Paris Conference are signatories of the Charter of the United Nations, which also reflects the vital principles of human rights and freedom. The transfer of sovereignty over territory, material goods, reparations or battleships cannot be compared with the transfer of human beings which may affect their personal rights and privileges and it is in this spirit that the American Delegation urged and obtained the adoption [Page 312] by the Commission of paragraph 4 to Article 13 of the Italian Peace Treaty.
b. Minority report by the Yugoslav Delegation.
- “The Yugoslav Delegation considers that for the automatic acquisition of citizenship the earlier date than that foreseen by the project would be more justified. A closer link with the ceded territory is necessary for the automatic acquisition of citizenship. The successor state should take only the local population together with the territory. The Yugoslav amendment (Doc. C.P. (GEN.)Doc. 1.U.7), asking that the date be April 21, 1936 (that of the last Italian census) supposes that the population after a ten years’ sojourn might have assimilated with the local population.
- “The Yugoslav Delegation also wishes, through its amendment (Doc.1.U.8), to exclude from the automatic acquisition of the Yugoslav citizenship war criminals and active and prominent Fascists. Such people are the greatest enemies to the Yugoslav peoples, and it would be unjustified if Yugoslavia had to acknowledge them as her citizens.”
- “The minority took the view that the proposals were discriminatory in their nature, because the proposed obligations are only imposed upon some of the signatories of the present Treaty, while the said obligations are not assumed by the other States signatories to the Treaty (including the States which have proposed them). They are imposed also upon such States as Yugoslavia, where rights of national minorities had been guaranteed, and such guarantees had been embodied in the Constitution. The imposition of the rules proposed implied lack of confidence in certain democratic Allied States and represented a form of interference in their internal affairs. While there was no objection to the spirit, it was for the above reasons inappropriate to insert the proposals in the present Treaty”.
Article 13a, based on sub-section 1 and 3 of the
Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN.)Doc.1.U.8), having been revised by the
Legal and Drafting Commission (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.102) and further revised in
the Commission, was adopted by 19 votes to 1. The text of 13a is as follows:
Article 14a. The Yugoslav proposal to add a new article 14a (C.P. (GEN.) Doc.1.U.9) was adopted by 13 votes to 6 and 1 abstention. The text of Article 14a is as follows:
“Italy agrees not to take any proceedings whatsoever against:
- Persons who expressed themselves in favour of their locality or any part of Italy being ceded to any Allied or Associated Power, who engaged in activities to this end or took action vis-à-vis international organizations or commissions in favour of a solution of the frontier question detrimental to Italy.
- Italian nationals or members of the armed forces who deserted from the Italian army or joined Allied military units or resistance movements in the rear or under the occupation.”
According to the resolution issued by the General Secretariat (C.P. (Sec) N.S.131) the two following reports putting the respective points of view of the majority and of the minority are submitted to the Conference.
a. Majority report by Yugoslav Delegation
“A situation has arisen as a result of the war and the struggle against fascism, in certain large frontier areas in Italy and above all in the Julian March, which leads the population to expect that the frontier would be modified, and it acted accordingly, thereby formally violating Italian laws. The changes provided for in the present treaty show that the population of these frontier areas was right. However, the proposed frontier lines, whatever they may finally be, will never include all those who came out in favour of the incorporation of the region in a neighbouring country. Justice demands that they be not abandoned to the vengeance of the defeated country. This applies in an even greater measure to those who left the ranks of the Italian army which was fighting against the United Nations, and who went over to the Allied Forces.”
b. Minority report by the United States Delegation
“The objection to this new article is that it attempts to define in detail certain of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are covered by the broad language of draft Article 14. Such particularization of the human rights and fundamental principles is undesirable since they cannot all be enumerated in the draft treaty and omissions may lead to confusion with respect to the intent of the [Page 314] drafters. Consequently it is better not to try to improve on the broad language already contained in draft Article 14. Furthermore, the intent of Article 14 a is broader than just the Slovene populations mentioned and might be applied to all Allied sympathizers in Italy. Finally the language in para. b of the proposed Article is too broad in that it appears to cover all deserters from the Italian army without limitation as to reason for desertion or period of time”.
Articles 18, 19 and 20.
The Chinese amendment to these three Articles having been unanimously accepted (C.P.(GEN) Doc.1 G.2) the following texts are recommended to the Plenary Conference:
“Article 18. Italy renounces in favour of China all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final protocol signed at Peking on September 7, 1901 and all annexes, notes and documents supplementary thereto, and agrees to the abrogation of the said protocol, annexes, notes and documents in respect of Italy. Italy likewise renounces any claims thereunder to an indemnity.
Article 19. Italy agrees to the cancellation of the lease from the Chinese Government under which the Italian Concession at Tientsin was granted, and to the transfer to the Chinese Government of any property and archives belonging to the municipality of the said Concession.
Article 20. Italy renounces in favour of China the rights accorded to Italy in relation to International Settlements at Shanghai and Amoy and agrees to the reversion of the said Settlements, to the administration and control of the Chinese Government.
Article 21, as amended by the Yugoslav proposal contained in C.P. (GEN.) Doc.1.U.12, was adopted by 11 votes to one with 8 abstentions. The amended Article 21 should read as follows:
“Italy recognises and undertakes to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the State of Albania.”
According to the resolution issued by the General Secretariat (C.P. (Sec) N.S.131) the two following reports putting the respective points of view of the majority and of the minority are submitted to the Conference.
a. Majority report by the Yugoslav Delegation
“In the view of the Yugoslav Delegation, territorial integrity is but one aspect of the sovereignty and independence of a country. The denial of Albania’s sovereignty and independence by Italy manifested itself in the first place in the seizure of Albanian territory, i.e. in the violation of her territorial integrity. It is therefore justified to ask that Italy should expressly recognise the territorial integrity of Albania.”
b. Minority report by the United States and Greek Delegations
- “1. The United States Delegation lays stress on the fact that the addition of the phrase ‘territorial integrity’ to this Article is considered unnecessary and contributing to confusion. It does not appear in the Treaty with respect to any other country and can be interpreted as placing the final seal of the Conference’s approval on the present frontiers with Albania. It is well-known that one of the United Nations and member of the Paris Conference has territorial claims against Albania which are not now under consideration by this Conference. The frontiers of Albania are not up for consideration by the Conference and any implication in the Treaty that present Albanian frontiers have been confirmed by the Conference is erroneous, misleading and outside the Conference terms of reference. Consequently the original wording of the draft Article is sufficient guarantee with respect to Italy and should be maintained unmodified.”
- 2. “The Greek Delegation has communicated its reservations concerning Article 21 insofar as this Article might be held to apply to the existing territorial boundaries of Albania and with a view to obviating any possible ambiguity, the Greek Delegation states that the Greek Government, while subscribing to the sovereignty and independence of Albania will maintain its reservations until such time as the question of Northern Epirus is settled in a manner consonant with justice and equity. The solution of this problem will help to restore friendly relations between the two neighbouring countries. The Greek Delegation also draws attention to the fact that the Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(GEN.)Doc.1.U.12) was adopted by 10 votes to 9 with 1 abstention, whereas the Article as amended was adopted as has already been noted, by 11 votes to 1, with 8 abstentions.”
Arts. 23 and 24.
Articles 23 and 24 were accepted, and sent to the Economic Commission for Italy for their comments. The Yugoslav Delegation having presented as their own amendments the proposal contained in the memorandum submitted by the Albanian Government on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy (C.P.(GEN) Doc.7), relative to Article 23, and for new articles 24a and 24b, it was resolved by the Commission to send these proposed amendments to the Economic Commission for Italy for a decision.
Article 28 was adopted as amended by the Ethiopian amendment (C.P.(GEN)1.H.2) the vote being unanimous with two abstentions (U.S.A., and Ethiopia). The text of Article 28, thus amended, reads as follows:
“Italy formally renounces in favour of Ethiopia all property (apart from normal diplomatic or consular premises) rights, interests and advantages of all kinds acquired at any time in Ethiopia by the Italian State, as well as all para-statal property as defined in paragraph 1 of Annex 3 to the present Treaty”.[Page 316]
“Italy renounces all claims to special interests or influence in Ethiopia”.
Article 31, as amended by the Ethiopian proposals (C.P. (GEN) Doc, 1.H.3), was adopted unanimously with the abstention of the United States. The amended Article 31 reads as follows:
“Within 18 months following the entry into force of the present Treaty, Italy will restore all Ethiopian works of art, religious objects, archives and objects of historical value removed from Ethiopia to Italy since October 3, 1935.
The date from which the provisions of the present Treaty shall become applicable as regards all measures and facts of any kind whatsoever entailing the responsibility of Italy or of Italian nationals towards Ethiopia, shall be held to be on October 3, 1935.”
Article 38 was adopted as amended by the substitution in paragraph 1 of the words “take the necessary steps” by the words “take all necessary steps”, in the first part of the Polish amendment (C.P. (GEN) Doc. 1.0.4). The vote was unanimous with Greece abstaining. In consequence, para. 1 of Article 38 should read as follows:
- “1. Italy shall take all necessary steps to ensure the
apprehension and surrender for trial of:
- persons accused of having committed, ordered or abetted war crimes and crimes against peace or humanity;
- nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers accused of having violated their national law by treason or collaboration with the enemy during the war.”
In the case of Article 76, the Commission, after consideration, adopted by 14 votes to 6, the text of the draft submitted by the Delegations of France, U.K., and U.S.A. This text having secured the two-thirds majority required by Section VIb of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference is submitted to the approval of the Plenary Conference as a recommendation of the Commission.
Article 77a, a new article proposed by the United States Delegation (C.P.(IT/P)Doc.92), was adopted at the 37th meeting of the Commission by 11 votes to 8, with 1 abstention. This new article is as follows:
“The provisions of the present Treaty shall not confer any rights or benefits on any State named in the Preamble of the present Treaty as one of the Allied and Associated Powers or on its nationals unless such State becomes a party to the Treaty by deposit of its instrument of ratification.”[Page 317]
In conformity with Section VIb of the Rules of Procedure two reports setting forth the respective points of view of both the majority and the minority are submitted.
a. Majority report by the United States Delegation.
“In view of the provisions contained in the 1st paragraph of Article 78 for the Treaty coming into force, that is, immediately upon the deposit of ratification by France, U.K., U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., it is considered desirable to clarify the position of the other Allied and Associated Powers with respect to the benefits of the Treaty. There are many provisions in the Treaty conferring benefits, territorial and otherwise, on various Allied and Associated Powers and it should be made clear in the Treaty that ratification of that document and deposit of a country’s ratification as provided in the last part of Article 78 is a prerequisite to receiving rights and benefits under the Treaty. Under Article 78, the Treaty does not become binding upon an Allied and Associated Power until that Power’s instrument of ratification has been deposited. That Allied and Associated Power does not assume the obligations of the Treaty until its deposit of ratification. It is obviously just that an Allied and Associated Power should not be entitled to benefit under the Treaty until it assumes the corresponding obligations. There is nothing exclusive in this proposal for a new article since its language indicates that it is not directed against any one state; that its provisions apply to all of the Allied and Associated Powers. Since there may be some difference of interpretation of Article 78 concerning the Treaty coming into force with respect to the Allied and Associated Powers other than the Four sponsoring Powers, the proposed new article will obviate any future question on this point.”
b) Minority report by the U.S.S.R. delegation.
“The Delegation of the United States proposed that a new article should be inserted between Articles 77 and 78 in the Peace Treaty whereby the provisions of the present Treaty should not provide any rights or privileges to any State mentioned in the Preamble, until such time as the Act of ratification has been deposited.
The Soviet Delegation considers that the aforesaid proposal of the American Delegation, which was accepted by the Commission with a quite insignificant majority, viz.: 11 to 8 with one abstention, is completely wrong.
The Soviet Delegation considers that the proposal of the Delegation of the U.S.A. is redundant, because the question at issue has already been decided by the second paragraph of Article 78 of the draft Peace Treaty, which was adopted by the Council of Foreign Ministers and was likewise approved by the Commission.
Insofar as Article 78 has laid down the conditions under which the Peace Treaty with Italy shall enter into force with each of the Allied and Associated Powers, and has thereby laid down the conditions under which the respective Governments will acquire the rights and privileges provided for in this Treaty, there is no necessity to include an additional Article, such as that proposed by the U.S.A.
The Soviet Delegation requests that the Plenary Conference should reject the American proposal, which was accepted by the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy.”
Chapter III. Free Territory of Trieste
As already indicated in para. 3 of Chapter II, majority and minority viewpoints on Articles 3, 4 and 16 (1) were to be included in this section of the report. These viewpoints are submitted in accordance with the Resolution issued by the General Secretariat (C.P. (Sec) N.S.131).
The views of the United States Delegation (as recorded in the minutes of 26th meeting, Annex A (C.P.(IT/P) 19th September 1946), with which the United Kingdom Delegation also desires to be associated, are as follows:
“When the Council of Foreign Ministers decided, on July 3, 1946, that Italy should cede all territory East of the French line to Yugoslavia, there was contained in the same agreement a provision for the establishment of a Free Territory of Trieste, constituted within that line, under the provisions of a permanent Statute to be approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. This was one decision and one agreement.
“The U.S. Delegation has accepted the French line as the Eastern frontier of Italy and of the Free Territory as part of the comprehensive agreement which included the setting up of a Free Territory of Trieste. The U.S. Delegation wishes to make it clear to all that its agreement to one part of this decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers was contingent upon agreement upon all parts of it, including a satisfactory Statute for the Free Territory which must provide real guarantees for its integrity, its independence and protection for the rights of its citizens.”
The viewpoint of the Yugoslav Delegation on Articles 3, 4 and 16 (1) is as follows:
“The proposal of the Council of Foreign Ministers, which agreed upon the French Line as the frontier between Yugoslavia and Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste, abandons the principle of the ethnical line, prevents the national liberation and union of a considerable part of the small Slovene people, deprives this people of the whole of their coast and bars them from their sea outlet, deprives the Slovene littoral of all urban centers, in short it sacrifices the vital interests of an Allied Nation.
“No objective reasons or sound principles were adduced in favour of this proposal, nor could be adduced. The theory of the ‘ethnical equilibrium’ cannot be considered as such a reason. According to this theory, which is contrary to the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers of September 19, 1945, Yugoslavia is deprived of important parts of her compact ethnical territory, as a sort of compensation for the isolated Italian settlements in the towns on the Yugoslav Adriatic Coast.[Page 319]
“This proposal is in contradiction to the war aims of the Allies, with the democratic liberation struggle of the Yugoslav peoples, especially of the Slovene and Croatian inhabitants of the Julian March itself, who had made the greatest sacrifices in this struggle.
“The frontier proposed by the Yugoslav amendment comprises only essential parts of the compact Yugoslav frontier areas, which are vital to Yugoslavia for geographic, communications, economic and strategic reasons. Only this frontier corresponds to the original decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers and the war aims of the Allies.
“Furthermore, the Yugoslav Delegation considers that the only way to solve questions involving the vital interests of an Allied nation is to reach an agreement.
“Therefore, the Yugoslav Delegation proposes to the Plenary Session of the Conference to forward the question of the frontier between Yugoslavia and Italy, as well as the question of the Free City of Trieste, to the Council of Foreign Ministers to be reconsidered, in order to reach an agreement—as it should be among Allies—with Yugoslavia.”
The viewpoint of the Byelorussian Delegation on Articles 3, 4 and 16, para 1, is as follows:
“The Byelorussian Delegation agrees with the statement of the Yugoslav Delegation, on the views of the minority on Articles 3, 4 and 16 (1), regarding the establishment of the boundary between Yugoslavia and Italy, but the Byelorussian Delegation reserves the right to abide by the boundary proposed by the Byelorussian Delegation. (See Byelorussian amendments C.P. (GEN) Doc. 1. D.1 and 1. D.2)
Article 16 (except para. 1)
After a general discussion in the Commission the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers contained in Article 16 were submitted on September 10th to a sub-Commission of eight, appointed to examine and report on the Statute of the Free Territory. The report of this sub-Commission (C.P.(IT/P) (S/T) Doc.8) and the annex thereto is by decision of the Commission attached to this report.
In recording its inability, except on certain points, to make recommendations, the sub-Commission in para. 7 refers to the fact that—
“From the beginning of the discussion, it became clear that there existed fundamental differences of interpretation and implementation of these proposals concerning:
- The character of the Free Territory;
- The responsibilities of the Security Council toward the Free Territory and, deriving from these, the position and role of the Governor and the position and role of the legislative and executive authorities of the Free Territory.
“Such differences of conception made the work of the sub-Commission difficult and explain why it has not been able to present, except on certain points, a single draft Statute.”
The differing points of view are fully recorded in the sub-Commission’s report and the annex.
The timetable of the Conference precluded the Commission from examining in detail the sub-Commission’s report following its formal presentation on October 2, 1946. Instead, there was a general discussion of all proposals before the Commission, including the sub-Commission’s report, but more particularly centered on the Polish resolution (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.106), the United States partial redraft of Article 16 (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.16), the proposal by the French Delegation (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.105, Rev.1), the Yugoslav amendment (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.103), and the U.S.S.R. proposal (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.46). (See also Chapter IV under Article 16.)
The U.S. redraft of Article 16 was amended by the Commission and adopted by 14 votes to 6 and goes forward as a recommendation to the Plenary Conference.
Para. 4 of this redraft was sent to the Legal and Drafting Commission to be brought into line with the previously adopted French proposal relating to this point. A modified text has been drafted accordingly by the Legal and Drafting Commission.
The first sentence of Art. 16 (b) of the American proposal was sent to the Economic Commission for decision.
The United States proposal, as adopted by the Commission reads as follows:
Article 16 (a)
- There is hereby constituted the Free Territory of Trieste, which is recognized by the Allied and Associated Powers and by Italy. They agree that the integrity and independence of this Free Territory should be assured by the Security Council of the United Nations.
- (Description of the frontiers.)
- Italian sovereignty over the territory lying between the Adriatic Sea and the boundaries defined in Article 4 of the Treaty shall be terminated upon the coming into force of the Treaty.
- Upon the renunciation of Italian sovereignty, the Free Territory of Trieste shall be governed by the provisions of Annex — (Provisional Government of the Free Territory of Trieste) which shall remain in effect until such time as the Security Council shall direct the coming into force of the permanent Statute, approved by it (recommendations for which are contained in Annex —). Such permanent statute shall be considered as an integral part of the present treaty and the Free Territory shall thenceforth be governed by its provisions.
- The Free Territory of Trieste shall not be considered as ceded territory within the meaning of Article 13 and Annex 3 of the present Treaty.
The following recommendations from the proposal of the Soviet Delegation (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.46) as amended by the Commission also go forward as recommendations to the Plenary Conference:
“The Governor shall be responsible for the observance of the Statute of the Free Territory”.
“Legislative authority shall be exercised by a popular assembly elected by means of universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage, irrespective of sex, on the basis of proportional representation”.
Adopted by 18 votes to 1, with 1 abstention.
The proposal by the French Delegation (C.P.(IT/P) Doc.105, Rev. 1) was adopted as amended by the Commission by 14 votes to 6 and goes to the Conference as a recommendation.
The proposal by the French Delegation, as adopted by the Commission, is as follows:
I. Having taken note of the report of the sub-Commission on the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste,
approves those provisions in the draft Statute on which unanimous agreement has been reached by the sub-Commission.
II. approves paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers of July 3, 1946, which appears under Article 16 of the Draft Peace Treaty.
III. And in order to facilitate the elaboration by the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Permanent Statute, the Free Port Regime, and the Provisional Regime, the Commission
The principles contained in these paragraphs should be expanded in the Permanent Statute as follows—
(1) The integrity and independence of the Free Territory is assured by the Security Council. This responsibility implies that the Council shall:
- ensure the observance of the Permanent Statute and in particular protect the basic human rights of the inhabitants.
- assure the public order and security in the Free Territory.
(2) The Free Territory shall be demilitarized. No armed forces, except upon direction of the Security Council, shall be allowed in the Free Territory.
(3) In conformity with the principle that the legislative and executive authority of the Free Territory shall be established on democratic lines, the Permanent Statute of the Free Territory shall provide for the creation of a popular Assembly elected on the basis of proportional representation by means of a universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage, and a Council of Government formed by and responsible to the Assembly.
(4) By reason of the responsibilities imposed upon the Security Council in the Free Territory it is inevitable that certain limitations shall be imposed upon the powers of the popular Assembly and the Council of Government. These limitations result from the rights now [Page 322] conferred upon the Governor, subject to any modification which the Security Council may subsequently determine.
(5) The Governor shall be appointed by the Security Council after consultation with Yugoslavia and Italy. He shall be the representative of the Security Council in the Free Territory, and shall in particular have the duty of supervising the observance of the Statute.
(6) In matters which in his view affect the responsibilities of the Security Council as defined in paragraph (1) above the Governor shall have the right to propose legislation to the popular Assembly and to prevent the entry into force of legislative measures subject to reference to the Security Council if the popular Assembly does not accept his views and recommendations.
(7) In the meetings of the Council of Government, the Governor shall express his views on all matters affecting his responsibilities.
(8) The primary responsibilities of the Governor would be
- the maintenance of public order and security.
- the conduct of foreign relations in the closest liaison with the elected authorities of the Territory.
- the appointment of the judiciary on the advice of the Council of Government and, subject to safeguards to be established by the Constitution, the removal of members of the judiciary for conduct incompatible with their judicial office.
(9) When as a result of exceptional circumstances, the independence and integrity of the Free Territory, public order and security, or the human and civic rights of the inhabitants are endangered, the Governor may take all necessary measures subject to his making an immediate report to the Security Council. Under the same reservation he may proclaim a state of siege.
(10) (a) Domicile in the Free Territory on June 10th, 1940 as provided in Article 13 of the Peace Treaty with Italy shall be the qualification for original citizenship of the Free Territory.
(b) The conditions for the acquisition of citizenship by persons not qualifying for original citizenship shall be determined by the Assembly of the Free Territory and embodied in the Constitution.
free port and economic questions
(11) (a) A Free Port Regime is desirable irrespective of whether or not it is ultimately decided that the whole Territory shall be a Free Customs Zone.
(b) The establishment of special zones under the exclusive jurisdiction of any country is incompatible with the status of the Free Territory and of the Free Port.
(c) Freedom of transit shall be assured to goods and means of transport between the Free Port and the States which it serves, without any discrimination and without customs or fiscal charges, by the States whose territories are traversed.
(d) Economic union or associations of an exclusive character with any other country are incompatible with the status of the Free Territory.[Page 323]
- From the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Peace until the entry into force of the Permanent Statute, the Provisional Government of the Free Territory will be organised by the Security Council which in particular will appoint a Governor and define his powers.
- The Security Council shall fix the date or dates for the withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in the Free Territory.
IV. The Commission recommends that the Council of Foreign Ministers gives an opportunity to a representative of the People’s Federative Republic of Yugoslavia to present his views before final decision is reached.
The Commission likewise recommends that a representative of Italy be heard by the Council of Foreign Ministers.
In regard to the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers contained in Article 16, it was recognised that paragraphs 3 and 5 were no longer appropriate, and were therefore not put to the Commission. It was agreed that the adoption of paragraph II of the French proposal (C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 105, Rev. 1) by 19 votes to 1, carried with it the adoption of paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers contained in Article 16.
Chapter IV. Views of Delegations on Amendments and Proposals Not Adopted by the Commission
In accordance with the decision of the Commission, delegations were provided with the opportunity to record in this Chapter their viewpoints on certain of their proposals not adopted by the Commission and to which they attached particular importance. The comments contained in this chapter are reproduced in the form in which they were submitted by the delegations concerned.
Art. 3, 4 and 16§.1—South African Delegation
“The S.A. Delegation proposed an amendment which would have had the effect of internationalizing Western Istria, inclusive of the city of Trieste. The S.A. Delegation based its argument on the fact that about 75% of the population in the Territory proposed to be internationalized was Italian. In these circumstances the S.A. Delegation felt that it would be preferable to internationalize this area, composed as it was of a mixed population which might create international friction.”
The S.A. amendment was rejected by 12 votes to 6 with 2 abstns.
Article 5—Australian Delegation
“In connection with the proposal for the establishment of a Boundary Commission the Australian Delegation put the case for having [Page 324] the relevant functions, as well as others of a similar kind elsewhere in the Treaty, carried out by a Treaty Executive Council (the principal proposal regarding which having been originally presented as an amendment to Article 75). In support of this proposal it was contended that a T.E.C. would be a consolidation into a consistent and perhaps permanent form of the considerable number of functions and agencies referred to in all the draft treaties dealing with the interpretation and exercise of the treaties and management of disputes either specified or general. It seemed to the Australian delegation that an opportunity would be missed if advantage were not taken to consider whether some continuing means could be found which would help to maintain uniformity and consistency in matters common to a large group of countries.”
a) Australian Delegation
“The Australian Delegation proposed provision in the Treaty whereby the obligation assumed by Italy in respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms should be established as part of the fundamental law of Italy. It was maintained by the Australian Delegation that such a provision was a logical extension of the obligations already assumed, that the amendment did no more than ensure that the obligations implicit in the United Nations Charter were binding on Italy and that similar provisions were to be found in the fundamental law or constitutional systems of other countries.”
b) Greek Delegation
“The Greek Delegation lays particular emphasis on the necessity of inserting in Article 13 a paragraph 4 worded as follows:
“As an exception to the preceding paragraphs Italian nationals who settled on the territory of the Dodecanese after May 5th, 1912, or people who would have acquired the ‘great Italian’ citizenship after this date, do not acquire Greek nationality.”
The Greek Delegation considers it necessary to distinguish between the indigenous population of the Dodecanese and the Italian colonists who settled in this area after May 5, 1912, the date when the Islands were occupied by Italy. It is natural for the indigenous population to share the fate of the territory to which it is attached by its origins; but there is no reason why Italian colonists who, for the most part, were brought to the Islands to denationalise them, should become Greek subjects.
2. Those inhabitants of the Dodecanese who acquired “great Italian” citizenship, thereby showing their willingness to become completely assimilated with the other Italians, should not acquire Greek nationality automatically and by right. In most cases the persons [Page 325] concerned supported the unprincipled policy of the Italians in the Dodecanese and no longer form part of the national community of the Islands.”
c) Yugoslav Delegation
The Yugoslav Delegation had proposed an Amendment 13a Point 2:
“Yugoslavs of Italian nationality living abroad may, if they have not acquired foreign nationality, obtain within a period of one year from the entry into force of the present Treaty Yugoslav nationality in accordance with Yugoslav regulations.”
This Amendment was rejected with 13 votes against 5 with 2 abstentions.
Many Yugoslavs have emigrated from the Julian March in the inter-war period on account of unfavourable political and economic conditions. In view of the fact that they were not domiciled in ceded territory on June 10, 1940, and that they are not at present domiciled in Italy, they remain Italian nationals and Italy can consider them as such under her whole legislation, even if Yugoslavia grants them Yugoslav nationality. It is, on the other hand, a general tendency in international law to avoid cases of double nationality, because of the numerous unfavourable consequences this entails, and there is no reason to provide differently in this Treaty by creating preconditions for double nationality, when this can be avoided by the simple insertion of the clause proposed by the Yugoslav Delegation.
(a) Greek Delegation
The Greek Delegation submitted an amendment relating to the rights and interests of the Greek Communities and Establishments in Italy (C.P. (GEN) Doc.1.J.15). After the Legal Commission had expressed an opinion on it, this amendment was rejected by the Political Commission.
The Greek Delegation feels it its duty to stress the need for adopting the amendment in question, in view of the fact that, in its opinion, the rights and interests dealt with therein are not adequately covered by other Articles of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy.
The Greek Government considers that its keen interest in the fate of these establishments in Italy and above all in their inestimable patrimony, constituting one of the most precious chapters of Greek history, is fully justified. On the other hand, it is its duty to ensure their indemnification and to protect them against any ulterior interference by Italy or, finally, against any impairment of this patrimony and its free administration by the legal organs of the said establishments and communities. As the latter, which include members of [Page 326] the Greek Orthodox Church, usually Greek nationals, are under Italian rule, it is necessary to guarantee their autonomy from the cultural point of view, as well as from the point of view of the administration of their property which should be devoted to purposes in keeping with their statutes, in accordance with the principles underlying Article 14 of the Draft Peace Treaty. This principle of autonomy once established, for the safeguard of their patrimony, it is necessary to apply Article 68 of the Treaty to the whole of this patrimony and not merely to the share held by Greek subjects, as these are not profit-earning companies, where the apportionment of shares would be feasible.
It is likewise necessary to provide for the fate of the patrimony of the communities and establishments in question because of the disappearance of their members due to the Fascist government. The only just solution would be to entrust the administration of the property in question to the Greek Government, so that it can be devoted to the cultural aims defined in their statutes.
(b) Polish and Ukrainian Delegations
In considering Article 14 of the draft Peace Treaty with Italy, the Ukrainian and Polish Delegations proposed the inclusion of a new article in the Peace Treaty, similar to the one which has been accepted in the Treaties with Roumania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland.
This Article would place an obligation on Italy not to permit the existence or activities of Fascist and other organisations which follow a policy of depriving the people of their democratic rights or which carry on propaganda hostile to any of the United Nations.
It is rather surprising that the representatives of nine States supported a special Article in four of the Treaties laying obligations on the Governments of former enemy States not to permit activities of Fascist organisations or propaganda in their territories directed against any of the United Nations, but have nevertheless found it possible to omit an Article of this kind in the draft of the Peace Treaty with Italy, which was an active partner with Germany and Japan within the Axis, that is to say with those countries which first established a Fascist regime.
The proposals of the Ukrainian and the Polish Delegations were supported by a large proportion of the members of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy. This is obvious from the number of votes cast. There were eight votes in favour of the Ukrainian and Polish proposals as against nine, with three abstentions. Therefore it is perfectly clear that the rejection of the proposals of the Ukrainian and the Polish Delegations did not receive the support of a simple majority.[Page 327]
The Ukrainian and the Polish Delegations therefore reserve the right to express their views on this subject at the Plenary Conference and request that the report of the Commission should record the views of the Ukrainian and Polish Delegations.
This proposal was also supported by the U.S.S.R. Delegation.
(c) Yugoslav Delegation
The Yugoslav Delegation had proposed that the following be added at the end of Article 14:
“as well as the right of education in the mother tongue.”
This proposal was rejected with 9 votes against 5 and 6 abstentions.
The proposal enumerates by way of example all that should be considered as jouissance des droits de l’homme. It does so by enumerating the rights which were trampled upon by authoritarian regimes, and which should, above all, be protected.
Experience, including the one acquired under the pre-Fascist Italian Governments, which not only failed to give Slovenes schools in their mother-tongue but closed even those which were already in existence, makes it necessary that the right of minorities, to have schools in their mother-tongue should expressly be provided for in the Peace Treaty with Italy.
(a) U.S.S.R. Delegation
The U.S.S.R. Delegation, in expansion of decisions taken by the Council of Foreign Ministers on July 3, 1946, considers that the following provisions should be made in the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste:
- The Free Territory of Trieste shall be neutral and demilitarized.
- All foreign troops which are on the territory of the Free Territory of Trieste must be withdrawn within 30 days of the entry into force of the Peace Treaty with Italy.
- The international regime of the Port of Trieste must guarantee for all international trade the use of the port and transit facilities of Trieste on conditions of parity, free zones being allocated to the neighbouring states of Yugoslavia and Italy.
- In order to provide the most favourable conditions for the economic development of the Free Territory of Trieste, provision shall be made for economic collaboration between the Free Territory and Yugoslavia (customs union, a joint administration of the railways of the Free Territory of Trieste, and so on).
- The government shall be responsible for the safeguarding of the observance of the statute of the Free Territory.
- Legislative power shall be vested in the National Assembly, which shall be elected by universal, equal, direct and secret vote.
- Executive power shall be vested in the Government of the Free [Page 328] Territory, appointed by the National Assembly to which it shall be responsible. The Government administration shall be responsible for all of the Free Territory; all the organs of the administrative power, including the police, frontier, and coast guards, shall be subordinated to it.
- Citizenship of the Free Territory of Trieste shall be granted to former Italian nationals domiciled in the Territory on the 10th June 1940 and who are still resident therein at the time of entry into force of the Peace Treaty with Italy. However, active members of the fascist regime in Italy, active members of the fascist party, war criminals, persons who served in the Italian police, and civil servants who came from Italy after 1922, will not have the right to acquire Trieste citizenship.
- An Inter-Allied Commission composed of the representatives of the U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R. and France shall be set up which, after the entry into force of the Peace Treaty, will establish a Provisional Government of the Free Territory of Trieste; having consulted the local democratic parties and organisations.
- The special duty of the provisional government shall be to arrange for elections for the National Assembly within a period of three months.
The Soviet Delegation draws the attention of the Conference to the fact that the proposals of the U.S.A. and French Delegations, adopted by the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, do not correspond to the principles of democracy, on which, in accordance with the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste should be based. These proposals should therefore be rejected.
The Soviet Delegation requests that the Plenary Conference should approve the proposals which the Delegation has put forward.
(b) Yugoslav Delegation
The Yugoslav Delegation had proposed an Amendment to Article 16 regarding the Statute of the Free City of Trieste, the Statute of the Free Port of Trieste and the provisions on the transitional Government of the Free City of Trieste.
This Amendment was rejected in the Commission with various majorities against (between 15 and 8) and minorities for (between 6 and 5) and various abstentions (between 6 and 1).
The Yugoslav Argumentation on this question is to be found in the enclosed Report of the Sub-Commission for the Statute of Trieste C.P. /IT/P/ /S/P/ Doc. of 30th IX 1946, and particularly in paragraphs 8, 11, 12, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 32, 35, 40, 41, 51 of this Report.
(a) Chinese Delegation
The Chinese Delegation in making the proposal that Libya be given its immediate independence or, alternatively, that its territory be administered [Page 329] by the United Nations under the Trusteeship system, is animated by the desire to see that the wishes and welfare of the peoples affected are taken into due account and further that the principles embodied in the United Nations Charter relating to non-self-governing territories and to the Trusteeship system be given all possible effect in this instance.
The Chinese Delegation feels that its proposal is in conformity with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations Charter to which every member of this Conference has subscribed. Further it is of the opinion that the Draft Declaration of the Four Powers, though differing somewhat as regards the time element, does not exclude either of the alternatives contained in the Chinese proposal. The Chinese Delegation, therefore, earnestly hopes that in the final disposal of Italian possessions the Four Powers concerned will consider the granting of immediate independence to Libya or the creation of a Trusteeship under the United Nations for a specified and short period of time to administer the territory of Libya before independence is granted.
(b) Ethiopian Delegation
In view of the support given by several Delegations and, in particular, the assurances of the Four Great Powers regarding Ethiopia’s claims, the Ethiopian Delegation will not press its amendment.
A Greek amendment to Article 22 of the Draft Peace Treaty couched in the following terms:
“The Island of Sasseno, which was occupied by Italy until the cessation of hostilities, shall be returned to Greece. The Greek Government agrees to ensure the demilitarization of the island under United Nations supervision.”
having been rejected in the 34th meeting of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, the Greek Delegation considers it necessary again to draw the attention of the Conference to the following considerations:
- During the 18th and 19th centuries, the Island of Sasseno was considered, geographically, as belonging to the Ionian Islands.
- A number of Treaties, from the Treaty of Campoformio in 1797 to the Treaty of London of 24th March, 1884, under which Great Britain ceded the Ionian Islands to Greece, established the principle of the political and geographical units of the Island of Sasseno with the Ionian Isles.
- In 1914, Greek troops were obliged to evacuate Sasseno after the establishment by the Protocol of Florence of the Greek-Albanian frontier in spite of repeated protests by the Greek government.
- In December 1941, Italy, taking advantage of the international situation resulting from the First World War, occupied the Island of [Page 330] Sasseno, which has since remained under Italian occupation and been converted into a veritable fortress.
- Considerations of strategic security require the return of Sasseno to Greece. It should not be forgotten that Italian intervention in Albania really began when Sasseno was occupied by Italian troops. The events of the war are still too recent for it to be necessary to stress Greece’s need to secure her defence to the west by recovering Sasseno.
- In Greek hands, Sasseno could threaten no one. Greece has no thought of using the island as a military base. She has neither the intention nor the means to do so. She could, however, demilitarize Sasseno and ensure that it remained demilitarized with the help and if need be, the supervision of U.N.O.
Articles 25a and 77
The Yugoslav Delegation had proposed that a new article 25a be added after Article 25.
“In the application of the present Treaty, Albania shall be recognized the rights of an Associated Nation.”
This proposal was rejected in the Commission with 12 votes against 6 and 2 abstentions.
From the very moment when Albania was occupied in 1939 by the Italian Army, the people of Albania offered resistance to the Italian invader, and this resistance assumed the form of an armed uprising at the time of the Italian aggression against Greece and Yugoslavia. The Albanian Army of National Liberation liberated the country by its own efforts, and two of its divisions participated in subsequent operations against the German Army. Albania has made a contribution in this war, a contribution out of all proportions to her means. The people of Albania therefore deserve that their country be recognized the rights of Associated Nation in the application of the present Treaty, since she is not already one of the signatories of this Treaty. The Draft Peace Treaty could not altogether overlook the rights of Albania. An entire section V of this Treaty was consecrated to Albania. Albania’s independence and her rights are re-established as regards international law. Albania took part in the Reparations Conference in 1945, and she was recognized the same rights as all the other Associated Nations. The Draft Peace Treaty should go a step further and recognize Albania the rights which are recognized to States which have in no way contributed to victory. Any other limitation would be both arbitrary and discriminatory.
The same motivation applies to the Yugoslav Amendment to Article 77, in which it is proposed that Albania be explicitly mentioned in this Article. This Amendment was rejected with 14 votes against 5 and 1 abstention.[Page 331]
The Yugoslav delegation had proposed that the following paragraph be added at the end of this Article:
“Albania shall also benefit from the provisions of this Article.”
This proposal was rejected in the Commission by 12 votes against 8.
The Italian invaders and their flunkeys committed innumerable war crimes in Albania. Albania should therefore have the right to benefit from the provisions of Article 38, in order to be able to try war criminals. It is particularly important that the corresponding obligations be undertaken by Italy where the majority of the war criminals who have committed offences towards the Albanian people are hiding.
Statement by the Soviet Delegation in Regard to Article 76
The Soviet Delegation proposed to the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy the following:
Save where any other procedure is specifically provided under any Article of the present Treaty, disputes concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty shall be settled by direct diplomatic negotiations; if the disputes are not settled in this way, they shall be referred to the four Ambassadors acting as provided under Article 75 of the Treaty, except that in this case the Ambassadors will not be restricted by the timelimit provided in that Article.
The Political and Territorial Commission for Italy rejected this proposal by the Soviet Delegation.
At the same time, the Commission accepted the proposal of the U.S., U.K. and French Delegations in consequence of which in connection with the interpretation or application of the Treaty, any disputes should be referred for final decision by the International Court by the request of any of the parties of the dispute.
The Soviet Delegation cannot agree to this proposal because it establishes compulsory appeal to the International Court by both parties whereas the statute of the International Court (Article 37) provides for voluntary appeal to that Court. The principle involved cannot be affected by the introduction into the Peace Treaty with Italy of an Article providing for a completely contradictory procedure. Insofar as the Soviet Union has approved the statute of the International Court, it cannot agree to provisions which would be contrary to this statute. On the other hand, the proposal made by the U.S.S.R. [Page 332] Delegation provides for a much simpler and more suitable method of settlement of disputes which may arise in regard to the execution or interpretation of the Articles of the Peace Treaty with Italy. The method proposed by the Soviet Delegation provides that disputes of this kind shall be settled by direct diplomatic negotiations and if they are not capable of settlement by this means, they shall be referred to the four Ambassadors who shall act in accordance with Article 75 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy. In this, it has been laid down that the Ambassadors shall be bound by the time limit laid down in Article 75.
The Soviet Delegation requests that the Plenary Conference should accept Article 76 as drafted by the Soviet Delegation.
The Yugoslav Delegation had proposed that in Article 78 be included a provision to the effect that the present Treaty will come into force only after it has been ratified by the four Great Powers “and those Allied and Associated Powers, who have a common frontier with Italy, and who were under Italian occupation.”
This proposal was rejected in the Commission with 13 votes against 5 and 2 abstentions.
Every Peace Treaty is above all a Treaty with neighbours. A proper settling of the relations between the defeated countries and their neighbours constitutes the main content of every Peace Treaty—the vital interests of certain countries are involved.
The neighbouring countries were those which suffered most from Italian aggression which led to occupation. It was the neighbouring countries which most contributed to the victory over Italian Fascism. The neighbouring countries are directly exposed to a possible resurgence of Italian imperialism.
The Yugoslav Delegation is of the opinion that the Peace Treaty cannot lay stable foundations of peace, if it does not settle, in a satisfactory manner, the relations between the defeated countries and the neighbouring Allied countries.
The Peace Treaty with Italy must not be a Diktat imposed upon these countries, but must constitute an agreement with them.
Article [Part?] X
The Australian Delegation proposed that a new Part should be included in the Treaty providing for the establishment of a European Court of Human Rights with jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes concerning the rights of citizenship and enjoyment of human [Page 333] rights and fundamental freedoms provided for in the treaty. The Australian case for this proposal rested on the belief that the general declarations contained in the treaty in support of human rights and fundamental freedoms were not sufficient, standing alone, to guarantee the inalienable rights of the individual and that behind them it was essential that some sufficient sanction and means of enforcement should be established. It was proposed that the Court of Human Eights should have the status parallel to that of the International Court of Justice and that the Court would have the additional obligation of making reports to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations on its working in relation to the rights within its jurisdiction. It was contemplated that the jurisdiction of the proposed tribunal should be voluntarily accepted by States as an essential means of international supervision of the rights of individuals and as necessary method of giving force and effect to obligations accepted in general terms.
New Part XII
The Australian Delegation proposed to include in the Treaty at this point a specified means of revision of the Treaty. In support of this proposal it was contended that experience in the past had shown the dangers of rigidity in treaty provisions which would inevitably prove to contain certain mistakes and injustices. The Australian Delegation held that no sufficient means existed in the United Nations Charter whereby the peace settlements could be revised before claim of rectification had reached a point dangerous to international security. It was also pointed out that international agreements of all kinds very commonly contained provision for their agreed revision and that it would be unsafe to assume that the present treaties could be left permanently in the form now given them.
Chapter V. Record of Some of the Votes of the Commission
In this chapter are recorded some of the votes of the Commission, which it decided would be included in its report, at its 42nd meeting.
1) United States proposal on Article 16.
Voted in favour: United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, United Kingdom, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Union of South Africa.
Voted against: Bielorussia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
2) French proposal on Article 16.
- Vote on section II—voted in favour: 19; voted against: Yugoslavia.
- Vote on the proposal as a whole: (same votes as in Para. 1).
3) U.S.S.R. proposal on Article 16.
- vote on point 5—Unanimous.
- vote on point 6—
Voted in favour: United States of America, Australia, Belgium,. Bielorussia, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, New Zealand, Netherlands, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Union of South Africa, Yugoslavia.
Voted against: United Kingdom.
4) Proposal by the Belgian and Netherlands Delegations for the insertion of an additional Article 10a.
Voted in favour: United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, United Kingdom, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Union of South Africa.
Voted against: Bielorussia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
5) Articles 3, 4 and 16—Para. 1.
Voted in favour: United States of America, Australia, Canada, China, France, United Kingdom, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, U.S.S.R., Union of South Africa.
Voted against: Bielorussia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Belgium, Brazil, Ethiopia.
6) Article 13 as amended.
Voted in favour: United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, United Kingdom, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Union of South Africa.
Voted against: Poland, Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Bielorussia, Brazil, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R.
7) Yugoslav proposal for the insertion of an additional Article 14a.
Voted in favour: Belgium, Bielorussia, Brazil, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Voted against: United States of America, Australia, Canada, China, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa.
Abstained: New Zealand.[Page 335]
8) Article 21 as amended.
Voted in favour: Bielorussia, China, Ethiopia, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, Yugoslavia.
Voted against: Greece.
Abstained: United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R.
9) United States proposal for the insertion of an additional Article 77a.
Voted in favour: United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, United Kingdom, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Union of South Africa.
Voted against: Bielorussia, Ethiopia, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Such, Mr. Chairman, is a concise report of the work of our Commission and of the results which it has achieved. On behalf of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, I have the honour to lay this report before the Conference for examination and for approval of its conclusions.
If the Conference is willing to adopt our Commission’s suggestions, I take this opportunity of proposing that it should:
1) Adopt the recommendations which the Commission has approved unanimously, or by a majority of at least two-thirds. These are:
- All Articles of the Draft Treaty which have been adopted without change. (Art. 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 37, 63 and 75.)
- The text of the Preamble, Articles 1, 5, 9 together with Annexes 1 and 2, the heading of Section IV of Part I, Articles 8, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 28, 31, 38 and sub-Section 1 of Annex 3, the modifications to which were adopted unanimously.
- The text proposed by the U.K., U.S. and French Delegations for
Article 76, which was adopted by a two-thirds
majority of the members of the Commission:
- the amended text of Article 2, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of which were adopted unanimously, and paragraph 2 by 15 votes, there being 5 abstentions;
- the text of Article 11a, which was adopted by 19 votes to 1;
- the text of Article 13a, which was adopted by 19 votes to 1;
- as regards Article 16 (except for paragraph 1)
- the U.S. proposal was adopted by 14 votes to 6;
- the French proposal was adopted by 14 votes to 6;
- points 5 and 6 of the U.S.S.R. proposal (C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 46) were adopted.
- the first unanimously, the second by 18 votes to 1, there being 1 abstention; paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of Article 16 of the draft Peace Treaty, which were formally approved in Section II of the French proposals, were adopted by 19 votes to 1.
2) Examine separately:
- Articles 3, 4 and 16—par. 1 (approved by 12 votes to 5 with 3
10a (approved by 13 votes to 6, there being 1 abstention);
13 as amended (approved by 12 votes to 2, there being 6 abstentions);
14a (approved by 13 votes to 6, there being 1 abstention);
21 as amended (approved by 11 votes to 1, there being 8 abstentions).
- The new article 77a (approved by 11 votes to 8, there being 1 abstention).
The points of view of the majority and of the minority on these eight Articles have been set forth in the report.[Page 338]
- Marks of ellipsis throughout the commission reports occur in the source texts.↩