CFM Files

Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty With Rumania

C.P.(Plen)Doc. 29

Mr. Chairman: The Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland considered the Draft Peace Treaty with Roumania in the course of 38 meetings.

The Commission was composed of delegates from Australia, Bielorussia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia. The representatives of Belgium, Netherlands and Polish Delegations also attended meetings for the discussion of subjects on which according to their declarations they had expressed their interest.

The meetings of the Commission were presided over by the Delegate for Czechoslovakia, M. Korbel. The Vice-Chairmen were the Australian Representatives, M. Beasley and Senator Grant. The Representative of the Soviet Delegation, M. Gerashchenko, was elected Rapporteur.

The task of the Commission was to consider the economic and related provisions of the Draft Peace Treaties with Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland which were drawn up by the Council of Foreign Ministers and also to submit eventual recommendations for modifications or additions to these provisions.

The Commission was instructed to consider the following parts of the Draft Peace Treaty with Roumania:

[Page 435]
Part V. Reparation and Restitution (Articles 22 and 23)
Part VI. Economic Clauses (Articles 24–33 inclusive)
Part VII. Clauses relating to the Danube (Article 34)
Annex 4. Special provisions relating to certain kinds of property;
Annex 5. Contracts, prescriptions and negotiable instruments;
Annex 6. Prize courts and judgments.

In the course of its work the Commission received a series of supplementary proposals and amendments from member Delegations. These will be mentioned further on or inserted in the text of the Report or included in the Annexes.

The Commission also decided to ask the Roumanian Government’s Representative to submit to it a detailed memorandum concerning the Articles and Annexes of the Draft Peace Treaty which were referred to the Commission for consideration.

This memorandum was transmitted to the General Secretariat of the Conference under number CP(Gen)Doc.3 and bore the title “Observations of the Roumanian Government concerning the Draft Peace Treaty with Roumania”. This document also contained the observations of the Roumanian Government concerning Article 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30 and concerning annexes 4 and 5.

In addition, the Roumanian Government subsequently submitted the following notes and documents:

1.
A letter from M. Tatarescu containing additional observations on Article 24 (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.6).
2.
Memorandum of the Roumanian Delegation concerning property, rights and interests of the United Nations in Northern Transylvania (Addition to the above letter) (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.10).
3.
A letter from M. Tatarescu containing additional observations on Article 22 (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.7).
4.
A letter from M. Tatarescu with observations on the Polish amendment to Article 23 (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.8).
5.
A memorandum of the Roumanian Delegation on the amendment by the Delegation of the Union of South Africa to Article 22 (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.11).
6.
The Roumanian Delegation’s letter regarding Article 26 (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.12).
7.
Remarks of the Roumanian Delegation on Annex 4 (C.P.(B&F/EC) Doc. 14).
8.
The Roumanian Delegation’s replies to the questions put by the U.S.A., Australian, French and U.K. Delegations (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc. 13 (a)–(d) referring to point 4 of Article 24 (C.P.(B&F/EC) Doc.19, 19 bis and 36).
9.
The Roumanian Delegation’s remarks in answer to the Commission’s inquiry about the situation of the foreign insurance companies in Roumania (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.21);
10.
Remarks of the Roumanian Delegation in answer to the remarks of the Hungarian Delegation concerning the United Nations property in Northern Transylvania (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.22);
11.
Remarks of the Roumanian Delegation concerning the proposals of the Greek and U.K. Delegations on Annex 4, Part C, Shipping (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.23);
12.
Remarks of the Roumanian Delegation on Article 29 (C.P.(B& F/EC)Doc.34);
13.
Answers of the Roumanian Delegation to the questions of the Delegations of Ukraine and Australia in connection with Article 26 (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.39);
14.
Letter of the Roumanian Delegation concerning the proposal of the U.S. Delegation on the insertion of Article 24 bis (C.P.(B&F/EC) Doc.43, 45 and 48).

All these documents of the Roumanian Delegation were considered by the Commission which took cognizance of them.

The Commission also heard the representative of the Roumanian Government on the question of compensation for the damage caused to the property of the United Nations in Roumania.

Concerning annexes and amendments which have not received a two-thirds majority, the Commission, according to the rules of Procedure, must submit to the Plenary Conference two or more reports. The Commission, however, agreed that the Rapporteur should state all the points of view which had not been agreed in a general report so as to avoid the presentation of two or more reports.

As a result of the consideration of the Articles, Annexes and amendments enumerated, the Commission came to the following conclusions:

Part V. Reparation and Restitution

Article 22. Reparation

The Commission unanimously recommends the adoption of this Article unchanged.

The Australian amendments to Article 22 concerning a change in the method of payment of reparation (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1B24 and 25) were withdrawn by the Australian Delegation.

The South African amendment for the addition to Article 22 of an extra paragraph concerning prices of commodities delivered by Roumania by way of reparation (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1S2) was subsequently presented as a proposal to include in the Draft Treaty a new article 30 bis, circulated as new document (C.P.(B&F)Doc.42).

Therefore, Article 22 was adopted with [without?] change.

Article 23. Restitution

The Commission unanimously recommends that this Article be adopted without modifications.

[Page 437]

In view of the decision to add a second sentence to sub-paragraph 8 (c) of Article 24, the Commission took note of the fact that the footnote of the U.K. Delegation to paragraph 7 of Article 23 was now unnecessary.

Part VI. Economic Clauses

Article 24. Property of the United Nations in Roumania

A. The Commission unanimously recommends that paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article be adopted with the following modifications, moved by the Polish Delegation and adopted unanimously by the Commission:

(a)
In paragraph 1 and 2 replace the words “June 22, 1941” by the words “September 1, 1939.”
(b)
Delete from the French text in paragraph 1 (line before the last) the words “qui sont situés” so as to bring the French text into harmony with the English and Russian texts.

The Commission also noted that in view of the decision to add a second sentence to sub-paragraph 8 (c) the foot-note of the U.K. Delegation to paragraph 1 was now unnecessary.

B. The Commission unanimously recommends that paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 of this Article be adopted without modification.

C. Paragraph 4. During consideration of this paragraph, a vote was taken first on the principle of full compensation; 6 Delegations voted for full compensation (Australia, Canada, Greece, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa) and 6 against (U.S.A. Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) with 2 abstentions (France, India).

Next a vote was taken on the proposal of the United States Delegation supported by the Soviet Delegation to grant 25 per cent compensation. Five votes were in favour of this proposal (U.S.A., Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) and nine against (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia, U.K., Union of South Africa).

The French Delegation’s proposal in favour of 75 per cent compensation secured 9 votes (Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa) for and 4 against (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) with 1 abstention (U.S.A.)

The U.K. and Greek Delegations stated that while voting for partial compensation, they reserved the right to raise the question of total compensation at the Plenary Meeting of the Conference.

The Commission considered the text of paragraph 4 as proposed by the U.S.A. Delegation in the following terms:

[Page 438]
  • “(a) The Roumanian Government will be responsible for the restoration to complete good order of the property returned to United Nations nationals under paragraph 1 of this Article. In cases where property cannot be returned or where as a result of the war a United Nations national has suffered a loss by reason of injury or damage to property, he shall receive from the Roumanian Government compensation in lei to the extent of … percent of the sum necessary, at the date of payment, to purchase similar property or to make good the loss suffered. In no event shall United Nations nationals receive less favourable treatment with respect to compensation than that accorded Roumanian nationals.
  • (b) United Nations nationals who have ownership interests, held directly or indirectly in corporations or associations which are not United Nations nationals within the meaning of paragraph 8 (a) of this Article, but which have suffered a loss by reason of injury or damage to property, shall receive compensation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above. This compensation shall be based on the total loss or damage suffered by the corporation or association and shall bear the same proportion to such loss or damage as the beneficial interest of such nationals bears to the total capital of the corporation or association.
  • (c) Compensation shall be paid free of any levies, taxes or other charges. It shall be freely usable in Roumania but shall be subject to the foreign exchange control regulations which may be in force in Roumania from time to time.
  • (d) The Roumanian Government agrees to accord to United Nations nationals fair and equitable treatment in the allocation of materials for the repair or rehabilitation of their property and in the allocation of foreign exchange for the importation of such material and will in no event discriminate in these respects against such nationals as compared with Roumanian nationals.
  • (e) The Roumanian Government agrees similarly to compensate in lei United Nations nationals whose property has suffered loss or damage as a result of special measures taken against their property during the war which were not applied to Roumanian property.

The Soviet Delegation proposed to replace the last sentence in the text of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 4 in the new American draft by the following sentence:

“In no event shall United Nations nationals, including those having ownership interests held directly or indirectly in corporations or associations, receive less favourable treatment with respect to compensation than that accorded Roumanian nationals.”

The Soviet Delegation’s proposal was rejected by 9 votes to 5.

The Commission also decided unanimously to replace in the French text of sub-paragraph (a) of the U.S. proposal (tenth line) the words “bien équivalent” by the words “bien de la même nature”.

The U.S. Delegation’s proposal was put to the vote after discussion. The results of the voting were as follows: Sub-paragraph (a) of this [Page 439]proposal received 9 votes in its favour: U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, United Kingdom, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa; 4 votes against: Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, and there was 1 abstention: Czechoslovakia; sub-paragraph (b), (c) and (d) 9 votes for: United States, Australia, Canada, France, United Kingdom, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, to 5 against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia.

The French Delegation proposed to replace sub-paragraph (e) of the new U.S. text by another text reading as follows:

“The Roumanian Government shall grant nationals of the United Nations an indemnity in lei sufficient to compensate, at the date of payment, the losses and damage due to the special measures applied to their property during the war, and which were not applicable to Roumanian property.[”]

The French proposal for sub-paragraph (e) received 8 votes for: Australia, Canada, France, United Kingdom, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa and 6 against: U.S.A., Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

The Yugoslav Delegation made the following declaration concerning sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 of Article 24 in the new U.S. text as quoted above:

“The Yugoslav Delegation feels bound to state that this provision should be rejected on grounds of international morality.

“The Yugoslav Delegation cannot conceive how such a provision could be embodied in a Treaty of Peace.

“In point of fact the provision referred to guarantees of special and privileged protection to United Nations nationals who during the war waged by Fascism against their country had some share or interest in corporations or associations which were notoriously working in the Fascist interest without such participation being regarded by the Fascist regime concerned as enemy participation but was held even up to the last moment to constitute a form of national participation by the Fascist regime concerned.

“The Yugoslav Delegation considers that Delegations which do not take this criterion of international morality into account will lay themselves open to criticisms which might be levelled at them sooner or later.

“The Yugoslav Delegation considers that the nationals of the United Nations to which this provision applies should be treated on the same footing as the Roumanian nationals who, during the war, shared their lot and their profits.”

As neither the U.K. Delegation’s proposal in favour of full compensation for damage caused to United Nations property and the U.S.A. Delegation’s proposal supported by the Soviet Delegation in favour of 25% compensation received a ⅔ majority of the votes, the [Page 440]U.K. and Soviet Delegations reserved the right to make the declarations to the Conference, which are appended to the present report (see Annexes). The Commission adopted no recommendation on the text of this paragraph.

D. New paragraph after paragraph 4. The Commission gave consideration to the observations of the Roumanian Delegation concerning the payment of compensation for damage done to United Nations property in Northern Transylvania during the period when this territory was under the administration of the Hungarian authorities.

The Commission unanimously recommends the adoption of the amendment moved by the U.S.A. Delegation and supported by the Delegations of U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, and France for the insertion in Article 24, after paragraph 4 of a new paragraph to the effect that the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Article concerning compensation for damage caused to United Nations property in Northern Transylvania are inapplicable to Roumania. It reads as follows:

“It shall be understood that the provisions of Paragraph 4 of this Article shall not apply to Roumania in so far as the action which may give rise to a claim for damage to property in Northern Transylvania or the United Nations or their nationals took place during the period when this territory was not subject to Roumanian authority.”

B. [E] Paragraph 8

1.
This Commission recommends the adoption of sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 8, the first of which was adopted by 11 votes with 3 abstentions. The other two were adopted unanimously.
The Australian Delegation’s amendment to paragraph 8 (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.B.26) was rejected by the Commission by 10 votes to 3 and 1 abstention.
2.
The commission recommends the insertion in the text of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 8 of a second sentence defining the expression “ships of the United Nations”.

A Sub-Commission was set up to prepare a draft definition of the term “ships of the United Nations”. It comprised representatives of the Delegations of the U.S.S.R., U.S.A., U.K., France, Greece, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

The Sub-Commission submitted the following proposal for the Commission’s approval:

“In particular ‘property’ includes all seagoing and river vessels together with their gear and equipment, which were either registered in the territory of one of the United Nations or sailed under the flag of one of the United Nations and which, after September 1st, 1939, while in Roumanian waters, either were placed under the control of the Roumanian authorities as enemy property or ceased to be at the free disposal [Page 441]of the United Nations or their nationals, in Roumania, as a result of measures of control taken by the Roumanian authorities in relation to the existence of a state of war between Germany and members of the United Nations.”

This proposal secured 5 votes in favour and 8 against with 1 abstention.

The U.S.A. Delegation made a proposal on this question, worded as follows:

“Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the property of the United Nations and their nationals includes all seagoing and river vessels, together with their gear and equipment, which were either owned by the United Nations or their nationals, or registered in the territory of one of the United Nations, or sailed under the flag of one of the United Nations and which, after September 1st, 1939, while in Roumanian waters, either were placed under the control of the Roumanian authorities as enemy property or ceased to be at the free disposal of the United Nations or their nationals, in Roumania, as a result of measures of control taken by the Roumanian authorities in relation to the existence of a state of war between Germany and members of the United Nations.”

The U.S.A. proposal secured 8 votes in favour and 5 against with 1 abstention.

In view of the fact that neither of the two proposals above mentioned secured a majority of ⅔ the Commission submits to the Plenary Conference two drafts of the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 8(c) of Article 24.

New Article after Article 24

The Commission considered the proposals of the U.K. and U.S.A. Delegations to include a new article 24 bis to cover restoration of property which was confiscated in Roumania during the war because of the racial origin or religion of the owners.

The U.K. Delegation proposed the following text for this additional Article:

“Roumania undertakes that in all cases where the property, legal rights or interests of persons under Roumanian jurisdiction has since September 1st, 1939, been the subject of measures of sequestration, confiscation or control on account of the racial origin or religion of such persons, the said property, legal rights and interests shall be restored together with their accessories or, if restoration is impossible, that full compensation shall be made therefor.”

There were 7 votes in favour of this proposal, 5 against and 1 abstention.

The text of the U.S.A. Delegation’s proposal reads as follows:

  • “1. Roumania undertakes that in all cases where the property, legal rights or interest in Roumania of persons, organizations, or communities [Page 442]which were the object of racial, religious or other Fascist measures of persecution or discrimination (other than these entitled to the benefits of Article 24) have been subjected since September 1, 1939, to measures or seizure, sequestration or control, or to transfer by force or duress, such property shall be returned, such legal rights and interest shall be restored and such forced transfers shall be invalidated. In the event such return or restoration is impossible, compensation shall be paid in lei on a basis no less favourable than that accorded to Roumanian nationals generally for any losses suffered in Roumania as a result of the war.”
  • “2. All property, rights and interests passing under this Article shall be restored free of all encumbrances and charges of any kind to which they may have become subject since the date of seizure, sequestration, control or transfer, and no charges shall be imposed in connection with their return.”
  • “3. The Roumanian Government undertakes within twelve months after the date of coming into force of the present treaty, to transfer to the International Refugee Organization (or any other organization designated by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations) for purposes of relief and rehabilitation within Roumania, all property rights and interests in Roumania owned by persons, organizations and communities which individually or as members of groups, were the object of racial, religious or other Fascist measures of persecution or discrimination, including property rights and interests required to be restored under this Article, and which for a period of six months after the date of coming into force of the present treaty have remained ownerless, heirless or unclaimed.”

This proposal was voted upon separately and the first two paragraphs were rejected by 7 votes to 1 with 6 abstentions. The third paragraph of the proposal of the U.S.A. Delegation received 7 votes for to 5 against and there were 2 abstentions.

The Soviet Delegation considers it unnecessary to insert in the text of the Treaty a special Article 24 bis and submits its observations on this question (annex …).

In connection with the discussion of the U.K. and U.S.A. proposals for the insertion of this Article in the Peace Treaty with Roumania, the Roumanian Delegation represented the observations set forth in documents (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.43, 45 and 48). The Roumanian Delegation considers it superfluous to include such an Article in the Peace Treaty.

Article 25—German assets in Roumania

The Commission unanimously recommends the adoption of this Article, deleting from the French text the words “qui ont été” before the word “transférés” so as to bring the French text into harmony with the Russian and English texts.

[Page 443]

Article 26—Roumanian Property on United Nations territory

A. In connection with the discussion in the Commission of Article 26, the Ukraine Delegation suggested substituting for the wording of Article 26, as set out in the Draft Peace Treaty, the following text:

“In so far as the rights of the Roumanian Government and those of the Roumanian physical and juridical persons, as regards Roumanian property and other Roumanian assets on the territory of the Allied and Associated Powers have been restricted, because of the Roumanian participation in the war on the side of Germany, those rights shall be restored after the coming into force of the present Treaty.”

The Commission rejected the Ukrainian Delegation’s proposal by 10 votes to 3 (Byelorussia, Ukraine and Yugoslavia) with 1 abstention (Czechoslovakia).

B. The Commission recommends the adoption without modification of parag. 1, 2 and 3 of this Article (parag. 1 and 2 received 10 votes for and 3 against, with 1 abstention; paragraph 3 obtained 10 votes for, 2 against and 2 abstentions).

C. Paragraph 4. The Commission considered the Australian amendment proposing the deletion from this paragraph of the words “literary and artistic” and “literary and artistic.” [sic] Eight votes were cast for the adoption of this amendment and 5 against, with 1 abstention.

Paragraph 4 thus amended, received 8 votes for, 2 against, with 4 abstentions.

D. Paragraph 5. The Commission considered the Australian proposal to add to this paragraph a sub-paragraph (e) reading as follows:

“Literary and artistic property rights.” This amendment received 8 votes with 5 against and 1 abstention.

Thus amended, paragraph 5 was put to the vote, 9 delegations voting for and 5 abstaining.

The minority does not think it necessary to include the above modifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 26 and the Commission therefore leaves it to the Plenary Conference to decide what final recommendations should be adopted regarding the wording of these paragraphs.

Article 27. Roumanian Assets on the territory of other ex-enemy countries

The Commission adopted no recommendation regarding the text of this Article, for which two proposals are contained in the Draft Peace Treaty—one by the U.S.S.R. Delegation and one by the Delegations of the U.K., U.S.A. and France.

Nine votes were cast for the U.S.A., U.K. and French Delegations [Page 444]proposal (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa) and 5 against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and U.S.S.R.).

The U.S.S.R. Delegation submitted the following new draft for paragraph 1 of this Article, with the second sentence modified:

“1. Limitations imposed in respect of Roumanian property on the territory of Germany and on the territory of other countries which took part in the war on the side of Germany shall be withdrawn after the coming into force of the present Treaty.

The rights of Roumanian owners with respect to the disposal of the property in question shall be restored in so far as no other joint decisions are taken in this connection by the powers signatory to the Armistice terms or to the terms of the capitulation.”

The Soviet Delegation’s proposal thus amended received 5 votes for (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) and 9 against (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa).

It will be the duty of the Plenary Conference to prepare a final recommendation of the text of this Article.

Article 28: Debts

The Commission unanimously recommends the Plenary Conference to adopt this Article without modification.

Article 29: Waiver of Claims

The Commission unanimously recommends the Plenary Conference to adopt this Article with the following modification of the wording of paragraph 3:

“3. Roumania likewise waives all claims of the nature covered by paragraph 1 of this Article on behalf of the Roumanian Government or Roumanian nationals against any of the United Nations, whose diplomatic relations with Roumania have been broken off during the war and which took action in co-operation with the Allied and Associated Powers.”

This modification was introduced on the basis of the Polish Delegation’s proposal (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.35) and unanimously approved by the Commission.

Article 30: General Economic Relations

A. The Commission unanimously recommends the Plenary Conference to adopt without modification paragraph 1 of this Article, together with sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).

B. (a) With regard to sub-paragraph (c) the Commission did not adopt a recommendation regarding the final wording of the first [Page 445]addition to the sub-paragraph and submits for the decision of the conference two proposals:

1.
The proposal of the U.S.S.R. Delegation to include in sub-paragraph (c) additional words excluding certain branches where private enterprise does not operate. In the Commission, 5 votes were cast for (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) and 9 against this proposal (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, U.K., Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa).
2.
An alternative text for this proposal was suggested by the U.K., U.S.A. and French Delegations, for which 9 votes were cast in favour (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, [France] U.K., Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa) and 5 against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia).

b) A second addition to sub-paragraph (c) proposed by the U.S.A. Delegation dealing with civil aviation which was included in the draft Peace Treaty was submitted to the Commission in amended form viz.:

“It is further understood that the foregoing provisions of paragraph (c) shall not apply to civil aviation, but that Roumania will grant no exclusive or discriminatory right to any country with regard to the operation of civil aircraft in International traffic and will afford all the United Nations equality of opportunity for obtaining international commercial aviation rights in Roumanian territory.”

This proposal which was supported by the U.K. Delegation received 9 votes in favour (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, U.K., Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa) and 5 against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia).

2. The French Delegation tabled an alternative proposal for the wording of this addition, which read:

“It is further understood that the foregoing provisions of paragraph (c) shall not apply to civil aviation, but that Roumania will grant no exclusive or discriminatory right to any country with regard to the operation of civil aircraft in international traffic and will afford all the United Nations equality of opportunity for obtaining international commercial aviation rights in Roumanian territory, and will grant to any United Nation on a basis of reciprocity, and without discrimination, with regard to the operation of civil aircraft in international traffic the right to fly over Roumanian territory without landing and to make landings in Roumanian territory for non-commercial purposes.

The French Delegation’s proposal was adopted by 7 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions.

3. The U.S.S.R. Delegation, as well as the Delegations of Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine and Yugoslavia, see no reason for including [Page 446]an addition to sub-paragraph (c) regarding civil aviation, and suggest that it should not be accepted.

C. The Commission was also unable to reach a decision on paragraph 2 of this Article on certain exceptions to Roumania’s obligations under para. 1 of this Article, two separate texts for which were presented by the Council of Foreign Ministers. Both these texts were discussed in the Commission, and the result of the voting was as follows: 5 votes were cast for the U.S.S.R. Delegation’s proposal (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia), 9 voted against it (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, U.K., Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa). The French, U.K. and U.S.A. Delegation’s proposal received 9 votes (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, U.K., Greece, India, New Zealand, U.S. Africa [Union of South Africa]) to 5 (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia).

The Commission leaves the final decision of the question to the Plenary Conference.

New Article 30–bis

The Commission considered the proposal of the Delegation of the Union of South Africa to insert in the Peace Treaty an additional Article 30–bis which should read as follows:

“The Roumanian Government undertake to pay fair prices by reference to world conditions for commodities delivered by that Government by way of reparation obtained from United Nations’ nationals as defined in Article 24. Any dispute between the Roumanian Government and such United Nations’ nationals relating to prices shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Article 31.”

The Commission did not adopt a recommendation on this question, as the above-mentioned proposal obtained a simple majority in the Commission, 9 votes (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, U.K., Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa) to 5 (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia). Thus a decision on this question will have to be taken by the Plenary Conference.

Article 31. Settlement of disputes

This Article was submitted to the Commission in two separate texts, that of the United Kingdom Delegation and that of the U.S.S.R. Delegation, which appear in the Draft Peace Treaty as proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers. However, the Commission did not approve a recommendation for the acceptance of either of these texts, as the United Kingdom Delegation’s proposal received 8 votes for and 5 against with 1 abstention, while the Soviet Delegation’s text obtained 5 votes for and 8 against with 1 abstention.

The U.S.A. and French Delegations’ footnotes were declared unnecessary after a vote was taken.

[Page 447]

A recommendation on Article 31 should be made by the Plenary Conference.

Article 32. Scope of application of the Economic Articles

The Commission unanimously recommended the approval of this Article in the following wording:

“Articles 23, 24, and 30 and Annex 6 of this Treaty shall apply to the Allied and Associated Powers and France and to those of the United Nations whose diplomatic relations with Roumania have been broken off during the war.

Article 33. Annexes to be integral parts of the Treaty

The Commission unanimously recommends the approval of this Article without amendment.

The Yugoslav Delegation withdrew its proposal to delete from this Article the references to Annexes which have no connection with the economic provisions.

Part VII. Clauses Relating to the Danube

Article 34.

The Commission received two proposals from the Council of Foreign Ministers, the first emanating from the United Kingdom and U.S.A. Delegations, to include Article 34 in the form in which it appears in the draft Peace Treaty, and to which an addition was made by the United Kingdom Delegation; the second, that of the U.S.S.R. Delegation which was against the inclusion of the Article in the Treaty, for reasons which were likewise set out in the Draft.

After some discussion the Soviet Delegation’s proposal was put to the vote; 5 votes were cast in favour of it (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia) and 9 against (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and the U.S.A.)

Both the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. Delegations withdrew their previous proposals and accepted the new proposal tabled by the French Delegation, which words Article 34 as follows:

  • “1. Navigation on the Danube River shall be free and open on terms of entire equality to the nationals, vessels of commerce and goods of all states.
  • “2. With a view to ensuring the practical application of this principle, Roumania undertakes to take part, together with France, the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Danubian States in a Conference which shall be convened within six months of the entry into force of this Peace Treaty, with the object of establishing a new International Regime for the Danube.”

[Page 448]

The Commission cast 8 votes for this proposal (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K. and U.S.A.) and 5 against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia) with 1 abstention (India).

[Statements or reservations in connection with this Article were made by the following delegations: Belgium, Poland, Greece, United Kingdom, France, and Yugoslavia.]50

Therefore, the Commission is unable to submit a recommendation for the inclusion of Article 34 in the Draft Peace Treaty and refers this question to the Plenary Conference for their decision.

Annex 4—Special Provisions Relating to Certain Kinds of Property

section a. industrial, literary and artistic property

1. The Commission unanimously recommends the adoption of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 of this section, without amendment.

2. The Commission unanimously recommends that the text of paragraph 4 printed in italics and enclosed in brackets be replaced by the following new text and that the whole paragraph read as follows:

“But nothing in these provisions shall entitle Roumania or its nationals to more favourable treatment in the territory of any of the Allied or Associated Powers than is accorded by such Power in like cases to other United Nations or their nationals, nor shall Roumania be required thereby to accord to any of the Allied or Associated Powers or its nationals more favourable treatment than Roumania or its nationals receive in the territory of such Power in regard to the matters dealt with in the foregoing provisions.”

Accordingly the observations by the U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. Delegations included in the draft Peace Treaty under this paragraph are now unnecessary.

3. The Commission unanimously recommends replacing the text in italics of paragraph 7 by a new text which will read as follows:

“Roumania shall extend the benefits of Section A of this Annex to France and to other United Nations, other than Allied or Associated Powers, whose diplomatic relations with Roumania have been broken off during the war and which undertake to extend to Roumania the benefits accorded to Roumania under Section A of this Annex.”

The unanimous adoption of this text by the Commission also implies that the Soviet Delegation’s note on this paragraph as reproduced in the Draft Treaty is now unnecessary.

section b. insurance

Two proposals were submitted to the Commission: one for the inclusion in the Treaty of this section, in the wording proposed by the [Page 449]United Kingdom Delegation and reproduced in the Draft Treaty and which was not fully approved by the U.S.A. Delegation, and a proposal by the Soviet Delegation not to include such a section in the Treaty.

Later, the U.K. Delegation’s proposal was replaced by the following text consisting of 2 paragraphs proposed by the French Delegation (the words “for a period of 18 months” were on a proposal by the Canadian Delegation which secured 7 votes, (Australia, Canada, Greece, India, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa) 6 votes being cast against (U.S.A., Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) with 1 abstention (France), replaced by the words “for a period of 3 years”.)

  • “1. The Roumanian Government shall grant every facility to insurers who are nationals of the United Nations to resume possession of their former portfolios in Roumania”.
  • “2. Should an insurer a national of any of the United Nations, wish to resume his professional activities in Roumania, and should the value of guarantee deposits or reserves required for the operation of insurance concerns in Roumania be found to have decreased as a result of the loss or depreciation of the securities which constituted such deposits or reserves, the Roumanian Government undertakes to accept such securities as still remain (for a period of three years) as fulfilling the legal requirements in respect of deposits and reserves.”

The Yugoslav Delegation moved to add to the text proposed by the French Delegation a paragraph 3 reading as follows:

“3. Nothing in the present Annex shall be considered as contradictory to Article 30 of the present Treaty.”

This proposal was defeated by 9 votes (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, U.K., U.S.S.R., Ukraine, Union of South Africa) to 2 (France, Yugoslavia) with 3 abstentions (Byelorussia, Greece, Czechoslovakia).

The Commission did not adopt any recommendation on this question as 9 votes were cast for & 5 against the proposal to include this section, as drafted by the French Delegation, while 5 votes (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) were cast for and 9 against the proposal (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa) of the Soviet Delegation not to include in the Treaty Section B of Annex 4.

The Plenary Conference will have to adopt a final recommendation on this question.

section c. shipping

Two proposals were before the Commission: a proposal by the Soviet Delegation not to include in the Treaty any special provisions [Page 450]relating to shipping and a proposal to insert this section in the Treaty as drafted by the United Kingdom Delegation and reproduced in the draft Treaty. The U.S.A. and French Delegations entered a reservation concerning this text to the effect that they considered it necessary to include in the Treaty only a definition of the ships to which the provisions of Article 24 concerning United Nations property will apply.

On the proposal of the Soviet Delegation, the Commission voted 9 (U.S.A., Byelorussia, Canada, France, India, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R.) against 4 (Australia, Greece, U.K., Union of South Africa) with 1 abstention (Yugoslavia) for the deletion of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the text, proposed by the U.K. Delegation thus meeting the wishes of the U.S.A. and French Delegations as recorded in the Draft Treaty that this Section should merely define the expression “Ships of the United Nations”.

In order to prepare the text of such a definition the Commission unanimously decided to appoint a Sub-Commission which supplied the text in question.

The results of the vote on the text proposed by the Sub-Commission and also the text submitted by the U.S.A. Delegation are given above (See Art. 24, para. 8(c)).

section d. petroleum

Two proposals were submitted to the Commission: a proposal by the United Kingdom Delegation to include this section in the Treaty in the form in which it appears in the draft Treaty (paras. 1 to 8) as qualified by the U.S.A. Delegation’s reservation which is also included in the Draft; and a proposal by the Soviet Delegation not to include in the Treaty any special provisions regarding petroleum.

In the course of the Commission’s proceedings the United Kingdom Delegation amended its proposal and submitted it in following form:

1.
“The Roumanian Government undertakes to restore and replace the damaged or destroyed property belonging to United Nations nationals engaged in the petroleum industry in Roumania with the least possible delay and, failing the complete restoration or replacement of such property within a period of one year from the date of the coming into force of this Treaty, the Roumanian Government undertakes to pay to such United Nations nationals full compensation including compensation in convertible currency to the extent required by them to effect restoration or replacement from sources outside Roumania”.
2.
“The Roumanian Government accepts to compensate United Nation nationals engaged in the petroleum industry in Roumania for all reasonable expenses incurred in preparation for and in execution of provisional repairs and replacements to the damaged property of [Page 451]United Nations nationals, during the war and since the signing of the Armistice and until such time as complete restoration or replacement of damaged or destroyed property has been effected”.
3.
“The Roumanian Government undertakes to modify the Petroleum Law of 1942 so as to remove the features discriminating against United Nations nationals a compared with the legislation in force on September 1, 1939 and to afford those nationals fair and equitable treatment in the petroleum industry”.
4.
“In order to facilitate the rehabilitation and maintenance of the property of United Nations nationals, engaged in the petroleum industry of Roumania, the Roumanian Government undertakes to allow higher administrative officials and technical experts selected by such United Nations nationals to enter Roumania and to exercise their respective professions in the petroleum industry of Roumania without hindrance.”

On a vote, sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of this text were approved by 7 votes (Australia, Canada, Greece, India, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa) to 6 (U.S.A., Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia), with 1 abstention (France): sub-paragraph 3 was approved by 8 votes (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa) to 6 (U.S.A., Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) and sub-paragraph 4 by 7 votes (Australia, Canada, Greece, India, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa) to 7 (U.S.A., Byelorussia, France, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia).

On the four paragraphs as a whole 7 votes were cast for, and 7 against, some members declaring that they had voted for or against on the assumption that a vote would be taken on the first three paragraphs as a whole—such a vote was not, however, taken.

Thus, the Commission leaves it to the Plenary Conference to decide whether or not to recommend the inclusion of this section of the Annex in the Peace Treaty.

Annex 5—Contracts, Prescriptions and Negotiable Instruments

The two proposals were submitted to the Commission for its consideration:

a)
The Soviet Delegation’s proposal not to include an Annex on these questions in the Peace Treaty
b)
The U.K. Delegation’s proposal to include an Annex as worded in the Draft Peace Treaty consisting of the following sections:
  • i. contracts
  • ii. prescription
  • iii. negotiable instruments
  • iv. miscellaneous
    1.
    Stock exchange and commercial contracts
    2.
    Security.

[Page 452]

The Commission makes no recommendation about the inclusion of this Annex in the Treaty as none of the sections of this Annex obtained a ⅔ majority.

i—contracts

1. The Soviet Delegation proposed not to insert this chapter in the Draft Peace Treaty. Five Delegations voted in favour of it (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) and five against (Australia, France, India, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom). There were 4 abstentions (Canada, Greece, New Zealand, U.S.A.)

2. The United Kingdom Delegation proposed the inclusion in the draft Peace Treaty of the section on Contracts in the wording as given in the draft Peace Treaty with Roumania, with a modification in paragraph 1.

This paragraph was submitted for the consideration of the Commission in the following wording:

“Any contract concluded between enemies shall be deemed to have been dissolved as from the time when any of the parties became an enemy, except in respect of any debt accrued or money paid or other pecuniary obligations arising out of any act done thereunder, and subject to the exceptions set out in the following paragraph; and subject to repayment of amounts paid as advances or on account and in respect of which no counterpart exists.”

The proposal of the U.K. Delegation to insert in the draft Peace Treaty a section on Contracts with an amended paragraph 1, was supported by 5 Delegations (Australia, France, Greece, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom); 7 Delegations voted against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, India, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) and there were 2 abstentions (Canada, New Zealand).

3. The U.S.A. Delegation proposed that an additional section 5 be inserted in Annex 5. The U.S.A. Delegation proposed the following text for this section:

“Having regard to the legal system of the United States of America, the provision of this Annex shall not apply to the relations as between the United States of America and Rumania.”

This proposal by the U.S.A. Delegation received 8 votes in favour (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.) and 3 votes against (Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia). There were 3 abstentions (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia and New Zealand.)

[Page 453]

ii—periods of prescription

1. The Soviet Delegation proposed to include in the Draft Peace Treaty a section relating to periods of prescription with the following wording:

“I) All periods of prescription or limitation of rights of action or of undertaking an act or formality of conservation in regard to mutual relations with reference to persons and property, between Roumanian physical or juridical persons, on the one hand, and United Nations physical or juridical persons, on the other hand, irrespective of whether these periods commenced before or after the outbreak of war, shall be regarded as having been suspended in Roumanian territory for the duration of the war on condition that the United Nation concerned will, also, on conditions of reciprocity, regard these periods of prescription in respect of the mutual relations stated above, as having been suspended in its territory.

They will begin to run again three months after the entry into force of the present Treaty.

II) The provisions of Article 1 of the present Annex will be applicable in regard to the periods fixed for the redemption of securities or their coupons, likewise to any transactions relating to such securities.”

The Soviet Delegation accepted:

a
—The Yugoslav amendment, providing for the addition in the first line of Paragraph 1 after the words “right of action” the words “or of undertaking an act or formality of conservation”.
b
—The French Delegation’s amendment providing for the addition in the second line of Paragraph 1 after the word “with reference to” the words “persons and”.

The proposal of the Soviet Delegation was supported by 6 Delegations (Bielorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia). 7 Delegations voted against it (Australia, Canada, Greece, India, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.). 1 Delegation abstained: (New Zealand).

2. The U.K. Delegation proposed the inclusion in the Draft Peace Treaty of a section on periods of prescription in the wording as set out in the Draft Treaty with the addition of a paragraph 8 reading as follows:

For the purpose of these Sections of the present Annex relating to periods of prescription and negotiable instruments, the parties to a contract shall be regarded as enemies when trading between them shall have been prohibited by or otherwise become unlawful under laws, orders or regulations to which one of these parties or the contract was subject. They shall be deemed to have become enemies from the date when such trading was prohibited or otherwise became unlawful.”

[Page 454]

This proposal of the United Kingdom Delegation was supported by 6 Delegations (Australia, France, Greece, India, South Africa, U.K.).

6 Delegations voted against it (Bielorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia).

2 Delegations abstained: (Canada, New Zealand).

iii—negotiable instruments

1. The U.S.S.R. Delegation proposed not to include a section on negotiable instruments in the Draft Peace Treaty.

This proposal was supported by 5 Delegations (Bielorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R, Yugoslavia).

8 Delegations voted against it (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.).

1 Delegation abstained: (New Zealand).

2. The U.K. Delegation proposed to insert in the Peace Treaty a section on negotiable instruments in the wording as set out in the Draft Treaty.

7 Delegations supported this proposal (Australia, France, Greece, India, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.).

5 Delegations voted against it (Bielorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia).

2 Delegations abstained from voting.

iv—miscellaneous

1. The U.S.S.R. Delegation proposed not to insert this section in the Peace Treaty.

This proposal was supported by six Delegations (U.S.A., Bielorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia).

Seven Delegations voted against (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom).

1 Delegation abstained: (New Zealand).

2. The United Kingdom Delegation proposed the inclusion in the Peace Treaty of Part IV of Annex 5, in the wording as given in the Draft Treaty.

Six votes were cast for this proposal (Australia, France, Greece, India, the Union of South Africa, United Kingdom).

Six delegations voted against the proposal: (Bielorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia):

2 Delegations abstained (Canada and New Zealand).

The Canadian Delegation declared that it abstained from voting on Annex 5 in the drafting of the U.K. Delegation for the reason that it still considered the possibility of applying the provisions of Annex 5 to [Page 455]Federative states, and that it may submit an amendment to that question when it comes before the Plenary Conference.

Annex 6—Prize Courts and Judgments

I. The Commission unanimously recommends the adoption of Part A, Prize Courts, without amendment.

II. The Commission was unable to agree [on] a recommendation regarding Part B, Judgments, 3 different texts for which were presented by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

a) The proposal of the United States Delegation, supported by the U.S.S.R, received 7 votes (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, India, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia).

Six Delegations voted against this proposal (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom), the New Zealand Delegation abstained.

b) 2 votes were cast for the French Delegation’s proposal (France, Greece);

9 Delegations voted against the proposal: (Australia, Byelorussia, Canada, Ukraine, United Kingdom, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Union of South Africa, Yugoslavia).

Three Delegations abstained (Czechoslovakia, India, New Zealand).

c) The United Kingdom Delegation’s proposal received five votes (Australia, Canada, Greece, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom). Seven Delegations voted against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R, Yugoslavia). Two Delegations abstained (India, New Zealand).

The Commission submits the following for the consideration of the Conference.

1.
The proposal of the U.S.A. Delegation, which was supported by the U.S.S.R. Delegation and which received seven votes.
2.
The proposal of the United Kingdom Delegation, which received five votes.
3.
Proposal of the French Delegation which obtained 2 votes.

Conclusions

This, Mr. Chairman, is a brief account of the work of our Commission, and of the results achieved by it with regard to the Peace Treaty with Roumania.

I have the honour on behalf of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland to submit the present report to the Conference for its consideration for the approval of our conclusions and for the adoption of recommendations on those clauses regarding which the Commission was unable to reach a definite decision.

I would ask the Commission [Conference] to approve the Commission’s [Page 456]recommendations to accept the following Articles, approved by the Commission either unanimously or by a two-thirds majority or over:

(a) Articles and paragraphs of the Treaty, unanimously approved without amendment:

Article 22 complete

Article 23 complete

Article 24, paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 (b) and 8 (c)

Article 25 complete

Article 28 complete

Article 29, paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5

Article 30 paragraph 1, with sub-paragraphs “a” and “b”

Article 33 as a whole

Annex 4, Part “A”, Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8

Annex 6, Part “A”

(b) Articles, Paragraphs and Annexes of draft Treaty, unanimously adopted with modifications and additions:

Article 24, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 4a

Article 39 Paragraph 3

Article 32

Annex 4, Part “A”, Paragraphs 4 and 7

(c) Articles and Paragraphs of draft Treaty adopted by a ⅔ majority or more:

Article 24 Paragraph 8–a

Article 26 Paragraphs 1, 2, 3.

I would also ask the Conference to take separate votes on the following provisions, for which it has not made any recommendations:

Article 24 U.K. proposal on total compensation, which received 6 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions.
Article 24 American-Soviet proposal of 25% compensation, which received 5 votes to 9.
Article 24 French proposal of 75% compensation, which received 9 votes to 4, with 1 abstention.
Article 24 American proposal on Paragraph 4, sub-paragraph “a”, which received 9 votes to 4, with 1 abstention.
Article 24 American drafting of Paragraph 4, sub-paragraph “b”, “c”, “d”, which received 9 votes to 5.
Article 24 French drafting of sub-paragraph “c” of Paragraph 4, which received 8 votes to 6.
Article 24 Paragraph 8–c, sub-paragraph 2, proposal of provision concerning the definition of “Tribunal of the United Nations”, which received 8 votes to 5, with 1 abstention.
Article 24 Paragraph 8–c, sub-paragraph 2, American proposal concerning the definition of “Tribunal of the United Nations”, which received 8 votes to 5, with 1 abstention.[Page 457]
Article 24–a proposal by the U.K. Delegation which received 7 votes to 6, with 1 abstention.
Article 24–a proposal by the U.S.A. Delegation (paragraph 3) which received 7 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions.
Article 26 Paragraph 4, with an amendment of the Australian Delegation, which received 8 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions.
Article 26 Paragraph 5, with an amendment by the Australian Delegation, which received 9 votes with 5 abstentions.
Article 27 Proposal by the U.S.S.R. Delegation which received 5 votes to 9.
Article 27 Proposal by the U.S.A., U.K., and French Delegations which received 9 votes to 5.
Article 30 Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph “c” in the drafting proposed by the U.S.S.R. delegation, which received 5 votes to 9.
Article 30 Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph “c”, in the drafting proposed by the U.S.A., U.K. and French Delegations, which received 9 votes to 5.
Article 30 American proposal of the addition to sub-paragraph “c”, paragraph 1, of provisions concerning civil aviation, which received [9?] votes to 5.
Article 30 French proposal of the addition to sub-paragraph “c”, paragraph 1, of the provision concerning civil aviation, which received 7 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions.
Article 30 Paragraph 2, in the drafting proposed by the Soviet Delegation, which received 5 votes to 9.
Article 30 Paragraph 2, in the drafting proposed by the U.S.A., U.K. and French Delegations, which received 9 votes to 5.
Article 30a Proposal by the South African Delegation, which received 9 votes to 5.
Article 31 Proposal by the Soviet Delegation, which received 5 votes to 5, with 1 abstention.
Article 31 Proposal by the U.K. Delegation, which received 8 votes to 5, with 1 abstention.
Article 34 French Proposal, which received 8 votes to 5, with 1 abstention.

Annex 4, Part B, which received 9 votes to 5

Annex 4, Part C, paragraphs 2, 3, 4, which received 4 votes to 9, with 1 abstention.

Annex 4, Part D, paragraphs 1 and 2, which received 7 votes to 6, with 1 abstention.

Annex 4, Part D, Paragraph 3, which received 8 votes to 6.

Annex 4, Part D, paragraph 4, which received 7 votes to 7.

Annex 4, Part D, as a whole, which received 7 votes to 7.

Annex 5, Part I, which received 5 votes to 7, with 2 abstentions.

Annex 5, Part II, in the drafting proposed by the U.S.S.R. Delegation, which received 6 votes to 7, with 1 abstention.

[Page 458]

Annex 5, Part II, in the drafting proposed by the U.K. Delegation, which received 6 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions.

Annex 5, Part III, in the drafting proposed by the U.K. Delegation, which received 7 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions.

Annex 5, Part IV, in the drafting proposed by the U.K. Delegation, which received 5 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions.

Annex 5, Proposal by the U.S.A. Delegation to include part V, which received 8 votes to 3, with 3 abstentions.

Annex 6, Part B, Proposal by the U.S.A. Delegation, seconded by the U.S.S.R. Delegation, which received 7 votes to 6, with 1 abstention.

Annex 6, Part B, Proposal by the U.K. Delegation, which received 5 votes to 7, with 2 abstentions.

Annex 6, Part B, Proposal by the French Delegation, which received 2 votes by [to] 9, with 3 abstentions.

I would also ask the Conference to take a separate vote on each of the following provisions in regard to which the Conference has not made any recommendations:

Article 24, paragraph 4

Article 24, paragraph 8–c (second paragraph)

Article 24 bis

Article 26, paragraphs 4 and 5

Article 27

Article 30, paragraph 1 (c) and paragraph 2

Article 30 bis

Article 31

Article 34

Annex 4, Parts B, C and D

Annex 6, Part B

Minority reports on individual Articles and paragraphs which did not obtain the necessary ⅔rds majority, are appended to this document.

[Annex 1]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 24, Paragraph 4

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 13 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 394, with the exceptions shown in annotations thereto.]

[Page 459]
[Annex 2]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 24, Paragraph 4

The United Kingdom Delegation still considers that compensation for the property in Roumania of United Nations nationals, which has suffered loss during the War, should be paid in full.

They are aware that there are no firm figures from which to estimate the total burden which is likely to fall on the Roumanian Government as a result of this proposal. Nevertheless, the Roumanian Government have themselves produced certain figures which have been examined in the Commission, and the United Kingdom Delegation see no reason to dissent from an analysis of these figures made in the Commission or from the conclusion that the total damage done was probably of the order of $70 million. It does not appear to the United Kingdom that payment of this sum would place an intolerable burden on the economy of Roumania, having regard to the fact that most of it will be expended in Roumania and will be a significant contribution to the rehabilitation of the Roumanian economy. It is generally accepted that the strain of bearing an internal loan cannot be compared with the strain of payments across the exchanges or by means of the delivery of potential foreign exchange assets without a counterpart.

The United Kingdom has suffered an extensive process of disinvestment during the War, and is bearing a very heavy burden of taxation. A proposal to compensate at less than the full loss or damage suffered would involve a further process of disinvestment, and having regard to the circumstances the United Kingdom considers that its proposal is well founded.

[Annex 3]

Statement by the French Delegation on Article 24, Paragraph 4

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the French Delegation in Annex 15 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 397.]

[Annex 4]

Declaration by the Soviet Delegation on Article 24, Paragraph 4

The Soviet Delegation considers it unjust and improper to demand total compensation for the damage done to United Nations property in Roumania. Roumania broke off relations with Germany, came over to the side of the United Nations and sustained considerable losses on [Page 460]her own territory when fighting with the Allies against Germany. In determining the amount of compensation for the damage done to United Nations’ property in Roumania the above facts should be taken into account.

The Soviet Delegation therefore considers it necessary that compensation should be made in part, to the extent of one-third of the loss sustained.

[Annex 5]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 24 (Compensation), Paragraph 8c: Definition of Ships

Although no vote was taken, there appeared to be unanimous agreement in the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland that a definition of United Nations ships should be included in the Treaty of Peace; and, other paragraphs of Annex 4.C having been rejected by non-unanimous vote, there was no dispute about the propriety of such a definition appearing in the Treaty as a second sub-paragraph under Article 24 para 8c. Therefore the only point at issue with respect to this additional sub-paragraph has to do with the difference between the language which was adopted by non-unanimous vote and the alternative draft which was rejected by non-unanimous vote.

The only point of difference between the two drafts is that the text which was adopted includes ownership by United Nations or their nationals among the alternative criteria determining whether a particular vessel is to be regarded as United Nations property for purposes of Article 24 (the other non-controversial criteria being registry and flag); and the text which was rejected excludes this criterion.

It appears to the U.S. Delegation to be prima facie absurd to refuse to recognize United Nations ownership as determinative of whether a particular object is United Nations property. More importantly, to exclude ownership as a criterion would have the effect of depriving of the benefits of Article 24 any United Nations shipowner whose vessels were registered in and flew the flag of some non-United Nations country. Such deprivation can be justified only on a presumption that a shipowner so situated was a collaborator. That presumption is not necessarily valid.

Therefore the U.S. Delegation supported that text of the additional sub-paragraph of Article 24 para 8c which was adopted by the Commission [by] an 8-to-5 vote.

[Page 461]
[Annex 6]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 24 bis (Property Rights of Racial and Religious Minorities)

The U.S. Delegation proposed an amendment designed to rectify, to the extent feasible, the consequences of racial, religious or other fascist measures of persecution of discrimination taken in Rumania during the period of its domination by the Axis. The U.S. Delegation is of the opinion that the prospective provisions in Articles 3 and 4 are not alone sufficient to meet the needs of racial or religious minorities, because the wrongs of the past must also be undone, in so far as possible.

In keeping with the principle that discrimination on the basis of race or religion should be avoided, the U.S. Delegation does not consider it desirable to require by treaty provision that members of the groups concerned receive compensation for losses on a basis more favourable than that provided by Rumania for Rumanian nationals generally.

The U.S. Delegation strongly supports the principle that assets in Rumania which have been left ownerless, heirless or unclaimed by persons, organizations or communities subjected to racial, religious or fascist persecution or discrimination, should, as a matter of elementary justice, be devoted, under appropriate international supervision, to the relief and rehabilitation of those who survived such persecution or discrimination.

[Annex 7]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the Australian Amendment to Article 26

The Delegation of Australia proposed an amendment providing that literary and artistic property should be excepted from the right of seizure by Allied and Associated Powers granted under Article 26.

The United States Delegation is not opposed to the substance of the Australian amendment but was compelled to oppose the text on the ground that it did not contain necessary safeguards for wArtime action by Allied Governments particularly in connection with the granting of licenses.

[Page 462]
[Annex 8]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the Ukrainian Amendment to Article 26

The Delegation of Ukraine proposed an alternative draft restoring to the Rumanian Government and nationals all their pre-war rights with respect to property and assets on the territory of Allied and Associated Powers. It was rejected by non-unanimous vote.

The U.S. Delegation opposed it on the grounds that it: a) would accord better treatment to Rumanian property on Allied territory than the Treaty accorded to Allied property in Rumania; b) would be impossible of fulfillment since not all the action taken by Allied and Associated Powers against enemy property during the war could in fact be undone; c) would require the complete return of pre-war property rights to notorious collaborators. The U.S. Delegation also pointed out that Article 26 as drafted was in no way improperly prejudicial to or burdensome upon Rumania since it merely permitted Allied and Associated Powers to apply Rumanian assets in their respective territories to the settlements of valid claims against Rumania and required any excess of Rumanian assets over such claims to be returned to Rumania.

[Annex 9]

Statement by the Ukrainian Delegation on Article 26

The Ukrainian Delegation considers that there is no need as suggested in Article 26 of the present draft Peace Treaty, to impose additional economic obligations on Roumania and thus further burden her economy.

The Ukrainian Delegation considers that this Article should be deleted from the present draft Peace Treaty and replaced by a new article. This proposal is based on the following considerations:

Roumania not only withdrew from the war against the United Nations, but she declared war on Germany and in the course of that war sustained severe losses in men and material. To make good such losses is a very complicated matter for a country like Roumania and demands a lengthy period of time.

It is not in the interests of the Allies to complicate the process of the post-war economic revival of Roumania by imposing on her harsh obligations which would hamper her economic revival. The more so as we have already the example of Finland on whom no such obligations are being laid.

[Page 463]

The imposition on Roumania of the obligation to make reparation and restitution and also to pay compensation for damage done to United Nations property on Roumanian territory may well satisfy the reasonable claims of the United Nations on Roumania in the proportion and to the extent provided for in the other Articles of the present Peace Treaty. Therefore, it is absolutely superfluous to impose on Roumania, openly or covertly, other obligations which will be a heavy burden on the Roumanian economy.

If Roumania is allowed to dispose of her assets abroad at her own discretion this will have a very favourable effect both on the economic rehabilitation of the country and on its foreign trade relations.

The Ukranian Delegation proposes that Article 26 be adopted in the following wording:

“The rights of the Roumanian Government and of Roumanian natural and juridical persons in respect of Roumanian property and other Roumanian assets on the territory of the Allied and Associated Powers, in so far as these rights were restricted as a result of Roumanian participation in the war on the side of Germany, will be restored after the entry into force of the present Treaty.”

[Annex 10]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 27

Two alternative and unreconcilable proposals were presented in the draft treaty. The U.S.S.R, proposal would remove any restrictions in respect of Roumanian property in Germany and restored the rights of Roumanian owners with regard to the disposal of such property. It further provided that Roumania should be entitled to restitution from Germany of identifiable looted property, such restitution to be carried out under the direction of the powers occupying Germany. The U.K.–U.S.–French proposal provided for a complete waiver by Roumania of all claims against Germany and German nationals except pre-war claims, such waiver to be without prejudice to any dispositions in favour of Roumania or Roumanian nationals that might be made by the powers occupying Germany.

The position of the U.S. Delegation is that there is no just or equitable alternative to a complete waiver of claims against Germany by a defeated satellite. Under the terms of the Paris Agreement on Reparation, the Allied and Associated Powers had already made such a renunciation of claims against Germany, and the comparable Article in the Italian treaty had provided for a complete renunciation by Italy. There would be no basis for defending a mode of treatment which would accord to some ex-enemy states rights which were denied to another ex-enemy state and which had been waived by the Allied Powers.

[Page 464]
[Annex 11]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 27

The United Kingdom Delegation support the text accepted by a simple majority in the Commission.

They can see no reason why the relative Article in the Treaty with Roumania should differ from that agreed for the Italian Treaty and they would be unwilling to be associated with such a differentiation particularly as there is every intention to give Italy and Roumania the same treatment in Germany as regards restitution and the restoration of property there.

[Annex 12]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 30

There was a non-agreed provision with regard to the sub-paragraph (c) of Article 30, paragraph 1. This had to do with the applicability of sub-paragraph (c) to state enterprise. The U.S.S.R. proposal was defeated by a non-unanimous vote, and the U.S., U.K. and French proposal was carried by a non-unanimous vote.

[Here follows a paragraph, the same, mutatis mutandis, as paragraph 2 of the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 20 to the Report of the Economic Commission on Italy, printed on page 401.]

Accordingly, the U.S. Delegation strongly supports the U.S., U.K. and French proposal and opposes the U.S.S.R. proposal.

[Annex 13]

Statement by the Soviet Delegation on Article 30

[Text is virtually the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the Soviet Delegation in Annex 21 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 402.]

[Annex 14]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 30

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 22 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 402.]

[Page 465]
[Annex 15]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 30

In the draft Treaty of Peace with Roumania there were two alternative proposals for paragraph 2 of Article 30. This paragraph deals with the exceptions which shall be recognized to the obligations set out in paragraph 1 of Article 30. The two alternative drafts are identical except that the U.S.S.R. draft adds a provision that the foregoing undertakings by Roumania shall be subject to the exceptions “which relate to relations with neighboring countries applied to them.” The U.S.S.R. proposal was defeated by non-unanimous vote and the U.S.-U.K.-French proposal adopted by unanimous vote. The U.S. Delegation opposed the additional exception provided by the U.S.S.R. draft on the grounds that all of the special problems and circumstances which normally appertain to economic relations between neighboring countries are already covered by the provision in the U.S.-U.K.-French draft that the foregoing undertakings by Roumania shall be subject to “the exceptions customarily included in commercial treaties concluded by Roumania before the war.” It has been established practice in commercial policy to recognize the necessity for special treatment of problems relating to frontier traffic and to other special but limited matters that arise in the economic relations of adjacent countries. To provide, however, a blanket exception from the obligation to accord most-favored-nation treatment to United Nations nationals and to extend that exception to “relations with neighbouring countries” would, no matter what the intent of the proposal may have been, open the door for the establishment of a closed regional system of preferential arrangements. Thus it would nullify the undertakings assumed by Roumania under paragraph 1 of Article 30, since it would permit wide departures from the most-favoured-nation principle with respect to all commercial relations between Roumania and all of Roumania’s neighbouring countries. It would furthermore permit the establishment of a new and rigid economic regionalism in Eastern Europe which would have no historical validity.

The U.S. Delegation is therefore compelled to oppose vigorously any proposal which could thus both nullify the basic provisions of Article 30 and run counter to the expressed intention of almost all the United Nations to undertake collaborative action looking toward the expansion of trade on a multilateral basis.

[Page 466]
[Annex 16]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 30

The United Kingdom Delegation attach the greatest importance to the proposals which they have supported in this Article.

They are concerned that equality of terms should be given to all the United Nations without discrimination, and they consider that this major object can only be assured by the inclusion in the Treaty of words bearing the same meaning as those which they have proposed in regard to participation in Roumanian internal trade, in civil aviation, and in regard to the interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clauses in pre-war Treaties.

[Annex 17]

Statement by the French Delegation on Article 30, Sub-Paragraph c

The French Delegation considers that the addition of this subparagraph, whereby Roumania would grant the United Nations on a reciprocal basis free flight and landing rights in respect of the territory, is in keeping with the general principles governing the question of air transit; that, being reciprocal, it offers Roumania substantial advantages and makes no demands incompatible with her sovereignty and security. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent Roumania from establishing on her territory whatever security corridors or prohibited areas she may deem necessary, provided the United Nations are subject to no discriminatory measures as regards the utilisation of the said territory.

[Annex 18]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 30 bis (Pricing of Reparation Goods)

The Union of South Africa had originally proposed an amendment to Article 22 (Reparations) stipulating that Roumania should pay fair prices with reference to world conditions for goods purchased by Roumania from United Nations nationals in Roumania for delivery on reparation account. Debate on this amendment was deferred until it could be considered in conjunction with Article 30 on general economic relations. Subsequently, the South African Delegation suggested that the same text which had originally been put forward as an amendment to Article 22 should instead be considered and adopted as a new article 30 bis. It was adopted by a non-unanimous vote.

[Page 467]

The U.S. Delegation strongly supports the South African proposal as being necessary to ensure that the burden of reparation payments shall not in fact be borne by United Nations nationals. The interest of United Nations governments in this problem is large and valid since deliveries of reparation goods from United Nations properties (principally petroleum properties) may constitute as much as 40% of total reparation deliveries and may represent as much as $175 to $200 million as the value of those deliveries at present world prices. Under the agreed reparation arrangements, physical goods must be obtained from private persons by purchase by the Roumanian Government. If the prices paid by the Roumanian Government are inadequate, the burden of reparations will be shifted, at least in part, to those particular persons who are the producers of the goods delivered on reparation account. In so far as those persons are United Nations nationals, this shifting of the burden is manifestly unjust and in any case is contrary to the agreed provisions of Article 20 of the Potsdam Protocol. Therefore, the U.S. Delegation strongly supports the South African proposal that the Roumanian Government should be required to pay “fair prices with reference to world conditions.” It would prefer a more accurate formula in this regard, but is content to support the South African text which goes on to stipulate that disputes arising on this subject should be settled in accordance with Article 31 of the Peace Treaty.

[Annex 19]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 30 bis

The U.K. Delegation support the proposal made by the Delegation of the Union of South Africa.

It has not been contested that the prices paid by the Roumanian Government for goods delivered by way of reparation are very low. There is evidence that many of even the larger United Nations interests in Roumania are suffering from shortage of lei funds on this account, Accordingly the U.K. Delegation consider that this Article (which would not prevent the Roumanian Government paying fair prices to other than United Nations concerns) should be embodied in the Treaty.

[Annex 20]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 31 (Settlement of Disputes)

The U.S. had already indicated in a footnote to the Draft Treaty that it could support the U.K. proposal as it stood, or the U.S.S.R. proposal [Page 468]subject to a stipulated amendment. When the U.S.S.R. proposal unamended was put to a vote, the U.S. Delegation was compelled to oppose it, considering that it made inadequate provision against delays in the settlement of matters that should be resolved promptly and offered no certainty of definitive and binding agreement. The U.S. Delegation supported the U.K. proposal, considering it more suitable for the purpose.

[Annex 21]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 31

The United Kingdom Delegation wish to place on record their conviction that the Treaty must provide definite machinery for the final settlement of any disputes which may arise.

[Annex 22]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 34

The U.S., as will be noted from the draft Peace Treaty with Roumania, prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers, proposed the inclusion in the Peace Treaty of provisions which (a) would insure free navigation on the Danube, and (b) indicated in some detail certain specific things which should or should not be done in order to realize the objectives of free non-discriminatory navigation. The U.K. proposed to add a provision requiring the early convocation of a conference of all interested states, including Roumania, to establish a permanent international regime for the Danube.

During the deliberations of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland, the U.S. and U.K. proposals were consolidated into a new U.S. draft which combined the U.S. and U.K. positions as stated in the draft, but amended the U.K. position to the extent of indicating the interested countries, which would be the 8 riparian states and the U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R. and France.

The U.S. Delegation strongly supported this revised proposal and urged upon the Commission its adoption. In doing so the U.S. Delegation stressed the significance of free navigation upon the Danube in relation to peace, security and the avoidance of trade barriers; and also stressed the very strong immediate interests which the U.S. has in Danubian commerce by virtue of its position as an occupying power in both Germany and Austria.

After extensive debate, the combined U.S.–U.K. proposal was withdrawn in favour of a compromise draft put forward by the Delegation [Page 469]of France. This compromise proposal provides in general terms for freedom of navigation on the Danube on a non-discriminatory basis and calls for the convocation of a conference of the interested states as enumerated above.

While still believing that more detailed provisions would be more desirable, the U.S. Delegation supported the French proposal as being the absolutely indispensable minimum requirement.

[Annex 23]

Statement by the Belgian Delegation on Article 34

At a time when the question of navigation on the Danube is being discussed by the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland in connection with the Draft Treaty with Roumania, the Belgian Delegation feels that it may usefully submit to the Commission the following statement:

1.
Belgian associates herself with the principles laid down in the proposals contained under point A of the draft submitted by the Delegations of the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. (Doc. 46), which aim at the establishment of a system of freedom and equality for navigation on the Danube.
2.
As for point B, Belgium reserves her rights as signatory of the Paris Convention of 23rd July, 1921, establishing the Statute of the Danube.

It goes without saying that similar observations on the part of the Belgian Delegation also apply to the French Delegation’s proposal.

[Annex 24]

Statement by the Polish Delegation on Article 34

As the Polish Delegation is not a member of this Commission, it cannot here express an opinion on the substance of the various general proposals concerning Article 34 of the Peace Treaty with Roumania. It would, however, like to emphasize that Poland as a country which is situated near the Danube and which uses this navigable waterway for her foreign trade, is naturally extremely interested in the settlement of the Danubian navigation problem. While agreeing that this question should mainly be settled by the riparian States, the Polish Delegation must, in view of certain declarations which have been made at this meeting, enter a reservation as to Poland’s participation in any international arrangements which might possibly affect a problem of such importance to its national economy.

[Page 470]
[Annex 25]

Statement by the Greek Delegation on Article 34

The Greek Delegation endorses the declaration which has just been made by the Belgian Delegation, namely:

1)
It approves the principles laid down in the proposals contained in paragraph A of the draft submitted by the United States and United Kingdom Delegations, which aim at establishing free and equal rights in respect of Danubian navigation.
2)
In regard to paragraph B, Greece reserves all her rights as a signatory of the Convention of 23 July, 1921, establishing the Statute of the Danube.

The same remarks apply to paragraph 2 of the French proposal.

It is common knowledge that Greek shipping plays an important part in the Danube traffic. This was corroborated during the discussions in this Commission and explains the vital importance which we attach to this question.

[Annex 26]

Declaration by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 34

Mr. Jebb (United Kingdom) drew attention to the fact that, as recognised by the Legal and Drafting Commission, multilateral conventions remained in force irrespective of the outbreak of war. His Majesty’s Government accordingly took the view that the Danube Convention of 1921 was still in force and would remain in force until modified by common consent.

[Annex 27]

Statement by the French Delegation on Article 34

In the opinion of the French Delegation, the Peace Treaties must necessarily incorporate the principle of the freedom of navigation of the Danube. It considers also that a Conference should be held to set up a new international regime for the Danube. The French Delegation emphasises that, in the absence of the other valid international arrangements, the 1921 Commission continues to remain in existence, and France remains a member of it.

It would be inadmissible for the Treaties now being drafted to confirm the situation created by Germany’s illegal action in 1940.

N.B. The French Delegation’s position is the same as regards [Page 471]Article 32 of the Treaty with Bulgaria and Article 33 of the Treaty with Hungary.

[Annex 28]

Statement by the Yugoslav Delegation on Article 34

The Yugoslav delegation has already pointed out that this Conference is not competent to decide anything in connection with the regime of the Danube. Seeing that our sovereign rights are guaranteed by the Charter of the United Nations, we consider that no decision of this Conference or of this Commission can be binding on Yugoslavia.

I would request you, Mr. Chairman, to have this statement inserted in the Record of Decisions.

[Annex 29]

Statement by the Yugoslav Delegation With Regard to the Voting on Article 34

The Yugoslav Delegation notes that not one of the delegations which voted in favour of the French proposal represents a riparian state; that only three of the delegations represent European countries, and that, on the other hand, the delegations of riparian states present at the Commission voted against the proposal.

[Annex 30]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 4, Section C, Shipping

The United Kingdom Delegation submit its view on the inclusion of a special provision for shipping.

In the opinion of the United Kingdom Delegation the generality of Article 24 does not adequately deal with United Nations shipping in Roumania, but they consider a case exists for replacement of shipping which came under Roumanian control, and has been lost or damaged. The U.K. Delegation claim that the generality is directed towards action to be taken in respect of property on land.

It will be recalled that even before the outbreak of War, the Roumanian Government had taken effective steps to prevent United Nations shipping from leaving the Danube, (in which case no loss or damage could have been attributed to that Government) with the result that on the occupation of the country much of this shipping fell into Axis hands. Further, certain of the United Nations had [Page 472]chartered or secured ships on the Danube with a view to denying facilities to the enemy and were put to considerable expense following the enactment of discriminatory legislation in Roumania.

Under the terms of the Armistice the Roumanian Government was under an obligation to hand over all the shipping to the Allied (Soviet) High Command, and to “bear the full material responsibility for any damage or destruction” up to that date (Article 9). Further by Article 13 the Roumanian Government was placed under an obligation to return the property of United Nations nationals in complete good order. Accordingly, the United Kingdom Delegation considers that its proposals providing for the repair of United Nations vessels, for their replacement if lost and for losses actually incurred after Roumania assumed control of the vessels are reasonable. Further having regard to the very real differences which exist between the shipping and property constituted on the soil of Roumania, the Delegation considers that the generality of the terms of Article 23 and 24 should be supplemented by a provision of the kind included in Section C to deal with the special features relating to shipping and notably to lay on the Roumanian Government the onus of repair replacement primarily in local yards.

[Annex 31]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Annex Section D, Petroleum

This Annex was proposed by the U.K. Delegation. The U.S. Delegation opposed all of the four paragraphs which constituted the draft of the Annex which was ultimately considered and voted upon by the Commission. It considered the first three paragraphs to be unnecessary the provisions thereof constituting either a duplication of other general provisions of the treaty or an unjustifiable special treatment of petroleum interests as compared with other property interests. The fourth paragraph required Roumania to permit entry and free exercise of profession by administrative officials and technical experts of United Nations oil companies. The U.S. Delegation felt that determination of policy in this regard was a proper function of the Roumanian state.

[Annex 32]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 4, Section D, Petroleum

The U.K. Delegation consider that special provisions should be inserted in the Peace Treaty to deal with the position of United Nations persons engaged in the petroleum industry in Roumania.

[Page 473]

In the first place it will be appreciated that under normal, pre-war, conditions companies owned by United Nations persons were allowed by the Roumanian authorities to retain a percentage of their foreign exchange earnings for the purpose of buying equipment and meeting other expenses abroad. Under existing conditions, and through no fault of these companies, there are virtually no earnings in foreign exchange from their products and consequently they are unable to obtain the necessary equipment except at the direct charge of the parent companies outside Roumania.

The contention of the U.K. Delegation is that the property of these companies should be rehabilitated but that if the Roumanian Government fails to restore and replace the property within a year, full compensation should be paid including compensation in convertible currency to the extent required by the companies to effect the restoration or replacement from sources outside Roumania.

Secondly, the U.K. Delegation urge that the Petroleum Law of 1942 introduced spoliatory and discriminatory measures compared with the conditions under which companies owned by United Nations persons were carrying on business previously. This Law was introduced by a Nazi Government and the general principles underlying the Treaty, and more particularly those underlying Article 24, require that discrimination should be abolished and that the rights of United Nations nationals should be restored as they existed on the 1st September 1939. Accordingly the U.K. Delegation considers that an explicit obligation should be laid on the Roumanian Government to give effect to these general concepts.

Finally the U.K. Delegation are of the opinion that the Roumanian Government should be called upon to allow the admission of those technicians and higher administrative officials who are required for the efficient conduct of their business.

The U.K. Delegation assert that there is nothing revolutionary in these proposals and nothing alien to natural justice, they claim that the nature of the industry requires special provisions and, in their view, the present proposals represent the minimum requirements to enable these companies efficiently to resume business.

[Annex 33]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the Amendment Proposed by the United States Regarding the Inapplicability of Annex 5 as Between the United States and Rumania

This U.S. amendment was approved by nonunanimous vote. Under the federal system of the U.S., matters relating to contracts, prescription, [Page 474]etc., are primarily within the jurisdiction of the 48 State Governments, rather than that of the Federal Government. It is, therefore, doubtful how far the U.S. Government may appropriately conclude treaty provisions on these subjects. The 1919 peace treaties contain clauses providing that provisions similar to Annex 5 should not apply to the U.S., taking into account its position as a federal state. The amendment does not give the U.S. one-sided privileges in Rumania; it means that the Annex would be entirely inapplicable as between Rumania and the U.S. Matters covered by Annex 5 would be left for the courts of Rumania and of the U.S. to deal with under their applicable laws. In the U.S., the general principles of those laws would be similar to the Annex provisions in so far as the Annex incorporates legal principles, although there might be differences in detail.

[Annex 34]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Annex 5, Part I

The United States opposed the U.K. proposals on contracts, primarily because it regards paragraph 2 (f) as unreasonable.

[Annex 35]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 5, Section 1, Contracts

[Text is identical with the statement by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 25 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 404.]

[Annex 36]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the Soviet Proposal for Annex 5, Part II, Prescription

[Text is identical with the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 28 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 405.]

[Annex 37]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the United Kingdom Proposal for Annex 5, Part II, Prescription

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement of the United States Delegation in Annex 29 of the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 405.]

[Page 475]
[Annex 38]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 5, Section II, Prescription

[Text is identical with the statement of the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 27 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 405.]

[Annex 39]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 5, Section III, Negotiable Instruments

[Text is identical with the statement by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 31 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 406.]

[Annex 40]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Annex 5, Part IV

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 33 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 407.]

[Annex 41]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 5, Section IV

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 32 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 407.]

[Annex 42]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the United States Proposal for Annex 6 B, Judgments

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 34 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 408.]

[Page 476]
[Annex 43]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the United Kingdom Proposal for Annex 6 B, Judgments

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement of the United States Delegation in Annex 38 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 410.]

[Annex 44]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the French Proposal for Annex 6 B, Judgments

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement of the United States Delegation in Annex 37 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 409.]

[Annex 45]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 6 B, Judgments

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement of the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 35 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 408.]

[Annex 46]

Statement by the French Delegation on Annex 6 B, Judgments

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement of the French Delegation in Annex 36 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 409.]

  1. Brackets appear in the source text.