CFM Files
Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty With Rumania
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.”
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.
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.”
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. |
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.
- Brackets appear in the source text.↩