CFM Files

Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria

C.P.(Plen)Doc. 22

Mr. Chairman: The Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria held 10 meetings under the Chairmanship of Mr. Kisselev, Delegate of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia.

[Page 479]

The Commission consisted of Delegates from the following countries: U.S.A., Australia, Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia, France, United Kingdom, Greece, India, New Zealand, Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Union of South Africa, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

Mr. Jordan, Delegate of New Zealand, was appointed Vice-Chairman and I,51 as the Delegate of the United Kingdom, was appointed Rapporteur.

The task of the Commission consisted in examining certain parts of the Draft Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria, which has been prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers, with a view to submitting recommendations to the Plenary Conference.

The parts of the Draft Treaty which were referred to the Commission were as follows:

Preamble
Part I (Article 1 and Annex 1)
Part II (Articles 2 to 8 inclusively)
Part IV (Article 19)
Part VIII (Articles 33 to 36 inclusively)

In the course of its work, the Commission examined proposed amendments submitted by the Australian Delegation, which were numbered C.P.(Gen.)Doc. 1—B32, B33, B34, B41, B42, B43, B44 and B45, together with the observations submitted by the Bulgarian Government (C.P.(Gen.)Doc.4), in so far as these related to Articles which the Commission was competent to take into consideration and were endorsed by one of the Delegations represented on the Commission.

The Commission heard a statement by the Bulgarian Delegation relating to Article 1.

On the other hand, the following amendments, resolution and proposals were referred to the Commission in the course of the discussion:

Preamble: 1 amendment by the Byelorussian Delegation.
1 sub-amendment by the Yugoslav Delegation.
Article I: 1 amendment submitted by the Greek Delegation.
1 resolution submitted by the Greek Delegation.
Article II: 1 proposal by the United Kingdom Delegation which was initially submitted as an amendment, adding a new paragraph to Article 2, and which, in the course of debate, was subsequently moved by the United Kingdom Delegation as a proposed new article 2a.

Furthermore, the Commission later invited the Bulgarian Delegation to set out, in writing, their observations on the proposal of a new article 2a, submitted by the Delegation of the United Kingdom.

[Page 480]

As a result of this examination, the Commission:

I. As regards the Preamble:*

A) unanimously recommends to the Plenary Conference to adopt without alteration paragraphs 1 and 2.

B) with reference to paragraph 3, the Commission, having rejected, by nine votes to four, an amendment submitted by the Byelorussian Delegation embodying the observations of the Bulgarian Delegation which proposed a reference to Bulgaria’s rupture of relations with Germany and her claim to be considered as a co-belligerent, recommends to the Plenary Conference to adopt paragraph 3 without alterations.

C) with reference to paragraph 4, an amendment B32 submitted by the Australian Delegation having been referred to the Commission, which aims at:

a)
including after the words “a peace treaty” the words “conforming to the principles of justice”.
b)
including in the 4th paragraph, after the words “principles of justice”, the words “and securing to all persons in territories affected by this Treaty, the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction of race, sex, language or religion”.
c)
altering, in the fourth paragraph, the order of the two sentences, in such a way that after the words “language or religion”, the text of the preamble should read as follows: “will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the events hereinbefore recited and form the basis of friendly relations between them, thereby enabling, etc. …”, the remaining words being identical with the text of the Draft Treaty.
d)
add after the words “under the auspices” the words “of the Charter of”.

1)
Draws the attention of the Plenary Conference to the fact that having rejected by 8 votes to 4, with one abstention, the subamendment presented by the Yugoslav Delegation proposing the inclusion of the words “in which their wish to abide by the principles of justice will find expression” after the words “the Peace Treaty”, it was decided by 12 votes to 1, to adopt Part (a) of the Australian amendment.
2)
Draws the attention of the Plenary Conference to the fact that Part (c) of the Australian amendment was unanimously adopted.
3)
Draws the attention of the Plenary Conference to the fact that Part (b) was withdrawn by the Australian Delegation.
4)
Draws the attention of the Plenary Conference to the fact that Part (d) has been unanimously rejected.

And in consequence:

Unanimously recommends to the Plenary Conference that Paragraph 4 should be drafted as follows:

[Page 481]

“Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria are respectively desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace which, conforming to the principles of justice will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the events hereinbefore recited and will form the basis of friendly relations between them, thereby enabling the Allied and Associated Powers to support Bulgaria’s application to become a Member of the United Nations and also to adhere to any Convention concluded under the auspices of the United Nations.”

D) Unanimously recommends to the Plenary Conference the adoption of Paragraph 5 without alteration.

II. As regards Article 1, the Commission has considered:

A) an amendment submitted by the Greek Delegation which proposed the rectification of the Greek-Bulgarian frontier in favour of Greece.

B) a resolution proposed by the Greek Delegation requesting the Military Commission to examine the Greek amendment and to report on its purely military aspect, with particular reference to the degree of security which would result from the cession to Greece, within the limits of the proposed Greek amendment, of:

1.
natural strong-points.
2.
general defence positions.
3.
the necessary depth for defensive, strategic movements.
4.
lines of communications.

The Military Commission was also invited to indicate whether Greece would attain the measure of security which she desires by an alternative modification of the existing frontier.

This resolution, to which the Greek Delegation accepted a sub-amendment of the New Zealand Delegation, proposing the addition at the end of the last paragraph of the words: “or by any other means”, was carried by eight votes to five.

The majority considered that, since the Greek amendment proposed a rectification of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier affording security to Greece’s Northern Provinces, the subject should be given careful technical study by military experts before the Commission could take a decision.

The Delegations of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia, voted against this resolution in the belief that it was not within the competence of the Military Commission to give advice on Article 1, nor to advise on the Greco-Bulgarian frontier on the basis of the Greek amendment.

After consideration of the report of the Military Commission, the Commission rejected the Greek amendment by 8 votes (U.S.A., Australia, [Page 482] Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia, France, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) to 2 (Greece and Union of South Africa), with 3 abstentions (United Kingdom, India and New Zealand); and decided by 10 votes (U.S.A., Australia, Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia, France, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) to 1 (Greece), with 2 abstentions (India and Union of South Africa), to recommend to the Plenary Conference the adoption of Article 1 without amendment.

C) As regards Annex 1: The Commission decided by 9 votes (U.S.A., Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia, France, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) to 2 (Australia and Greece), with 2 abstentions (India and Union of South Africa), to recommend to the Plenary Conference the adoption of the map51a presented to the Commission by the Soviet Delegation in conformity with the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

III. As regards Article 2, the Australian Delegation having withdrawn its amendment, the Commission unanimously recommends to the Conference the adoption of Article 2 without alteration.

IV. As has been stated above, the United Kingdom Delegation proposed the insertion of an Article 2a, after Article 2 of the Draft Peace Treaty as follows:

“Bulgaria further undertakes that the laws in force in Bulgaria shall not, either in their content or in their application, discriminate or entail any discrimination between persons of Bulgarian nationality on the ground of their race, sex, language or religion, whether in reference to their persons, property, business, professional or financial interests, status, political or civic rights, or any other matters.”

After discussion, this proposal won the support of a majority of 7 votes to 5, with one abstention.

Votes in favour: U.S.A., Australia, United Kingdom, Greece, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.

Votes against: Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia, France. Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia.

Czechoslovakia abstained.

As the ⅔ majority was not reached, the Commission should by Sec. VI(b) of the Rules of Procedure, submit two reports to the Plenary Conference and state the respective points of view of the majority and of the minority. But it agreed that the Rapporteur should make a statement [Page 483] of the two points of view in the general report, so avoiding the submission of separate reports.

The aim of this proposal, as defined by the United Kingdom Delegation is to relieve the sufferings of Jews in Eastern Europe by stating the obligation which rests upon the Bulgarian Government to respect the principle of non-discrimination between Bulgarian nationals. Moreover, responsible Jewish organisations have expressed the fears of the Jewish people that the existing Articles of the Draft Treaty do not afford adequate protection to their community. In view of the recent history of the Jewish people, the majority were of the opinion that this additional Article should be included in order to reassure the Jews.

According to the minority, this new provision is superfluous since its aims are already realized in Article 2 and 3 of the Draft Treaty; Bulgarian legislation has already adopted and put into practice the principles stated in this proposal and there is, in fact, no reason to distrust the Bulgarian Government in this respect. Besides, the Bulgarian people never manifested any anti-Semitic feelings and even at the time discriminatory measures were being applied in Bulgaria, the Jewish population of Bulgaria was in a better position than in the other Axis countries and was not victimised by the Bulgarian population. At the present time, Bulgarian Jews are quite satisfied with their position and are opposed to any special measures being taken for the protection of their rights as the need for such measures does not exist.

The majority for its part, while recognising that Articles 2 and 3 of the Draft Treaty already deal to a great extent with the problem raised in the British proposal, asserts that a supplementary provision is not superfluous and completes these Articles.

It adds that if Bulgarian legislation at present in force is opposed to all discrimination between Bulgarian nationals, it is useful to confirm an existing juridical situation by introducing a special contractual obligation into the body of the Treaty.

As neither of these two opinions won the necessary majority of ⅔ of the votes cast, it is for the Plenary Conference to pronounce on this subject by a special vote.

V. Recommends to the Plenary Conference the adoption without alteration of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 33, 35 and 36, the Australian Delegation having withdrawn its proposal for a new article placing on Bulgaria an obligation to join certain international organisations (Article 7).

VI. As regards Article 34:

A) Informs the Plenary Conference that an amendment numbered C.P.(Gen)Doc.1–B44, submitted by the Australian Delegation, concerning [Page 484] the reference of disputes to the Treaty Executive Council, was withdrawn after the rejection of the amendment to Article 33, submitted by the same Delegation (C.P. (Gen)Doc.1–B43).

B) Submits to the Plenary Conference two draft versions in accordance with the Rules of Procedure established by this Conference:

a) the first submitted by the United Kingdom and the U.S. Delegations, 8 votes being cast in favour (U.S.A., Australia, France, Greece, United Kingdom, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa), 5 against (Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia), and worded as follows:

“Except where any other procedure is specifically provided under any Article of the present Treaty, disputes concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty shall be referred to the three Heads of Mission acting as provided under Article 33 and, if not resolved by them within a period of 2 months, shall, at the request of any party to any dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice. Any dispute still pending at, or arising after the date when the Heads of Mission terminate their functions under Article 33 and which is not settled by direct diplomatic negotiations, shall equally, at the request of any party to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice.

The following supporting reasons were advanced by the United Kingdom Delegation:

“The United Kingdom proposal provides that disputes arising in relation to the interpretation or execution of the Treaty shall be referred to the Ministers in Sofia of the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and the United States of America, in accordance with the responsibility which is laid on them under Article 33 to represent the Allied and Associated Powers in dealing with the Bulgarian Government in all matters concerning the interpretation and execution of the Treaty.

“The three Ministers may, however, be unable to reach agreement on certain disputes, more especially if the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and the United States should be one of the contending parties. It seems necessary therefore to the United Kingdom Delegation to provide for an ultimate and impartial arbiter in order to prevent disputes continuing indefinitely. The most suitable arbiter in the opinion of the United Kingdom Delegation is the International Court of Justice.

“The United Kingdom Delegation therefore proposed that disputes, which the three Ministers are unable to settle or which, after the Ministers have ceased their functions, cannot be settled by direct diplomatic negotiations, shall, at the request of any party to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice as laid down in Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court. In this way, parties to the Treaty will have the assurance of final and impartial settlement of any disputes which may arise.[”]

[Page 485]

b) The second, submitted by the Delegation of the U.S.S.R., 5 votes being cast in favour (Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) and 8 against (U.S.A., Australia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa), and worded as follows:

“Save where any other procedure is specifically provided under any Article of the present Treaty, disputes concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty shall be settled by direct diplomatic negotiations and, in case the disputes are not settled in this way, they shall be referred to the three Heads of Diplomatic Missions acting as provided under Article 33, except that in this case the Heads of Mission will not be restricted by the time-limit provided in that Article.”

The following supporting reasons were advanced by the Soviet Delegation:

“The draft resolution proposed by the United Kingdom Delegation is unacceptable to the minority for the following reasons:

I.
The basic principle of the Statute of the International Court of Justice lies in the fact that it is the option of parties to a dispute whether or not to submit to its jurisdiction. In the present resolution its competence is obligatory and unlimited in time.
II.
The International Court of Justice is an organisation intended for the normal peaceful course of international life, but not for the special task of safeguarding the execution of the treaties which terminate war.
III.
Bulgaria is not as yet a Member of the United Nations Organisation. Consequently, her admission to the International Court of Justice is dependent upon the special consent of the Security Council, i.e. upon a new procedure which would further complicate the situation.
IV.
The draft Article proposed by the Soviet Delegation gives wide possibilities for any settlement of disputes and has this advantage that the Heads of the Diplomatic Mission in Sofia are on the spot and know the actual circumstances in which the disagreement may arise.[”]

VII. Informs the Plenary Conference that an amendment numbered C.P. (Gen.)Doc.1–B45, by the Australian Delegation suggesting the insertion of a new article 35 proposing means for the revision of the treaty was withdrawn by that Delegation which, however, reserved the right to put forward a proposal to raise this question again at the appropriate time.

VIII. Informs the Plenary Conference that an amendment numbered C.P. (Gen)Doc.1–B41, submitted by the Australian Delegation and proposing the inclusion of a new Part VIII relating to a European Tribunal of Human Rights was withdrawn, the Australian Delegation nevertheless exercising the right to raise this question before the appropriate organ of the Conference.

[Page 486]

The foregoing, Mr. Chairman, is a brief report of the work of our Commission and of the conclusions reached.

I have the honour to table this report on behalf of the Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria, for consideration by the Conference and approval of its conclusions.

If the Conference is prepared to accept our recommendations, I have the honour to make the following suggestions on behalf of the Commission:

1)
that the Commission’s recommendations concerning texts adopted by majorities of ⅔ or greater should be accepted, namely:
a)
adopted unanimously:
  • paragraphs 1 and 2 of the preamble, Part c) of the Australian amendment to paragraph 4 of the preamble and the 5th paragraph of the preamble.
  • Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 33, 35 and 36.
b)
adopted by a ⅔ majority or greater:
  • paragraph 3 of the preamble, Part a) of the Australian amendment to paragraph 4 of the preamble.
  • Article 1 and Annex 1.
2)
that a separate vote should be taken on Article 2a, the text proposed by the United Kingdom Delegation having obtained 7 votes to 5, and 1 abstention, that is, a simple majority.
3)
that a separate vote should be taken on Article 34, for which the text put forward by the United Kingdom and the U.S. Delegations Avon 8 votes against 5. That is a simple majority, while the text submitted by the U.S.S.R, Delegation won 5 votes against 8.

  1. H. M. Gladwyn Jebb.
  2. Paragraphs 3 and 4 in the English and Russian texts appear in the French text as one paragraph 3 including 2 recitals. [Footnote in the source text.]
  3. Not reproduced.