Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Documents, Volume IV

CFM Files

Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Hungary

C.P.(Plen) Doc. 27

Paris, October 7, 1946.

Rapporteur: Professor M. V. Ptuckha.

1. The Political and Territorial Commission for Hungary under the chairmanship of M. S. Stankovich, Delegate of Yugoslavia, held 20 meetings.

The Commission which comprised representatives of Australia, Byelorussia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, India, New Zealand, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia, elected Mr. A. Stirling, Delegate of Australia, as Vice-Chairman, and as Rapporteur the representative of Czechoslovakia, who after his refusal to accept nomination, was replaced by the representative of the Ukraine.

The task of the Commission was to study certain sections of the Draft Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers, on the one hand, and Hungary, on the other, and to submit, where necessary, recommendations to the Plenary Conference.

The following sections of the Draft Peace Treaty came within the purview of the Commission:

Preamble.
Part I.	Frontiers (Article 1, Annex 1)
Part II.	Political Clauses (Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Part IV.	Withdrawal of Allied Forces (Article 20)
Part VIII.	Final Clauses (Articles 34, 35, 36 and 37)

Nineteen amendments were submitted to the Commission, namely:

To the Preamble—an Australian amendment (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1 B)

To Article 1—a Czechoslovak amendment declaring null and void the consequences of the Vienna Award (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1Q2) and a Czechoslovak amendment concerning the cession to Czechoslovakia of five Hungarian villages in the region of Bratislava (C.P.(Gen)Doc. 1.Q.3.)

To Article 2—an Australian amendment on Human rights (C.P.(H/P) Doc. 6; a Yugoslav amendment on the right to be taught in the mother tongue (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.U.30).

To Article 3—a Yugoslav amendment to prohibit persecution on political grounds (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.U.31)

To Article 4—a Czechoslovak amendment to prohibit revisionist activity and propaganda (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1Q.4)

—a Czechoslovak amendment concerning the transfer of 200,000 Hungarians to Hungary (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1Q5)

—a Czechoslovak amendment to insert after Article 6 a new article concerning the date of the outbreak of war between Hungary and Czechoslovakia (C.P.(Gen) Doc.1.Q.6)

—an Australian amendment to insert after Article 8 a new article about the admission of Hungary into international organisations (C.P.(H/P)Doc.8)

—a Czechoslovak amendment to insert after Article 6 a new article 9a on the transfer of populations and 9b on the return by Hungary to Yugoslavia of cultural property and archives (C.P.(Gen) Doc.I.U.32)

To Article 34—a Czechoslovak amendment on the participation of representatives of the interested Allied and Associated Powers in the consideration by the Ambassadors of the relevant questions (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.15)

—an Australian amendment concerning a Treaty Executive Council (C.P.(H/P)Doc.9)

To Article 35—an Australian amendment to modify the wording of the U.S.A. and U.K. amendments about the interpretation of the Treaty in connection with the Australian proposals for a Treaty Executive Council (C.P.(H/P)Doc.9)

—an Australian amendment to insert in the Treaty after Article 35 a new article on Treaty revision (C.P.(H/P)Doc.9);

—an Australian proposal for the inclusion in the Treaty of a new part dealing with the establishment of an European Court of Human Rights (C.P.(H/P)Doc.9);

—Draft Yugoslav Annexes—No. 7 on a transfer of populations between Yugoslavia and Hungary (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.U.38).

The Commission discussed the U.K. Delegations’s proposal of 5th September on Article 2 of the Draft Treaty concerning the prohibition of racial discrimination (C.P.(HP)Doc.10).

The Hungarian Delegation tabled its observations on a number of Articles (C.P.(Gen)Doc.5) and also addressed a number of letters to the Chairman of the Commission.

In connection with Article I, paragraph 2, on the frontiers between Hungary and Rumania, there was a joint meeting with the Political and Territorial Commission for Rumania at which the views of the Hungarian and Rumanian delegations on the frontier between Hungary and Rumanian were heard. The Hungarian Delegation was also given opportunities to be heard orally on other paragraphs of the Draft Treaty.

The Articles referred to the Commission for consideration had been agreed by the Council of Foreign Ministers with the exception of Article 35 for which there were two proposals, one by the U.S.A. and the U.K. and the other by U.S.S.R.

As a result of its discussions the Commission came to the following conclusions:

1. —Article 1, paragraph 1, 2. and 3, Articles 3 and 4 (together with the Czechoslovak Delegation’s amendment), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 34, 36 and 37 were unanimously agreed.

The Commission recommends the Plenary Conference to adopt these Articles.

2. —The Preamble was adopted by 11 votes with 2 abstentions together with two modifications proposed by the Australian Delegation.

a). In the 4th paragraph of the Preamble after the words “whereas the Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary are respectively desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace.…”; the words “conforming to the principles of justice” were added.

b). In the same paragraph the two phrases which follow the words “conforming to the principles of justice” have been transposed so that this paragraph should read: “Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary 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 form the basis of friendly relations between them.

The Commission submits the text of the Preamble with the above-mentioned amendments in the form of a recommendation for the approval of the Plenary Conference.

—The Czechoslovak amendments to paragraph 4 of Article 2 on the annulment of the Vienna Award (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1Q2) and on the alteration of the frontier in the area of Bratislava (C.P.(Gen) Doc.1Q3) were referred to a sub-committee specially set up for this purpose, on the proposal of the Australian Delegation, which included representatives of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia and the Ukraine.

The Sub-Committee submitted a report to the Commission on the first amendment, the first 4 paragraphs of which (general part) were unanimously approved by the Commission. The Commission decided unanimously to refer paragraph 5, which contained the proposal of a majority of four members of the Sub-Committee from which Australia had abstained, to the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland, recommending the inclusion of this amendment in the economic section of the Treaty, if it did not conflict with other economic provisions of the Draft Peace Treaty.

The Sub-Committee submitted a report from which Australia abstained to the Commission on the second amendment, which was unanimously approved, together with a new text, of paragraph 4 of Article 1, Paragraph 4 of Article 1 was agreed as follows:

a). The decisions of the Vienna Award of November 2, 1938, are declared null and void.

b). The frontier between Hungary and Czechoslovakia from the point common to the frontier of those two States and Austria to the point common to those two States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is hereby restored as it existed on January 1, 1938, with the exception of the change resulting from the stipulations of the following paragraph.

c). Hungary shall cede to Czechoslovakia the villages of Horvath-jarfalu, Oroszvar and Dunacsun, together with their cadastral territory to the extent indicated on Map No. 1a^54a annexed to the present Treaty. Accordingly, the Czechoslovak frontier on the sector shall be fixed as follows: from the point common to the three frontiers of Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as they existed on 1st January 1938, the present Hungaro-Austrian frontier shall become frontier between Austria and Czechoslovakia as far as a point roughly 500 meters north of hill 134 (3 km.5 north-west of the church of Rajka), this point now becoming common to the frontiers of the three named countries; thence the new frontier between Czechoslovakia and Hungary shall go eastwards along the northern cadastral boundary of the village of Rajka to the right bank of the Danube at a point approximately 2 kilometers north of hill 128 (3.5 Kms. east of the church of Rajka), where … the new frontier will, in the principal channel of navigation on the Danube, join the Czechoslovak-Hungarian frontier as it existed on 1st January 1938; the dam and spillway within the village limits of Rajka will remain on Hungarian territory.

d) The exact line of the new frontier between Hungary and Czechoslovakia laid down in the preceding paragraph shall be determined on the spot by a boundary Commission composed of the representatives of the two governments concerned. The Commission shall complete its duties within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty.

e) In the event of a bilateral agreement not being concluded between Hungary and Czechoslovakia concerning the population of the ceded area, Czechoslovakia guarantees them full human and civic rights. All the guarantees and prerogatives stipulated in the Czechoslovak-Hungarian Treaty of February 27, 1946, on the exchange of populations, will be applicable to those who leave Czechoslovakia voluntarily.

The Commission recommends the Plenary Conference to approve Paragraph 4 of Article 1.

4. —Article 2 of the Draft Peace Treaty in the form approved by the Council of Foreign Ministers was unanimously adopted.

The Delegation of Great Britain proposed the addition of the following new paragraph to Article 2 of the Treaty:

“Hungary further undertakes that the laws in force in Hungary shall not, either in their content or in the application discriminate or entail any discrimination between persons of Hungarian 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.”

Eight votes were cast in favour of this proposal (U.S.A., Australia, Canada, Great Britain, France, India, New Zealand and Union of South Africa) and three against it (Byelorussia, Ukraine and U.S.S.R.), with two abstentions (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia).

The Commission decided that both points of view be recorded in the general report, in order to avoid the submission of two separate reports.

The aim of this proposal, as was explained by the British Delegation, was to relieve the suffering of Jews in Eastern European States which were satellites of the Axis, by means of defining the obligations imposed on the Hungarian Government, regarding the adherence to the principle abolishing discrimination between Hungarian nationals.

In the opinion of the minority, this new proposal is redundant. On the one hand its purpose is already covered by Articles 2 and 3 of the Draft Peace Treaty, and on the other hand Hungarian legislation provides for and applies the principles cited in this proposal, and no reason is foreseen to distrust the Hungarian Government on this matter.

The majority not denying the fact that Articles 2 and 3 of the Draft Peace Treaty cover, to a large extent, the problem raised by the British proposal, assert that the additional provision is not redundant and serves to amplify these Articles.

It adds that although Hungarian laws at present in force hinder any kind of discrimination against any categories of Hungarian nationals, it would be useful to confirm the existing legal position by the inclusion of a special Treaty obligation in the text of the Treaty.

The Commission submits the above-mentioned view of the majority and the minority to the Plenary Conference for its consideration.

5.—Article 4 was unanimously adopted with the addition of the Czechoslovak amendment, which reads as follows: insert the words “including revisionist propaganda” between the words “propaganda” and “hostile”.

6.—The Czechoslovak Delegation proposed that a special Article should be inserted into the Peace Treaty after Article 4 to provide for the transfer to Hungary from Czechoslovakia of some 200,000 Hungarians (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.5).

After discussion this question was referred to the first Sub-Commission.

The report of the Sub-Commission, together with this new article, which is to be inserted after Article 4 was unanimously approved. The new article was adopted in the following wording:

“Hungary shall enter into bilateral negotiations with Czechoslovakia in order to solve the problem of those inhabitants of Magyar ethnic origin, residing in Czechoslovakia, who will not be settled in Hungary within the scope of the Treaty of February 27, 1946 on exchange of populations.

“In the event of no agreement being reached within a period of six months of the coming into force of the present treaty, Czechoslovakia shall have the right to bring this question before the Council of Foreign Ministers and to request the assistance of the Council in effecting a final solution.”

The Commission recommends that the Plenary Conference should approve this Article.

7.—The Yugoslav Delegation proposed the inclusion in the Peace Treaty of a new article 9b. covering the transfer by Hungary to Yugoslovia and Czechoslovakia of cultural property and archives pertaining to these states. (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.U.32 and C.P.(H/P) Doc.17.)

After preliminary consideration, this question was referred to a special Sub-Commission composed of the representatives of India, the Union of South Africa and Yugoslavia.

The report of the Sub-Commission together with the draft of the new article was unanimously adopted by the Commission, after the Article had been modified, the final wording being as follows:

1) Hungary shall hand over to the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia and to the Republic of Czechoslovakia, within a period of not more than 18 months from the coming into force of this Treaty, objects of the following categories constituting the cultural patrimony of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia which had originated from these territories and which had, after 1848 come into the possession of the Hungarian State or of Hungarian public institutions as a consequence of Hungarian domination over those territories prior to 1919:

a) Historical archives which came into being as integral wholes in Yugoslav or Czechoslovak territories;

b) Libraries, historical documents, antiquities and other cultural objects which belonged to institutions in Yugoslav or Czechoslovak territories or to historical personalities of the Yugoslav and Czechoslovak peoples;

c) Original artistic, literary and scientific objects which are the work of Yugoslav or Czechoslovak Artists, writers and scientists.

2) Objects acquired by purchase, gifts or legacies and original works of Hungarians are excluded from the provisions of Paragraph 1.

3). Hungary shall also hand over to Yugoslavia the archives relating to the 18th century of the Illyrian Deputation, the Illyrian Commission and Illyrian Chancellery.

4). The Hungarian Government shall, on the coming into force of the present Treaty, give the authorised representatives of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia all necessary assistance in finding these objects and making them available for examination. Thereafter, but not later than one year after the coming into force of this Treaty, the Yugoslav and Czechoslovak Governments shall hand the Hungarian Government a list of the objects claimed under this Article. Should the Hungarian Government within three months of the receipt of the list, present observations against the inclusion therein of certain objects, and in the event of no agreement being reached between the Governments concerned within a further month, the dispute shall be settled in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 of this Treaty.”

The Commission recommends that the Plenary Conference should approve this Article.

8.—In regard to Article 35 there is no agreed proposal by the Council of Foreign Ministers. There are two Drafts for this Article—1) by the U.S.A. and U.K. Delegations and—2) by the Soviet Delegation.

There were 8 votes in favour of the U.S. and U.K. proposal and 5 against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia).

There were 5 votes in favour of the Soviet proposal and 8 against (Australia, Canada, France, U.K., India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa and U.S.A.).

Thus, none of these proposals secured a two-thirds majority and therefore, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the latter submits to the Conference the views of the majority and of the minority.

The U.S.A. and U.K. proposals are 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 34 and, if not resolved by them within a period of two 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 34, 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 U.S.A. and U.K. proposals are based on the conception that disputes in regard to the interpretation or application of the Treaty should be submitted in the first place to the three Heads of Mission in Budapest. The U.S.A. and U.K. Delegations consider that the Heads of the Three Missions may be unable to reach agreement on certain questions under dispute. They therefore propose that such disputes as cannot be settled by the three Ambassadors, or those which cannot be settled by direct diplomatic negotiations, after the three Ambassadors have ceased to exercise their functions, should be referred to an International Court of Justice.

The Soviet proposal is:

“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 Mission acting as provided under Article 34, except that in this case the Heads of Mission will not be restricted by the time-limit provided in that Article.”

In submitting this draft, the Soviet Delegation has the following considerations in mind:

1) The basic principle of the Statute of the International Court is that its jurisdiction is not obligatory on parties to a dispute. The proposal of the U.S.A. and U.K. would make this juridiction compulsory and unlimited in time.

2) The International Court is an organisation set up in order to safeguard the normal and peaceful conduct of international relations, and not for the purpose of undertaking the special duties of ensuring the execution of Treaties which put an end to a state of war.

3) At the moment Hungary is not a member of the United Nations. Therefore, her right of access to the International Court is dependent on the granting of special approval by the Security Council, that is to say, it is tied up with special procedure which further complicates the situation.

4) The draft proposal of the Soviet Delegation gives every opportunity to arrive at a settlement in the case of all disputes and it has the advantage that the Heads of the Diplomatic Missions in Budapest are on the spot and are well informed in regard to the concrete conditions in which any particular dispute has arisen.

The following amendments were withdrawn by the Australian, Yugoslav and Czechoslovak Delegations:

Australian amendments to the Preamble (C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1B1) with the exception of two proposals which as stated above were adopted by the Commission.

The first and third parts of the Australian amendment to Article 2 on Human Rights (C.P.(H/P)Doc.6); the Yugoslav amendment on the right to be taught in their mother tongue (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1U.30)

Yugoslav amendment to Article 3 on persecution on account of political views (C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.U.31)

Czechoslovak amendment on the inclusion of a new article, after Article 6 on the date of the commencement of a state of war between Hungary and Czechoslovakia (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.6)

Australian amendment on the inclusion of a new article after Article 8 on Hungary’s entrance into international organizations (C.P.(H/P) Doc.8).

Yugoslav amendment on the inclusion of a new article 9a after Article 9 on the exchange of population (C.P.(Gen) Doc.1U.32).

Czechoslovak amendment to Article 34 on the participation of diplomatic representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers concerned in the discussion of pertinent matters (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.15); the Australian amendment on the Treaty’s Executive Council (C.P.(H/P) Doc.9).

Australian amendment on the alteration of the wording of the U.S.A. and United Kingdom’s proposal for Article 35 (C.P.(H/P) Doc.9).

The Australian proposal on the inclusion of a new article after Article 35 on the revision of the Treaty (C.P.(H/P)Doc.9).

The Australian proposal to include in the Treaty a new clause for the setting up of a European Court of Human Rights (C.P. (H/P) Doc.9).

The Yugoslav proposal to insert in the Treaty an annex No. 7 on the exchange of population between Yugoslavia and Hungary (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.U.38).

The second part of the Australian amendment on Human Rights (C.P.(H/P)Doc.6) was rejected by the Commission by 12 votes to 1.

Statements were made in connection with the withdrawal of Australian amendments C.P.(H/P) Doc.8 and C.P.(H/P) Doc.9 and the Yugoslav amendment C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.U.31. Those statements were annexed to the records of decisions of the Commission.

The views presented by the Hungarian Delegation although considered by the Commission were not formally supported by any of the Delegations and for that reason could not be considered by the Commission as proposed amendments.

This constitutes a short Report on the work of the Political and Territorial Commission for Hungary.

On behalf of the Political and Territorial Commission for Hungary, I have the honour to submit the present Report to the Plenary Conference, for its consideration and for the approval of the recommendations contained therein.

If the Conference decides to support the views of our Commission, I have the honour to propose in the name of the Commission that the Conference should:

1) Approve the recommendations of the Commission in respect of the texts which have been adopted either unanimously or by a majority of two-thirds or more namely:

The Preamble

Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4.

A new article covering the transfer of Hungarians from Czechoslovakia.

Articles 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

A new article covering the transfer by Hungary to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia of cultural property and archives.

Articles 20, 34, 36 and 37.

Annex 1 to Article 1.

2) To take a vote on the addition of a new paragraph to Article 2 proposed by the U.K. Delegation, which secured 8 votes in favour, 3 against with 2 abstentions; and also in regard to Article 35 in respect of which there are two proposals; one by the U.S.A. and U.K. which secured 8 votes in favour and 5 against, and the other by the Soviet Delegation which secured 5 votes in favour and 8 against.

Professor

M.V. Ptuckha.

1. Not reproduced.