CFM Files

Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Finland

C.P.(Plen) Doc. 16

Mr. Chairman: The Political and Territorial Commission for Finland has held 8 meetings under the Chairmanship of Mr. Beasley, Delegate for Australia.

The Commission consisted of Delegates from the following countries: U.S.A. (who however did not attend any meetings), Australia, Byelorussia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, India, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and the Union of South Africa. M. Fisa, Delegate of Czechoslovakia, was appointed Vice-Chairman, and Viscount Hood, United Kingdom Delegate, Rapporteur.

The task of the Commission was to examine certain parts of the draft Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Finland which had been drawn up by the Council of Foreign Ministers, and ultimately to make recommendations to the Plenary Conference.

Those parts of the draft Treaty which were referred to the Commission were:

[Page 569]
Preamble
Part I. Territorial clauses, Articles 1 and 2
Part II. Section I, Articles 3, 4, 5,
Section II, Articles 6, 7, 8, 9,
Section III, Articles 10, 11, 12,
Part VI. Final clauses, Articles 32, 33, 34.

In the course of its work, the Commission examined proposed amendments by the Australian Delegation numbered C.P.(Gen.)Doc-1B60, B61, B62, B65, B69, B71, B73, and referred to in documents C.P.(P/P)Doc.2, Doc.3, Doc.4, together with the observations submitted by the Finnish Government (C.P.(Gen.)Doc.6), in so far as they related to Articles within the Commission’s competence, or were endorsed by one of the Delegations members of the Commission.

As a result of this examination, the Commission:

I. As regards the Preamble,

A. Unanimously recommends to the Plenary Conference that paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 be adopted without alteration;

B. With reference to paragraph 4, having before it an amendment B60 proposed by the Australian Delegate, with the object of

(a)
including after the words “a treaty of peace which”, the words “conforming to the principles of justice”:
(b)
including in the fourth 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 as to race, sex, language or religion”;
(c)
altering, in the fourth paragraph, the order of the two propositions, so 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.
1.
Informs the Plenary Conference that it unanimously decided to adopt parts “a” and “c” of the Australian amendment;
2.
informs the Plenary Conference that part “b” was withdrawn by the Australian Delegation as a result of a negative vote in the Commission concerning the proposal to establish a “Court of Human Rights”;

And, in consequence:

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

“Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers and Finland 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 Finland’s application to become a Member [Page 570] of the United Nations and also to adhere to any Convention concluded under the United Nations Charter.”

C. Unanimously recommends to the Plenary Conference the adoption of paragraph 5 without alteration.

II. Unanimously recommends to the Plenary Conference the adoption of Article 1 (together with Annex I) and Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5.

III. With reference to Article 6, after the rejection, by 9 votes to 2 (Australia and New Zealand), of an amendment number C.P.GEN. Doc. 1 B 62, submitted by the Australian Delegation, recommends to the Plenary Conference the adoption without alteration of the text of the draft prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

IV. Unanimously recommends to the Plenary Conference that Articles 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the draft prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers should be adopted without alteration.

V. Informs the Plenary Conference that an amendment submitted by the Australian Delegation, numbered C.P.GEN. Doc. 1 B 65, proposing the insertion, between Articles 11 and 12, of a new article, providing for the membership of Finland in the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, the International Wheat Council, the International Health Organisation, and such other economic and social organisations as shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations, was rejected by 9 votes to 1 (Australia), with 1 abstention (New Zealand).

VI. Unanimously recommends to the Plenary Conference that the text of Article 12 of the draft Treaty prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers should be adopted without alteration.

VII. Informs the Plenary Conference that an amendment numbered C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1B69, submitted by the Australian Delegation and proposing to insert a new Part VI relating to the establishment of a European Court of Human Rights, was withdrawn after the following report from the Legal and Drafting Commission had been approved by 9 votes to 2 (Australia and New Zealand), the Australian Delegation reserving the right, however, to raise this question before the appropriate organ of the Conference:

“The Legal and Drafting Commission has considered the question referred to it by the Political Commission for Finland concerning the Australian Delegation’s amendment providing for the insertion in the Peace Treaty with Finland of a clause on a European Court of Human Rights.

“It notes that:

1)
The implementation of human rights is a task of universal import which, under the Charter of the United Nations, is entrusted to the Economic and Social Council which has set up a Commission of Human Rights. These two bodies have power both to formulate the principles and to decide on the steps to be taken to ensure that they are respected.
(See, inter alia, the Charter of the United Nations, Article 1, para. 3; Articles 55 (c) and 56; Article 62; Article 68 and the Resolution of the Economic and Social Council of 21st June 1946 E/56/Rev./2, 1st July, 1946).
2)
As long as no fundamental understanding has been arrived at on the principles involved, it is impossible in the present state of international law to compel a State to accept the decisions of an international legal body in this matter.
3)
Any difficulties which may arise in the interpretation or application of Article 6 of the Peace Treaty with Finland will be covered by the procedure provided for in Article 32 of this Treaty.
“For the above reasons the Legal and Drafting Commission considers that, as things are at present, the amendment of the Australian Delegation to the Peace Treaty with Finland should not be accepted.”

VIII. As regards Article 32, having rejected by 9 votes to 1 (Australia) with 1 abstention (New Zealand) an amendment numbered C.P.(Gen)Doc.1B71, submitted by the Australian Delegation and relating to the establishment of a Treaty Executive Council, recommends the adoption without modification of the text of Article 32 of the draft treaty drawn up by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

IX. As regards Article 33:

1.
Informs the Plenary Conference that an amendment numbered C.P.(Gen)Doc.1E72, submitted by the Australian Delegation, was withdrawn after the rejection of the amendment to Article 32, submitted by that Delegation;
2.
Submits to the Plenary Conference 2 draft versions, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure established by this Conference;
(a)
the first submitted by the U.K. Delegation, 7 votes being cast in favour (Australia, Canada, France, United Kingdom, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa) and 4 against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R.) reads 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 two Ministers acting as provided under Article 32 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 Ministers terminate their functions under Article 32, 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 U.K. Delegation:

“The U.K. proposal provides that disputes arising in relation to the interpretation or execution of the Treaty shall be referred to the Ministers in Helsinki of the U.S.S.R. and the U.K. in [Page 572] accordance with the responsibility which is laid on them under Article 32 to represent the Allied and Associated Powers in dealing with the Finnish Government in all matters concerning the interpretation and execution of the Treaty.

“The two Ministers may, however, be unable to reach agreement on certain disputes, more especially if the U.S.S.R. or the U.K. should be one of the contending parties. It seems necessary, therefore, to the U.K. 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 U.K. Delegation is the International Court of Justice. The U.K. Delegation therefore proposes that disputes, which the two 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 a final and impartial settlement of any disputes which may arise.”

(b)
the second submitted by the Delegation of the U.S.S.R., 4 votes being cast in favour (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R.) and 7 against (Australia, Canada, France, India, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa) and reads 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 two Ministers acting as provided under Article 32, except that in this case the Ministers 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 submission to its jurisdiction is the option of the parties to a dispute. In the present resolution such submission is obligatory and without time limit.
II.
The International Court of Justice is an organisation intended for the normal peaceful course of international life and not for the special task of safeguarding the execution of the treaties which terminate a war.
III.
Finland 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, that is upon a new procedure which makes the situation even more complicated.
IV.
The draft Article proposed by the Soviet Delegation opens wide possibilities for the settlement of all disputes and has the [Page 573] advantage that the heads of the Diplomatic Missions in Helsinki are on the spot and are conversant with the actual circumstances in which a disagreement has arisen.[”]

X. Informs the Plenary Conference that when a draft amendment submitted by the Australian Delegation (C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1 B 73) proposing the insertion of a new article 34 was withdrawn, the Australian Delegation put forward a draft amendment in the following terms:

“This Commission recognises the necessity for inclusion in the draft Treaty with Finland of an Article providing means for agreed revision of the terms of the Treaty and notes that the Australian Delegation reserves the right to put forward a specific proposal for this purpose at an appropriate stage.”

This was rejected by 9 votes to 1 (Australia) with 1 abstention (New Zealand). The Commission therefore,

Recommends unanimously to the Plenary Conference the adoption without alteration, the text of Article 34 of the draft Peace Treaty prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Such, 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 Finland for consideration and for approval of its conclusions.

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

1.
that a separate vote should be taken on Article 33, the text of which, proposed by the United Kingdom Delegation, obtained 7 votes to 4, a simple majority, while the text submitted by the Soviet Delegation obtained 4 votes in favour and 7 against;
2.
that the Commission’s recommendations concerning the texts adopted by majorities of two-thirds or greater, should be adopted, namely:

paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Preamble; Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 32, 34, Annex I.

the fourth paragraph of the Preamble the alterations to which were unanimously adopted.