Office of the Historian

Doc. No. 12 (G).

Memorandum on the Clause of the Draft Treaty Relating to Disputes on Boundary Demarcation (Art. 5, par. 3.)

undated

Article 5

Article 5 provides that all questions concerning Italy’s new frontiers (according to a United States proposal, this clause should also apply to questions concerning the frontiers between the Free Territory of Trieste and Italy or Yugoslavia) shall be referred to Boundary Commissions composed of representatives of the Governments concerned. In case of disagreement, the questions will be referred to the four Ambassadors for final settlement by such methods as they may determine, including, “where necessary”, the appointment of an impartial third Commission. (“Additional Commission” is the term used in the United States proposal.)

In view of the special character of the tasks entrusted to these Commissions and consequently, of the questions liable to cause disagreement [Page 130] in the Commissions themselves, it seems preferable to keep to the plan for a superarbitrator (“impartial third Commissioner”, as in the Draft, or “additional Commissioner”, as in the United States proposal) whenever such disputes are to be settled. This super-arbitrator should be appointed by the Parties themselves. Only in the event of disagreement between them he should be appointed by the four Ambassadors.

Article 5 states that the work of the Commissions shall be completed “in any case within a period of six months”.

This time-limit seems too short in view of the complex nature of the work to be done on the spot, and also in view of climatic conditions in the mountains, which will limit the number of days available for work on the spot.

We, therefore, propose to delete the last words of the second paragraph: “and in any case within a period of six months”.