319. Memorandum From the Head of the Delegation to the Conference on Antarctica (Phleger) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Merchant)1
At the meeting of Heads of Delegations at 10:30 this morning the French delegate brought up the question of the proper text in subparagraph 1(a) of Article IV regarding claims. He stated that there had been an agreement on the French version and that this version had not been correctly translated into English and, therefore, the Style Committee was unable to produce in the four languages an acceptable text.
The French representative continued that the French version had been approved on the highest authority in France and it would be impossible to execute any treaty which had a different formulation.
It was then agreed that there had been a misunderstanding when Article IV was approved. The French, Belgian and Argentine delegates believed that the French version had been approved, whereas the U.S., Soviet, UK, Australian and other delegations had believed that the English text was what was approved. All agreed that the fundamental purpose of the Article was to preserve everybody’s positions regarding the recognition or non-recognition of claims and that the treaty under no circumstances would be interpreted as prejudicing any party’s position on this question. It, therefore, seemed that the question was one of formulating this principle in acceptable language.
After much discussion it was agreed by the French and Belgian representatives and accepted by the others that a correct English translation of the French formulation for Article IV 1(a) would read “a renunciation by any contracting party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.” The parties, without commitment, agreed that they would consider this formulation.
[Page 625]The French representative said that he was perfectly willing that the record of the Conference would contain the French agreement that this was a correct translation and that the French formulation was not intended to prejudice in any way the position of parties who did not recognize the French or other claims to sovereignty.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/11–2059. Confidential. Drafted by Phleger.↩