CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 41
The Commission, after an exchange of views, designated the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Rapporteur as a working group to consider and recommend means of expediting the work of the Commission. The Commission agreed to hear the Albanian Delegation on Article 65 on Monday, September 16. The Commission considered the Greek proposal to add a new paragraph to Article 65, providing that any contract between Greek and Italian nationals concluded during the occupation and purporting to transfer Greek property, subsequently removed to Italy, should be null and void [C.P. (Gen.) Doc.1.B.11]. The Greek Representative justified the proposal on the grounds that psychological pressure by Italian occupation authorities had often amounted to force or duress. M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) opposed the amendment on the ground that it was not necessary, in view of the United Nations Declaration of January 5, 1943, and, if accepted, would so broaden the right to declare acts of occupation authorities null and void as to endanger bona fide property owners. Mr. Glenvil Hall (U.K.) supported the views expressed by M. Vyshinsky. The Yugoslav Representative said that he had intended to support the Greek amendment as Yugoslavia had been in the same position as Greece, but that, if the interpretation of Article 65 made by the Soviet Representative was accepted by the Commission and a note to that effect inserted in the Record of Decisions, the position of Greece, and of other countries in the same position, would probably be satisfied. Mr. Reinstein (U.S.) supported the views which had been expressed by M. Vyshinsky and added that the United Nations Declaration of January 5, 1943 provided a clear interpretation of the meaning of Article 65. After a further exchange of views, the Greek Representative withdrew the amendment (1 J 11), with the understanding that a note giving the reasons for the withdrawal would be included in the Record of Decisions. The Greek Representative then withdrew the second Greek amendment to Article 65 (1 J 12) [C.P. (Gen.) Doc.1. J.12] on the same understanding, as the principle underlying this amendment was the same as for the amendment which had been discussed previously. After a brief exchange of views the Yugoslav Representative withdrew the amendment contained in paragraph 7 of CP (Gen) Doc. 1 U 18 with the same understanding as in the case of the Greek amendments. The Commission then accepted Article 65, paragraph 7. The Yugoslav Representative explained the reasons for [Page 454] the Yugoslav amendment (1 U 18, paragraph 7, new paragraph 9 of Article 65), providing for the replacement of non-restitutable vessels. He defended the proposal on legal and economic grounds. Mr. Thorp requested deferment of the consideration of this amendment until the Italian Delegation could submit a memorandum on the incidence of this amendment on Italy and the Commission accepted this proposal. A final decision on paragraph 8 of Article 65 was deferred until the Albanian Delegation should have had an opportunity to express its views on the article. The Byelo-Russian Representative informed the Commission that the Byelo-Russian and Greek Delegations had reached agreement on a draft of paragraph 2 of Article 65, but, at the suggestion of the Chairman, consideration of this draft was deferred until the members of the Commission would have had an opportunity to study it. The Commission approved paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 66, but deferred a final decision on paragraph 1 until the proposal of the Albanian Delegation relating to this paragraph could be considered. The Commission agreed to invite the Italian Delegation to express its views on Monday, September 16, on Articles 65–69 and Annex 3, on the condition that copies of its statement be submitted to the Secretariat in advance for translation in order to avoid the necessity of oral translations.