Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 27, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 54

M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) said that the Commission had made a grave mistake in failing to dispose of Articles 3, 4, and 16 (Italo-Yugoslav Frontier, Italo-Free Territory Frontier, and the Free Territory of Trieste, respectively) at the time of consideration of the amendments to those Articles and suggested that the Commission vote on these Articles immediately. A definitive decision from the Commission thereon would undoubtedly assist the progress of the Sub-commission for a Statute for Trieste, he added, which was presently making slow progress. The Chairman agreed to place these Articles on the agenda for tomorrow (September 28) for purposes of voting, the discussion having been closed on them.

Colonel Hodgson (Australia) submitted and spoke in defense of the Australia amendment (CP Gen. Doc. 1 B 13) to create a new Part X: Court of Human Rights (for text of his remarks see IT/P Doc. 90).⁶³ The amendment was vigorously opposed by M. Vyshinsky. Mr. Mason (New Zealand) expressed sympathy for the Australian amendment but suggested that the appropriate procedure would be to recommend to UNO the creation of an international judicial body for Human Rights. He said that he would propose a resolution to that effect later. Mr. Claxton (Canada) recalled that the Legal and Drafting Commission had considered and rejected the Australian proposal as not practicable at the present time;⁶⁴ therefore he concluded that the Canadian Delegation would have to vote against the Australian amendment and hoped that Colonel Hodgson would withdraw his proposal. The representatives of Ethiopia, China, and India expressed sympathy with the Australian proposal but associated themselves with the views of the Canadian Delegate. Colonel Hodgson made a further speech in support of his Delegation’s amendment (B 13) which was finally put to the vote and rejected by 15 votes to 4, with one abstention.

The Commission next considered Article 75 creating a Council of Ambassadors in Borne for a period of 18 months to deal with execution and interpretation of the Italian treaty. Colonel Hodgson withdrew the Australian amendment to this Article (CP Gen. Doc. 1 B 15) and the related amendment to Article 76 (B 16) providing for the creation of a Treaty Executive Council, consisting of the Four Sponsoring Powers and three others to supervise the execution of the treaty. He pointed out that a similar amendment had been considered by the Commission in connection with Article 5 and rejected at that time (see Journal No. 47 September 20).⁶⁵ The Representative of Greece withdrew his Delegation’s amendment (CP Gen. Doc. 1 J 19) to create an Inter-Allied Control Commission to supervise the Military Clauses of the treaty. He added that the Greek Delegation would not insist on an identical proposal being discussed in the Bulgarian Political Commission. Draft Article 75 was adopted by the Commission without further comment or objection.

The Commission considered Article 76 on the Settlement of Disputes arising from interpretation or execution of the treaty. M. Vyshinsky spoke in favor of the Soviet proposal, while Mr. Jebb (U.K.) spoke in favor of the U.S., U.K., and French proposal for this Article.⁶⁶ The latter was adopted by a vote of 14 to 6, while the U.S.S.R. proposal was rejected by an identical vote.

Mr. Mason moved the New Zealand amendment referred to earlier recommending to UNO the establishment of a Court of Human Rights (see CP (IT/P) Doc. 95).⁶⁷ M. Vyshinsky asked Mr. Mason to withdraw his amendment as being outside the terms of reference of the Conference concluding that if it were not withdrawn the Soviet Delegation would vote against it. The New Zealand amendment was, however, put to a vote and rejected by 13 to 6, with 1 abstention. Colonel Hodgson introduced and defended the Australian amendment (CP (IT/P) Doc. 88)⁶⁷ to create a new Part XII of the treaty providing for its review at a subsequent Conference or its subsequent amendment by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Conference.⁶⁸ Mr. Jordaan (South Africa) opposed the amendment. It was defeated by a vote of 16 to 4 with one abstention. The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m.

63. Not printed.
64. For text of the Report of the Legal and Drafting Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Finland, see Paris Peace Conference, 1946, p. 1326.
65. See the United States Delegation Journal account of the 27th Meeting. September 20, p. 491.
66. The proposals under reference are contained in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, vol. iv, p. 35.
67. Not printed.
67. Not printed.

68. The amendment proposed in C.P. (IT/P) Doc. 88 is as follows:

    “XIX. Insert the following new article in Part XII

    • ‘1. A Conference of the Allied and Associated Powers for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty or any part thereof may be held by agreement of two thirds of the Allied and Associated Powers.
    • 2. Any amendments of the Treaty recommended by a majority vote of two-thirds of the Conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Allied and Associated Powers including the U.S.A., France, the U.K. and the U.S.S.R.
    • 3. If such a Conference has not been held before the expiration of five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, a conference shall be held at the desire of a majority of the Allied and Associated Powers.’”