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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 30, 1946, 3 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 57

The Commission approved a U.K. redraft of the Yugoslav amendment¹² to paragraph 4 of Article 69 (property in Allied territory) defining as Italian property (1) cables connecting two Yugoslav points and (2) the terminal facilities and lengths within Allied territorial waters of cables connecting an Allied point and an Italian point. Paragraph 4 as amended was approved unanimously.

The Ethiopian amendments (1.H.5) [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.H.5] to paragraph 5 were withdrawn after Mr. Thorp (U.S.) and the representatives of the other drafting powers had expressed their opinion that the exceptions to Article 69 specified in paragraph 5 were not applicable to property which the Ethiopean Government had lent to Italy for use as consular and diplomatic premises. The Ethiopian proposal to except from the exception property of Italian nationals permitted to reside in Ethiopia was also withdrawn after the U.S., U.K. and French representatives had pointed out that Article 68 and particularly Article 29 gave Ethiopia adequate protection against the Italian property holders in Ethiopia whose property had been illegally acquired. An Albanian amendment¹³ moved by the Yugoslav representative was also withdrawn after the Commission had agreed to insert “exclusively” in subparagraph (b), requiring that the exception there specified should apply only to property used exclusively for religious or charitable purposes. Subparagraph (b) was then approved as amended, and subparagraphs (c) and (d) were also approved. Subparagraphs (e) and (f), non-agreed U.S. proposals regarding property in ceded territories, were deferred pending consideration of Annex 3 on ceded territories.

The Commission then resumed discussion of the U.S. proposal regarding civil aviation in Article 71, and of the Netherlands amendment to this proposal adding the first two freedoms of the air.¹⁴ Mr. Reinstein (U.S.) explained the need for a special provision of this sort, pointing out that if it were not included the language of the first part of paragraph (c) would require the extension by Italy of national and [MFN]¹⁵ treatment with respect to civil aviation. But national treatment should not be applied and the applicability of the concept of MFN treatment to civil aviation was not entirely clear. M. Aroutiunian (U.S.S.R.) opposed the U.S. proposal and the Netherlands amendment. The former, he said, was objectionable because civil aviation was a delicate question closely linked to national security, and furthermore equality of opportunity would lead to complete domination of Italian aviation by states which had emerged from the war with a strong civil aviation. He denied that the first two freedoms had become generally accepted principles and made repeated references to the differences of opinion and rivalry of the U.S. and the U.K. in the field of civil aviation. He urged that Italy be allowed to deal with the matter entirely through bilateral negotiations. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) pointed out that the U.S. proposal merely provided for nondiscrimination by Italy against any foreign country, and expressed astonishment that anyone should object to it. M. de Carbonnel (France) stressed that the Netherlands amendment embodying the two freedoms was to be reciprocal, and it would be of great benefit to Italy to have such reciprocal rights in France, for example, Mr. Reinstein referring to M. Aroutiunian’s suggestion that the question be dealt with in bilateral agreements, said it was obvious that detailed arrangements would have to be worked out in bilateral agreements. The U.S. proposal merely laid down the general rule that the Italian Government should not extend exclusive or discriminatory rights, and give all the United Nations equal rights to negotiate on a non-discriminatory basis. On a vote, the U.S. proposal in the draft treaty was approved by a vote of 14 to 5 (Poland abstaining). The Netherlands amendment was then approved by a vote of 12 to 5 with three abstentions (Poland, New Zealand and India).

The Commission then discussed Article 72 (Settlement of Disputes) on which a new U.S. proposal had been presented.¹⁶ (The draft treaty contained non-agreed proposals of the U.K. and the U.S.S.R.) Mr. Reinstein referred to the need for a speedy and inexpensive method of settling the disputes which were certain to arise in the implementation of certain articles of the treaty. He said the Italian Government had submitted to the Conference a proposal which the U.S. considered more satisfactory than either the U.K. or the U.S.S.R. proposal. The U.S. was glad to support this proposal and had introduced it as the U.S. proposal with certain minor changes in paragraphs 1 and 2. Mr. Gregory said the U.K. could not object to the new U.S. proposal since it had the same objectives as the U.K. proposal. However he wished formally to move his proposal in order to keep it on the Record.

M. Aroutiunian said the U.S. had attempted to create the impression it had taken over the Italian proposal, but actually the U.S. had excluded the most important part of the Italian proposal—namely the inclusion of Article 69 (Assets in Allied Territory) in the list of articles to which the Article 72 procedure would be applicable. The Soviet Delegation would accept this essential part of the Italian proposal. Discussing the Soviet proposal, he said the Soviet Delegation had always favored conciliation procedure, and believed the two parties to a dispute should have an opportunity to settle the dispute bilaterally. If there was no agreement, M. Aroutiunian suggested Article 75 might be made applicable—that is, the dispute might be referred to the Four Ambassadors in Rome.

The discussion was adjourned, to continue at the meeting later in the evening.

12. For text of the redraft, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, vol. iv, p. 363.
13. The amendment was proposed in C.P. (Gen) Doc. 7; for text, see ibid., p. 799.
14. For substance, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, vol. iv, pp. 338, 365.
15. Most favored nation. Brackets appear in the source text.
16. See C.P(Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, vol. iv, pp. 338, 368.