CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 59
The Commission agreed to limit debate in order to finish its work by Thursday. Only one speaker was permitted for and against each proposal.
Mr. Gregory (U.K.) presented the U.K. proposal regarding insurance (Annex 6 B), the same text which had been approved by the Balkan Economic Commission.52 He explained the need for such special provisions, and pointed out that they placed no burden on Italy, and would be operative only for a limited time during which the United Nations insurers would have an opportunity of ascertaining how they stood in Italy and whether they would be able to resume [Page 625] business on a permanent basis. M. Koktomov (U.S.S.R.) spoke against the proposal, stating that he was opposed to special provisions for special types of property when such property was already adequately protected under Article 68.
The U.K. proposal was approved by a vote of 14 to 6.
Mr. Gregory then presented the U.K. proposal on contracts (Annex 7, Part I). He explained that the U.K. considered it essential to clarify, by these provisions, the status of contracts as affected by the war, without the necessity for an interminable number of legal actions taken in a variety of courts. M. Koktomov also opposed this proposal as unsuitable for inclusion in the peace treaty, and urged the matter be dealt with by bilateral agreement. He referred to the necessity for a United States reservation to the provision, if adopted, because of U.S. constitutional difficulties, and said this would result in two regimes of contracts in Italy and would increase uncertainty rather than remove it. Before the vote, the Canadian representative stated his Government might find it necessary at the Plenary Conference to submit a reservation regarding the Annex.
The Annex as modified by the French amendment (Doc. 81)53 was defeated by a vote of 8 to 7, with 5 abstentions. (Voting in the negative were the U.S.A., Byelorussia, China, India, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia, while Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, New Zealand, and Czechoslovakia abstained.)
Mr. Gregory presented the U.K. proposals on prescriptions and negotiable instruments in Parts II and III of Annex 7, the purpose of which was to exclude the war years from the reckoning of periods of prescription or periods of time during which certain formalities had to be complied with or over which certain instruments were valid. Professor Mai (U.S.S.R.) presented a shortened draft establishing the principle that periods of prescription would be regarded as suspending during the war, and urged that the other detailed provisions in the U.K. proposal were not necessary. The Yugoslav representative proposed an amendment to the Soviet proposal to apply the suspension to “all periods necessary to take conservative measures of action” as well as periods of prescription or limitation of right of action. The French representative proposed a further amendment to make the provision applicable to personal as well as property relations. The Soviet proposal intended to cover both prescriptions and negotiable instruments, with the French and Yugoslav amendments was then approved by a vote of 8 to 7, with 5 abstentions.
Before a vote was taken on the U.K. proposal, Mr. Bishop (U.S.A.) moved an amendment providing that the provisions of the Annex [Page 626] would not apply as between the U.S. and Italy, explaining this was necessary because of U.S. constitutional difficulties in regard to acceptance by the Federal Government of treaty obligations regarding these subjects. The U.S. amendment was approved by a vote of 11 to 4, with 5 abstentions.
The Commission then voted on the U.K. proposal in Part II (Prescriptions) of Annex 7 and this was approved by a vote of 8 to 6 with 6 abstentions. It was agreed, therefore, that both the Soviet and the U.K. drafts would be presented to the Conference. The U.K. proposal in Part III (Negotiable Instruments) was also approved by a vote of 8 to 6. On Part III (Miscellaneous) there was a tie vote, 8 to 8, with 6 abstentions.
- For text, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, ibid., pp. 338, 374.↩
- With respect to Commission consideration of Annex 7, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, vol. iv, pp. 338, 374.↩