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

CFM Files

Verbatim Record

October 11, 1946, 9:30 p.m.

C.P.(Plen) 42

President Mr. Byrnes

The President: The meeting is open.

Draft Peace Treaty With Bulgaria—Voting on the Articles⁴⁵

The President. The Conference continues the consideration of the Draft Treaty with Bulgaria. We shall proceed to vote on the Articles.

Preamble. We begin with the Preamble; p. 4 of the French text of the Draft Treaty. Account should also be taken of what is said on p. 3 of the report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria. The Commission unanimously recommends that subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Preamble should be adopted without alteration.

Are there any objections?

I invite the Chairman and the Rapporteur of the Commission to come to the rostrum.

Are there any objections to the adoption of sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Preamble?

If there are no objections, sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 are adopted unanimously.

We now come to paragraph 3, which the Commission, in its report, unanimously recommended should be adopted.

Are there any objections to the adoption of paragraph 3?

Since there are no objections, paragraph 3 is adopted unanimously.

The Delegate for Byelorussia (Interpretation). I ask that the amendment moved by the Byelorussian Delegation concerning subparagraph 3 of the Preamble be put to the vote.

The President. Gentlemen, you have heard the statement of the Delegate of Byelorussia, requesting that the amendment submitted by the Byelorussian Delegation be put to the vote. This proposal will therefore be put to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call)

(The result of the votes was:—

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia.

Against: United States, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France Great Britain, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.S.S.R.

Abstention: Ethiopia.

By 15 votes to 5, with one abstention, the amendment was rejected.)

The President: We now come to paragraph 4 of the Preamble.

Paragraph 4 was amended by the Commission, and the amended text unanimously adopted.

Are there any objections to the adoption of the amended text of paragraph 4?

As there are no objections, paragraph 4 is adopted.

We now come to paragraph 5 of the Preamble, which was unanimously adopted by the Commission.

Are there any objections to the adoption of paragraph 5?

(Paragraph 5 was adopted)

Article 1. We return to Article 1.

Are there any objections to considering Article 1?

M. Tsaldaris (Greece) (Interpretation) I ask for a vote by roll call.

(A vote by roll call was taken)

(The result of the voting was:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstentions: Australia, Belguim, [Brazil?], Canada, China, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K.

Article 4 [1] was therefore not adopted by 9 votes “for” with 12 “abstentions.”)

Article 2. The President: Article 2 was adopted unanimously by the Commission.

Are there any objections to the adoption of this Article? If there were no objections, Article 2 is adopted unanimously.

The report of the Commission states that a supplementary Article 2 a was adopted. I will ask the General Secretary be good enough to read it to us.

M. Fouques Duparc: (Interpretation) “Bulgaria further undertakes that the laws in force in Bulgaria shall not, either in their content or in their application, discriminate or entail any discrimination between persons of Bulgarian nationality on the ground of their race, sex, language or religion, whether in reference to their persons, property, business, professional or financial interests, status, political or civic rights, or any other matters”.

The President: Are there any objections to the adoption of this new Article 2 a, the text of which has just been read to you? The Delegate of the Soviet Union has stated that he is opposed to the adoption of this text. A vote by roll call will therefore be taken.

(A vote by roll call was taken)

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Great Britain, Greece, [India?], Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, France, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China, Czechoslovakia.

Article 2 was therefore, adopted by 12 votes to 7, with two abstentions.)

Article 3. The President: We will now take Article 3.

Are there any objections to its adoption?

Mr. Vyshinsky (USSR) (Interpretation). Since the Commission recommended unanimously that Articles 3 to 11 should be adopted, The Soviet Delegation requests that these articles be submitted to the approval of the Conference as a whole.

The President: I put Articles 3 to 11 to the vote as a whole, on the proposal of the Delegate of the Soviet Union.

Any objections to the adoption of these Articles?

(Articles 3 to 11 were adopted unanimously).

Article 12. The President: We shall now take Article 12.

Lord Hood. (U.K.) There is a new article, which it is proposed to insert before Article 12.

The President: That is correct; having completed the political clauses at the beginning of the Treaty; and since we are now going to consider the military clauses of the Treaty, the Chairman and Rapporteur of the Military Commission are requested to take place on the rostrum.

Mr. Vyshinsky (USSR) (Interpretation). I think it would be useful to consider the other Articles of a political nature now; I refer to Articles 33, 34, 35 and 36, which are not military articles. I therefore suggest that we now take the Articles I mentioned, that is Articles 33 to 36, with their Annexes, and that we only take the military clauses later. We adopted this procedure yesterday for Roumania.

The President: The Delegate of the Soviet Union has proposed that, rather than to pursue the consideration of the Articles of the present Treaty in the order in which they occur, we should temporarily set aside the military and economic clauses, in order to take the final clauses, from Article 33 to Article 36.

Are there any objections?

Lord Hood (U.K.) Article 19 is also a political Article, and should be taken first.

The President: In accordance with the wish which has been expressed, we shall proceed to consider Article 19 concerning the withdrawal of the Allied forces.

The adoption of this text was recommended unanimously by the Commission.

Are there any objections?

(Article 19 was adopted).

Article 33. The President: We now come to Article 33, adopted unanimously by the Commission. Does anybody wish to speak?

(Article 33 was adopted).

Article 34. The President: The Commission was unable to reach any agreement on Article 34. There were several distinct proposals. The U.K. and U.S.A. proposal to adopt the text was carried by 8 votes to 5.

The Soviet proposal obtained 5 votes to 8.

The joint U.K. and U.S.A. proposal is submitted for approval by the Conference. Failing any objection, Article 34 is adopted.

M. Gousev. (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): I ask that a vote be taken on the U.S.S.R. proposal.

The President: Agreed.

(A vote was taken by roll call)

(The result of the voting is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

The U.S.S.R. proposal was rejected by 15 votes to 6.)

The President: Does anybody wish the joint U.K.–U.S. proposal on Article 34 to be put to the vote?

Yes, a vote will be taken.

(A vote was taken by roll call)

(The result of the vote was:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

The joint U.K.–U.S.A. proposal was adopted by 16 [15] votes to 5 [6].)

Articles 35 and 36. The President: Articles 35 and 36 were adopted unanimously by the Commission. Is there any objection to our accepting them here?

(Articles 35 and 36 were adopted).

Annex 1 to Article 1. The President: Annex 1 relates to Article 1, which was not adopted by the Conference. Consequently there is no need to examine Annex 1.

The Conference is therefore asked to pursue its consideration of the military clauses.

The U.K. Delegate has drawn attention to a supplementary Article proposed by the Commission, which appears on page 6 of the report without any indication as to its number.

If the U.K. Delegate wishes to propose the insertion of this new Article, either after Article 10 or Article 11, I should be glad if he would make a proposal to that effect.

The text in question is given on page 6 of the Military Commission’s report and consists of paragraphs a and b.

Does anybody ask for a separate vote?

We shall vote on paragraphs a. and b. as a whole.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

(The result of the vote was:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia, Norway.

The amendment was adopted by 12 votes to 6, with 3 abstentions.)

The President: Article 11 has already been adopted so we now come to Article 12.

Article 12. The President: The Commission unanimously adopted a text comprising certain amendments; subsequently a new amendment was proposed by the U.K. and Greek Delegations to the effect that the following words “as well as M.T.B.S.” be added after the words “and other submersible vessels.”

General Catroux (France) (Interpretation): I should like a more accurate translation, specifying in French that “vedettes lance-torpilles” (torpedo launching vessels) are meant.

The President: The amendment to insert the words “torpedo-launching vessels” after the words “and other submersible vessels”, is submitted to the Conference for approval.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: France.

The amendment was adopted by 14 votes to 6, with 1 abstention.)

Article 12. The President: Article 12, as amended, is put to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call)

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: France.

Article 12 was adopted by 14 votes to 6, with one abstention.)

Article 13. The President: Article 13 was adopted in the Commission with a change of drafting in the French version. Does anybody wish to speak on this Article?

(Article 13 was adopted)

Articles 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18. Mr. Vyshinsky (USSR) (Interpretation): The U.S.S.R. Delegation has proposed to vote on the 5 following Articles, as a whole.

The President: Articles 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, together with Annexes II and III relating thereto, will be submitted simultaneously to the Conference.

Mr. Beasley (Australia): We did not ask for a separate vote, but the Australian Delegation wishes to record its abstention in connection with Article 14.

The President: The Secretary-General will note that the Australian Delegation abstains with regard to Article 14.

That concludes the Military Clauses of the Treaty. We now come to the Economic Clauses.

Will the Chairman and Rapporteur of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland please come to the platform?

Article 20. The President: Article 20 inaugurates Part V of the Treaty entitled Reparation and Restitution”.

First we have the Economic Commission’s proposal on page 2 of the report, to the effect that Article 20, as drafted by the Council of Foreign Ministers, be adopted unanimously, leaving in blank the amount and time limit for reparation payments, but adding a definition of the dollar value.

Is there any objection to adopting the Economic Commission’s recommendations, that is, that Article 20, drafted as I have suggested, without defining either the amount, of, or the time limit for reparations, and on the understanding that we shall subsequently vote on the various proposals to determine the total amount of reparations?

The Article, as drafted by the Council of Foreign Ministers, is adopted.

In connection with the amount to be paid as reparations, the Economic Mission’s report refers, first, to the Yugoslav proposal. We shall start by voting on this proposal, to the effect that reparations be fixed at 25 million dollars.

MR. . . . . . . . (Norway): The Norwegian Delegation would like it to be recorded in the Minutes that we abstained from voting on this question, and will communicate our reasons for so doing to the Secretariat.

The President: The Norwegian Delegate’s statement will be recorded in the Minutes.

I call for a vote on the Yugoslav proposal to assess the figure for reparations at 25 million dollars.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

(The result of the voting was as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Abstained: Ethiopia, Norway.

The Yugoslav proposal was rejected by 13 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions.)

The President: I would ask the Conference to vote on the U.K. proposal to assess reparations at 125 million dollars.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia, Norway.

The United Kingdom proposal was therefore adopted by 13 to 6 with 2 abstentions.)

The President: The report of the Economic Commission shows, on the other hand, that there is an amendment submitted by the Greek Delegation which provides for an addendum to Article 20. Does any one wish this amendment to be put to the vote.

The amendment in question, according to the report, was adopted by the Commission by 7 votes to 6.

Mr. Vyshinsky (USSR) (Interpretation) I ask for a vote to be taken by roll call.

The President: I ask the Conference to vote on the Greek amendment.

(A vote by roll call was taken)

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia, Norway.

The Greek amendment was therefore adopted by 12 votes to 7 with 2 abstentions)

Article 21—Restitution. The President: We now come to Article 21, “Restitution”. This text was adopted unanimously by the Commission with the two following amendments: in paragraph 1, add the words “within the shortest possible time” and in paragraph 2 “restitution of works of art”.

Are there any objections?

Article 21 was adopted.

Article 22, Section IV. The President: We now come to Article 22, Section IV, Economic clauses.

The Commission’s report shows that in this Article 22, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 were adopted unanimously by the Commission. Are there any objections to the paragraphs mentioned being adopted? If not, these paragraphs are adopted.

We will now take paragraph 4 of Article 22, “Compensations”.

The Commission first voted on the French proposal for compensation to the extent of 75%. The result of the vote in the Commission was 9 votes for, and 4 votes against.

The Commission then voted on the U.K. proposal for 100 [%] compensation. The result of the vote was 6 votes for, and 7 votes against.

Lastly, the Commission voted on the joint U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. proposal for 25% compensation. The result was 5 votes for and 9 against.

I ask the opinion of the Conference on the text only of paragraph 4, independently of the extent of compensation.

M. Terje Wold (Norway) (Interpretation): The Norwegian Delegation wishes to have a separate vote taken on paragraphs a) and b).

Viscount Hood (U.K.) I think it would be preferable to follow the same order as the Commission.

The President: I think that these questions must be considered in the order in which they are submitted in the Commission’s report. This report shows that in the first place the proposal for 100% compensation was proposed and voted on in the Commission. The report then shows that the proposal which was next considered by the Commission was that for 25% compensation. I will ask the Conference to decide on the latter point.

(A vote by roll call was taken)

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Byelorussia, China, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K.

Abstained: Brazil.

The proposal was therefore rejected by 12 votes to 8 with 1 abstention.)

The President: We now come to paragraph 4 on the same article.

I think I understood that the Delegate for Norway wishes the text to be taken separately and that a separate vote be taken on points a) and b) of this paragraph.

Viscount Hood (U.K.): We have not yet voted on the French proposal.

The President: I made a mistake about the last vote; the question now before the Conference concerns the French proposal for 75% compensation. I ask the meeting to vote upon this proposal.

(A vote by roll call was taken)

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K.

Against: Byelorussia, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Brazil, China, Poland, U.S.A.

The proposal was therefore adopted by 12 votes to 5 with 4 abstentions.)

The President: We will now consider the text which is on page 10 of the report.

The Delegate for Norway has asked for the two paragraphs a) and b) to be put to the vote separately.

I put paragraph a) to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call)

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia.

Paragraph a) was therefore adopted by 13 votes to 5, with 3 abstentions.)

The President: Points b), c) and d) were adopted by a single vote of the Commission. Does any member of the Conference ask for a separate vote to be taken on paragraph b)?

M. Terje Wold (Norway): I ask for a separate vote to be taken on paragraph b).

(A vote was taken by roll-call)

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia.

Paragraph b) was therefore adopted by 12 votes to 7 with 2 abstentions.)

The President: Are there any objections to paragraphs c) and d)?

A vote will first be taken on point c) since objections have been voiced concerning the adoption of this point.

(A vote was taken by roll-call)

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

Paragraph c) was therefore adopted by 14 votes to 6 with 1 abstention.)

The President: Are there any objections to paragraph d)?

If there are objections to paragraph d) a vote will be taken by roll call.

(A vote was taken by roll-call)

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

Paragraph d) is therefore adopted by 14 votes to 6, with 1 abstention.

Any objections to paragraph e)?

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., U.S.A., Yugoslavia.

Paragraph e) is therefore adopted by 14 votes to 7.

It would seem that no vote has yet been taken on point 6 of Article 22; in the Commission, the results of the voting were as follows:

13 for, with one abstention.

M. Politis (Greece): There is a Greek amendment to paragraph 6—document I.J.29. [C.P.(Gen.)Doc. I.J.29] When this was discussed in the Commission, we withdrew the final sentence. The paragraph in question is paragraph 6 bis in the report of the Commission, on page 5 of the English text.

The President: From the report which I have in hand it appears that the Commission had contemplated an amendment for the insertion of a new text paragraph 6 a) at the end of paragraph 6 of Article 21. Is this the proposal to which the Greek Delegate refers and on which he now wishes to have a vote?

M. Politis (Greece): That is the proposal, Mr. President.

M. Fouques Duparc. This is the text of the amendment:

“After paragraph 6 of article 22, add a new paragraph 6 bis, reading as follows:

“The Bulgarian Government undertakes to permit United Nations nationals, possessors of the legal rights and interests referred to in the present article, to enter and stay in Bulgaria for the purpose of taking possession of the property, rights and interests mentioned above and of accomplishing all acts relating to the administration or disposal thereof; those nationals will, in particular, have the right to sell their movable and immovable property on the same terms as Bulgarian nationals.”

The President: The text which has just been read will be put to the vote.

(The vote was taken by roll call)

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, Greece, Netherlands, U.K., Union of South Africa.

Against: Byelorussia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, India, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., U.S.A., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

The Greek amendment is therefore rejected by 12 votes to 8, with 1 abstention.

We now come to paragraph 8 of article 22. Are there any objections? If none, the paragraph is adopted.

Article 23. Article 23 was unanimously adopted by the Commission. Are there any objections?

The President: Article 23 is adopted.

Article 24. We now come to article 24.

There are two different proposals, one by the U.S., U.K. and French Delegations the final text of which is contained in the report of the Economic Commission on page 8; further, there is the proposal of the Soviet Delegation, as contained in the text of the draft Treaty itself.

The joint proposal of the U.S., U.K. and France will now be put to the vote.

Are there any objections to the adoption of the joint proposal of the U.S., the U.K. and France?

The U.S.A. Delegate: Mr. President, if we vote on this question, including paragraph e), which is an amendment, the U.S. Delegation will vote for the article but will abstain from voting on sub-paragraph e).

(The vote was taken by roll call)

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Czechoslovakia, Poland.

The joint proposal of the U.S., U.K. and France was therefore adopted by 15 votes to 4, with 2 abstentions.

We have further a text submitted by the Soviet Delegation for the same article 24.

Given the result of the vote which has just been announced, does the Soviet Delegation still wish its proposal to be put to the vote?

The vote has been requested: It will be taken by roll call.

The question concerned is the adoption of the text of the Soviet Delegation which is to be found on page 22 of the draft Treaty, (French text) at the end of the text proposed for article 24.

I put this proposal to the vote.

(The vote was taken by roll call)

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

The Soviet proposal for article 24 is therefore rejected by 15 votes to 6.

Article 25. The President: We now come to Article 25.

Here we have also two proposals before us, A Soviet proposal and a joint proposal by the U.K., U.S. and French Delegations. I put the Soviet proposal to the vote.

(The vote was taken by roll call)

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Poland, Ukraine, and U.S.S.R., [Yugoslavia?]

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

The Soviet proposal is therefore rejected by 14 votes to 7.

We will now take the other proposal, that of the U.K., U.S. and French Delegations.

Are there any objections to the adoption of the text.

Objections have been raised, the vote will therefore be taken by roll call.

I put to the vote the proposal submitted by the Delegations of the U.K., U.S. and France.

(The vote was taken by roll call)

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

The proposal of the U.K., U.S. and French Delegations is therefore adopted by 14 votes to 6 with 1 abstention.

Article 26. The President: We now come to Article 26, which has been unanimously adopted by the Commission.

Any objections?

Article 26 is unanimously adopted.

Article 27. The President: We will now take Article 27, which has also been unanimously adopted by the Commission.

Any objections?

Since there are no objections, Article 27 is unanimously adopted.

Article 28. The President: As regards article 28, the situation is as follows:

Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a) and b) have been unanimously adopted.

Since we do not foresee any objections, this text will be considered as unanimously adopted; as regards paragraph c), there are two proposals. We have the Soviet proposal concerning certain branches of activity. In the vote in the Commission, 5 Delegations voted for this proposal and 9 delegations against.

We have further a proposal by the U.S., U.K. and France, for which 9 Delegations have voted, 5 voting against.

The Soviet proposal for sub-paragraph c) of this article is now put to the vote.

(The vote was taken by roll call)

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia, Norway.

The Soviet proposal for sub-paragraph c) is therefore rejected by 12 votes to 6, with 3 abstentions.

We will now take the proposal of the Delegation of the U.K., U.S. and France for the completion of the text of sub-paragraph c).

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China and Norway.

Therefore the proposal of the U.K., U.S. and French Delegation is adopted by 13 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions.

The President: We have also an addition to this paragraph submitted by the United States and United Kingdom Delegations, and subsequently amended by the French Delegation.

It is the amended text which is now put to the vote.

Lord Hood (U.K.) I ask for a separate vote, Mr. President.

The President: A separate vote has been requested.

In these circumstances, the United States and United Kingdom proposal is put to the vote.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

The proposal of the United States and United Kingdom Delegations is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.

The text of the French amendment is now put to the vote.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, [Belgium?], Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

The proposal is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.

For the second part of Article 28 we also have two proposals—one by the Soviet Delegation, the other a joint proposal of the French, United Kingdom and United States Delegations.

I put the Soviet proposal to the Conference.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

The proposal is therefore rejected by 14 votes to 6.

We now come to a vote on the proposal contained in para. 7 of the French text and jointly put forward by the French, United Kingdom and United States Delegations.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, [Ethiopia?], France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, United States.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

The proposal is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.

In the report of the Economic Commission we are informed that there is a new French proposal for the adoption of Article 28 A concerning rail transit rights.

This proposal has been adopted by 9 votes to 4, with 1 abstention.

As the Conference has been requested to vote, we shall proceed by roll call.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, United States.

Against: Byelorussia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia.

The proposal is therefore adopted by 14 [13] votes to 5, with 2 abstentions.

Article 29. The President: We will now consider Article 29, which deals with the settlement of disputes.

First, we have a proposal by the United Kingdom.

I put this proposal to the Conference.

(The vote was taken by roll call.)

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, United States.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

The United Kingdom proposal is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.

I now put to the Conference the Soviet proposal.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, United States.

The Soviet proposal is therefore rejected by 15 votes to 6.

Article 30. We now come to Article 30, which concerns the application of the provisions of the Annexes of this Treaty.

The Article has been unanimously adopted by the Commission, with an amendment proposed by the Norwegian Delegation.

Any objections? If none, Article 30 is adopted as amended.

Article 31. We now come to Article 31.

It has been unanimously adopted by the Commission.

Any objections?

Article 31 is unanimously adopted.

Article 32. We will now take Article 32. This is a French proposal seconded by the United States Delegation and by the Delegation of the United Kingdom who have withdrawn their original proposal.

The text of the French proposal is to be found in the report of the Economic Commission, pages 11 and 12. Are there any objections to its adoption?

The Norwegian Delegate: The Norwegian Delegation asks for a separate vote on paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 32.

The President: Since a separate vote has been requested, I put to the Conference Para. 1 of the text in question.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, United States.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Paragraph 1 of Article 32 is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.

Mr. Politis (Greece): I ask that the reservation which we have handed in to the Secretariat should be inserted in the Minutes.

The President: The Secretary-General is requested to insert in the Minutes of this meeting the reservation in question.

The Norwegian Delegation also asks that the statement which it has handed to the Secretariat should be inserted in the Minutes of this meeting.

The President: I put paragraph 2 of Article 32 to the Conference.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, United States.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

The proposal is therefore adopted by 14 votes to 7.

Annex 4 A. We will now take Annex 4 A, of which we have already adopted the final clauses.

Annex 4 A deals with industrial, literary and artistic property.

The Commission has already unanimously adopted paras. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. It recommends the adoption of paras. 4 and 7 as amended and contained on page 11 of the report.

Any objections?

Annex 4 A is adopted.

Annex 4 B. As regards Annex 4 B, we have the United Kingdom’s proposal concerning insurance. In the Commission, the result of the vote on this proposal was 6 votes for, 5 against, with 3 abstentions.

I put the proposal to the Conference.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Canada, China, Greece, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Belgium, Brazil, Ethiopia, France, India, Netherlands, Norway, United States.

There are therefore 7 votes for, 6 votes against, with 8 abstentions.

Annex 5. We now come to Annex 5 concerning contracts.

We have before us a United Kingdom proposal. I put this proposal to the Conference.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom, United States [Union of South Africa?].

Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, India, Ukraine, United States, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Brazil, Ethiopia, Poland.

The proposal is therefore [not] adopted by 10 votes to 8, with 3 abstentions.

Annex 5—Section II. We now take Section 2 of Annex 5, which concerns periods of prescription.

In this connection there are two proposals, the U.K. proposal contained in the draft Treaty, and the Soviet proposal to be found on page 15 of the report. In the Commission the result of the vote on the Soviet proposal, amended by the Yugoslav and French Delegations, was 6 votes for, 6 votes against, with 2 abstentions.

The United Kingdom proposal was also voted on, the result being 6 votes for, 6 against, with 2 abstentions.

I now put to the Conference the Soviet proposal contained on page 15 of the report.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Abstained: Brazil, Ethiopia.

The proposal is therefore rejected by 11 votes to 8, with 2 abstentions.

I now put to the vote the U.K. proposal contained in the draft Treaty.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa.

Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Brazil, Ethiopia, France.

Therefore the proposal is not adopted. There are 9 votes for, 9 against, with 3 abstentions.

Section III. We now come to section III of annex 5, which deals with negotiable instruments. On this point there is a proposal by the U.K. which is now put to the vote.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, [Greece?], India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

The proposal is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 7, with 1 abstention.

The Soviet Delegation has made a proposal, which was put to the vote in the Commission, and concerns the omission of this section.

In view of the fact that a majority has just expressed itself in favour of the text of this section, I ask the Soviet Delegation if it maintains its proposal for the omission of the section and wishes it to be put to the vote.

U.S.S.R. Delegate (Interpretation): We can be satisfied with the vote on the U.K. proposal.

Section IV. The President: We now come to section IV of annex 5 (Miscellaneous).

We have before us the text proposed by the U.K. Delegation which is now put to the vote.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa.

Against: Belgium, China, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., U.S.A., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia, Netherlands, Poland.

The proposal is therefore rejected by 10 votes to 8, with 5 abstentions.

The U.S. Delegation has proposed the addition of a paragraph to the text of annex 5. This text is to be found in document 31 and reads as follows:

“Having regard to the legal system of the United States of America the provisions of this annex shall not apply as between the United States of America and Bulgaria”.

Any objections?

Mr. Bruce R. MacDonald (Canada). The Canadian Delegation asks that its reservation in respect of annex 5, which has been deposited with the Secretariat, should be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.

The President: The Secretary-General is asked to comply with this request.

Are there any objections to the adoption of the addendum proposed by the U.S. Delegation, the text of which is to be found on page 16 of the Commission’s report? The Yugoslav Delegate has pointed out that he objects to this addendum. In these circumstances, a vote will be taken by roll call.

(The vote was taken by roll call).

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Against: Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Poland.

The amendment is therefore adopted by 14 votes to 3, with 4 abstentions.

Annex 6. We now come to Annex 6. (Judgments).

There are three proposals: one submitted by the U.S.S.R. Delegation, a second by the U.K. Delegation, and a third by the French Delegation.

According to the report of the Commission, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. proposals obtained 7 votes for, 5 against, with 2 abstentions.

The result of the voting on the U.K. proposal was 5 for, 5 against, with 3 abstentions.

For the French proposal there was 1 for, 10 against, with 3 abstentions.

We will proceed in the same order as the Commission, and vote first on the proposal of the U.S. Delegation.

(The vote was taken by roll call)

The President: The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, India, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., U.S., Yugoslavia.

Against: Belgium, France, Greece, U.K., Union of South Africa.

Abstained: Netherlands.

Therefore the proposal is adopted by 15 votes to 5, with 1 abstention.

The President: Does the U.K. Delegation ask for a vote?

Lord Hood (U.K.): No, Mr. President.

The President: Does the French Delegation ask for a vote?

M. Couve de Murville (France): No, Mr. President.

The President: Annex 6 is therefore adopted.

The next meeting will be held at 10 o’clock. The meeting is adjourned.

(The meeting was adjourned at 1:15, on Saturday, October 12th.)

45. Regarding voting procedure and citations to relevant documentation, see the editorial note, p. 702.