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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 18, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 45

In connection with Article 34 Mr. Hodgson (Australia) withdrew the Australian amendment [C.P. (Gen) Doc. 1.B.44] in view of the failure to adopt the Australian amendment to Article 33 [C.P. (Gen) Doc. 1.B.43]. Mr. Caffery (U.S.A.) then supported the US–UK proposal on the ground that it provided for settlement of possible disputes, in the last resort, by an impartial body, the International Court of Justice. He stated that, in contrast, the Soviet proposal made no provision against delay in the case of lack of agreement on the part of the Heads of Missions in Sofia. M. Novikov (USSR) supported the Soviet proposal which provided for the settlement of disputes by diplomatic negotiations and by the three Heads of Missions in Sofia. He considered that most of the disputes would be political rather than juridical and that they could best be solved through the instrumentalities provided for in the Soviet proposal. The Soviet Union could not accept the principle of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court of International Justice envisaged by the US–UK proposal. M. Novikov believed that the Soviet proposal provided a procedure making for the rapid and effective settlement of all questions concerning the interpretation and execution of the treaty.

The Byelo-Russian and Ukraine Delegations spoke in support of the Soviet proposal.

Mr. Jebb (U.K.) noted that this question had been fully debated in the Finnish and Rumanian Commissions,³⁵ which had voted in favor of the US–UK proposal. The Soviet and US–UK proposals were quite similar, in his view, but it certainly seemed desirable to provide some means of settling disputes in the event of disagreement among the Heads of Missions. The UK Delegation saw no practical alternative to taking such questions to the International Court of Justice. He hoped that the Commission would see fit to adopt the US–UK proposal.

M. Roux (France) stated that the French Delegation supported the US–UK proposal since it was identical with the US–UK–French proposal for the Italian Treaty.

Mr. Hodgson (Australia) stated that the presentation of Article 34 in the draft treaty proved conclusively that the Soviet proposal would not work. On this article as well as on many other articles the Council of Foreign Ministers had failed to reach agreement. The only way to settle these disagreements arising from the treaty was by reference to some impartial body such as the International Court of Justice. There was really a fundamental difference between the two proposals despite Mr. Jebb’s assertion to the contrary. Under the Soviet proposal there might never be decisions on these points. Whereas under the US–UK proposal there would be decisions by the Court. The Australian Delegation believed that it was proper to submit to the Court all disputes arising out of the treaty.

The Commission then voted by 8 votes to 5 in favor of the US–UK proposal. The following delegations voted in favor of it: U.S.A., Australia, France, U.K., Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa. The following delegations voted against it: Byelo-Russia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

M. Novikov then referred to the Rules of Procedure of the Conference and noted that only decisions adopted by a ⅔ vote in the Commissions had the status of recommendations to the Plenary Conference. He referred to the statement made by the Soviet Delegation at the first meeting of the Political Commission for Bulgaria to the effect that France should have no vote in the Commission. Thus there were only 7 votes in favor of the US–UK proposal and 5 votes against, and this decision could not be reported as a recommendation on the part of the Commission. M. Roux remarked that the question of the participation of France in the Commission involved interpretation of the Rules of Procedure and was not a matter to be settled by the Commission but by the Plenary Conference or the General Commission. Mr. Jebb agreed with the statement of his French colleague and also pointed out that there was not a ⅔ majority in favor of the US–UK proposal even if the vote of France should be counted. Mr. Caffery (U.S.A.) stated that his Delegation took the position which it had set forth in the first meeting of this Commission as well as in other Commissions and agreed with the point of view of the French Delegation.

Article 35 was then adopted unanimously.

Mr. Hodgson referred to the Australian proposal concerning the revision of the treaty [C.P.(Gen.) Doc.1.B.45]. He said that it might be desirable and even necessary to revise some of its provisions in the future. Article 14 of the Charter of the United Nations seemed to him entirely inadequate as a basis for future revision, particularly since several delegations had pointed out that some of the provisions of these peace treaties were unjust and might well require revision. Mr. Hodgson referred to President Roosevelt’s Chicago speech of 1937 and to Secretary Hull’s letter to the members of the League of Nations pointing out that the United States believed in the modification of treaties in an orderly way when necessary. He felt that the present time provided an opportunity for inserting appropriate clauses in the peace treaties to provide for their revision. However, the Australian Delegation did not wish to press for a vote in the present Commission but reserved its position on this vital question and proposed to put it forward at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place.

Mr. Hodgson also presented the views of his Delegation concerning the Australian proposal for a European Court of Human Eights. He stated his disagreement with the decision of the Legal and Drafting Commission on this question and stated that the present treaty should provide some means of enforcement of the human rights clauses. He remarked that the United Nations Charter did not contain any effective provision for enforcement. In view of the decision of the Legal Commission and of its acceptance by the Finnish Commission,³⁶ the Australian Delegation felt that it must withdraw its proposal in connection with the Bulgarian Treaty [C.P. (Gen.) Doc.1.B.41]. It also wished to withdraw its amendment to the Preamble concerning human rights [C.P. (Gen.) Doc.1.B.32] which had been deferred.

The Commission adopted Article 36 unanimously without discussion.

The Chairman noted that the Commission had finished its consideration of the articles assigned to it with the exception of two outstanding questions: (1) the U.K, proposal concerning human rights (Article 2 A),³⁷ and (2) a final decision on Article 1 which had been referred to the Military Commission.

35. See the United States Delegation Journal account of the 11th Meeting of the Political and Territorial Commission for Rumania, September 12, p. 443, and the Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Finland, C.P. (Plen) Doc. 16, October 2, vol. iv, p. 568.
36. 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. For text of the Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Finland, see vol. iv, p. 568.
37. The proposal under reference is C.P.(Bul/P) Doc. 8; for text, mutatis mutandis, see footnote 71, p. 418.