Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Documents, Volume IV

CFM Files

Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty With Hungary

C.P.(Plen) Doc. 34

Paris, October 11, 1946.

Mr. Chairman: The Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland considered the draft Peace Treaty with Hungary in the course of 3 meetings.

The Commission comprises representatives of Australia, Byelorussia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia.

The meetings of the Commission were presided over by the representative of Czechoslovakia, M. Korbel.

The Vice-Chairmen were the Australian representatives Mr. Beasley and Senator Grant.

The representative of the Soviet Delegation, M. Gerashchenko, was elected Rapporteur.

The task of the Commission was to consider the economic and related provisions of the draft Peace Treaties with Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland which were drawn up by the Council of Foreign Ministers and also to submit eventual recommendations for modifications or additions to these provisions.

The Commission examined the following Sections and Articles of the draft Peace Treaty with Hungary:

Part V.	Reparation and Restitution (Articles 21 and 22).
Part VI.	Economic Clauses (Articles 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32).
Part VII.	Clauses relating to the Danube (Article 33).
Annex 4.	Special Provisions relating to certain kinds of property.
Annex 5.	Contracts prescriptions and negotiable instruments.
Annex 6.	Judgments.

The Commission considered amendments submitted by the Delegations of Australia (Gen. Doc. 1.B.50, 1.B.51, 1.B.52, 1.B.53, 1.B.54), Czechoslovakia (Gen. Doc. 1.Q.9 to 1.Q.14), Poland (Gen. Doc. 1.O.10, 1.O.11).

In the course of its work, the Commission received a series of supplementary proposals and amendments from Member Delegations. These will be mentioned below and inserted in the text of the report.

The Commission also decided to ask Hungarian Government representatives to submit to it a detailed memorandum concerning the Articles and Annexes of the draft Peace Treaty with Hungary which were referred to the Commission for consideration.

This memorandum was transmitted to the General Secretariat of the Conference under number (C.P. Gen. Doc. 5) and bore the title “Observations of the Hungarian Government concerning the draft Peace Treaty with Hungary”. This document also contained the observations of the Hungarian Government concerning Articles 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 32a and 32b, together with a series of amendments submitted by the Hungarian Delegation. In addition, the Hungarian Delegation subsequently submitted the following documents:

1. Observations concerning Article 23 of the draft Peace Treaty (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.58).

2. Observation concerning Article 25 of the draft Peace Treaty (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.63).

3. Observations concerning Article 26 of the draft Peace Treaty (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.44).

4. Observations on amendments submitted by some Delegations to the Economic Clauses of the draft Peace Treaty (C.P.(B&F/EC) Doc.50).

5. Observations on Annexes 4, 5, 6 of the draft Peace Treaty (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.59).

In connection with the observations and proposals of the Roumanian Delegation concerning the draft Peace Treaty with Hungary (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.24, 25a and 25b), the Hungarian Delegation also submitted its observations (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.62).

All these documents were considered by the Commission Which took cognizance of them.

In the case of proposals and amendments which have not received a two-thirds majority, the Commission, according to the Rules of Procedure, has to submit two or more reports. The Commission, however, agreed that the Rapporteur should state all the points of view which had not been agreed in the General Report so as to avoid the presentation of two or more reports. As a result of its consideration of the Articles, proposals and amendments submitted, the Commission came to the following conclusions.

Part V. Reparation and Restitution

Article 21. Reparation. The Polish Delegation withdrew its amendment to this Article (C.P.(Gen)Doe.1.O.10).

The U.S. Delegation submitted a proposal to reduce the total amount of reparation to 200 million United States dollars, reducing the amount of reparations due to the U.S.S.R. to 133 million United States dollars and the amount of reparation due to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia to 67 million United States dollars.

The proposal of the U.S. Delegation was rejected by 7 votes (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, U.S.S.R., U.K., Ukraine, Yugoslavia) to 5 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.S.A.) with 2 abstentions (Greece, India).

In the vote on the Article in the text as submitted by the Council of Foreign Ministers, 8 Delegations (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Ukraine, U.K., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) voted in favour and 5 Delegations against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.S.A.), 1 Delegation abstained (India).

The Czechoslovak Delegation withdrew its amendment to Article 21 (C.P. (Gen) Doc.1.Q.9) considering that the Commission, by a majority of 8 votes with 6 abstentions, agreed with the interpretation of Article 21 submitted by the Czechoslovak Delegation and reading as follows:

“The Czechoslovak Delegation considers that the alteration from six to eight years in the date of payment of reparations is bound to have no other effect on the provisions of the bilateral agreement on reparations concluded between Hungary and Czechoslovakia than that of obliging Czechoslovakia to extend correspondingly the payment terms fixed by this Agreement.”

Article 21 bis. On the proposal of the Czechoslovak Delegation, the Commission unanimously adopted a new article 21 bis reading as follows:

The annulment of the Vienna Award of November 2, 1938, as provided in Article 1, paragraph 4, implies in itself the annulment of the accords, as well as their legal consequences, ensuing therefrom in respect of matters of finance and public and private insurance concluded between or on behalf of the two states concerned or between Czechoslovak and Hungarian moral persons on the basis of the Vienna Award and in respect of the material handed over by the Protocol of May 22, 1940. This annulment shall not apply in any way to relations between physical persons. The details of the above-mentioned settlement will be arranged by bilateral agreements between the governments concerned, within a period of six months from the time of entry into force of this Treaty.

In connection with the adoption of the Article, the Czechoslovak Delegate answered several questions (see Annex⁵⁵).

Article 22. This Article was unanimously adopted by the Commission, in the wording proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers, with the following additions:

1. In paragraph 1, add the words “in the shortest possible time”. Thus this paragraph reads as follows: “Hungary accepts the principle of the United Nations declaration of January 5, 1943, and will return in the shortest possible time property removed from United Nations’ territories.”

2. Paragraph 2: Add the following sub-paragraph proposed by the Czechoslovak Delegation:

“If in particular cases, it is impossible for Hungary to make restitution of objects of artistic, historic or archeological value belonging to the cultural heritage of the United Nations from which such objects were removed, by force or unless by Hungarian forces and authorities or by Hungarian nationals, Hungary undertakes to transfer to the United Nations concerned objects of the same kind and of substantially equivalent value to the objects removed, in so far as such objects are obtainable in Hungary.”

The Yugoslav Delegation withdrew its amendments C.P. (Gen) 1.U.33 and 1.U.34; the Polish Delegation withdrew its amendment C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.O.11 and the Czechoslovak Delegation withdrew its amendment C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.10 and the second part of 1.Q.11.

Part VI. Economic Clauses

Article 23.—A. The Australian Delegation withdrew its amendments (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.B.52 and 1.B.53) and the Yugoslav Delegation withdrew its amendment (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.U.35).

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 were unanimously adopted in the wording as proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers; on the proposal of the Polish Delegation the dates given in this Article were altered, i.e. in both paragraphs the dates “April 10, 1941” are altered to “September 1, 1939”.

B. Paragraph 3. The Commission considered the text of paragraph 3 of this Article as proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Commission unanimously adopted this Article with an addition reading as follows:

“In the case of Czechoslovak nationals, this paragraph shall also include transfers after November 1, 1939 which resulted from force or duress or from measures taken under discriminatory internal Legislation by the Hungarian Government or its agencies in Czechoslovak territory annexed by Hungary.”

In view of this addition the Czechoslovak Delegation withdrew its amendment C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.12.

C. Paragraph 4. In the course of consideration of this paragraph the proposal for full compensation was put to the vote. 6 Delegations voted for full compensation (Australia, Canada, Greece, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K.), 6 voted against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia), 2 Delegations abstained (France, India).

The proposal of the U.S.A. Delegation seconded by the U.S.S.R. Delegation, for 25% compensation was then put to the vote. This proposal obtained 5 votes in favour (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) and 9 against (Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K.).

The proposal of the French Delegation for 75% compensation obtained 9 votes (Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K.). 5 Delegations (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., U.S.A., and Yugoslavia) voted against this proposal.

The U.K. and Greek Delegations stated that while voting for partial compensation, they reserved their right to raise the question of total compensation at the Plenary Meeting of the Conference.

D. The Commission considered the text of paragraph 4 submitted by the U.S.A. and reading as follows:

“(a) The Hungarian Government will be responsible for the restoration to complete good order of the property returned to United Nations nationals under paragraph 1 of this Article. In cases where property cannot be returned or where as a result of the war a United Nations national has suffered a loss by reason of injury or damage to property, he shall receive from the Hungarian Government compensation in Hungarian local currency to the extent of_____________per cent of the sum necessary, at the date of payment, to purchase similar property or to make good the loss suffered. In no event shall United Nations nationals receive less favourable treatment with respect to compensation than that accorded Hungarian nationals.

“(b) United Nations nationals who have ownership interests, held directly or indirectly in corporations or associations which are not United Nations nationals within the meaning of paragraph 8(a) of this Article, but which have suffered a loss by reason of injury or damage to property, shall receive compensation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above. This compensation shall be based on the total loss or damage suffered by the corporation or association and shall bear the same proportion to such loss or damage as the beneficial interest of such nationals bears to the total capital of the corporation or association.

“(c) Compensation shall be paid free of any levies, taxes or other charges. It shall be freely usable in Hungary but shall be subject to the foreign exchange control regulations which may be in force in Hungary from time to time.

“(d) The Hungarian Government agrees to accord to United Nations nationals fair and equitable treatment in the allocation of materials for the repair or rehabilitation of their property and in the allocation of foreign exchange for the importation of such materials and will in no event discriminate in these respects against such nationals as compared with Hungarian nationals.

“(e) The Hungarian Government agrees similarly to compensate in Hungarian local currency United Nations nationals whose property has suffered loss or damage as a result of special measures taken against their property during the war which were not applied to Hungarian property.”

The U.S.S.R. Delegation proposed an amendment to sub-paragraph “a” of the U.S. proposal to replace the last sentence of this subparagraph by the following text:

“In no event shall United Nations nationals, including those having ownership interests, held directly or indirectly, in corporations or associations, receive less favorable treatment with respect to compensation than that accorded Hungarian nationals.”

5 Delegations (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) voted in favour of this amendment and 9 Delegations voted against (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.)

9 Delegations voted in favour of sub-paragraph “a” of the U.S. proposal (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.) 4 Delegations voted against (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) and 1 Delegation abstained (Czechoslovakia).

Sub-paragraphs “b”, “c”, “d” of the U.S. proposal obtained 9 votes in favour (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.) and 5 against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia).

The French Delegation tabled an amendment to sub-paragraph “e” reading as follows:

“The Hungarian Government shall grant nationals of the United Nations an indemnity in Hungarian local currency sufficient to compensate, at the date of payment, the losses and damage due to the special measures applied to their property during the war, and which were not applicable to Hungarian property.”

This amendment obtained 8 votes in favour (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K.) and 6 votes against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia).

In view of the result of the voting on the French amendment, subparagraph “e”, in the drafting proposed by the U.S.A., was not put to the vote.

E. On the proposal of the Delegations of U.S.A., France, U.K., and U.S.S.R, it was unanimously agreed to insert after paragraph 4, a new paragraph 4a reading as follows:

“It shall be understood that the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Article shall apply to Hungary in so far as the action which may give rise to a claim for damage to property in Northern Transylvania of the United Nations or their nationals took place during the period when this territory was subject to Hungarian authority.”

Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Article 23 were unanimously adopted by the Commission in the wording proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

The Yugoslav Delegation withdrew its amendment C.P.(Gen) Doc.1.U.35.

Paragraph 8 was unanimously adopted by the Commission with the amendment proposed for sub-paragraph “b” This amendment consists in defining the word “owner” not only as a United Nations national but also as a United Nation. The Commission agreed to include this amendment in sub-paragraph “b”, after the Czechoslovak Delegation had given the necessary explanations concerning property which had belonged to former Czechoslovak citizens.

In view of the adoption of the above-mentioned amendment, subparagraph “b” of paragraph 8 was adopted in the following drafting:

“b. ‘Owner’ means a United Nation or the United Nations national, as defined in sub-paragraph (a) above, who is entitled to the property in question, and includes a successor of the owner, provided that the successor is also a United Nation or a United Nations national as defined in sub-paragraph (a). If the successor has purchased the property in its damaged state, the transferor shall retain his rights to compensation under this Article, without prejudice to obligations between the transferor and the purchaser under domestic law.”

In connection with the amendments made in sub-paragraph “b”, the Czechoslovak Delegation considers that by the inclusion of the words “a United Nation” into the text of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8, Article 23, Czechoslovakia will not be precluded by the time periods of sub-paragraph (a), paragraph 8, Article 23, from being the beneficiary of the rights ensuing from Article 23 in place of her former citizens, who were Czechoslovak citizens before her occupation and who ceased to be Czechoslovak citizens since Czechoslovakia’s liberation.

All the Members of the Commission agreed with this interpretation by the Czechoslovak Delegation.

The French Delegation proposed adding to Article 23 a new paragraph 9 reading as follows:

“The Hungarian Government undertakes to enter into negotiations with the other Governments concerned, the Danube-Sava-Adriatica Railway Company and the Committee of Bondholders of the Company, with a view to determining the method of applying the provision of the Rome Agreement of March 29, 1923, laying down the statute of the Company and the modifications required in this Agreement, and making an equitable settlement of the amounts owing to the company’s bondholders. [“]

9 votes were cast in favour of this paragraph and 4 against, with 1 abstention.

New Article (to follow Article 23):

The Commission considered proposals by the U.K. and U.S. Delegations for the insertion of a new article to follow Article 23, dealing with the restoration of property which was confiscated in Hungary during the war because of the racial origin or religion of its owners. The U.K. Delegation proposed a text for this additional Article, reading as follows:

• “1. Hungary undertakes that in all cases where the property, legal rights or interests of persons under Hungarian jurisdiction has, since September 1st, 1939, been the subject of measures of sequestration, confiscation or control on account of the racial origin or religion of such persons, the said property, legal rights and interests shall be restored together with their accessories or, if restoration is impossible, that full compensation shall be made therefor.
• “2. The Hungarian Government undertakes within twelve months after the date of coming into force of the present Treaty to transfer to the International Refugee Organisation (or any other organisation designated by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations) for purposes of relief and rehabilitation within Hungary all property, rights and interests in Hungary owned by persons; organisations and communities which, individually or as members of groups, were the object of racial, religious or other Fascist measures of persecution or discrimination, including property, rights and interests required to be restored under this Article, and which for a period of six months after the date of coming into force of the present Treaty have remained ownerless, heirless or unclaimed.”

The U.S. Delegation suggested discussing the following two provisions:

• “1. Hungary undertakes that in all cases where the property, legal rights or interests in Hungary of persons, organisations or communities which were the object of racial, religious or other Fascist measures of persecution or discrimination (other than those entitled to the benefits of Article 23) have been subjected since September 1, 1939 to measures of seizure, sequestration or control or to transfer by force or duress, such property shall be returned, such legal rights and interests shall be restored and such forced transfers shall be invalidated. In the event such return or restoration is impossible, compensation shall be paid in local currency on a basis no less favourable than that accorded to Hungarian nationals generally for any losses suffered in Hungary as a result of the war.”
• “2. All property, rights and interests passing under this Article shall be restored free of all encumbrance and charges of any kind to which they may have become subject since the date of seizure, sequestration, control or transfer, and no charges shall be imposed in connection with their return.”

2 Delegations (U.S.A. and France) voted for the U.S. proposal, and 11 Delegations voted against (Australia, Byelorussia, Canada, Greece, India, New Zealand, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia), and 1 Delegation (Czechoslovakia) abstained.

The U.K. Delegation’s proposal was voted for in two parts. 8 votes were cast in favour of paragraph 1 of the proposal (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K.) and 5 votes against (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) with 1 abstention (Czechoslovakia). For paragraph 2 of the proposal there were 8 votes in favour (Australia, Canada, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.) and 4 against (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia), with 2 abstentions (Czechoslovakia and France).

The U.S.S.R. Delegation declared that there was no need to include in the text of this Treaty with Hungary a special Article: the U.S.S.R. Delegation would submit its observations on this question.

Article 24 The Commission unanimously adopted this Article in the wording as proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers, deleting from the French text the words “qui ont été” before the word “transférés” so as to bring the French text into harmony with the Russian and English texts.

Article 25. No recommendation was adopted by the Commission on this Article as the two proposals set out in the draft Peace Treaty—one by the U.S., U.K. and France, and the other by the U.S.S.R. Delegation—failed, on a vote being taken, to secure a two-thirds majority.

4 votes were cast in favour of the U.S.S.R. Delegation’s proposal (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia); 7 Delegations voted against (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.) and 3 Delegations (Czechoslovakia, India, New Zealand) abstained.

In a vote taken on the proposal submitted by the U.S., U.K. and French Delegations, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 obtained 7 votes in favour (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.); 4 votes were cast against (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) and 3 Delegations (Czechoslovakia, India, New Zealand) abstained.

The Australian Delegation tabled amendments to the wording of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 24 [25] as proposed by the U.S., U.K., and French Delegations. The Australian Delegation suggested deleting in paragraph 4 the words “literary and artistic” and the words “literary or artistic” and inserting in paragraph 5 after sub-paragraph (d), a new sub-paragraph (e) reading as follows: “Literary and artistic property rights”.

The Australian amendment to paragraph 4 secured 8 votes (Australia, Byelorussia, Canada, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Yugoslavia); 3 Delegations voted against the amendment (Franco, U.K., U.S.A.) and 3 Delegations (Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R.) abstained.

The Australian amendment to paragraph 5 secured 6 votes (Australia, Canada, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa) and 4 against (Byelorussia, France, U.K., U.S.A.) with 4 abstentions (Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia).

Paragraph 4 of Article 25, with the inclusion of the above Australian amendment, secured 7 votes for (Australia, Canada, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.S.A.); 4 were cast against (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) and there were 3 abstentions (Czechoslovakia, France, U.K.).

Paragraph 5 of Article 25 in the wording proposed by the U.S., U.K. and French Delegations, minus the above Australian amendment, obtained 7 votes for (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.) and 3 against (Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia) with 4 abstentions (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, India, New Zealand).

The Czechoslovak Delegation withdrew its amendment to Article 25 (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.13).

Article 26. No recommendation on this Article of the Draft Treaty was adopted by the Commission.

The U.S.S.R. Delegation tabled an amendment to its proposal as set out in the draft Peace Treaty. It suggested replacing the second sentence in paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the draft by the following text: “The rights of Hungarian owners with respect to the disposal of the property in question shall be restored in so far as no other joint decisions are taken in this connection by the powers signatories to the Armistice terms or to the terms of the capitulation”. 5 votes were cast for and 9 against the U.S.S.R. Delegation’s proposal for Article 26 (including the above amendment).

The proposal of the U.K., U.S. and French Delegations obtained 9 votes for and 5 votes against.

Article 27. This Article was unanimously adopted by the Commission in the wording as proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Yugoslav Delegation withdrew its amendment (C.P. (Gen) Doc.1.U.36).

Article 28. Article 28 of the draft Treaty was unanimously adopted by the Commission in the wording as proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers and with an amendment tabled by the Norwegian Delegation to Paragraph 3 of this Article. This amendment proposed that the words “which severed diplomatic relations with Hungary and took action . . .” should be replaced by the words “whose diplomatic relations with Hungary have been broken off during the war and which took action …” Thus, paragraph 3 was approved in the following wording “Hungary likewise waives all claims of the nature covered by paragraph 1 of this Article on behalf of the Hungarian Government or Hungarian nationals against any of the United Nations whose diplomatic relations with Hungary have been broken off during the war and which took action in co-operation with the Allied and Associated Powers.”

Article 29. The Yugoslav Delegation withdraws its amendment to this Article (C.P.(Gen)Doc.^*1.U.39), and the Czechoslovak Delegation withdraws its amendment (C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.Q.14) and proposes the insertion of a new article 29a similar to the new article included in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria after Article 28.

Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the draft Treaty were unanimously approved by the Commission in the wording proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

For the text of sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article in the wording as proposed by the U.S.S.R. Delegation, 5 votes were cast for and 9 votes against. For the alternative text for sub-paragraph 1 of this Article as drafted by the U.K., U.S., and French Delegations, 9 votes were cast in favour and 5 votes against.

The U.S. Delegation’s proposal, supported by the U.K. Delegation, regarding civil aviation, was put to the vote in the following amended form: “It is further understood that the foregoing provisions of paragraph (c) shall not apply to civil aviation, but that Hungary will grant no exclusive or discriminatory right to any country with regard to the operation of civil aircraft in international traffic and will afford all the United Nations equality of opportunity in obtaining international commercial aviation rights in Hungarian territory.” On a vote 9 Delegations voted in favour and 5 against this proposal.

The French Delegation proposed replacing the last paragraph of the above proposal by the following text: “It is further understood that the foregoing provisions of paragraph (c) shall not apply to civil aviation, but that Hungary will grant no exclusive or discriminatory right to any country with regard to the operation of civil aircraft in international traffic, will afford all the United Nations equality of opportunity in obtaining international commercial aviation rights in Hungarian territory, and will grant to any United Nation on a basis of reciprocity and without discrimination with regard to the operation of civil aircraft in international traffic the right to fly over Hungarian territory without landing and to make landing in Hungarian territory for non-commercial purposes. [”]

This amendment by the French Delegation obtained 7 votes in favour to 5 against, with 2 abstentions.

The text proposed by the U.S.S.R. delegation for paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the draft Treaty was supported by 5 and opposed by 9 Delegations, and the text proposed by the U.K., U.S. and French Delegations secured 9 votes in favour and 5 votes against.

On 2nd October, 1946, the U.S. Delegation tabled a proposal (C.P.(B&F/EC)Doc.66) for the inclusion in the Peace Treaty with Hungary of an additional Article reading as follows:

“The Hungarian Government undertakes to pay fair prices by reference to world conditions for commodities delivered by way of reparation obtained from United Nations nationals as defined in Article 23. Any dispute between the Hungarian Government and such United Nations nationals relating to prices shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Article 30.”

Basing himself on a ruling obtained from the Secretary-General of the Conference, the Chairman of the Commission pointed out that the U.S. Delegation’s proposal had been tabled too late in view of the time-limits fixed for the tabling of amendments and the date fixed for the completion of the Commission’s work.

Therefore the Chairman put to a vote the question of whether the amendment submitted by the U.S.A. Delegation should be considered. Seven Delegations voted in favour, five against, with two abstentions. After having consulted the Secretary-General, the Chairman decided that the American amendment would not be put on the Agenda.

New Article. The French Delegation proposed the insertion after Article 29 of the draft Treaty of a new article reading as follows:

“Hungary shall facilitate as far as possible railway traffic in transit through its territory at reasonable rates and shall negotiate with neighbouring States all reciprocal agreements necessary for this purpose.”

11 votes were cast for and 3 against this proposal.

Article 30. No recommendation was adopted by the Commission on this Article, as neither of the two proposals contained in the draft Peace Treaty—one by the U.K. Delegation and the other by the U.S.S.R. Delegation—secured a two-thirds majority, however it was unanimously agreed to include the words “21 bis” before the numeral “22” in Article 30.

9 votes were cast for and 5 votes against the U.K. Delegation’s proposal, while 5 votes were cast for and 9 against the U.S.S.R. Delegation’s proposal.

The U.S. Delegation withdrew its amendment to Article 30, as set out in the draft Peace Treaty with Hungary submitted by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

In this connection, and in accordance with a declaration made by the Chairman of the Commission, it was agreed that the observation of the French Delegation may be regarded as no longer necessary.

Article 31. This Article was unanimously approved by the Commission in the wording proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers, with the following modification introduced on the basis of an amendment by the Norwegian Delegation:

For the words: “which have broken off diplomatic relations with Hungary”, read: “whose diplomatic relations with Hungary have been broken off during the war”.

Thus, Article 31 of the Draft Treaty was adopted in the following wording: “Articles 22 and 23 and Annex 6 of this Treaty shall apply to the Allied and Associated Powers and France and to those of the United Nations whose diplomatic relations with Hungary have been broken off during the war.”

Article 32. Article 32 was unanimously adopted in the wording as proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Part VII—Clauses Relating to the Danube

Article 33. The Commission received two proposals from the Council of Foreign Ministers, the first emanating from the United Kingdom and U.S.A. Delegations, to include Article 33 in the form in which it appears in the draft Peace Treaty, and to which an addition was made by the United Kingdom Delegation; the second, that of the U.S.S.R. Delegation which was against the inclusion of the Article in the Treaty, for reasons which were likewise set out in the Draft.

The Soviet Delegation’s proposal was put to the vote; 5 votes were cast in favour of it (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia) and 9 against (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and U.S.A.).

Both the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. Delegations withdrew their previous proposals and accepted the new proposal tabled by the French Delegation, which words Article 33 as follows:

• “1. Navigation on the Danube River shall be free and open on terms of entire equality to the nationals, vessels of commerce and goods of all states.
• “2. With a view to ensuring the practical application of this principle, Hungary undertakes to take part, together with France, the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Danubian States in a Conference which shall be convened within six months of the entry into force of this Peace Treaty, with the object of establishing a new International Regime for the Danube.”

The Commission cast 8 votes for this proposal (Australia, Canada, France, Greece, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K. and U.S.A.) and 5 against (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) with 1 abstention (India).

[Statements or reservations in connection with this Article were made by the following delegations: Belgium, Poland, Greece, United Kingdom, France, and Yugoslavia. (See Annex)]⁵⁶

Therefore, the Commission is unable to submit a recommendation for the inclusion of Article 33 in the Draft Peace Treaty and refers this question to the Plenary Conference for their decision.

Annex IV. Special Provisions Relating to Certain Kinds of Property

section a. industrial, literary and artistic property

(1) The Commission unanimously recommends the adoption of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of this Section without modification of the wording as set out in the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary.

(2) The Commission unanimously recommends replacing paragraph 4 of Section A by a new text reading as follows:

“The foregoing provisions concerning the rights of the Allied and Associated Powers or their nationals shall apply equally to Hungary and its nationals but nothing in these provisions shall entitle Hungary or its nationals to more favourable treatment in the territory of any of the Allied or Associated Powers than is accorded by such Power in like cases to other United Nations or their nationals, nor shall Hungary be required thereby to accord to any of the Allied or Associated Powers or its nationals more favourable treatment than Hungary or its nationals receive in the Territory of such Power in regard to the matters dealt with in the foregoing provisions.”

In view of the above, the observations of the U.S.S.R. and U.S. Delegations reproduced in the draft Peace Treaty under this paragraph become unnecessary.

(3) The Commission unanimously recommends the adoption of paragraph 7 of Section A in the following wording:

“Hungary shall extend the benefits of Section A of this Annex to France and to the other United Nations, other than Allied and Associated, whose diplomatic relations with Hungary have been broken off during the war and which undertake to extend to Hungary the benefits accorded to Hungary under Section A. of this Annex.”

The unanimous approval by the Commission of this text also implies the deletion of the U.S.S.R. Delegation’s observation on this paragraph as reproduced in the text of the Draft Peace Treaty.

section b. insurance

In place of the proposal contained in the draft Peace Treaty with Hungary submitted to the Commission, the French Delegation introduced a new proposal reading as follows:

• “1. The Hungarian Government shall grant every facility to insurers who are nationals of the United Nations to resume possession of their former portfolios in Hungary.
• “2. Should an insurer being a national of any of the United Nations wish to resume his professional activities in Hungary, and should the value of guarantee deposits or reserves required for the operation of insurance concerns in Hungary be found to have decreased as a result of the loss or depreciation of the securities which constituted such deposits or reserves, the Hungarian Government undertakes to accept such securities as still remain (for a period of three years) as fulfilling the legal requirements in respect of deposits and reserves.”

4. The Soviet Delegation proposed not to include the section B in the Peace Treaty and on a vote being taken 5 Delegations voted for this proposal and 9 against.

On a vote being taken on the French proposal, 9 Delegations voted for and 5 against.

On this question, therefore, the Commission has not adopted any recommendation.

Annex V. Contracts, Prescriptions and Negotiable Instruments

The Commission has no recommendations to submit regarding the inclusion of this Annex in the draft Treaty as none of the Sections of the Annex secured a two-thirds majority.

i. contracts

The U.S.S.R. Delegation proposed that this Section should not be included in the draft Peace Treaty. 4 Delegations voted in favour and 4 against this proposal, with 6 Delegations abstaining.

The U.K. Delegation proposed the inclusion in the draft Peace Treaty of a Section on contracts with the text as set out in the draft Treaty of Peace with Hungary, subject to a modification of paragraph 1. This paragraph was submitted to the Commission for consideration in the following terms:

“Any contract concluded between enemies shall be deemed to have been dissolved as from the time when any of the parties became an enemy, except in respect of any debt accrued or money paid or other pecuniary obligation arising out of any act done thereunder, subject to the exceptions set out in the following paragraph and subject to the repayment of amounts paid as advance or on account in respect of which no counterpart exists. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to contracts of insurance and re-insurance which shall be subject to a separate agreement.”

The U.K. Delegation’s proposal to include in the draft Peace Treaty a section on contracts with an amended text for paragraph 1, was supported by the 5 Delegations; 6 Delegations voted against the proposal and 3 Delegations abstained.

The U.S. Delegation tabled a proposal for the inclusion in Annex V of an additional Section V with the following tenour:

“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 Hungary.”

7 votes were cast in favour of this proposal by the U.S. Delegation and 4 against, with 3 abstentions.

ii. periods of prescription

The U.S.S.R. Delegation proposed the inclusion in the draft Peace Treaty of a section on periods of prescription worded as follows:

• “(1) All periods of prescription or limitation of rights of action in regard to mutual relations with reference to property, between Hungarian physical or juridical persons on the one hand, and United Nations physical or juridical persons on the other hand irrespective of whether these periods commenced before or after the outbreak of war, shall be regarded as having been suspended in Hungarian territory for the duration of the war on condition that the United Nation concerned will also on condition of reciprocity regard these periods of prescription in respect of the mutual relations stated above as having been suspended in the [its] territory.
• They will begin to run again three months after the entry into force of the present treaty.”
• “(2) The provisions of Article 1 of the present Annex will be applicable in regard to the periods fixed for the redemption of securities or their coupons thereon and likewise any transactions relating to such securities.”

The Soviet Delegation accepted:

(a) A Yugoslav amendment to add after the words of the first line: “right of action” the words “or of undertaking an act or formality of conservation”;

(b) an amendment by the French Delegation to add after the words: “mutual relations with reference to” the words: “persons and …”

6 Delegations voted in favour of the U.S.S.R. Delegation’s proposal and 6 Delegations against: 2 Delegations abstained.

The U.K. Delegation proposed the inclusion in the draft Peace Treaty with Hungary of a section on contracts as worded in the draft Peace Treaty submitted, with the addition of a paragraph 8 reading as follows:

“8. For the purposes of those Sections of the present Annex relating to periods of prescription and negotiable instruments, the parties to a contract shall be regarded as enemies when trading between them shall have been prohibited by or otherwise become unlawful under laws, orders or regulations to which one of these parties or the contract was subject. They shall be deemed to have become enemies from the date when such trading was prohibited or otherwise become unlawful.”

This proposal by the U.K. Delegation was supported by 5 Delegations; 5 Delegations voted against and 4 Delegations abstained.

iii. negotiable instruments

The U.S.S.R. Delegation proposed that no section on negotiable instruments should be included in the draft Peace Treaty. This proposal was supported by 5 Delegations; 7 Delegations voted against and 2 Delegations abstained.

The U.K. Delegation proposed the inclusion in the Peace Treaty with Hungary of a section on negotiable instruments in the wording as set out in its proposal reproduced in the draft Peace Treaty. This proposal was supported by 7 Delegations; 4 Delegations voted against and 3 Delegations abstained.

iv. miscellaneous

The U.S.S.R. Delegation proposed that no such section should be included in the Peace Treaty. 6 Delegations voted in favour of this proposal. 6 Delegations voted against and 2 Delegations abstained.

The U.K. Delegation proposed the inclusion in the Peace Treaty with Hungary of a Section 4 of Annex V. In the wording as proposed by the U.K. Delegation and set forth in the Draft Peace Treaty. 6 votes were cast for this proposal. 6 Delegations voted against and 2 Delegations abstained.

Annex 6. Judgments

The Commission adopted no recommendations concerning this Annex, for which three proposals had been submitted by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

The proposal of the United States Delegation, seconded by the U.S.S.R. Delegation obtained 7 votes; 5 Delegations voted against and 2 Delegations abstained from voting.

The proposal of the French Delegation obtained one vote; 10 Delegations voted against and 3 Delegations abstained from voting.

The proposal of the U.K. Delegation obtained 5 votes; 6 Delegations voted against and 3 Delegations abstained from voting.

Accordingly, the Commission submits to the consideration of the Conference:

1) The proposal of the U.S.A. Delegation, seconded by the U.S.S.R. Delegation, which received 7 votes.

2) The proposal of the U.K. Delegation which received 5 votes.

Conclusions

This, Mr. Chairman, is a brief account of the work of our Commission and of the results it has achieved in the case of the Peace Treaty with Hungary.

I have the honour, on behalf of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland, to submit the present report to the Conference for its consideration, for the approval of our conclusions and for the adoption of recommendations on those clauses regarding which the Commission was unable to reach a definite decision.

I would ask the Conference to approve the Commission’s recommendations to accept the following Articles adopted by the Commission, either unanimously or by a majority of two-thirds or over:

a) Articles and paragraphs of the draft Treaty which were unanimously approved without amendment.

• Article 22, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7
• Article 23, paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8a, 8c
• Article 24, as a whole
• Article 27, as a whole
• Article 28, paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5
• Article 29, paragraph 1 with sub-paragraphs “a” and “b”
• Article 32, as a whole,
• Annex IV Section A, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8

b) Modifications and additions to the draft Treaty adopted unanimously.

• Article 21 bis
• Article 22, paragraphs 1 and 2
• Article 23, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8b
• Article 28, paragraph 3
• Article 31
• Annex IV, Section A, paragraphs 4, 7
• Article 30.

c) Articles and paragraphs of the Draft Treaty, adopted by a two-thirds majority or over.

• Article 29 bis

I would ask the Conference to take a separate vote on the following provisions in regard to which the Commission has not made any recommendations:

• Article 21, Reparation in the text as submitted by the Council of Foreign Ministers, which obtained 8 votes to 5 with 1 abstention.
• Article 21, proposal of the U.S.A. Delegation to reduce the amount of reparation payable to the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, which obtained 5 votes to 7 with 2 abstentions.
• Article 23, U.K. proposal for full compensation which obtained 6 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions.
• Article 23, U.S.-Soviet proposal for 25 compensation, which received 5 votes to 9.
• Article 23, French proposal for 75 compensation which received 9 votes to 5.
• Article 23, Paragraph 4, sub-paragraph a, in the U.S. Draft, which obtained 9 votes to 4 with 1 abstention.
• Article 23, U.S. proposal for paragraph 4, sub-paragraphs b, c, d which obtained 9 votes to 5.
• Article 23, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph e, which received 8 votes to 6.
• Article 23, paragraph 9, in the draft submitted by the French Delegation, which obtained 9 votes to 4 with 1 abstention.
• Article 23 bis, paragraph 1, which obtained 8 votes to 5 with 1 abstention.
• Article 23 bis, paragraph 2, which obtained 8 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions
• Article 25, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 in the draft submitted by the Delegations of the U.S.A., U.K. and France, which obtained 7 votes to 4 with 3 abstentions.
• Article 25, paragraph 4, with amendment submitted by the Australian Delegation, which received 7 votes to 4 with 3 abstentions.
• Article 25, paragraph 5, sub-paragraphs a, b, c, d, which obtained 7 votes to 3, with 4 abstentions.
• Article 25, paragraph 5, Australian proposal for the addition of a sub-paragraph e, which obtained 6 votes to 4 with 4 abstentions.
• Article 25, proposal of the U.S.S.R. Delegation, which obtained 4 votes to 7 with 3 abstentions.
• Article 26, proposal of the U.S.S.R. Delegation, which obtained 5 votes against 9.
• Article 26, proposal of the U.S.A., U.K. and French Delegations, which obtained 9 votes to 5.
• Article 29, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph c, in the draft proposed by the U.S.S.R. Delegations, which obtained 5 votes to 9.
• Article 29, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph c, in the draft proposed by the U.S.A., U.K., and French Delegations, which obtained 9 votes to 5.
• Article 29, U.S. proposal for the addition to sub-paragraph c paragraph 1, of a provision regarding civil aviation, which obtained 9 votes to 5.
• Article 29, French proposal, for the addition to sub-paragraph c paragraph 1 of a provision regarding civil aviation, which obtained 7 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions.
• Article 29, paragraph 2, in the draft submitted by the Soviet Delegation, which obtained 5 votes to 9.
• Article 29, paragraph 2, in the draft submitted by the U.S.A., U.K. and French Delegations, which obtained 9 votes to 5.
• Article 30, in the draft submitted by the U.K. Delegation, which obtained 9 votes to 5 with an amendment to the list of Articles (inclusion of Article 21 bis).
• Article 30, in the draft submitted by the U.S.S.R. Delegation, which obtained 5 votes to 9 with an amendment to the list of Articles (inclusion of Article 21 bis).
• Article 33, which obtained 8 votes to 5 with 1 abstention.
• Annex IV, Section B, which obtained 9 votes to 5.
• Annex V, Section I, which obtained 5 votes to 6 with 3 abstentions.
• Annex V, Section II, in the draft submitted by the U.S.S.R. Delegation which obtained 6 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions.
• Annex V, Section III, in the draft submitted by the U.K. Delegation, which obtained 5 votes to 5 with 4 abstentions.
• Annex V, Section III, in the draft submitted by the U.K. Delegation, which obtained 7 votes to 4 with 3 abstentions.
• Annex V, Section IV, in the draft submitted by the U.K. Delegation, which obtained 6 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions.
• Annex V, proposal of the U.S.A. Delegation to include a Section V, which obtained 7 votes to 4 with 3 abstentions.
• Annex VI, proposal of the U.S.A. Delegation, seconded by the U.S.S.R. Delegation, which obtained 7 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions.
• Annex VI, proposal of the U.K. Delegation, which obtained 5 votes to 6 with 3 abstentions.
• Annex VI, proposal of the French Delegation, which obtained 1 vote to 10 with 5 abstentions.

[Annex 1]

Statement by the Czechoslovak Delegation on Article 21

“The Czechoslovak Delegation considers that the alteration from six to eight years in the date of payment of reparations is bound to have no other effect on the provisions of the bilateral agreement on reparations concluded between Hungary and Czechoslovakia than that of obliging Czechoslovakia to extend correspondingly the payment terms fixed by this Agreement.”

[Annex 2]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 21

Under its reservation of the right to re-open at the Peace Conference the question of the magnitude of the reparation burden to be imposed on Hungary, the U.S. Delegation introduced an amendment reducing the total amount of reparation to be paid by Hungary to $200 million. This amendment was rejected by non-unanimous vote.

The U.S. Delegation is convinced on the basis both of its analysis of the economic situation of Hungary and of the statements submitted to the Conference by the Delegation of Hungary that the economic burdens laid upon Hungary by the various provisions of the Armistice and the Treaty of Peace are beyond the capacity of Hungary to pay. It estimates these burdens to be about 35% of Hungary’s national income, even before any allowance is made for the reduction in Hungary’s economic potential which results from the removal from Hungary of industrial plant and equipment as war booty or for restitution.

Accordingly, the U.S. Delegation maintains that the burden of reparation to the amount of $300 million, which would be equivalent to $450 million if the goods to be delivered on reparation account are valued at current prices, is too great and must be reduced. Upon examination of the relative capacity to pay off Hungary and Roumania, the U.S. Delegation has concluded that $200 million is the largest burden which can be placed upon Hungary; and that even this burden cannot be borne unless constructive steps are taken to rehabilitate the Hungarian economy.

Consistently with this position on reparation the U.S. Delegation has recommended that the rate at which Hungary should make compensation for United Nations property damaged upon the territory of Hungary should be 25%.

[Annex 3]

Record of Replies by the Czechoslovak Delegation to Questions by the United Kingdom and United States Delegations Concerning an Additional Article 21b

The Delegate of the United Kingdom:

. . . . . . .

I should like to know, firstly, if this Article covers tangible property and assets removed to Hungary in pursuance of the Vienna Award, or if its scope is limited to identifiable property.

Secondly, in cases where property cannot be returned because it cannot be identified, will Hungary have to replace this property over a number of years?

. . . . . . .

In our view, this text should provide for an arbitration clause as we are in favour of friendly relations between States, and we want to avoid a clause which would result in a state of instability prevailing in the future.

The Delegate of Czechoslovakia:

The Czechoslovak Delegation is prepared to accept the U.K. Delegation’s suggestion about arbitration. It considers that the best procedure to adopt would be the insertion of the number of the additional Article in the text of Article 30, thereby including it in the list of Articles subject to arbitration under Article 30.

If the U.K. Delegation agrees, we agree also on the question of arbitration. As for the first question, this amendment not only applies to identifiable objects but also to those which cannot be identified, because the other question is covered by Article 22. This is what is generally described as “restitution sui generis”.

The Delegate of the United States:

I should like to put a question to the Delegate of Czechoslovakia in order to see whether I have got a correct idea of the problem. I should like to know if this goes further than a mere restitution of identifiable property; whether the principle embodied in the Czechoslovak proposal—that is the annulment of the Vienna Award and the consequences thereof—would also apply to the special agreements concluded between Hungary and Czechoslovakia as a result of the Vienna Award.

In other words, I would like to know whether these agreements will fall within the general framework of the annulment which we are asked to endorse, and if arbitration procedure will only operate after such an annulment.

I should like to know if my impression of the problem is exact.

I will now turn to questions of another kind—those relating to the drafting of this text.

I must say that this text is not absolutely clear in English and this is comprehensible if we realize that this is not a text revised by one person or drawn up by a Delegation—that of Czechoslovakia—but that it has been drawn up and revised by a sub-committee of five.

I would therefore like to know the exact meaning of this text. Does it also provide for the annulment of the agreements concluded as a sequel to the Vienna Award and for the annulment of the consequences of these agreements?

Is this what the Czechoslovak Delegation proposed to the Sub-Commission?

The Delegate of Czechoslovakia:

Mr. Chairman, I will first of all reply to the second question and say that I am quite willing to meet the U.S. Delegate by proposing an alteration in the drafting of the 3rd line of the second paragraph of this proposal. Instead of “annulment of the consequences” we could insert “annulment of the agreements and their consequences”.

With regard to the first question, in the first instance the answer is affirmative.

This is a kind of restitution which must be carried out. In other words, we must make the legal consequences of these agreements absolutely null and void. This amounts to restoring the position as it was in 1938, i.e. that all property transferred to Hungary in pursuance of the Vienna Award must be returned to Czechoslovakia.

[Annex 4]

Declaration by the Soviet Delegation Concerning Article 23, Paragraph 4

The Soviet Delegation considers that the claim for full compensation for damage caused to United Nations property in Hungary is both unreasonable and improper. In settling the amount of compensation for damage to property of the United Nations in Hungary, account must be taken of the fact that Hungary not only withdrew from the war against the United Nations but declared war on Germany and suffered losses while fighting on the side of the United Nations.

The Soviet Delegation, therefore, considers that compensation should be made only in part to the extent of one-third of the damage.

[Annex 5]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 23, Paragraph 4

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 13 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 394, with the exceptions shown in annotations thereto.]

[Annex 6]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 23, Paragraph 4

[Text is essentially the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 12 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 393.]

[Annex 7]

Statement by the French Delegation on Article 24, Paragraph 4

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the French Delegation in Annex 15 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 397.]

[Annex 8]

Statement by the Czechoslovak Delegation on Article 23, Paragraph 8b

“The Czechoslovak Delegation considers that by the inclusion of the words ‘a United Nation’ into the text of sub-paragraph b) of paragraph 8, Article 23, Czechoslovakia will not be precluded by the time periods of sub-paragraph a) paragraph 8, Art. 23 from being the beneficiary of the rights ensuing from Article 23 in place of her former citizens, who were Czechoslovak citizens before her occupation and who ceased to be Czechoslovak citizens since Czechoslovakia’s liberation.”

[Annex 9]

French Delegation Proposal on the Danube–Sava–Adriatic Company

The Danube–Sava–Adriatic Company’s regime was based on the Rome Agreements concluded in March 1923 under Articles 301 and 304 of the Trianon and St-Germain treaties. In 1942, Germany, by an instrument known as the Brioni Agreement, compelled the Company to alter its Articles of Association.

The French Delegation deems it necessary, on the one hand, that the Treaty repudiate the validity of the Brioni Agreement, and is convinced on the other hand that the Rome Agreements, by virtue of the intervening territorial changes, no longer correspond to actual requirements. For these reasons France thinks that a new arrangement should be negotiated and considers it essential that a provision to that effect be made in the Peace Treaty.

[Annex 10]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 23 bis

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 6 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 461.]

[Annex 11]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 25

This was an agreed Article in the Italian and Rumanian treaties; however in the Hungarian treaty the U.S.S.R. had proposed that the rights of the Government and nationals of Hungary with regard to Hungarian property and assets on the territory of Allied and Associated Powers should be restored.

The U.S. Delegation is unable to perceive any argument in support of such a proposal except the contention that the claims of Allied and Associated Powers against Hungary are very slight. This however is not a persuasive consideration since Article 24 merely entitles the Allied and Associated Powers to seize and liquidate Hungarian assets on their territory to the extent necessary to satisfy their claims against Hungary and it stipulates that any excess of the value of such assets of the total of claims shall be returned to Hungary.

Therefore the U.S. Delegation supports the U.S., U.K. and French proposal with respect to Article 24 and opposes the Soviet proposal.

[Annex 12]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 25

The United Kingdom Delegation see no reason why Hungarian external assets should not be realised and set off against claims, including debts.

So far as war claims are in question, the cost to each Allied or Associated Power in manpower, money and in loss generally has been incurred in a common effort against a common enemy. So far as outstanding contractual indebtedness is concerned there is no doubt that the Hungarian Government and Hungarian nationals owe far more in accrued interest alone than their external assets would realise if sold.

The suggestion that the Hungarian Government should resume and that Hungarian nationals should retain, as of right, property constituted in the territories of the Allied and Associated Powers appears to the United Kingdom Delegation to be a complete reversal of the ordinary conceptions of justice. It would mean that the war makers retain assets while the Allied Powers bear all losses. The United Kingdom Delegation see no reason why the principles accepted in the cases of Italy and Roumania should not be followed.

So far as the United Kingdom is concerned the Hungarians owe some £11,600,000 in respect of debts accrued due while their total property in the United Kingdom is of the order of £1,500,000.

[Annex 13]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 26

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 10 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 463.]

[Annex 14]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 26

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement of the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 11 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 464.]

[Annex 15]

Statement by the Soviet Delegation on Article 29

[Text is virtually the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the Soviet Delegation in Annex 21 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 402.]

[Annex 16]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 29

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 12 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 464.]

[Annex 17]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 29

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 22 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 402.]

[Annex 18]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 29

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 15 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 465.]

[Annex 19]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 29

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 16 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 466.]

[Annex 20]

Statement by the French Delegation on Article 29, Sub-paragraph c

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the French Delegation in Annex 17 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 466.]

[Annex 21]

Statement by the French Delegation on French Proposal Concerning Rail Transit

[Text is identical with the French Delegation statement in Annex 19 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, printed on page 510.]

[Annex 22]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 30

[Text is identical with the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 20 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 467.]

[Annex 23]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 30

The United Kingdom Delegation wish to place on record their conviction that the Treaty must provide definite machinery for the final settlement of any disputes which may arise.

[Annex 24]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Article 33

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 22 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 468.]

[Annexes 25 and 26]

Statements by the Yugoslav Delegation on Article 33

[Texts are identical with the statements by the Yugoslav Delegation in Annexes 28 and 29 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 471.]

[Annex 27]

Declaration by the United Kingdom Delegation on Article 33

[Text is identical with the declaration by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 26 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 470.]

[Annex 28]

Statement by the Polish Delegation on Article 33

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the Polish Delegation in Annex 24 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 469.]

[Annex 29]

Statement by the Belgian Delegation on Article 33

[Text is identical with the statement by the Belgian Delegation in Annex 23 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 469.]

[Annex 30]

Statement by the Greek Delegation on Article 33

[Text is identical with the statement by the Greek Delegation in Annex 25 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 470.]

[Annex 31]

Statement by the French Delegation on Article 33

[Text is identical with the statement by the French Delegation in Annex 27 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 470.]

[Annex 32]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the Amendment Proposed by the United States Regarding the Inapplicability of Annex 5 as Between the United States and Hungary

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 33 to the Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, printed on page 473.]

[Annex 33]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Annex 5, Part I

The United States opposed the U.K. proposals on contracts, primarily because it regards paragraph 2 (f) as unreasonable.

[Annex 34]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 5, Section I

[Text is identical with the statement by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 25 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 404.]

[Annex 35]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the United Kingdom Proposal for Annex 5, Part II

[Text is identical with the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 29 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 405.]

[Annex 36]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the Soviet Proposal for Annex 5, Part II

[Text is identical with the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 28 to the Report of the Economic Commission for, Italy, printed on page 405.]

[Annex 37]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 5, Section II

[Text is identical with the statement by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 27 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 405.]

[Annex 38]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 5, Section III

[Text is identical with the statement by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 31 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 406.]

[Annex 39]

Statement by the United States Delegation on Annex 5, Part IV

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 33 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 407.]

[Annex 40]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 5, Section IV

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 32 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 407.]

[Annex 41]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the United States Proposal for Annex 6 B

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 34 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 408.]

[Annex 42]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the United Kingdom Proposal for Annex 6 B

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement by the United States Delegation in Annex 38 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 410.]

[Annex 43]

Statement by the United States Delegation on the French Proposal for Annex 6 B

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement of the United States Delegation in Annex 37 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 409.]

[Annex 44]

Statement by the United Kingdom Delegation on Annex 6 B

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement of the United Kingdom Delegation in Annex 35 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 408.]

[Annex 45]

Statement by the French Delegation on Annex 6 B

[Text is the same, mutatis mutandis, as the statement of the French Delegation in Annex 36 to the Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, printed on page 409.]

55. Annex 1, p. 554.
56. 1.U.37 and [footnote in the source text].
56. Brackets appear in the source text.