CFM Files
Report to the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy by the Sub-Commission on the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste
- 1.
- The Sub-Commission for the Statute of Trieste received from the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, on the 10 September, 1946, the task of examining and reporting as soon as possible on a statute for the Free Territory of Trieste.
- 2.
- The Sub-Commission held 15 meetings.
- 3.
- The delegate for the Netherlands, Mr. Star Busmann, was elected Chairman-Rapporteur.
- 4.
- The Sub-Commission adopted the following programme for its work, as
proposed by the U.S. delegate, and amended by the Yugoslav delegate:
- I. Government of the Free Territory
- 1.
- Legislative authority
- 2.
- Executive authority
- 3.
- Functions of the Governor in the administration of the Free Territory.
- 4.
- Civic rights. The Judiciary.
- 5.
- Citizenship.
- II. Economic questions and Free Port
- 1.
- Economic questions
- 2.
- Free Port.
- III. General Status of the Free Territory
- 1.
- Independence, neutrality, demilitarisation, frontiers.
- 2.
- Relationships between the Free Territory, Yugoslavia and Italy.
- IV. Provisional Government.
- I. Government of the Free Territory
- 5.
- The Sub-Commission used as a basis for discussion the agreed decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers set out under Article 16 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy and the five draft permanent Statutes as presented by the delegations of France, United Kingdom, United States, the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia, with the help of the comparative texts compiled by the United States delegation and kindly supplied to the sub-commission.
- 6.
- From the beginning of the discussion, it became clear that there
existed fundamental differences of interpretation and implementation of
those proposals concerning:
- (a)
- The character of the Free Territory
- (b)
- The responsibilities of the Security Council toward the Free Territory and, deriving from these, the position and role of the Governor and the position and role of the legislative and executive authorities of the Free Territory.
- 7.
- Such differences of conception made the work of the sub-commission difficult and explain why it has not been able to present, except on certain points, a single draft Statute.
- (a)
- 8.
- The Soviet, Yugoslav and Polish delegates hold the view that the Territory of Trieste should be considered a State, which, although small, enjoys full independence even towards the Security Council. It is neither a colony, nor a territory under mandate, nor a dominion. One cannot place the population of a large European city, which is so advanced and so accustomed to democratic forms, under a regime of a colonial pattern and under the rule of a foreign Governor in the hands of whom the legislative and executive authorities should be concentrated. There is nothing in the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers as set forth in Article 16 of the draft Peace Treaty with Italy to justify such a point of view. It is only said that the Security Council shall ensure the independence and the integrity of the territory of Trieste, but it is in no way said that the Security Council shall administer this territory. The guarantee of the Security Council, provided for in Article 16, paragraph 2, only involves the safeguarding of the independence and integrity of the Territory.
- 9.
- On the other hand, the United Kingdom, U.S.A. and French Delegations pointed out that the provisions of Article 16 applied to a highly contested area which for special reasons was being constituted with a status of its own of a more limited character than that of a normal State and which was being placed under the protection of the Security Council. Its special character was indicated by the very name “Free Territory”.
- 10.
- This standpoint was also that of the Australian and Netherlands Delegations.
- The Australian Delegation stated that it was taking part in the discussion and giving its views without prejudice to the Australian amendment as contained in document C.P.(Gen) Doc.1.B.6.
- (b)
- 11.
- According to the U.S.S.R. views, the wording of Article 16 said no more than that the integrity and independence of the Free Territory should be assured by the Security Council; para. 6–2°3 of this Article stipulated that legislative and executive authorities should be established on democratic lines, including universal suffrage; and sub-section 4 provided that an annual report should be submitted by the Governor to the Security Council. There was no suggestion that the Governor should govern. The Governor should be the agent of the Security Council. The Free Territory should be freed from interference by all other Powers including the Security Council itself. The [Page 625] Security Council was intended to assure the integrity and independence of the Free Territory and was not meant to govern. It was thus meant that the Governor might intervene only when the integrity and independence of the Territory were threatened, and that in such cases he would report to the Security Council. Hence he should have no executive power. If he were to govern, he would have towards the Assembly a responsibility which would be incompatible with his responsibility to the Security Council.
- 12.
- This interpretation was also given by the Polish and by the Yugoslav Delegates, both of whom emphasized that governmental powers for the Governor (called High Commissioner in the Yugoslav draft) who was a foreigner and not elected by the Trieste people, would be in contradiction with the principles of democratic government, laid down in Article 16 (para. 6, sub-section 2).
- 13.
- According to the U.K. Delegate, paragraph 2 of the Ministers’ decision of July 3rd laid a practical duty on the Security Council and as it would involve heavy responsibilities the agent of the Security Council must have adequate powers to permit of their fulfilment. In face of the conflicting national claims and rivalries his first task should be to assure peace and stability and to prevent conditions arising in which the integrity and independence of the Free Territory might be imperilled. He ought in particular to be in possession of the means to maintain public order and security.
- 14.
- The French and U.S. Delegates held similar views. They and the Australian Delegate attached great importance to the principle that the Governor should be equipped with adequate powers to discharge his responsibility. The United States Delegate further pointed out that the Governor as agent of the Security Council was also responsible for the protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the inhabitants of the Territory. In the opinion of the U.S. Delegate, the exercise of the specific powers conferred upon the Governor as agent of the Security Council would in no way be incompatible with the interests of the people of the Territory.
- 15.
- The Netherlands Delegate merely wished to state that the Governor should be equipped with adequate powers to discharge his responsibility.
- 16.
- In order to expedite the work of the Commission, the Sub-Commission suggests that the Commission should first pronounce itself on the basic conceptions as exposed above.
- 17.
- The Sub-Commission will now summarize the conclusions arrived at. Reference is made to the Annex prepared by the Drafting Group of the Sub-Commission insofar as the different texts of Articles are concerned.
I.—Legislative Authority
- 18.
- Agreement was reached on the following points: Legislative authority to be exercised by a popular Assembly consisting of a single chamber which should be elected on the basis of universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage. Subject to a reservation by the United Kingdom Delegate, the Sub-Commission also agreed to the principle of proportional representation.
- 19.
- The main point[s] of disagreement on the legislative authority were:
- (a)
- Right of initiative of the Governor in legislative matters.
- (b)
- Circumstances under which the Governor could comment upon or suspend legislative measures.
II.—Executive Authority
- 20.
- Setting aside the position of the Governor, there was agreement that there should be a Council of Government, exercising executive authority elected by the Assembly and responsible to it.
- 21.
- The U.S. and U.K. Delegations proposed that the Governor should not preside over or be a member of the Council of Government but should simply have the right to attend the meetings of the Council of Government without the right of vote, and to speak on all matters affecting the responsibilities of his office. The Deputy-Governor and the Director of the Free Port Administration would have a similar right. Under the new U.S. and U.K. draft of Article 15, the exercise of executive authority by the Council of Government would be specifically subject to the responsibilities vested in the Governor under the Statute; and the U.K. Delegation made it clear that its agreement to the new article was based upon the understanding that the Governor retained all the powers provided for in the other draft Articles of the Permanent Statute proposed by the U.S. and U.K. Delegations.
- 22.
- The Delegations of the U.S.S.R., of Yugoslavia and of Poland, considering that the executive authority, embodied in the Government of the territory of Trieste, must be constituted by, and be fully responsible to, the popular Assembly, have held the view that the Governor cannot be a member of the Government nor intervene in any way in the sphere of the executive authority.
III.—The Governor
- 23.
- According to the U.S.S.R. delegate, supported by the Polish and Yugoslav delegates, it would be wrong to grant any executive powers to the Governor; the whole executive power should be vested in the Government appointed by and responsible to the popular Assembly.
- 24.
- The three Delegations have been particularly opposed to the maintenance of public order being made a responsibility of the Governor, [Page 627] and have declared themselves against all the reserve and special powers of the Governor, contained in the British, United States and French drafts.
- 25.
- On the other hand, the U.K. and U.S. delegates felt that the Governor
should be provided with special powers for exceptional user’ He should
be able to declare a state of siege and he should have reserve powers
(Articles 21 and 22) for the following purposes:
Observance of the Statute including protection of basic human rights and the maintenance of integrity and independence, public order and security.
- 26.
- The U.S. and U.K. delegates emphasized that these reserve powers should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances but that these circumstances would not necessarily demand the prior proclamation of a state of seige.
- 27.
- The Australian delegate supported these views.
- 28.
- In addition, the U.K. and U.S. delegates felt that in the normal
exercise of his responsibilities, the Governor should have certain
limited prerogatives in the executive domain, namely:
- (1)
- conduct of foreign relations;
- (2)
- maintenance of public order and security;
- (3)
- right, subject to safeguards, to dismiss any official for conduct incompatible with the Governor’s responsibilities to the Security Council (it being understood that all officials would hold office under the authority of the Governor);
- (4)
- right to appoint members of the judiciary on the advice of the Council of Government, and, subject to safeguards, to dismiss such members for conduct incompatible with the responsibilities of their office;
- (5)
- right of pardon and reprieve.
- 29.
- From its conception of the Governor’s role, the French delegation does not envisage, as regards the powers of the Governor, such extensive applications as the U.K. and U.S. delegations.
- 30.
- The Australian delegate took the same view and emphasized that the Governor’s powers should not entail more interference with local administration than was essential for the discharge of his responsibilities to the Security Council.
- 31.
- The Netherlands delegate submitted the following suggestions: the executive as well as the legislative powers should normally be in the hands of the locally constituted bodies and exercised by them in conformity with the Statute and the Constitution. The Governor’s power in the first place should consist in supervising their activities and safeguarding the independence and integrity of the Free Territory, the observance of the Statute, of the Constitution and of the decisions of the Security Council, including the giving effect to minority rights and the requirements of efficient government. He may always [Page 628] take part in the meetings of the local bodies and give advice. In case legislative or executive measures should infringe the above principles, the Governor may bring these measures before the Security Council for its decision; the Governor should have the right to suspend such measures and to take provisional action if the Government does not remedy the situation. Foreign affairs should be conducted in constant and complete consultation with the Governor. The Governor may declare a state of siege whenever he considers public peace and order to be seriously disturbed, thereby endangering the status of the Territory. In these circumstances, he should possess positive legislative and executive powers for the exercise of which he should be responsible to the Security Council. Normally, the responsibility for public security and safety should lie with the Trieste Government; a Director of public security should be appointed by the Security Council and should be a foreigner. A permanent Deputy Governor may thus be dispensed with.
IV.—Demilitarization of the Free Territory
- 32.
- There was agreement on general lines that the Free Territory of Trieste should be demilitarized. The U.S.S.R. delegate stated that it should also be declared neutral. This view was supported by the Polish and Yugoslav delegates.
- 33.
- The U.K. delegate supported by the U.S., French and Australian delegates felt it should be clearly stated that demilitarization should not affect in any way the fulfilment of the responsibilities of the Security Council.
V.—Economic Questions, Free Port and Transit Facilities
- 34.
- The U.S.S.R. delegate stated he was in favour of a customs union
between the Free Territory and Yugoslavia and referred in this
connection to point 4 of the proposal made by the Soviet delegation on
September 16, 1946, which reads as follows:
“4. In order to ensure favourable conditions for the economic development of the Free Territory of Trieste, there should be established between the Free Territory and Yugoslavia, such economic cooperation as customs union, joint administration of railways of the Free Territory of Trieste, etc.”
- 35.
- The delegations of Poland and of Yugoslavia have shared the views of the delegation of U.S.S.R., but have declared themselves in favour of a real union between the Territory of Trieste and Yugoslavia, in view of the fact that Trieste is Yugoslavia’s only large port and that a close economic union with Yugoslavia is the only means whereby Trieste can achieve economic development and prosperity. Yugoslavia had the greatest part in the railway traffic of Trieste; she is the only country which is in a position to give a full measure of [Page 629] employment to the industry of Trieste, and to which this industry is really necessary.
- 36.
- The U.S. delegate made it quite clear that in his view, the status of the Free Territory would be incompatible with economic associations of an exclusive character with any other country. His delegation therefore rejected all proposals of this nature put forward by the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav delegations. The Australian, French, Netherlands and U.K. delegations were in agreement with this statement of principle whereas the Polish delegation shared the views embodied in the Yugoslav proposal.
- 37.
- There was general agreement, that the Free Territory should have its own monetary system, subject to a reservation by the Yugoslav delegation supported by the Polish delegation that the monetary system of Trieste be linked with the dinar. The Netherlands delegation suggested that the Free Territory should be made a member of the International Monetary Fund.
- 38.
- The French delegation proposed that the whole Territory of Trieste should be made into a free customs zone. The Netherlands delegation supported the French view.
- 39.
- There was general agreement that there should be a Free Port within the Territory of Trieste and that it should be established by means of an international instrument.
- 40.
- Both the U.S.S.R. and the Yugoslav delegations were in favour of creating special port zones under exclusive Yugoslav and Italian jurisdictions, the U.S.S.R. delegation pointing out that these zones should be within the Free Port itself. The Polish delegation supported the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav views; the other delegations felt that the creation of such special zones was unnecessary and incompatible with the status of the Free Territory. There was no objection however to the granting by the Government of the Free Territory, if practicable, of special facilities of a commercial nature, to countries requiring such facilities.
- 41.
- The U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav delegations were of the opinion that the creation of the Free Port should be dealt with in an independent and separate document which should be submitted to the Security Council for approval, while the other delegations thought that the instrument of the Free Port should form an annex to the Peace Treaty.
- 42.
- With regard to the transit traffic to and from Trieste, the Netherlands delegation, supported by the U.S., U.K., French and Australian delegates, suggested that the parties to the Peace Treaty should undertake not to impede such traffic in any way. The sub-commission felt that this matter should be referred to the Commission.
- 43.
- There was agreement on the point that ships could be registered in Trieste, but the U.S.S.R., Polish and Yugoslav delegations did not see any necessity for including such a provision in the Statute.
VI.—Citizenship
- 44.
- There was a general agreement that the provisions relating to citizenship should be included both in the Peace Treaty and the Statute.
- 45.
- There was a certain measure of agreement as to the criteria of citizenship. It was agreed that the date mentioned in Article 15 of the Treaty (June 10th, 1940) should be adopted for the required condition of domicile. There was no agreement however on the proposal of the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav delegations to make continuous residence until the coming into force of the Peace Treaty a second requisite for citizenship nor was there agreement on the exclusion from citizenship, as proposed in the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav drafts, of certain categories of persons because of their past political record. The French delegate, in opposing this exclusion, proposed to replace the relevant paragraph of the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav drafts by the text of Article 38 of the Peace Treaty with Italy dealing with War Criminals. The U.S. and U.K. delegations considered that the criterion for determining original citizenship should be domicile in the Territory on June 10th, 1940 on the ground that this was the last date on which the real intent of the inhabitants could be determined.
- 46.
- There was also objection to the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav drafts supported by the Polish delegate to extend on the basis of a simple declaration on their part citizenship of the Free Territory to all former Austro-Hungarian nationals who had left that area after October 28, 1918.
- 47.
- The Australian and Netherlands delegations felt that there was no objection to including in the Statute a provision facilitating the conditions of naturalization in the case of such persons. The other delegations felt however that the question of naturalization should be dealt with in the Constitution.
VII.—Provisional Government
- 48.
- The sub-commission held no more than a brief discussion on the general question of the provisional government and did not have time to discuss the detailed provisions of the U.K., Yugoslav and U.S. proposals.
- 49.
- The Soviet delegate proposed that an inter-allied commission should be established consisting of the representatives of U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R. and France, which after the entry into force of the Peace Treaty should form a provisional government of the Free [Page 631] Territory. For this purpose, the inter-allied commission should consult the local democratic parties and organizations.
- 50.
- The Soviet delegate also proposed that all foreign troops stationed in the Free Territory of Trieste should be withdrawn within 30 days from the coming into force of the Peace Treaty.
- 51.
- The Yugoslav delegate briefly explained the main ideas underlying his proposals relating to the provisional government of Trieste and which constituted the Yugoslav proposal for Annex 9 of the Peace Treaty. The Yugoslav proposal provided for the constitution upon the coming into force of the Peace Treaty, of an inter-allied commission composed of representatives of the U.S., the U.S.S.R., the U.K. and France. This Commission should exercise the powers of the representative of the Security Council, pending the election of the popular Assembly of Trieste. The Commission should have at its disposal for the maintenance of public order, contingents of the four Powers’ forces, of 1,000 officers and men each. These joint forces should be withdrawn within a period of not more than one month after the election of the Assembly. The Commission should appoint a provisional government, composed of four Italian and two Yugoslav representatives, which would exercise the executive authority and prepare the elections for the Constituent Assembly. The provisional government should form a provisional Assembly composed of forty Italian and twenty Yugoslav representatives. In this way, democratic principles would be safeguarded also in the transitional period.
- 52.
- The U.S. and U.K. delegates maintained that the responsibility of the Security Council in respect to the Territory should start from the day that the Territory was created. In their view the first days in which the Territory was under the provisional regime would be of the utmost importance for the future maintenance of the independence of the Territory and for its future well being. Adequate provisions should therefore be made to ensure that during this period the responsibility of the Security Council was thoroughly protected. The agent of the Security Council should immediately assume office when the responsibility of the Council begins and he must have sufficient power to enable him to carry out these responsibilities. He would have to work out in consultation with the people of the Territory, the machinery necessary to realize fully the democratic provisions of the permanent Statute. This realization must take place in an orderly and progressive way. The Security Council would have to determine what troop contingents could be withdrawn and whether other troops were necessary. The Australian delegate generally supported their views.
- 53.
- The U.K. delegate explained the main lines of the project submitted by the U.K. delegation on the basis of the above principles. He [Page 632] stressed the need for the preservation of peace and stability in the Free Territory during the critical transitional period and drew attention to the fact that the U.K. proposal contemplated as a matter of convenience that available U.S. and U.K. personnel and military contingents should as from the entry into force of the Treaty be at the disposal of the Governor as the agent of the Security Council until such time as the Security Council should decide that adequate and alternative provision had been made for the good administration and public order of the Free Territory.
- 54.
- The U.K. and U.S. delegates also considered that special economic provisions would be needed in this interim period pending final determination of these questions.
- 55.
- With regard to the creation of an inter-allied commission as suggested by the U.S.S.R. delegate, the U.S. delegate drew attention to the fact that Article 16, para. 6 of the Peace Treaty mentioned only the appointment of a Governor in connection with both the provisional and permanent Statute.
- 56.
- The French delegation reminded the sub-commission that their draft Statute, as contained in Doc.C.P.(IT/P) Doc.40, set forth various provisions which they proposed for the interim period. Of these, the most important relate to the organisation of the first elections, to certain special powers granted to the Governor during the said period and to the maintenance of order by troop contingents of an international character under the authority of the Security Council.
- 57.
- The Netherlands delegate stated that he associated himself with the French proposal insofar as it concerned international contingents.
- The degree mark indicates sub-paragraph.↩
- The Yugoslav Delegation made a general reservation report to the final name to be given to the territory of Trieste. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
-
The Yugoslav and U.S.S.R. Delegations proposed the following addition to this sentence:
… freedom of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communication; inviolability of domicile; the right of public instruction in Slovene, Italian and Croat languages. No restriction can be made on the grounds of the use of, or the lack of knowledge of one of the official languages, or of any differences existing between them. [Footnote in the source text.]
↩ - The French Delegation did not accept the words between brackets. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- The Yugoslav Delegation reserved its position in regard to the words between brackets. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- The United Kingdom Delegation has reserved its views on the words between brackets. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- The U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav Delegations made a general reservation in regard to the final name to be given to the Council of Government. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- U.S., French and U.K. proposal. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- U.S. and U.K. proposal. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- French, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav proposal. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- U.S., French and U.K. proposal. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- The U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav Delegations considered that this sentence was unnecessary. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- The following omission indicated in the source text.↩
- The following omission indicated in the source text.↩
- The following omission indicated in the source text.↩
-
The French Delegation was willing to substitute for the words between brackets the following words:
… in consultation with the President of the Assembly.
[Footnote in the source text.]
↩ -
The Yugoslav Delegation accepted the text of the U.S.S.R. Delegation with the addition of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Yugoslav draft which reads as follows: The Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia undertakes to represent the Free City of Trieste and its citizens in its relations with foreign countries. Methods of representation shall be determined by special agreement between the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and the Free City of Trieste.
Any agreements which the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia may conclude on behalf of the Free City of Trieste shall come into force when they have been ratified by the National Assembly of the Free City of Trieste.
[Footnote in the source text.]
↩ - The United Kingdom Delegation has reserved its views on the words between brackets. [Footnote in the source text.]↩
- The French Delegation reserved its position as to the Croatian language being admitted as the third official language. [Footnote in the source text.]↩