United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) online

. (page 66 of 116)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 66 of 116)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

sembly's competence in this matter or. failing this,
to ask the Four Powers to agree on an interpreta-
tion of the relevant provisions of the Peace Treaty.
Mr. McNeil (U.K.) said that whatever the
authors of paragraphs 2 and :'> of annex XI had
in mind, they definilely did not ])rovide for arbi-
trary action with respect to the frontiers of in-
dependent stales. Mr. Jessu]) agreed with Mr.
McNeil. Ml'. Hood (Australia), and Mr. Aruti-
Uiiian thai the boundai'y question had been dis-
])oscd of by the Subcoiniiiittee al a previous
meeting and should nol be iTopened at (his time.
lie said that he would study Mr. Arutiuniaifs
in(erpie(a(ion and s(a(e his own views later. Mr.
Couve de Murville said llial he conid nol be as

"categoric" as Mr. Arutiunian because the Treaty
provisions were very vague. He suggested that
the matter might be' studied by the Four Powers
or by the Assembly Legal Committee. Fawzi Bey
supported Mr. Couve" de Murville's view, and,
since the Subcommittee took no action, he re-
served the right to raise the matter again in the
First Coimuittee.

Economic and Financial Provisions

On October 14, United Kingdom had submitted
a proposal to the effect that the economic and
financial provisions arising out of paragraph 19,
annex XIV of the Treaty of Peace with Italy
should be considered at the fifth regular ses-
sion of the General Assembly. He now pointed
out that such a study entailed many intricate tech-
nical problems with respect to property, currency,
and otlier matters and that it could best be under-
taken by the athninistering powers which would
present a report on the whole problem to the next
regular session of the General xVssembly. Fawzi
Bey ( Egypt) was of the opinion that such a study
sliould be made by the commissioner in consulta-
tion with his council and tlie administering powers.
Mr. Arce (Argentina), although favorable to the
United Kingdom suggestion, maintained that the
new Libyan state should participate in decisions
on economic and financial prolilems affecting its
future. ]\Ir. Couve de Murville (France) sup-
l)orted the United Kingdom proposal, pointing out
that there was already a requirement of reports
from the administering authorities and the com-
missioner. jMr. Hood (Australia) suggested that
the question might be resolved by a note in the
report to the First Committee that the matter had
been brought up by the United Kingdom, and the
First Committee would undertake to supply the
General Assembly with the necessary information.
This idea eventually prevailed; the United King-
dom withdrew its jiroposal, and it was agreed that
final action would be taken on the report as before
being sent to Committee l.**'

Economic and Social Prohh ni.

Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 66 of 116)