At a meeting in Strasbourg during the first week of August 1951, the Committee of Ministers made the following decisions: 1) referred back to a committee of experts the problem of refugees; 2) approved the addition of clauses guaranteeing the right to hold property, the right of parents to send their children to church schools and the right to participate in free elections, to the European Convention on Human Rights; 3) agreed to a change in the rules of procedure permitting the ministers, by unanimous decision, to allow those states having no interest in a particular action to abstain from voting on it. This last change would permit such projects as the Schuman Plan to be approved by ministers of the interested countries without involving others.

On September 15, 1951 the seventh session of the North Atlantic Council met at Ottawa. At this meeting, members were represented by their foreign ministers, defense ministers, and economic or finance ministers. Press reports indicated that the “Big Three” (United Kingdom, France, United States) intended to press for: 1) creation of a unified European army to include German units of “division” strength; 2) addition of Greece and Turkey; 3) revision of the Italian peace treaty in order to release Italy from limitations on its armed forces; 4) negotiation of a settlement of the Italian-Yugoslav dispute over Trieste.

The Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, meeting on August 29, 1951 issued a declaration at the close of the meeting stating that the broad objectives of the OEEC policies would be to expand total production in western Europe by 25 percent over the next five years. By this increase in production, an improvement in living standards and further social progress could be achieved while meeting defense requirements. “Conditions from country to country may vary, but an expansion of this size is well within the power of the European economy as a whole through the effective use of its resources… Europe possesses great national resources, a large industrial potential, a skilled and ample labor force, and a capacity to achieve rapid technical progress. The full mobilization of these resources requires foresight, resolution, a cooperative effort, and the pursuit of policies based on social justice. The governments are convinced that such policies are essential in order to preserve the gains already made and to realize continued progress. Social justice demands a distribution of burdens and benefits that will promote the well-being of the less favored sections of the community.”

Meeting on July 7, 1951, the Council of the Organization of American States accepted the offer of the government of Panama that the seat of the Second Extraordinary meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council, called for August 20, should be at Panama City. In subsequent meetings, the Council took action, on the initiative of the representative of Mexico, toward implementing Article 76 of the Charter of Bogotá by establishing a provisional Committee for Cultural Action. The provisional committee was to be appointed by the first meeting of the Inter-American Cultural Council, which was to meet at Mexico City from September 10 to 25, 1951. In accordance with the Charter, the permanent members of the Committee for Cultural Action were to be designated at the Tenth Inter-American Conference. Further, the Council decided to establish a special committee which would be entrusted with the responsibility of studying the procedure that should be followed in order to define the position of the American countries in regard to the Universal Convention on Copyright sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and in order to determine the way in which the rules of Pan American conventions could be brought into accord with the proposed universal rules.

With the development of certain administrative frictions (concerning coal quotas, occupation costs, and the scrap metal treaty) between the western occupying powers and the German Federal Republic, early indications were that if the talk of “contractual agreements” did materialize it would reserve, for the occupying powers, wide controls over important areas of west Germany's internal and external affairs. In Washington, however, a general modification of approach was noted during the September discussions between the United States Secretary of State (Acheson), the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary (Morrison), and the French Foreign Minister (Schuman), preparatory to the Ottawa meetings of the North Atlantic Council.

The three foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and United States met in Washington from September 10 to 14, 1951. The agenda of the conference included items on: 1) the general situation and measures to contain communist expansion; 2) the Atlantic command and the United Kingdom suggestion for a middle east command; 3) inclusion of Greece and Turkey in the Atlantic Pact;1 4) the French plan for a European army with German units; 5) change in the three governments’ relations with Germany; 6) revision of the Italian peace treaty; 7) French and United Kingdom objections to United States activities in regard to Spain; 8) the Korean war and the consequences of the Japanese treaty on the situation in the far east; 9) war in Indo-China and the French request foreconomic and military aid; 10) question of the Austrian treaty; 11) attitude to be adopted towards communist China; 12) Iranian oil situation and the situation in the middle east; 13) economic and political measures to protect the interests of the western nations behind the “iron curtain”. This item had been suggested by the United States as a result of the Oatis case.

Japanese Peace Treaty: In response to invitations sent by the United States, as the host government, delegates from 51 nations met at San Francisco from September 4 to 8, 1951 for the purpose of concluding and signing a peace treaty with Japan. Copies of a final draft treaty had been circulated to all members on August 13, as well as two draft declarations by the government of Japan and a draft protocol which was to be open to signature at any time. Further revisions, which had been incorporated in this final draft after comments had been received from participating countries on the July 3 and July 20 drafts, included insertions and substitutions dealing with the Allied Powers recognition of the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters; the disposition of property of Japan and Japanese nationals; the return of Japanese military forces to their homes; the payment of reparations; and acts and omissions of the period of occupation. Among the delegates at the conference, press reports stated, were representatives from the Indo-Chinese states, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, which had made official requests to participate in the conference — requests which had been strongly supported by France.

The twenty-first annual report of the Bank for International Settlements, which covered the period from April 1, 1950, to March 31, 1951, stated that, in spite of the changing trends in prices, production, and international trade and payments caused by the Korean conflict, 1950 was “essentially a year of continued consolidation of that astonishing progress which Europe had been making … since the crisis of 1947”.

At the first meeting of the foreign ministers of the British Commonwealth of Nations in Colombo, Ceylon, January 9 to 15, 1950, the Minister of External Affairs of Australia (Spender) proposed a program of economic assistance to south and southeast Asia aimed at supplying, first, the necessary consumers goods to maintain a minimum standard of living in areas now on the verge of starvation; second, assistance necessary to increase production; and, third, capital equipment. The proposal was referred to the several Commonwealth governments, as, in the words of the final communiqué, “Executive decisions are not taken at Commonwealth meetings of this kind; but, as a result of the valuable exchange of views which has taken place, recommendations for the furtherance of economic development in South and Southeast Asia will be submitted to Commonwealth Governments for their consideration”.

The notes of protest which the United States, the United Kingdom, and France sent to the Danube Commission governments on November 15, 1949, were answered by the Soviet Union on March 9, 1950, and by Bulgaria on March 28, 1950. Both governments rejected the western protests, the Soviet note commenting that the Danube Commission's Convention of August 18, 1948, eliminated the injuristices of previous international waterways concepts and established the jurisdiction of the riparian states. The note added that the Soviet government would not consider the protests registered by Belgium, Italy and Greece since they were not members of the Danube River Commission under the previous navigational treaty of 1921.

The International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries was established in accordance with the provisions of the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries which was concluded at Washington on February 8, 1949, andentered into force on July 3, 1950. The Convention, which was signed by Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom for itself and Newfoundland, and the United States, established an International Commission with the following purposes and responsibilities: to keep under continuous review all the pertinent information concerning the international fisheries of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean; to coordinate and disseminate all information concerning such fisheries; and to make recommendations to member governments on conservation action deemed necessary to maintain the fisheries at a maximum level of sustained production.

The raw materials shortage, acute after the outbreak of the Korean war, became even more severe after the Chinese “volunteers” entered the conflict. The growing fear that inadequate supplies would be available in some of the countries participating in the defense effort, led to widespread requests on the part of nations for an international coordination of commodity problems.

The Twelfth International Penal and Penitentiary Congress met at The Hague onAugust 14, 1950. The last such Congress had been held in Berlin in 1935. The Twelfth Congress dealt with such matters as the problems encountered in the application of penal law, the problem of a code of penal execution, and measures which might be substituted for the penal sentence in order to take into account the needs of a humane defense of society. The International Penal and Penitentiary Commission1 held meetings immediately preceding and following the congress on the question of its relationship with the United Nations. The prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders — which had been the principal fields of activity of IPPC since its organization in 1872 — had been matters of concern to the United Nations, in particular the Social Commission of ECOSOC, since 1946. Because of a desire to avoid duplication of effort, and because 18 of the 26 members of IPPC were also Members of the United Nations, representatives of IPPC and of the United Nations conducted negotiations in 1949 and 1950 for the integration of IPPC into the United Nations Secretariat

The United Nations Tin Conference had not yet been reconvened during the period under review. The conference, which was held in Geneva from October 25 to November 21, 1950 was adjourned when the prolonged deliberations revealed that further governmental study was necessary if there was to be any agreement on the numerous proposals for international control of tin stocks and prices. The “Paris Draft”, previously drawn up by the International Tin Study Group, had not been able to satisfy the demands of the widely divergent producing and consuming interests. In a unanimous resolution which conceded the probability that “difficulties will arise concerning tin” which would require inter-governmental action, the conference was able to agree only that “when a surplus or shortage of tin is expected to occur, inter-governmental cooperation and action, in accordance with the principles of the Havana Charter, would be desirable to meet such difficulties”. The conference chairman was instructed to keep the work of the International Tin Study Group under review and to consult with the conference steering committee and the United Nations Secretary-General about holding a second conference at a later date.

On July 19, the United States Department of State announced that the International Whaling Commission would convene at Capetown, South Africa, for its third annual meeting on July 23, 1951. The third meeting was to be concerned with such matters as possible amendments of the schedule of regulations controlling whaling; action taken by member governments to promulgate certain laws and regulations concerning whaling, in conformity with the provisions of the 1946 convention; the method of reporting infractions of the regulations and the penalities for such infractions; the status of ratification and adherence of several countries to the convention; possible amendments to the rules of procedure; and administrative and budgetary matters.

In the period following the Rubber Study Group's seventh meeting, May 2 to 5, 1950, press reports from western markets indicated that the fear (and the subsequent reality) of a world crisis had lead to heavy stockpiling of rubber and to speculative buying—both of which contributed to higher prices. London financial circles, while expressing the views that the Rubber Study Group's 1950 consumption estimates were too low and that the market could bear the high prices, were reported to have taken a conservative view of the boom, fearing that the unrealistically high prices might force the United States to activate more of its synthetic rubber plants and thus make the position of natural rubber producers less secure. A press release of June 9, 1950, revealed that the United States government had directed the attention of the world's rubber producing and marketing countries to the “serious implications” of the price movements and on July 7 the Reconstruction Finance Corporation reopened three United States synthetic rubber plants with a total annual production capacity of 88,000 tons. There was a definite break in rubber prices on the London market during the week following the release, on August 14, of estimates by the Rubber Study Group Secretariat which showed that the world production of rubber for June had exceeded consumption demands. This development, which press reports indicated to have been welcomed by industry representatives in London, was largely attributed to the cessation of “panic buying”.

54. By its resolution 177(II), of 21 November 1947, the General Assembly decided

“to entrust the formulation of the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal to the International Law Commission, the members of which will, in accordance with resolution 174(II), be elected at the next session of the General Assembly;”

and directed the Commission to

“(a) formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal, and

“(b) prepare a draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind, indicating clearly the place to be accorded to the principles mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above.”

In your letter of October 4, you repeated proposals made by the Federal Government March 22 and September 14, 1950, and March 9, 1951, for the holding of free general, equal, secret and direct elections in the whole of Germany.