REPORTS OF THE COMMISSIONS



377



  The Commission had before it only the U.K. proposal which is
shown in the Draft Treaty.
  Eight Delegations voted in favour of this proposal (Australia,
[Belgium] France, Greece, India, Netherlands, Union of South
Africa, United Kingdom).
  Four Delegations abstained (Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, New
Zealand).
  Eight Delegations voted against (IU.S.A., Byelorussia, China,
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia).
  The Commission took note of a reservation made by the Canadian
Delegation concerning Annex 7 as a whole. In accordance with this
reservation, the Canadian Delegation abstains from participating in
the vote on the annex. The Canadian Delegation will have more to say
on this question later in Plenary Session, after a more detailed study
of the manner in which Annex 7 will apply to Federal States.
  Therefore the Commission submits for the consideration of the
Plenary Conference:
  (1) The text of the British proposal on Contracts, against which
less than two-thirds of the members of the Commission voted.
  (2) The U.K. and Soviet texts concerning periods of prescription,
which each obtained eight votes, and also the reservation of the U.S.
I)elegration considering this annex, which was supported by eleven
Delegations.
  (3) The U.K. proposal concerning negotiable instruments and the
clauses relating to Stock Exchange contracts and to the sale of col-
lateral which were supported by eight delegations.
           I-ANNEX 8 PRIZE COURTS AND JUDGMENTS
  Part A-Prize Courts-The matter referred to the Commission was
the proposal of the Council of Foreign Ministers. This proposal was
adopted unanimously by the Commission.
  Part E] Judgments;
  1. The Commission had to deal with 3 proposals, wihich are Vrepro-
duced in the text of the Draft Treaty.
  (1) U.S. proposal supported by the U.S.S.R.
  (2) French proposal.
  (3) U.K. proposal.
  A\ll these three proposals (see Draft Treaty, page 86) 9 provide for
the measures to be taken for the revision of judgments rendered during
the war in cases in which the nationals of the United Nations had been
unable to defend their cause satisfactorily.
  These proposals differed from each other on several points: prin-
cipally as regards the competent jurisdiction for the revision of such
judgments and as regards the obligation to be uidertaken by the

39Ante, pp. 58-59.
    219-115-70- 25