Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎309r] (622/1220)

29
133. At the penultimate meeting of the General Committee M. Politis
announced in an offhand way, as if merely condescending to give the meeting the
benefit of his va.st experience in points of form at international conferences, that
several delegations had asked him whether they could be held in any way
responsible for the correctness of the descriptions of the heads of States, members
of delegations, &c., in the preamble of the convention and in the Final Act; he
therefore took'this opportunity to say that each delegation was responsible solely
for the correctness of their own descriptions and those of their own heads of
States. This explanation was repeated again at the final meeting of the committee.
134. The Italian delegation did not take the point up at all. Either it
escaped their notice, or else they were themselves glad of M. Politis’s declaration
in view of the fact that another of the signatories of the Montreux instruments
was the Spanish Government of Valencia, whom Italy does not recognise.
(2) Position of Yugoslavia.
135. The Yugoslav representative at Geneva approached the United
Kingdom delegation and stated that his Government had requested His Majesty’s
Government and the French Government to look after their interests at this
136. The Yugoslav Charge d’Affaires in London had, in fact, approached
the Foreign Office, but with a more restricted request, namely, that His Majesty’s
Government should admit the Yugoslav contention of equality of rights with the
capitulatory Powers, and should use their good offices for the definitive recognition
of that contention at the conference. The Yugoslav Charge d’Affaires had been
informed in reply that His Majesty’s Government would willingly use their good
offices for the recognition that Yugoslav nations should, during the transitional
regime be subject to the jurisdiction of the Mixed Courts as foreigners m the
same manner as the nationals of the capitulatory Powers, and this assurance has
been realised by paragraph 1 of the Egyptian declaration m the Final Act. It
will be observed from the foregoing that the request of the Yugoslav Charge
d’Affaires was, in fact, less comprehensive than that referred to by the Yugoslav
representative at Geneva, and also that His Majest) s Governmen s rep y e
slightly short of the assurance asked for, since they could not assert that Yugoslav
nationals would be in the same position as nationals of the capitulatory Powers in
absolutely every respect. A similar reply was returned by the delegation to tiie
Yugoslav representative at Geneva.
(3) The Position of Roumania.
137. The Roumanian Minister at The Hague approached the United
Kingdom delegation with two requests : (a) That Roumanians shou S
equal treatment with the nationals of capitulatory Powers during e
period; and (5) that one of the new judges in the Mixed Courts should be
Roumanian. (The Roumanian Minister in London made a sl “ 11 1 1 , ar .^fp^^ nian
Foreign Office.) As regards the first point, M. Pella was to a
subjects were amply covered by the terms of the Egyptian circ t eed
Powers of the 3rd February, and, moreover, the Treaty of Ber m, > § 1 n,
them most-favoured-nation rights as regards capitulatory pnvi ^
paragraph 1 of the Egyptian declaration in the Final Act ^
request. As regards the second request he was merely told pressure
taken thereof. (The delegation did not, in fact, feel justifie i g »
on the Egyptians over this question.)
(4) The Position of Albania.
138. The Albanians, like the nationals of certain i n c iyil
Japan and Bulgaria, are subject to the jurisdiction of e ^ , Court juris-
and commercial matters as the result of a decision ^v/rLprl Courts have no
prudence, but in penal matters (in which the ^toveniment
jurisdiction) they are subject to the native courts. , ,, , assimilated to
tfiade a determined effort to ensure that their subjec s ag t y g wou i(j
those of the capitulatory Powers during the transitiona p > courts p ena l
have entailed removing them from the jurisdiction f^ elves justified in
matters, His Majesty’s Government did not consider themselves jus