Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Further Encounters and Methods: American and Soviet

  • Chapter
Law and Politics of the Danube

  • 37 Accesses

Abstract

While Russia’s fight for the maintenance of her exclusive domination over a large segment of the Danube waterway was taking place, and Washington and Moscow were getting ready for the final showdown at the Belgrade Conference, three other major devices were used by Soviet diplomacy which were essential if Russia intended to make full use of the river: the demand before the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations for the release of hundreds of vessels held by the United States at the end of the war, the interpretation of “German assets,” and the establishment of “joint companies.” Moscow realized from the outset that the control of the Danube without barges, navigation enterprises and shipping facilities was of little value. The Soviet Union, following the wartime devastations, was much in need of goods and services; therefore the success of each of these endeavors was vital to her own economy and to the fullest utilization of the Russian controlled sectors of the Danube River.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. At the end of the war, the Danubian fleet was reported to consist of about 2, 500 vessels, of which about two-thirds were in the Lower Danube and about one-third in the American zones of Germany and Austria. The latter consisted mostly of Hungarian, Yugoslav, Czechoslovak and other river barges that the Germans assembled in the American zones toward the end of the hostilities. See U.N. Bul., I, October 7, 1946, p. 18; U.S. Forces in Austria, Headquarters, A Review of Military Government, April 1, 1947, p. 115; Jan Yindrich, Tito v. Stalin, London, 1950, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mark W. Clark, From the Danube to the Talu, New York, 1954, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid., p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Economist, June 1, 1946, p. 880.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See U.N., Economic and Social Council, doc. E-97, August 29, 1946; doc. E-94-Rev. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  6. The Yugoslav proposal was included as the 21st item on the Council’s agenda, U.N. Bul., I, September 23, 1946, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The Czechoslovak proposal was also placed on the agenda of the Council. See U.N., Economic and Social Council, doc. E-121, September 11, 1946, p. 1. See also ibid., Official Records, 1st Yr., 3d Sess., September 21, 1946, p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid., docs. E-193, E-194, September 29, 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid., doc. E-191, September 29, 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ibid., Official Records, 1st Yr., 3d Sess., September 11, 1946, pp. 11, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  11. U.N. Bul., I, September 23, 1946, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. U.N., Economic and Social Council, op. cit., supra note 10.

    Google Scholar 

  13. The draft resolution read: “In view of the critical limitations of shipping facilities on the Danube River, which are adversely affecting the economic recovery of Southeastern Europe, the Economic and Social Council recommends that a conference of representatives from all interested states be arranged under the auspices of the United Nations, to meet in Vienna not later than 1 November for the purpose of resolving the basic problems now obstructing the resumption of international Danube traffic and establishing provisional operating and navigational regulations. “Interested States are the riparian States, States in military occupation of riparian zones, and any States whose nationals can demonstrate clear title to Danube vessels which are now located on the river, or have operated prior to the war in international Danube traffic. “As a basis for discussion in this projected conference of representatives of interested States, the Economic and Social Council submits the following recommendations: “(a) That commercial traffic be resumed on the Danube from Regensburg to the Black Sea; “(b) That security from seizure be guaranteed to all ships, their crews and cargoes; “(c) That all Danube vessels (except German) be allowed to sail under their own national flag; “(d) That adequate operating agreements be arranged between the interested States as well as the national and private shipping companies, under general supervision of the occupying powers, to permit the maximum use of the limited shipping facilities; “(e) That information be exchanged freely on conditions of navigation and that responsibility be undertaken for river maintenance over the entire length of the river.” See ibid., docs. E-94-Rev. 1, E-192, September 29, 1946; Dept. St. Bul., XV, October 13, 1946, p. 658.

    Google Scholar 

  14. U.N. Bul., I, October 7, 1946, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., pp. 5-7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. U.N. Bul., I, October 14, 1946, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dept. St. Bul., XV, December 1, 1946, pp. 986-987.

    Google Scholar 

  18. New York Times, November 12, 1946, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Clark, op. cit., pp. 7-8; idem, Calculated Risk, New York, 1950, pp. 464ff.; consult also Ferenc Nagy, The Struggle Behind the Iron Curtain, New York, 1948, pp. 229–230.

    Google Scholar 

  20. New York Times, November 12, 1946, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Consult Council on Foreign Relations, The United States in World Affairs 1945–1947, New York, 1947, pp. 422ff.; Economist, June 1, 1946, p. 880; New York Times, May 22, 1946, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Points 1,3,8 and 9 of the Potsdam Declaration concerning reparations from Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  23. James F. Byrnes, Speaking Frankly, New York, 1947, pp. 162ff.

    Google Scholar 

  24. John Foster Dulles, “We Cannot Let Ourselves Be Stymied,” Vital Speeches, XIII, May 15, 1946, p. 452. Philip Mosely relates that when, at Potsdam, he reminded Vishinsky of the London Declaration, the Russian seemed quite unaware of it. Later, in April 1947 at the Moscow meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the Russians insisted that the London understanding did not apply to Austria, and the only way to counter the Soviet view would have been “to extend the effect of the London Declaration to Austria at Potsdam.” This, however, was not done. See Philip Mosely, “The Treaty with Austria,” International Organization, IV, May 1950, pp. 219, 230.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dulles, op. cit., p. 452.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ambassador Harriman’s note had been quoted by Molotov in course of the Moscow meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers. It has not been disavowed by the State Department. See V. M. Molotov, Speeches and Statements Made at the Moscow Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers (March 10-April 24, 1947), London, 1947, pp. 47ff.

    Google Scholar 

  27. The Russian acceptance, according to Molotov, was conveyed on September 15, 1945, to the Government of the United States. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Consult Franz Heissenberger, The Economic Reconstruction of Austria 1945–1952, Washington, D.G., 1953, pp. 25–27.

    Google Scholar 

  29. The order of the Supreme Commander of Soviet occupation troops in Austria was published in the Red Army newspaper Österreichische Zeitung on July 6, 1946; for the English translation, see Dept. St. Bul., XV, July 21, 1946, p. 123.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Heissenberger, op. cit., p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Byrnes, op. cit., pp. 162-163.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dept. St. Bul., XVI, March 30, 1947, p. 571; ibid., May 4, 1947, pp. 793-794. The Council met from March 10 to April 24, 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Statement by Secretary Marshall, March 27, 1947. Ibid., April 13, 1947, pp. 653-654.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid., March 30, 1947, p. 571.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ibid., April 13, 1947, pp. 653-654.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Molotov, op. cit., pp. 47-49.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dept. St. Bul., XVI, May 11, 1947, p. 293.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ibid., May 4, 1947, pp. 793-794.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid., May 11, 1947, p. 923.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibid., May 4, 1947, pp. 793-794.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ibid., May 11, 1947, p. 923.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dept. St. Bul., XVII, December 14, 1947, pp. 1183-1184.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See The Times (London), January 27, April 5 and 6, 1948; Manchester Guardian, January 29, 1948; Soviet News, March 8, 1948, p. 3; Royal Institute of International Affairs, Survey of International Affairs, 1949–1950, London, 1953, pp. 283–284.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dept. St. Bul., XXI, July 4, 1949, pp. 858-860; Great Britain, Foreign Office, Report on the Proceedings of the Sixth Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, Paris, May 23, to June 20, 1949, Miscellaneous No. 11, London, 1949, pp. 19-21.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Dept. St. Bul., XXI, September 12, 1949, p. 399.

    Google Scholar 

  51. These principal items were incorporated in Article 22 of the Austrian State Treaty of May 15, 1955. Subsequently, by a separate Protocol dated on August 31, 1955, the Soviet Union, in accordance with an earlier Memorandum signed on April 15, 1955, agreed to return to Austria all Soviet oil property in exchange for ten million tons of oil to be delivered by Austria. The Soviet Union also agreed to return to Austria all properties of the “DDSG” in Eastern Austria in exchange for $2 million. See Izvestia, May 17 and September 1, 1955. For English texts of the Austrian State Treaty and the Memorandum, consult American Journal of International Law, XLIX, October 1955, pp. 162-194.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See E. A. Bell, “Future of Danube Shipping,” Shipping World, CXIX, August 11, 1948, p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See Hal Lehrman, Russia’s Europe, New York, 1947, p. 308.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Dept. St. Bul., XXI, September 12, 1949, p. 399.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Dept. St. Bul., XVII, August 10, 1947, p. 298.

    Google Scholar 

  56. U.S. Dept. of State, Germany 1947–1949, Washington, D.G., 1950, pp. 389–390.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Points 1, 3, 8 and 9 of the Potsdam Declaration concerning reparations from Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Consult U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Foreign Aid, The East European Economy in Relation to the European Recovery Program, Preliminary Report, Washington, D.C. 1948, pp. 38ff. On Soviet trade practices and the operation of joint companies in general, see Margaret Dewar, Soviet Trade with Eastern Europe, 1945–1949, London, 1951; see also François Fejtö, Histoire des démocraties populaires, Paris, 1952, pp. 435ff.; Ygael Gluckstein, Stalin’s Satellites in Europe, Boston, 1952, pp. 30ff.; T. E. M. McKitterick, Russian Economic Policy in Eastern Europe, Fabian International Bureau, Research Series No. 128, London, 1948, pp. 12-13; Nicholas Spulber, The Economies of Communist Eastern Europe, New York, 1957, pp. 166ff. On the Soviet position, see Hungarian-Soviet Economic Review (Budapest), 1952, p. 20; New Central European Observer (London), IV, June 1951, p. 182.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Raymond H. Fischer, “Agreements and Treaties Concluded by the USSR in 1945,” Dept. St. Bul., XV, September 1946, pp. 376–377.

    Google Scholar 

  60. The Agreement of July 19, 1945, was ratified by the Supreme Soviet on August 19, 1945. Ibid., p. 397.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See U.S. Congress, House Special Committee on Postwar Economic Policy and Planning, Eighth Report, Pt. 2, Washington, D.C., 1948, pp. 41–49. The Russians have had long experience in running some of the Soviet Republics through this device of having the titular second in command a Russian, who in fact made the final decisions. Ibid., p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  62. U.S. Congress, op. cit., supra note 58, p. 39; see also McKitterick, op. cit., pp. 12-13.

    Google Scholar 

  63. U.S. Congress, op. cit., supra note 58, p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See Fischer, op. cit., pp. 394-395; see also UNRRA, European Regional Office, Operational Analysis Paper, No. 47, p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  65. See the decrees issued by the Hungarian Government and published in the official gazette, Magyar Közlöny: Nos. 7710-1946 M.E., 24,690-1946 M.E., 14,480-1947 Korm., 4210-1947 M.E., 4220-1947 M.E., 4230-1947 M.E., 4240-1947 M.E., 4250-1947 M.E.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See especially two decrees: Nos. 4730-1946 M.E. and 4220-1947 M.E.

    Google Scholar 

  67. An account of these protests was given by the former United States Minister to Hungary. See H. F. Arthur Schoenfeld, “What Russia Has Done in Hungary,” Vital Speeches, XIV, October 15, 1947, p. 30; see also the report by Hilton who served as Assistant Commercial Attaché at Budapest from 1947 to 1949, H. J. Hilton, “Hungary: A Case History of Soviet Economic Imperialism,” Dept. St. Bul., XXV, August 27, 1951, 323ff.; consult further Council of Foreign Relations, The United States in World Affairs, 1945–1947, New York, 1947, pp. 123ff.

    Google Scholar 

  68. U.N., Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Europe, Summary Records, 13th Mtg., May 16, 1949, doc. E-ECE-Sr.4-13, pp. 20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Hungary, Law No. 28 of 1947 enacting the Trade and Navigation Agreement of July 15, 1947 between Hungary and the Soviet Union. See the official collection of laws, Országos Törvénytár, No. 23, December 31, 1947; see also ministerial decrees implementing it, Nos. 9,180-1948; 11,270-1948; 730-1949; 4,129-1949; 4,241-1949; 4,358-1949; 23-1950.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ibid. A later, secret Protocol, signed on December 9, 1947, in Moscow between Hungary and the Soviet Union, provided for the conversion of the Hungarian-Soviet jointstock companies into Soviet monopolies. See Dept. St. Bul., XXV, 1951, p. 327; the signing of the Protocol was mentioned by Izvestia on December 10, 1947, without further details.

    Google Scholar 

  71. The Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the USSR and the Bulgarian People’s Republic was signed in Moscow on April 1, 1948. For the full text, see the Bulgarian collection of laws, “Durzhaven Vestnik” (Sofia), No. 127, June 2, 1948. The Soviet-Yugoslav Shipping Company (“JUSPAD”) was set up by the Belgrade Agreement of February 4, 1947, but the joint company was terminated in August 1949, due to Tito’s quarrel with the Kremlin. For texts of the Agreement and the subsequent abrogating Protocol, see United Nations Treaty Series, CXVI, pp. 171-279, 345-399. Russia also organized a special company in the eastern zone of Austria which, though primarily military, also engaged in commercial shipping. See Mark W. Clark, Calculated Risk, New York, 1950, p. 479; Yindrich, op. cit., p. 21. Finally, it may be noted that the Soviet Union also imposed its commercial interests on Czechoslovakia through the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation signed by the two countries on December 11, 1947, in Moscow. For the text, see United Nations Treaty Series, CCXVII, pp. 35-71.

    Google Scholar 

  72. The liquidation of the joint companies took place through a series of agreements between Russia and the satellite states. See the Agreement between the Soviet Union and Hungary concerning the transfer and sale to Hungary of Soviet shares in Hungarian-Soviet joint-stock companies, signed on November 6, 1954, in Moscow, Vneshniaia Torgovlia (Moscow), No. 12, 1954, p. 43; for a similar Soviet-Bulgarian Agreement signed on October 9, 1954, in Sofia, see ibid., pp. 9, 42; for a Soviet-Rumanian Agreement signed on March 31, 1954 in Moscow, see Izvestia, September 25, 1954, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  73. In an exchange of notes in June 1948, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed on the convocation of the Belgrade Conference on July 30, 1948. See Dept. St. Bul., XIX, July 4, 1948, p. 23. For official American accounts of the Belgrade Conference, see the declarations of Ambassador Cannon of August 5, 7, 13 and 18, Dept. St. Bul., XIX, August 15, 1948, pp. 197-199; ibid., August 22, 1948, pp. 219-223; see also statements by Walter A. Radius, American delegate to the Conference, ibid., pp. 223-224; ibid., September 5, 1948, p. 283; ibid., September 12, 1948, p. 333. See further U.S. Dept. of State, Documents and State Papers, I, Washington, D.C., 1949, pp. 487-513. For unofficial Soviet accounts, see statements by A. Y. Vishinsky, Chief of the Soviet Delegation, at the Conference, in Soviet Press Translations, III, October 1, 1948, pp. 519-524; Soviet News, July 31, pp. 1-2; August 3, pp. 1-4; August 4, pp. 1-2; August 5, pp. 1-3; August 6, pp. 1-3; August 7, pp. 1-4; August 9, pp. 1-2; August 10, pp. 1-2; August 11, pp. 1-2; August 12, pp. 1-2; August 13, pp. 1-2; August 16, pp. 1-2; August 17, pp. 1-2; August 20, pp. 1-4, (1948). On the Belgrade Conference in general, see Milan Bartos, “La conférence du Danube à Beograd,” Yougoslavie, II, October 1948, pp. 25-29; Jacques Benoist, “La conférence de Belgrade sur le statut du Danube,” La navigation du Rhin, XX, October 1948, p. 411; D. D. Borarov, Dunaiskaia konferencia, Moscow, 1948; Louis Imbert, “Le régime juridique actuel du Danube,” Revue générale du droit international public, LV, 1951, pp. 76-94; Joseph L. Kunz, “The Danube Regime and the Belgrade Conference,” American Journal of International Law, XLIII, 1949, pp. 104-109; Walter A. Radius, “The Issues at Belgrade Were Clearly Drawn,” Dept. St. Bul., XIX, September 19, 1948, pp. 384-385; I. M. Sinclair, “The Danube Convention of 1948,” British Yearbook of International Law, XXV, 1948, pp. 398-404; I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, “Die Belgrader Donaukonvention von 1948,” Archiv des Völkerrechts, VII, No. 3, 1958, pp. 253-261: see also my article, “Internationalization of the Danube: A Lesson in History,” Journal of Public Law, VIII, no. 1, 1959, pp. 125, 146ff.

    Google Scholar 

  74. U.S. Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 73, p. 488.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Dept. St. Bul., XIX, August 15, 1949, p. 200.

    Google Scholar 

  76. There were 129 such votes.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See Articles 1 and 9 of the American draft convention, Belgrade Conference Doc. Plen. 19 of August 6, 1948; consult also Article 2 of the Paris Convention of 1921.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. For an English text of the Belgrade Convention, see United Nations Treaty Series, XXXIII, pp. 197-222.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Article 41 of the Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Dept. St. Bul., XIX, September 5, 1948, p. 292.

    Google Scholar 

  81. U.S. Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 73, p. 487.

    Google Scholar 

  82. In a statement made at the time of the voting on the Soviet draft, Vishinsky indicated that, despite the fact that the Soviet Union was entitled to two seats on the new Commission, he would waive the Ukrainian right to membership on the Commission and the Soviet Union would represent itself and all its constituent republics. The Ukraine remained, however, as one of the signatories to the Convention. See U.S. Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 73, p. 491.

    Google Scholar 

  83. The Austrian representative, Ambassador Rosenberg, informed the Conference that the limitation on Austrian participation would prevent its formal agreement to any decision in which it had not participated. He emphasized the importance of the Austrian stretch of the Danube and of Austria in Danube shipping and requested that the ten participating countries grant her full status at the Conference. In this he was supported by the United States, the United Kingdom and France. This request met with a violent attack on the Western Powers by the Soviet delegate for “holding up” the settlement of an Austrian treaty. The Russian representative also added that his objection to Austria’s full participation in the Conference was based on a desire to carry out the letter of the decision of the Conference of Foreign Ministers. See Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 73, p. 493.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Article 1 of Annex 1 to the Convention provides that a representative of Austria shall enter the Danube Commission after the question of a treaty with Austria has been settled.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Article 5 of the Belgrade Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Article 10 of the American draft convention.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Arguing for the abolition of international control, the Soviet delegate stated that “these are new times and for new times new tunes are appropriate. In new times no one should sing old tunes.” U.S. Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 73, p. 492. A somewhat different version of the nature of internationalization was given by N. Ninov in his article on “La Conférence Danubienne et la Bulgarie,” La Bulgarie Nouvelle (Sofia), August 10, 1948, p. 5: “Internationalization of the Danube was based on the presumption of the incapacity of Turkey to administer her river domain in accordance with natural law. England and France had been considered as trustees by the international community to act in the place of and in behalf of a feeble Turkey.”

    Google Scholar 

  88. Dept. St. Bul., XIX, August 22, 1948, p. 244.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Articles 9 and 17 of the American draft.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Belgrade Convention, Articles 5-19.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ibid., Article 8.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Ibid., Articles 20-33.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Dept. St. Bul., XIX, September 5, 1948, p. 285.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Article 25 of the American draft.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Article 42 of the American draft.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Article 45 of the Belgrade Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  97. U.S. Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 72, pp. 494ff.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Article 46 of the Belgrade Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the Supplementary Protocol to the Belgrade Convention. It may be of interest to note that the European Danube Commission convened in an extraordinary session at Rome on March 9-13, 1953. The representatives of France, Italy and Great Britain took part and the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany appeared in the capacity of an observer. Rumania, signatory to the supplementary Protocol to the Belgrade Convention did not participate. The Conference took note of the Commission’s assets and decided that the European Danube Commission would continue to exist until dissolved with the agreement of all of its members and would provisionally seat in Rome. See Revue de la navigation intérieure et Rhénane, XXV, 1953, p. 185.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Article 44 of the American draft. The American proposal also contained a provision in Article 43 on amending procedure.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Dept. St. Bul., XIX, September 12, 1948, p. 333. A British proposal to submit the validity of the 1921 Convention to the International Court of Justice or to a special tribunal brought only a bitter denunciation by Vishinsky against the Court which he regarded as an instrument of political expediency and pressure in the hands of the Western Powers. See U.S. Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 73, p. 493.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Dept. St. Bul., XIX, September 5, 1948, p. 288.

    Google Scholar 

  103. In notes addressed to the Secretary-General of the Conference, the Italian, Greek and Belgian Governments informed the Conference that they would not accept the abrogation of an international instrument without consultation and consent. U.S. Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 73, p. 490. Article 42 of the 1921 Convention, instituting the Definitive Statute of the Danube, provided for revision by a conference called by two-thirds of the signatories to which all signatories were to be invited. There were twelve parties to the Convention — Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Rumania and Yugoslavia. Of these, only five became signatories to the Belgrade Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Dept. St. Bul., XIX, September 5, 1948, p. 291.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Ibid.; see also U.S. Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 73, p. 494.

    Google Scholar 

  106. A number of insignificant technical changes based on the United States draft and a changed version of a French proposal were taken over by the Russians to show that they were willing to make changes in their original draft. See U.S. Dept. of State, op. cit., supra note 73, p. 493.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Ibid., p. 504.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Dept. St. Bul., XIX, August 22, 1948, p. 219.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Center, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA

    Stephen Gorove

Authors
  1. Stephen Gorove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1964 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gorove, S. (1964). Further Encounters and Methods: American and Soviet. In: Law and Politics of the Danube. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9259-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9259-0_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8519-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9259-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation