Trieste, 7 May [2014]: judge Piero Leanza rejected the lates exception regarding Trieste’s jurisdiction.
The judge released a new ordinance declaring that Trieste came under the full sovereignty of Italy with the Treaty of Osimo, ratified in 1977.
However, his claim would also mean that from 1954 to 1977 “Zone A” of the Free Territory of Trieste was indeed under the Italian Government’s temporary civil administration pursuant to the 1954 MoU.
Temporary administration means respecting the provisions of the 1947 Treaty of Peace regarding Trieste’s independence and the rights of its people. So was life during the British-US administration. This is how the A.M.G. F.T.T. (Allied Military Government of the Free Territory of Trieste) administered Trieste and its international Free Port from 1947 to 1954.
Trieste’s international Free Port (Annex VI, art. 34, Annex VIII of the Treaty of Peace) is a State corporation of the Free Territory of Trieste. Therefore, if judge Leanza is right, if the FTT “disappeared” in 1977, so did the international Free Port and its free zones.
So far all judges who ruled about Question Trieste used the same arguments. Political arguments born from nationalism. Reading the sources of law is enough to disprove them all.
Simply enough, both international and Italian law confirm that the FTT exists. So do its citizens, and its international Free Port.
But why is the Treaty of Osimo (ratified in 1977) unsuitable to amending the legal status of the Free Territory of Trieste? Why it hasn’t «established the ultimate passage of the concerned territory under Italian sovereignty.»?
Time to read a short analysis about it.
First of all, the Treaty of Osimo «due to its different nature, could not cause a passage under the sovereignty of – respectively – Italy and Yugoslavia, as for Zone A and B of the Free Territory of Trieste, placed under the trusteeship of the Italian and Yugoslavian government alone.».
Indeed, its own nature is bilateral. The legal instruments that establish the Free Territory are multilateral and upper-ranking.
The multilateral, normative 1947 Italian Peace Treaty establishes the FTT (art. 21). The 1954 MoU, its executive instrument, provides for its administration. Administration means a special trusteeship mandate. As such, that is entrusted to the Governments of Trieste’s then-neighbors. Not to the States themselves.
The 1947 Peace Treaty’s provisions for Trieste cannot be amended without the explicit consent of all the signatories. Even less following a simulation of sovereignty by someone interested in their amendment. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is crystal clear. Not even an occupation (or some ‘usucaption’ unheard of in international law) can change a State’s border.
Reference: the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Arts. 61, paragraph 2 and 62, paragraphs 1 and 2, points a) and b).
On its side, the 1975 Treaty of Osimo is a bilateral treaty. It has only two signatories. States that have nothing to do with Trieste, because it is their Governments to exercise the FTT’s administration.
Osimo doesn’t even mention Trieste or the Free Territory.
True, it mentions a Tarvisio-Timavo border. That is indeed Italian and Yugoslav sovereign territory. Then it casually mentions Muggia. The shortest portion (Timavo-Muggia) is Trieste’s border with Yugoslavia (now Slovenia). It regards Trieste’s then-two two zones (now the present-day FTT and Slovenia).
What most “experts” fail to understand is Osimo’s art. 7. This article declares that the 1954 MoU and its Annexes:
«…shall cease to have effects in relations between the Italian Republic and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia».
This means that the MoU remains in force for all other parties. Be it Trieste under provisions administration, its sovereign population, its international guarantors, the whole International Community. Not to mention relations between the adminsitering Government and the adminsitering people. Or between the primary administering Governments (British, US) and the one they sub-entrusted (the Italian Government).
Furthermore, many forget that the Helsinki Final Act, signed on August 1st, 1975, confirmed that European States hold rights as for their sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of their borders.
It was the heads of the Italian Government and of the Yugoslav Government to sign the Final Act. This means their commitment extend to the State under their Government’s administration.
Indeed, the political scope of the bilateral 1975 Treaty of Osimo only serves to stop mutual claims. Claims the international community was against. Claims the U.S. Department of State did not support.
By art. 7 it is clear that the agreement doesn’t amend domestic laws. Even less it amends a 1947 Treaty of Peace, which is itself the source of Trieste’s independence and international recognition (art. 21).
Once again: the 1975 Treaty of Osimo could not affect the Free Territory’s existence, the 1947 Italian Peace Treaty, or the 1954 Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Free Territory of Trieste.
Furthermore, the Treaty of Osimo has lost its legal efficacy after the dissolution of the second contractor and the international recognition of two os its successor States (Slovenia and Croatia) within their current borders, which include Trieste’s former zone B.
As the Federal Yugoslav Government ended, so did its trusteeship mandate over then-Zone B. Yugoslavia’s successor States did not inherit that mandate, which was vested on the Government, not on the State.
Italy attempted to take advantage of this void, but the UNSC and UNGA (so all Signatory States of the 1947 Treaty of Peace) recognized independent Slovenia and Croatia within their current borders, which include former Zone B (1991-92).
The UNSC is the Free Territory of Trieste’s international and ultimate guarantor.
Pursuant art. 30, n.3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, this form of international recognition produced the only legitimate and actual amendment of provisions of the 1947 Treaty of Peace regarding the FTT. Since 1991-92, the present-day FTT consists in former zone A, and that is still entrusted to the responsibility of the Italian Government (under the 1954MoU) in compliance with the 1947 Treaty of Peace.
In view of this, interpreting the 1975 Treaty of Osimo as the legal source of Italian sovereignty over the FTT is a mere political opinion. An opinion that is not just wrong, but against the evidence of Italian law. Italy has enforced and implemented the 1947 Treaty of Peace in its own legal system, with a rank higher than any other Italian law in force. Including the Italian Constitution.
This is why claiming that the bilateral Italian-Yugoslav 1975 Treaty of Osimo «does not result as having ever been modified, nor opposed to, by any State or international organization (including the United Nations)» is irrelevant and gives raise to misunderstandings and errors, as it is advocating “tacit consent” to justify the supposed passage of the FTT under the sovereignty of Italy (and of Yugoslavia).
Finally, it is worth mentioning that “tacit consent” is not a principle of international law either.
And again, if international silence is any indication about the 1975 Treaty of Osimo, it only proves that no States or international organizations – including the UN – found reason to complain about a merely bilateral treaty. Therefore, they were all aware that such an agreement could not and did not change Trieste’s independence.
In facts, the United Nations did take notice of the bilateral Treaty on a political level. Sure, they did remove the appointment of Trieste’s Governor from the UNSC agenda, but they can as well restore it.
As evident from this 1983 letter, all it takes is a request, from any State. If the UN confirming that Osimo’s value is on the bilateral level is not enough evidence, the 1983 letter obviously is.
***
Now, after so many political decisions, which put politics above justice justifying the abuses committed by the Italian State and by the adminsitering Italian Government at the expenses of Trieste’s people, it is time to address international authorities.
And all the citizens of the FTT who refuse to accept the illegal decisions of the local Italian judiciary must address international guarantors. As victims of political persecution, having been deprived of their own citizenship, there is no other way.
Those guarantors are the very signatories of the Treaty of Peace. What about the right of political asylum?