Presented thus, the Article was adopted in Plenary without a further word:55an outcome that was probably as much the result of Italian insistence as of any intrinsic merits of the new provision.For there can be no doubt that the Article has remained “wanting in clearness”to the bitter end.It may be commented,first,that in accordance with the explanations offered from the outset by the Italian delegate,the liability to which it refers cannot very well be understood as anything but the financial liability incurred during the war by a victor State in relation to the vanquished State or its nationals .Indeed ,when one substitutes Italy for the vanquished party,the suggestion is strong that the idea behind the proposal was to exclude the possibility of the victors of the Second World.
參考答案:因此得出结论，该论文将很难被完全的采纳，因为其观点的价值和意大利人坚持主张的结果没有本质的不同。毫无疑问，对此论文最后的结论是它仍然缺乏明确鲜明的观点。
首先，不明确的一点是与意大利的代表提供的解说的开端相一致，所牵涉到的责任或债务让人很难理解，除了在战征期间战败国家或地区给战胜国带来的财政负债。
确实，如果作为战败国的意大利被一个国家所取代，那么在建议背后的观点是排除所有其它二战战胜国，这一点是非常明显的。
这段文章确实有点难度，我翻译的，你参考参考吧