Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This Advisory Opinion given by the Court did not lead to a settlement of the problem in the Security Council. A Member of the United Nations then proposed that the word “recommendation” in Article 4 of the Charter should be construed as not necessarily signifying a favourable recommendation. In other words, a State might be admitted by the General Assembly even in the absence of a recommendation — this being interpreted as an unfavourable recommendation — thus making it possible, it was suggested, to escape the effects of the veto. In the Advisory Opinion which it delivered on 3 March 1950, the Court pointed out that the Charter laid down two conditions for the admission of new Members : a recommendation by the Security Council and a decision by the General Assembly. If the latter body had power to decide without a recommendation by the Council, the Council would be deprived of an important function entrusted to it by the Charter. The absence of a recommendation by the Council, as the result of a veto, could not be interpreted as an unfavourable recommendation, since the Council itself had interpreted its own decision as meaning that no recommendation had been made.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.