Exposés écrits

COUR INTEIZNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

i\ll?hIOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUhIEXTS

COMPÉTENCE DE L'ASSEMBLÉE

GÉNÉRALE POUR L'ADMISSION
D'UN ÉTAT AUX NATIONS UNIES

AVISCONSULTATDU3 XARS1950 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUBIENTS, DOCUMENTS

COMPETENCE OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY FOR THE ADMISSION

OF .A STATE

TO THE UNITED NATIONS

ADVISOROPINIOF MARCH3rd1950 TABLE DES MATIÈRES - CONTENTS

PRERI~ERE PARTIE. - REQUETE POUR
AVIS CONSULTATIF ET PIÈCES
IIE LA PROCÉDURE ÉCRITE

PART 1.-REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION

AXD DOCUMENTS OF THE WRITTEN PROCEEDINGS

SECTION A. - REQUETE POUR AVIS CONSULTATIF
SECTION A.-KEQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION
Pages
1.- Lettre adressée par le Secrétaire général des Nations
Unies au Prksident de la Cour(25 XI 49).- Letter from
the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Presi-
dent of the Court (2XI 49)........... 8
II. - Résolution adoptéepar l'Assembléegénkrale des Nations
Unies le22 novembre 1949. - Resolution adopted by the
GeneralAssembly of the United Nations on Novemberzznd,
1949 ................... 9

SECTION B. - DOCUMENTS TRANSMIS AVEC LA REQUÊTE

SECTIOX B.-DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED \\'ITH THE
KEQUEST

Bordereau des documents soumis à la Cour par le Secrétairé
général desNations Unies. - List of documents submitted to
the Court by the Secretary-General of the United Nations . . ro

SECTION C.- EXPOSÉS ÉCRITS

SECTION C.-\\'RImEX STATEMEXTS

1. - IVntten statement submitted by the Secretary-Generalof
the United Nations (20 I 50) ........... 33
2. - Letter from the Chargé d'affaireai. of the U.S.S.R. in
the Netherlands (16 r 50) ........ IOO
3. - Télégrammedu ministre des Affaires étrangères de la
R. S. S. d'Ukraine.............. 102
4. - Télégrammedu ministre des Affaires étrangères de la
R. S. S. de Biélorussie............. 104
j. - Exposé du Gouvernement kgyptien (23 I 50) .. 106200 TABLE DES MATIÈRES
.Pages
6. - Lettre de l'envoyéextraordinaire et ministre plénipoten-
tiaire de la République tchécoslovaque (24 I 50) ... 108
7. - Written statement of the ~overnment of the United
States ................ II0

8. - Statement of the Govemment of the Republic of Argeutina 123
g. - Exposé écritdu Gouvernement de Venezuela (17 I 50) 149

DEUXIÈME PARTIE. - SÉANCES PUBLIQUES

ET PLAIDOIRIES

PART II.-PUBLIC SITTINGS AND PLEADINGS

16 rr 50 (m.). ... 156 3 III jo (m.). .. 15;

ANNEXEAUX PROCÈS-VERBAUX

ANNEXTO THE MINUTES

Exposé de M. Georges Scelle (France), 16 II 50 (m.) . . 159

TROISIÈME PARTIE. - CORRESPONDANCE

' PART III.-CORRESPONDENCE

I.The Secretary-General of the United Nations to the President
(25 XI 49). [See p. S.]
2. The Registrar to the Secretary-Generai of the United Nations
(2 XII 49) ............... 172

3. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangères de YAfgha-
nistan (2 XII 49) ................ 172
4. Le Greffier au chargé d'affaires a. i. de Suisse à La Haye
(2 xi1 49) .................. 173
5. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangères de 1'Afgha-
nistan (2 I 50) ................ 173

6. The Registrar to the Secretary-General ofthe United Nations
(7 150) ................... 173
7. Le ministère des Affaires étrangèresde la République fran-
çaise au Greffier (14I50) ............. 174
8. The chargé d'affaires a.i. of the U.S.S.R. to the Kegistrar
(16 I 50). [See p. 100.1
g. Le ministre des Affaires étrangèresde la R. S. S. d'Ukraine
au Greffier (td.)(17 I 50). [Voir p. 102.:

IO.The Secretary-Generai of the United Nations to the President
(17 I 50) .................. '75
II. Le ministre des Affaires étrangèresde la R. S. S. de Biélo-
russie au Greffier (tél.)(18 r 50). [Voir p. 104.1 1. WRITTEN STATEXENT SUBNITTED BY THE
SECRETAIIY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED XATIONS

TABLE OF CONTEKTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
II. D~scuss~os BY ORGASS OP THE UXITEDXATIOSS:
A. Disctissioicand reqzrestfor advisory opinioiz by the Fourth
Sessioic of'the Geizeral Assembiy . . . . . . . . . 36
B. Discz~ssionbrio7 10 the Fozrrth Session oi the General
Assenzbly : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1. First Session of the General Assembly-1946 . . . 42
2. Second Session of the General Assembly-1947 . . 43
3. First Part of Third Session of the General Assembly
-1948 . . . . . . . . 46
A.sembly-1949; if ., .ir. .Sde.si.n.of,kh. .ene,& . .AS-. jû
5. Security Council-1q46-1q~q. . , . . , . . . 52
C. Rules of procednvegoverningthe admission of new Members
I. Earlier Rules of procedure governing the admis- 55
sion of new Members . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2. Rules of procedure in force at the the of the Fourth
Session of the General Assembly . . . . . . . 60
III. RECORDS OF THE UNITEDXATIONSCONFERENC ES ISTER-
NATIONAL OKGANIZATIO :N
A. Dumbarton Oaks Proposais . . . . . . . . . . . 70
B. Strggested ametldmenls and commeitts to Dumbarlon Oaks
PYO~OSU~S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
C. First consideration by Committee I of Commission II . 72
D. Ziirst considerc~tioitby Commission II . . . . . . . 75

E. First cotcsiderationby the Co-ordinatio?~Committee . . . 75
F. Considevation by Advisory Comnzittee of Jurists . . . 77
G. SocrelariatMemoranda . . . . , . . . . . . . 80
II.Second consideratio%z by Committee IZlr . . . . . . SI
1. Second consideration by Commission II . . . . . . 83
J. Secoizd consideratioit by Co-ordination Commitlee . . . 84
K. ~o;zsideration by Plenary Session of the Conference . . Sq Annexes
Page
ANNEX1. Verbatim Minutes of Second Meeting of Com-
mittee 1111 .............. 86
AXNEXII. Verbatim Minutes of Third Meeting of Commit-
teeII/I. ............... 89
AN'EX III. Verbatim Minutes of Twelfth Meeting of Com-
mittee 1111 ........... gr
Verbatim Minutes of Third Meeting of Advisory
ANXEXIV. Committee of Jurists ...........
92
ANNEXV. Verbatim Minutes of Fourth Meeting of Adviçory
Committee of Jurists ........... 94
.~XXEX VI. hlemorandum from Mr. Green to hlr. Padelford . 96
AXSEXVII. Memorandum from air. Padelford to Mr. Brown . 97
ANNEXVIII. Verbatim Minutes of Fifteenth hfeeting of Com-
mittee 1111 .............. 971. INTRODUCTION

The General Assembly of the United Xations at its 252nd Neeting
on zz November, 1949 ,clopted the following Resolution (296(IV)J)
requesting from the International Court of Justice an advisory
opinion conceming the competence of the General Assembly for
the admission of new Members to the United Nations :

The GeneralAssembly,
Keepiltg ilz mind the discussion concerning the admission of
new Alembers in the Ad /roc Political Committee at its fourth
regular session,
Requests the International Court of Justice to give an advisory
opinion on the following question :
"Can the admissiori of a State to membership in the United
Nations, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter,
be effected by a decision of the General Assembly when the
Security Council has made no recommendation for admission
by reason of the candidate failing to obtaiii the requisite
majority or of the ncgative vote ofa permanent Member upon
a resolution so to recommend ?"

Thus for the second timc in tu70years the question of admission
of new Members to the United Nations is placed ùefore the Court.
Whereas the first request concernecl the interpretatioii of Article4,
paragraph I,of the Charter of thc United Nations-the conditions
of admission of a Statcto membership in the United Nations, the
present request concerns the interpretatioii of Article, paragraph z,
of the Charter-the procedurcs by which the admission of a State
may be effected or more specifically the competence of the General
Assembly for the admission of nesr Rlembers to the United Xations.
The SecretaryGeneral has considered that it is his duty to
fumish the Court with information which may facilitate the con-
sideration of the present question. He is, therefore, submitting
this written Statement which it is hoped \vil1be of interest to the
Court in giving the historical background of the question. It
is also hoped that it may be of some assistance in the use of the

extensive documentation which has been transmitted to the Court.
The Statement will also present the relevant records of the United
Nations Conference on International Organization dealing with
the drafting of Article 4, paragraph z, of. the Charter. These
records are submitted since they may possibly be of assistance to
the Court and also in view of the fact that there has been frequent
reference to these records in the consideration of this question by
the General Assembly and by the Security Council.
Finally, it should be pointed out that this Statcment is limited
to the preseiitation of the backgrouncl of this particular question,
and makes no attempt to present relatecl matcrial which mightbe of interest. Thus it coiitains no consideration of analogous
or related articles of the Charter, although several representatives
have referred to such articles in the discussion of this question.

II. D~scuss~or; BY ORGAN SF THE UNITEDNATIONS

A. Discussion and reqzrestfor advisory opinio?~by Foz~rthSession

of the General Assembly.
The Fourth Session of the General Assembly of the United

Nations received thrce special reports from the Security Council
on the admission of ne\v hlembers (Folder 18,A/968, A/974, A/g8z) '.
These reports were referrcd by the Assembly at its 224th Meeting

(Folder 17) to the Ad lzocPolitical Committee and wcre considered
by the Committee at its 25th to 29th Meetings (Folder 19). During
the cousideration of these reports at the ~jth Meeting of the Com-

mittee on 21 October, 1949. a number of draft resolutions were
submitted including one by the representative of ArgentinaZ

1 A note of explanation is necessary concerning the citations to United Xations
documents in this Statement. It will be noted that the dossier transmittedto the
Court covers only that documentation for 1948and 1949,asdocuments for rgq6
and 1947 were made available in Eonnexion with the first requrst for an advisory
opinion on the admission of new Alembers. For documents for the years 1948
and 1949the citation is to the dossier. Pagination is in most cases the same as
in the published Official Records of the United Nations. Citation to documents
bearing a date prior to I January, 1948.is to thepublished official records anly.
It must also be paintcd out that the only Oficial Rccords of the Cornmittees
of the General Assembly arc thc Summary Records which have been furnished
to the Court These Summary Records have been subject to examinvtion and cor-
rection by the various delepations. L'erbatim records of the First Coinmittee and
the Ad hoc Political Committee du exist, hawever. in the Archives of the United
Sations in the form either of stenographic records or of sound recordingç which
may be made into tranîcripts upon request. These verbatim records have not
been examined and correctcd by the representatives coricerned but thcy do
constitute a more complete record of what aas actually said. If it should be

desired to consult any of these verbatim records, the Secretary-General will hold
himçelf at the disposal of the Court to make these records arailablc.
= The text of the draft resolution submitted by Argentins is as follo\v:
IVhereas Committee r of Commission 11of the San Francisco Conference approved
the following interpretation of the powers of the Assembly with regard ta the
admission ofnew Alcmbers and dirccted that it should be included in its minutes
as the only interpretation which should be given of that power:

"Admission O/ new Alcmb~rs (Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 2, of the
Dumbarton Oaks Proposais).
The Committrc considered a revision of the text of thiç paragrapliwhich
was under considcration by thc Co-ordination Committee in ordcr to determine
wbether the paivrr of the Assembly to admit new \.lcmbcrç on rcïommïnd-
ation of the Security Councilwas in no way aeakened by thc proposed tçxt.
The Committce was advised that the new text did not, in vieiv of the
Iidvisory Committee of Juristç, weaken the right of the Asseinbly ta accept
or rejecta recommendation for the admission ofa new Alember, or a recom-
mendation to the efiect tbat a given State should not be admitted to the
United Sations.
The Committee vgreed that this interpretation should be included in its
minutes as the one that should be given to this provision of the Charter. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50) 37

(Folder 20, A/AC.~I/L.I~), which proposed that certain questions
concerning the admission of new Members should be submitted
to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion.

At the 27th Meeting, the representative of Belgium, who was also .
the Rapporteur of the Committee, suggested that a drafting sub-
committee might be appointed to deal with the Argentine draft
resolution (Folder 19, 27th Meeting, p. 139). The Chairman

suggested that instead of appointing a sub-committee the represen-
tative of Argentina and the Rapporteur should cousult with other
delegations and present a revised text to the Committee. In

conformity with this request, the Argentine representative and
the Rapporteur studied the various proposals submitted to them
by the delegations desiring a modification of the draft resolution
submitted by the Argentine Delegation. This study resulted in

the submissiou at the 28th Meeting on 3 November, 1949,of a new

and on this basis approved the text as suggested hy the Co-ordination Corn-
mittee."

Whereas Commission II and later the Conference approved the decision of
Committee II/I,
The General Assembly

Decides to çubmit the following questions to the International Court of Justice
for an advisory opinion :
1. Does the 1st part of the second paragraph of the interpretation of the
powers of the Assembly as approved by Committee 1111. by Commission II and
finally by the Conference in plenary session and rraùing "or a recommendation
to the effect that a given State should not be admitted to the United Nations"
refer to a recommendation hy the Security Council to the effect that a given State

, should not be admitted to the United Nations?
If the reply to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, does tbimean that
the Security Council can make a recommendation agailist admission ?
II. The third paragraph of the interprehtion of the pawen of the Assembly
quoted above readç :"The Committee agreed that this interpretation should be
included in its minutes as the one that should be givïn to this provision of the
Charter. and on this basis a-.roved the text as susa--ted by the Co-ordination
Cammittee."
1s this interpretation the only authentic interpretation that can be givan to
the above-mentioned provision of the Charter?

III. If this interpretation is not the only authentic interpretation,is there
any provision in flie Charter which affords legal support for the view that the
recommendation to which Article 4 refers must always be positive ?
11'. AIust the decision to which Article 4, paragraph 2, refers be to the same
effect as the Security Council's recammendation-positive or negative-or is the
General Assembly completely free to decide ?
V. If the reply to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, is it absolutely

essential that the Security Council should adopt a resolution in the fom of a
positiveor negative recommendation, or is it sufficient that the Security Council
should have taken cognizance of the requeçt and should have had an opportunity
to express itç opinion. even if for any reason it has not expressed suchopinion ?
VI. 1s the admission of new Members a purely lcgal question or may theGenera.1
Asçembly be guided by political tonsiderations in exercising its powers of decision ?38 WRITTES STATEfilEST OF USITED NATIONS (20 1 50)

text 3 (Folder 20, A/AC.~I/L.ZO) of the Argentine resolution.
At the 29th Meeting on 4 November, 1949, the representative of

the Netherlands submitted an amendment (Folder 20, A/AC.
31/L.zz) proposing to replace paragraph z of the Argentine revised
draft resolution by the following : .

"Keepini gnmindthe discussion concerning the admission of
new Members in the Ad hoc Political Committee of its fourth
regular session."

The representative of Argentina accepted the Nethcrlands

amendment provided that it shonld also replace paragraph I of
the Argentine clraft resolution. (Folder 19, 29th meeting, p. 161.)
At the saine meetiiig the Committee voted on the various draft
resolutions and amendments. The draft resolution proposed by

Argentina (Folder zo, A/AC.~I/L.ZO)as amended was adopted by
a roll-cal1 vote of 37 in favour to 9 against, with 8 abstentions.
(Folder 19, 29th meeting, p. 162.)
This draft resolution was included as resolution J in the Report

of the Ad hoc Political Committee on admission of new Members
(Folder 20, A/1066), with the recommendation that it be adopted
by the General Assembly. The General Assembly considered the
report at its zjrst and zjznd Meetings (Folder 21) on zz November,
--
a This text iç as follows :

The General .4ssembly,
Considering Articleq of thc Charter of the United Nations,
Conrideriag the fallawing passage of the second report ofthe Committee 11/1
(document 1092.of Ig June,1945) of the San Francisco Conference which has been
invoked before the General Assembly at its Fourth regular Session:

"Adniisrion ofnew iIletrr6e(Chapter V, Section B. paragraph 2, of the
Dumbarton Oaks Proposalç).
The Cammittcc considered a revision of the text of this paragraphwhich
was under consideration by the Co-ordination Committeeinorder to determine
mhether the power of the r\ssembly to admit new .\lembers on recommcnd-
ation of the Security Council. was no w-ay weakened by the proposed text.
The Committee mas advised that the new text did mot,in view of the
Advisory Committcc of Jurists. weaken the right of the Assembly to accept
or rejectn recommendation forthe admission of a new Alember, or a recom-
mendation to the effectthat a .iven State should not be admitted to the
UnThe Committec agreod that this interpretation should be included in its
minutes as the one that should bc given to this provision of the Charter.
and on this basis approved the text as suggested by the Co-ordinationCom-
mittee."

Reyuests the International Courtof Justice to give an advisory opinion on thc
foliowing questions:
Can the admission of a State to membership in the United Nationpursuant
to Article4. paragraph 2,of the Charter, be effected by a decision of the
General r\ssembly when the Security Council has made no recommcndation
for admission by reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisite
majority or of the negative vote of a permanent Alember upon a resolution
so to recommend ? WRITTEN STATEMENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50) 39
Resolution 296 (IV) J (Folder 23) was adopted by 42 votes
1949. Its text is as follows:
to 9, with 6 abstentions.
The General Assembly,
ICeePing in mind the discussion concerning the admission of
new members in the Ad hoc Political Committee at its fourth
regular session,

Requests the International Court of Justice to give an advisory
opinion on the following question :
"Can the admission of a State to membership in the United
Nations, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter,
be effected by a decision of the General Assembly when the
Security Council has made no recommendation for admission
by reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisite majority
or of the negative vote of a permanent Member upon a resolution
so to recommend ?"
Attention may be directed to the following statements made in
the course of discussion in the Ad hoc Political Cornmittee and in

the Plenary Meetings of the Assernbly which may be likely to
throw light on the question under consideration by the Court :
Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 19,
26th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, pp. 125-126, paras.

31-53).
Statement by the representative of Australia (Folder 19,
26th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, pp. 127-128, paras. 58
and 62).
Statement by the representative of the Netherlands (Folder 19,
26th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 130, paras. 89-91).
Statement by the representative of Iraq (Folder 19,26th Meeting,
Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 131, para. 100).
Statement by the representative of Uruguay (Folder 19.
26th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 132.paras. 106-109).

Statement by the representative of Cuba (Folder 19~26thMeeting,
Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 133. para. 116).
Statement by the representative of the Union of South Africa
(Folder 19, 26th Meeting, Ad hocPolitical Committee, pp. 133-134,
paras. 120-121).
Statement hy the representative of Norway (Folder 19,
27th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 137. para. 7).

.Statement by the representative of Guatemala (Folder 19,
27th Meeting,Ad hocPolitical Committee, pp. 138-139.paras. 13-21).
Statement by the representative of Belgium (Folder 19,
27th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 139, paras. 22-24).
Statement by the Chairman (Folder 19, 27th Meeting, Ad hoc
Political Committee, p. 139, para. 25).
Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 19,
27th Meeting, Ad lioc Political Committee, p. 139. para. 26).

540 WRITTEN STATEUENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50)
Statement by the representative of Venezuela (Folder 19.
27th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 141. paras. 48-55)-
Statement by the representative of Saudi Arabia (Folder 19,
27th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 143, para. 77).

Statement by the representative of Sweden (Folder 19,
27th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 143, para. 80).
Statement by the representative ofChina (Folder 19,27th Meeting,
Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 144, para. 89).
Statement by the representative of Peru (Folder 19,27th Meeting,
Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 145. para. 106).
Statement by the representative of Mexico (Folder 19,
27th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 145, para. 109).

Statement by the representative of Lébanon (Folder 19,
27th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 146, paras. 122-IZ~)..
Statement by the representative of Iraq (Folder 19~27thMeeting,
Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 147. para. 128).
Statement by the representative of Poland (Folder 19,
27th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, pp. 147-148. paras.
132-139).
Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 19,
27th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Comrnittee, p. 148, para. 145).

Republics (Folder 19, 28th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee,ist
pp. 140-150, paras. 10-13).

Statement by the representative of Nicaragua (Folder 19,
28th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee. p. 150, para. 17).
Statement by the representative of France (Folder 19,
28th Meeting, Ad hocPolitical Committee,pp. 150-152,paras. 18-30).
Statement by the representative of Australia (Folder 19,
28th Meeting, Ad hocPolitical Committee,pp. 152-153,paras. 40-43).
Statement by the Chairman (Folder 19, 28th Meeting, Ad hoc
Political Committee, p. 153, para. 44).
Statement by the representative of Belgium (Folder 19,
28th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 153, paras. 45-49).
Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 19,
28th Meeting, Ad hocPolitical Committee, pp. 153-154,paras. 50-76).

Statement by the representative of Canada (Folder 19,
28th Meeting. Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 155. paras. 80-82).
Statement by the representative of Bolivia (Folder 19,
28th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 155. paras. 86-87).
Statement by the representative of El Salvador (Folder 19,
28th Meeting, Ad hocPoliticalCommittee, pp. 155-156,paras. 88-96).
Statement by the representative of Chile (Folder 19, 28th Meet-
ing, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 156, paras. 97-101).
Statement by the representative of the Philippine Republic
(Folder 19, 28th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, pp. 156-157,
paras. 108-II~).. WRITTEN ST.4TEMENT OF UXITED SATIOSS (20 1 50) 41

Statement by the representative of New Zealand (Folder 19,
28th hleeting, .4d hoc Political Committee, pp. 1j7-158, para. 119).
Statement by the representative of Colombia (Folder 19,
28th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 158,paras. 123-125).
Statement bythe representative'of Iraq (Folder 19,28th Meeting.
Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 159, para. 13j).
Statement by the representative of the Xetherlands (Folder 19,
29th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 161, paras. 16-21).
Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 19,
29th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 161, para. 23).
Statementby the representative of Haiti (Folder 19,zgthhleeting,
Ad hoc Political Committee, pl>. 161-162, paras. 24-31).

Statement by the representative of Belgium (Folder 19,
29th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Comrnittee, p. 162, para. 32).
Statement by the representative of the Netherlands (Folder 19,
29th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 1b2, paras. 33-34).
Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 19.
29th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 162, para. 3j).
Statement by the representative of France (Folder 19,
29th Meeting, Ad hoc Political Committee, p. 162, para. 37).
Statement by the representative of Belgium (Folder 21,
zjrst Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, p. I, para. 3).
Statement by the representative of Poland (Folder 21,
251st Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, p. 2, paras. 22-24).

Statementby the representative of Cuba (Folderzr, 251st Plenary
Meeting of the General Assembly, p. 2, paras. 27-28).
Statement by the representative of Czechoslovakia (Folder 21.
251st Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, p. 4, para. 48).
Statement by the representative of France (Folder 21, 251st
Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, p. 5, paras. 63-64).
Statement by the representative of Iraq (Folder 21, 251st Plenary
Aleeting of the General Assembly, pp. 8-9, paras. 106-107).
Stntement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 21,
~~1st Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, pp. 9-11. paras.
113-144).
Statement by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (Folder 21, qznù Plenary Meeting of the General
Assembly, pp. 14-15. paras. 24-36).

25znd Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, p. 17, para. 67).1,

B. Discl~ssion $yioy to the Fourth Session of the General Assembly.
Although in the preamble of the General Assembly Resolution
reqiiesting an advisory opinion from the Court there is specific
reference only to the discussion conceming the admission of new
blembers in the Ad hoc Political Committee at the fourth regular
session, this was not the first time that the issue of the General
Mernbers was
Assembly's competence for the admission of new 42 WRITTEN STATEMEST OF UNITED XATIOKS (20 1 j0)
discussed before organs of the United Xations. The discussion in

connexion with the establishment of the rules of procedure will be
dealt with in Sectioii C of this Chapter. Here it is desired to
direct the attention of the Court to the discussions in the General
' Assembly and in the Security Council prior to the Fourth Session
of the General Assembly in which the issues raised by the Argentine
Delegation have been discussed.

I. First Session of the General Assembly-1946.
The issues implicit in the present question were not directly
raised during the First Session of the General Assembly in 1946.
However, during the second part of its First Session, following the
General Assembly's decision ta admit Afghanistan, Iceland and

Sweden upon the recommendation of the Security Council, a
discussion ensued concerning the right of the Assembly to discuss
those applications rejected by the Security Council with.the view
to returning them ta the Council for re-esamination. This ques-
tion was resolved in the affirmativeand Gcneral Assembly Resolu-
tion 35 (1) (Resolutioiis, Second Part, First Session, p. 61) was
adopted on 17 November, 1946, recommending re-examination
by the Council of the applications of Albania, hlongolian People's
Republic, Transjordan, Ireland and Portugal.
During the course of this discussion in the 12th Meeting of the
First Committee, the representative of Argentina stated his posi-

tion as follows :
The General Assembly wassovereign in the examination of al1
questions regarding admission or non-admission of new Members.
The Argentine vote was cast on this understanding. He expressed
the view that no speaker had intended to attack the Security
Council, but only to defend the Assembly'sultimate right, under
Article IO, to discuss and make a final decision on membership
applications by a two-thirds vote. In his opinion, the General
Assembly was not bound to accept the Security Council'srecom-
mendations since Article 4 of the Charter left no doubt as to the
Assembly's sovereign powers. Any other interpretation mould
. aliow one State to bar an applicant. (Oficial Records, Second
Part, First Session,First Committee, p. 40.)
The representative of Argentina also expressed a reservation at

the 49th Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly (Oficial Records,
Second Part, First Session, Plenary Meetings, p. 993).
During the course of this same discussion, a number of repre-
sentatives stated their view that the General Assembly had no
authonty to approve an application for membership without a
~ecommendation from the Secunty Council. For example, the
representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stated
that :

No Charter provision nor anyone at San Francisco mentioned
primary and secondary responsibilities. The Council's role was WRITTEN ST.4TEMENT OF UNITED XATIOSS (20 1 50) 43

not secondary, any more than the Assembly's was primary, or
vice versa. The Charter protected in this case the prestige of
both these principal organs of the United Nations and assigned
neither primary nor secondary roles. ([email protected], Second
Part, First Session, First Committee, p. 78.)
For other statements supporting the view that a Security
Council recommendation is a prerequisite for a decision by the
General Assembly, see the following :

Statement by the representative ofEgypt-12th Meeting of the
First Committee (O@cial Records, Second Part, First Session,
First Committee, pp. 37-38).
Statement by the representative of the United States-
12th Meeting of the First Committee (Oficial Records, Second
Part, First Session, First Committee, p. 40).
Statement by the representative of the Philippine Republic-
12th Meeting of the First Committee (Ogicial Records, Second
Part, First Session, First Committee, p. 41).

Statement by the representative of Australia-15th and
17th Meetings of the First Committee (O@cialRecords,Second
Part, First Session, First Committee, pp. 57 and 73).
Statement by the representative ofthe Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic-16th Meeting.of the First Committee (Oficial Records,
Second Part, First Session, First Committee, p. 63).
Statement by the representative of Yugoslavia-17th meeting of
the First Committee (OgicialRecords,Second Part, First Session)
First Committee, p. 75).

z. Second Session of the General .4ssembly-1947.

The first full debate involving the issues raised in the present
question occurred in the First Committee of the General Assembly
during the Second Session in 1947. The representative of Argentina
proposed the admission of Transjordan, Ircland, Portugal, Italy

and Austria, States which had received 7 or more votes in the
Security Council. (See A/C.r/184, .4/C.1/185 and A/C.r/zzz, Oficial
Records, Second Session, First Committee, pp. 580, 583.)
These Argentine draft resolutions were discussed together with
other proposals at the 98th to the 1o3rd Neetings of the First
Committee from 7 to IO November, 1947. (Oficial Records, Second
Session, First Committee, pp. 338-398.) At the 103rd Meeting
foiiowing the conclusion of the general debate on admission of
new Members, the representative of Argentina stated that he
would not.insist upon a vote on the Argentine draft resolutions.
A joint draft resolution (A/C.1/z43, Oficial Records, Second Ses-
sion, First Committee, p. 584) presented by Argentina, Brazil and

Chile proposed that the General Assembly should declare that in
its judgment Ireland, Portugal, Transjordan, Austria, Italy and
Finland were peace-loving countries, were able and willing to44 \\'RITTES STATEIIEXT OF USITED XATIOXS (20 1 50)

carry out the obligatioiis coiitained iii the Charter and should,
therefore, be admitted for membership in the United Rations. It
was pointed out by the representative of Chile that this joint
~esolution called for a statement and not for a decisioii from the
Assembly. In consequence of a revision of a serics of draft reso-
lutions presentcd by Australia which incorporated a determiiiation
similar to the declaratioii iithe joint resolution, Argciitina, Brazil
and Chile withdrew their rcsoliition. The First Committec adopted
a series of eight draft resolutions including those proposecl by
Australia, and also the Belgian draft rcsolution rcqiicsting an
advisory opinion of the Court on the conditioiis of admissioii of

a State to membership in the United Rations. The report of the
First Committee \\,as coiisidered by the General Assembly at its
117th and 118th Neetings (Oficial Records, Second Session,
Plenary Meetings, o. II, pp. 1043-1oSo), and the resolutioiis
contained in the report were adopted. (See General Assembly
Resolution 113 (II) A to H, Resolutions adopted at the Second
Session, pp. 18-21,)
The attention of the Court is particularly directed to the fol-
lowing statements in which issues pertinent to the present question
are discussed :

Statement by the representative of Argentina-98th Meetirigof
the First Committee (Oficiul Rccords of the Seco~tdSessio~tO/ the
General Assembly, First Committee, pp. 338-342).
Statement by the representative of Canada98th Meeting of
the First Committee (Oficial Records of the Second Session of the
Genernl Assembly, First Committee, p. 342).
Statement by the representative of Iraq-gRth Meeting of the
First Committee (Oficial Records of the Second Session of the
General Assembly, 1:irst Committee, p. 343).
Statement by the representative of Poland-ggth Meeting of tlie
First Committee (Oficial Records of the Second Session of the
General Assentbly, First Committee, pp. 343-345). .
Statement by tlie representative of Australia-ggtli Meeting of
the First Comrnittee (Opcial Records of the Second Session of
the General Assembly, I'irst Committee, pp. 348-349).
Statement by tlie representative of Lebanon-99th Meeting of
the First Committce (O@ciul Records of the Second Sessio~zof
the General Assembly, First Committee, p. 352).

Statement by the representative of the United States-
99th Meeting of the First Committee (Oficial Recordsof the Second
Session of the General Assembly, First Committee, p. 354).
Statement by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics-ggth Meeting of the First Committee (Oficial Records
of the SecoizdSessioiz of the Gelteral Assembly, First Comrnittee,
PP- 358-360).
Statement by the representative of Pakistan-100th Meeting of
the First Committee (Oficial Recordsof the Second Sessioiz O/ the
General Assembly, First Committee, pp. 360-362).46 WRI~EN STATEXENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 I 50)
Statement by the representative of ~oland-xoz'nd Meeting of
the First Committee (Oficial Records of the SecondSessioti of the
General Assembly, First Committee, p. 387).
Statement by the representative of the Philippine Republic-
roznd Meetingof the First Committee(Oficial Recordsof theSecond
Session of the General Assembly, First Committee, pp.387-388).
Statement by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics-roznd Meetingof the First Committee (Oficial Records
of the Second Session of the General Assembly, First Committee, ,

PP. 368-390).
Meeting of the First Committee (Oficial Records of the Second
Session of the General Assembly, First Committee, p. 391).

Statement by the representative of Canada-103rd Meeting of
the First Committee (Official Recwds of the Second Session of
the General Assembly, First Committee, p. 394).
Statement by the representative of India-103rd Meeting of
the First Committee (Oficial Records of the Second Session of the
General Assembly, First Committee, pp. 394-395).
Statement by the representative of Chile-103rd Meeting of
the First Committee (Official Records of the Second Session of the
Ge~ieralAssembly, First Committee, p. 395).
Statement by the representative of Argentina-103rd Meetingof
the First Committee (Oficial Records of the Second Session of the
General Assembly, First Committee, p. 396).
Statement by the representative of Poland-117th Meeting of
the General Assembly (Oficinl Records of the Second Session of
the Ge~teralAssembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 1044).
Statement by the representative of Argentins-11Sth Meeting
of the General Assembly (Oficial Records of the Second Session
O/ the General Assembly, Plenary hleetings, pp. 1071-1074).

3. First Part of Third Session of the General Assembly-1948.

In a letter to the Secretary-General dated 21 July, 1948, Argen-
tina requested the inclusion in the provisional agenda of the Third
Session of the General Assembly of au item entitled: "Admission
to the Organization of Italy and al1those States whose applications
for membership have obtained seven votesin the Security Council"
(Folder 5, A/jS&Item 14 c of Provisional Agenda). Duriiig the
discussion of the provisional agenda at the 43rd Meeting of the
General Committee on 22 September, 1948, the representatives
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Belgium suggested
the deletion of this item as contrary to the Charter of the United
Xations. The Chairman and other members of the Committee
thought it preferable to leave the question to the appropriate
committee. A Belgian proposa1 to recommend the deletion of this
item was rejected by 6 votes to j, with 3 abstentions, andit was
decided hy 6 votes to 2 to recommend its inclusion in the agenda.
(Folder 4, General Committee, 43rd Meeting, pp. 2-6.) WRITTEN ST.4TEMENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50) 47

During the consideration of the agenda at the 14znd Plenary
Meeting on 24 September, 1948, the deletion of this item (14c)
was proposed by several &lembersof the Assembly but was rejected
by 29 votes to 16, with IO abstentions. (Folder 4, 14znd Plenary
Meeting, pp. 98-104.)
The agenda item on admission of new illembers \vas originaiiy
referredto the First Committee, but because of the heavf woÏk
load of that Committee itwas decided at the 158th Plenary Meeting
of the Assembly (Folder 4, 158th Plenary Meeting) to refer this
item to the Ad hoc Political Committee for consideration antl
report. The Ad hoc Political Committee considered this item at
its 6th to 16th, zznd and 23rd Meetings (Folder 6).

The representative of Argentina submitted to the Ad hoc Polit-
ical Committee a draft resollitioii (Folder 7, A/I\c.z4/15) as
follows :

bl'hereasthe admission of new Jlembers into the United Nations
should be governed strictly by the terms of the Charter, which
. providesthat the decisionwillbe effectedby the General Assembly,
upon the recommendation of the Security Council, and
Whereas, irrespective of whether such recommendation is
favourable or not, the application for membership should be
considered by the Assembly so that it may adopt a suitable
resolution,
A'ow tliereforethe General Asselnbly decides as /ollows :

I. Applications for membership shall be submitted to the
consideration of the Assembly when the Security Council has
reached its decision ; and the Security Council's decision shall
be deemed to be a recommendation in favour of admission if
the application has received seven or more affirmative votes,
even if one or more permanent Members have cast a negative
vote ;
2. The General Assembly may both reject an application for
admission with a favourable recommendation and grant an appli-
cation with an unfavourable recommendation, always provided
that such a decision is supportetl by a two-thirds majority of
its Members present and voting.

This draft resolution, together with a number of other draft
resolutions, \vas considered in the general debate in the Committee
at its 6th to 11th Meetings from 22 to 24 November, 1946. (Folder
6,6th-11th Meetings, pp. 52-130.) At the 12th Meeting on zj Xovem-
ber, 1948, a motion of the Delegation of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics that the Argentine draft resolution should
be put to vote first \vas adopted by 26 votes to 21,with 5 absten-
tions. (Folder 6, 12th Meeting, 11.139.) The Argentine draft reso-
lution was considered by the Committee at its 13th and 14th

Meetings (Folder 6, 13th and 14th Meetings, pp. 145-160). The
representative of Yngoslavia movcd, in accordance with Rule rro48 LVRITTEF STATEJIEFT OF USITED FATIOSS (20 1 50)

of the Rules of procedure 4,that a vote be taken first on the question
of the competence of the General Assembly to adopt the Argeiitine
proposal. The l~ugoslav motion that the General Assembly was
not competcnt to adopt the Argentine draft resolution was rejected
at the 14th Meeting by a roll-cal1vote of 28 to IO, with II absten-
tions (Folder 6, 14th Meeting, p. 155). The representative of
Argentins thcn withdrew his draft resolution, and the representative

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proposed that the vote
on the Yugoslav proposal should, therefore, be declarcd iiull and
void. This proposal \vas rejected by 34 votes to 8, with 5 absten-
tions (Folder 6, 14th Meeting, p. 160).
The Ad ltoc Political Committee recommended to the General
Assembly in its report the adoption of ten draft resolutions on
the suhject of admission of new 3[embers. The General Assembly
considered this report at its 175th, 176th and 177th Meetings on
8 December, 1948 (Folder 8, Plenary Afeetings, pp. 767-801). It
adopted with amendmeiits nine of the resolutions (Folder IO,

General Assembly Resolution 197 (III), A to 1).
The attention of the Court is particularly directed to the fol-
lowing statements in which legal issues pertinent to the present
question are discussed at Icngth :

Statement'by the representative of Argentina-dth Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 6th Meeting, pp. 59-63),
Statement by the representative of Uruguay-6th Meetingof
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 6th Meeting,pp. 63-64).
Statement by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics-7th Meetiiig of the Ad hoc Political Committee
(Folder 6, 7th Meeting, pp. 65-67).
Statement by the representative of Argentins-11th Meeting
of the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 11th Meeting.
pp. 11s-122).

Statement by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics-11th Meeting of the Ad hoc Political Committee
(Folder 6, 11th Meeting, pp. 122-124).
The attention of the Court is also directed to briefer statements
concerning these issues by the representatives of the following
States :

Statement by the representative of Australia-6th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 6th Meeting, p. 56).
Statement by the representative of the Netherlands-6th Meeting
of the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 6th Meeting,
PP 58-59).
--
' Rule 110. Decisions on competence:

"Subject ta Rule 108.any motion caüing for a decision on the competence
oto the vote immediatelbeforea vote is taken on the proposa1in question." WRITTEX ST.4TEMEST OF UXITED K.%TIOPIS (20 1 50) 49
Statement by the representative of the United States-7th Meet-
ing of the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 7th Meeting,

PP 77-78).
Statement by the representative of Belgium-8th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Comrnittee (Folder 6, 8th Meeting, p. 80).
Statement by the representative of Egypt-8th Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 8th Meeting, pp. 81-82).
Statement by the representative of Poland-8th Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 8th Meeting, pp. 84-8j).
Statement by the representative of Venezuela-8th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 8th Meeting, pp. 87-58).
Statement by the representative of India-9th Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 9th Meeting, p. 90).
Statement by the representative of Greece-9th Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 9th Meeting, p. gr).

Statement by the representative of Pakistan-9th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 9th Meeting, p. gr).
Statement by the representative of the United Kingdom-
9th Meeting of the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6,
9th Meeting, p. 95).
Statement by the representative of Ecuador-9th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 9th Meeting, pp. 9j,
97-98).
Statement hy the representative of Colombia-9th 3leeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 9th Meeting, p. 98).
Statement by the representative of China-9th Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 9th Meeting, p. 99).
Statement by the representative of Norway-9th Neeting of
the Ad hocPolitical Committee (Folder 6, 9th Meeting, pp. 100-101).

Statement by the representative of Brazil-10th Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 10th Meeting, pp. 102-103).
Statement by the representative of Iraq-10th Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 10th Meeting, p. 106).
Statement by the representative of Lebanon-10th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 10th Meeting, p. 107).
Statement bythe representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic-10th Meeting of the Ad hoc Political Committee
(Folder 6, 10th Meeting, p. 108).
Statement by the representative of Paraguay-10th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 10th Meeting, p. 109).
Statement by the representative of the Union of South Africa
-10th Meeting of the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6,
10th Meeting, p. 110).

Statement by the representative of Bolivia-10th Meeting
of the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 10th Meeting,
pp. 111-112).
Statement by the representative of the Byelorussian Soviet
Socialist Republic-10th Meeting of the Ad hoc Political Commit-
tee (Folder 6, 10th Meeting, p. 113).50 \\'RITTEN STATEalEST OF UXITFD NATIONS (20 1 50)

Statement by the representative of Denmark-11th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 11th Meeting, p. "5).
Statement by the representative of Ethiopia-11th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 11th Meeting, p. 116).
Statement by the representative of France-11th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 11th aleeting, p. 118).
Statement by the representative of Canada-12th Meeting of
the .4d hoc Political Committee (Folder 6, 12th Meeting, p. 134).
Statement by the representative of France-176th illeeting of
the General Asseinbly (Folder 8, 176th Plenary Meeting, p. 786).
Statement by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics-176th Meeting of the General Assembly (Folder 8,
176th Plenary, Meeting, pp. 793.793).

177th Meeting of the General .4ssembly (Folder 8, 177th IJlenary

Meeting, p. 797).

4. Second Part of the Third Session of the General Assembly-
1949.
At the second part of the Third Session of the General Assembly,
the question concerning the relative powers of the General Assembly
and the Seciirity Council was raised indirectly by a draft resolution
submitted by the representative of Iraq (Folder 14, A/AC.z4/64).

\Vhen the recommendation for the admission of Israel was voted
in the Security Couiicil, it had been approved by a vote of g to 1,
with I abstention. The member abstaining \vas a pernianent
hIember of the Security Council, but in accordance with the estab-
lished practice of the Council, the President ruled that the recom-
mendation had becii approved. \I1hen the Ad hoc Political Coni-
mittee of the General Assembly considered this recommendatioii,
the represeiitative of Pakistan raised a preliminary question
whether, in view of the abstention of a permanent hlember, there
!\.as a valid recommendation from the Security Council and stated
that the General Assembly could take no decision until it had
dispelled al1 doubt concerning the regularity of the Council's
recommendatioii (Folder 13, 4znd Meeting, pp. 181.183). The

representative of Iraq submitted his draft resolution asking that
an inquiry be sent to the Security Council"seeking fiirther esplan-
ation for' the, validity of the vote taken with regard to the appli-
cation of Israel to membership in the United Nations", in view of
the absteiition of one of the permanent Illembers,. and, "\\rithont
prejudice to the discussion of the merits of the case", that an
advisory opinion be sought from the International Court of Justice
upon the nature of this vote.
This position ws challenged by the Chairman of the Committee
and by several representatives, \vho thought that the Councills
recommendation was in order and that in any case the Assembly
\vas not competent to question the regularity of a vote in the WRITTEN STATELIENT OF UNITED SATIOXS (20 1 50) 51

Security Council. The representative of Argentina again called
attention to the position of his delegation that the veto did not
apply to the admission of new Members (Folder 13, 42nd Meeting,
y. 185). In the 44th Meeting of the Ad hoc Political Committee,
the representative of Iraq declared that, taking note of the general
tone of discussion, lie \vould not press for a vote on his draft
resolution. However, he again raised the point when the question
was considered at the 207th Plenary Meeting of the General
Assembly on II May, 1949 (Folder Ij, 207th Plenary Meeting,
p. 310). The President of the Geiieral Assembly ruled that the
maiiner iii \\,hich the recommendation of the Security Council had
been adopted concemed the intemal government and procedure
of the Security Council and must be accepted by the General

Assembly as a recommendation of the Secunty Council within
the meaning of the Charter (Folder 15, 207th Plenar~. Neeting,
p. 330). The folloiving statemeiits may be of interest :

Statement by the representative of Pakistan-4znd Meeting
of the Ad hoc Politicai Committee (Folder 13, qznd Meeting,
pp. 181-183).
Statement by the Chaiman-4znd Meeting of the Ad hoc
Political Committee (Folder 13, 42nd Meeting, p. 183).
Statement by the representative of Iraq-4znd Meeting of the
Ad hoc Politicai Committee (Folder 13, 42nd Meeting, pp. 183- .
184, 188).
Statement by the representative of Argentina-4znd Meeting
of the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 13, 42nd Meeting,
P. 185).
Statement by the representative of Egypt-4jrd Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 13, 43rd Meeting, p. 191).
Statement by the representative of AustraIia-43rd Keeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 13, 43rd Meeting, p. 194).
Statement by the representative of the Union of Soviet Sqcialist
Republics-.}3rd Meeting of the Ad hoc Political Committee
(Folder 13, 43rd Meeting, p. 199).

Statement by the representative of the United Kingdom-
43rd Meeting of the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 13,
43rd hfeetiiig, p201).
Statement b the representative of Ecuador-43rd Meeting of
the Ad hoc PoEtical Committee (Folder 13, 43rd Meeting, p.202).
Statement by the Chairman-44th Meeting of the Ad hoc
Political Committee (Folder 13, 4th Meeting, pp. 203 and 209).
Statement by the representative of Iraq-4th Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 13, 4th Meeting, p. 204).
Statement by the representative of Cuba-44th Meeting of the
Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 13, 44th Meeting, p. 207).
Statement by the representative of Pakistan-44th Meeting
of the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 13, 44th Meeting,
p. 211).52 LVRITTEX STATEBlENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50)
Staternent by the representative of Lebanon-50th Meeting of
the Ad hoc Political Committee (Folder 13, 50th Meeting, p. 330).

Statement by the representative of Norway-51st Meeting of
tlie Ad ltocPolitical Committee (Folder 13, jrst Meetingp. 341).
Statement by the representative of Iraq-207th Plenary Meeting
of the General Assembly (Folder 15, p. 310).

Staternent by the representative ofCuba-207th Plenary Meeting
of the General Assembly (Folder 15, pp. 326-327).
Statement by the President-zqth Plenary Meeting of the
General Assembly (Folder ~j,p. 330).

5. Security Council 1946-1949.

There is little material touching directly on the issues raised
by the present question in the documents of the Security Council
prior to its fourth year. There was, of course, disciission of the
relative position of the General Assembly and the Security Council
in connexion with the establishment of rules of procedure during
the first and second years. This material is dealt with in SectionC
of this Chapter. During the discussion of the question of admission
of new Members, a few representatives made statements pertinent
to the present question. Thus, at the 54th Meeting of the Security
Council, the representative of Mexico stated that the admission

of any State to membership cannot be effectedwithout the recom-
mendation of the Security Council (SeczhrityCozcncilOficial Records,
First Year, Second Series, No. 4, p. 46). At the 13znd Meeting
of the Security Council, the representative of China stated that
the Assembly will take a decision only on the recommendation
of the Security Council (Security Council Oficial Records, Second
Year, No. 38, p. 815).
In the second year, resolutions which may have some indirect
interest to the question were introduced by the representatives
of Australia and the United States. The resolutions introduced
by the representative of Australia \vould have recommended that
Italy and Austria "be admitted to membership at such time and

under such conditions as the General Assembly may deem appro-
priate". (Security Coz~ncilOficial Records, Second Year, No. 81,
pp. 2127, 2130.) These resolutions were not adopted because of
a negative vote of a permanent Member of the Council. The draft
resolution of the United States would have requested the General
Assembly to consider the qualifications of the above-mentioned
applicants and would have pledged the Security Council to imme-
diately recommend to the General Assembly the admission of any
of the applicants which the General Assembly should have con-
sidered qualified for admission. (Security CozbncilOficial Records,
Second Year, Xo. SI, p. 2134.) This resolution was withdrawn
before it was put to the vote.54 WRilTEN STATEIIIENT OF UNITED XATIOKS (20 1 50)
in arriving at a recommendation by the Security Council or at a
decision by the Gcneral Assembly. (Foldcr 24, 428th Meeting,
p. 8.) At the same meeting, the representative of the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics stated that the Argentine proposals
were in effect an attempt at revision of the Charter. (Folder 24,
428th hleeting, p. '9.) This view was also expressed by the repre-
sentative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. (Folder 24,
428th Meeting, p. 16.) The Argentine draft resolutions were voted
on by the Security Council at its 443rd Meeting on 13 September,
1949. (Folder 24, 443rd Meeting, pp. 29-31.) The result of a vote
on the first rcsolution \vas g in favour and 2 against. The Chairman
declared that the resolution \vas not adopted as one of the votes
against \vas that of a permanent Rlember of the Council. The
representative of Argentina entered a reservation concerning this
ruling of the President.

The arguments of the representative of Argentina were devel-
oped at length dunng the 427th Rleeting of the Security Council
(Folder 24, 427th lleeting, pp. 10-30.) Other statements made
in the course of the debate on these Argentine draft resolutions
which have some rclevancy to the question before the Court
are as follo\vs :

Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 24,
4~3rd Meeting, pp. 13-14).
Statement by the representative of Cuba (Folder 24, 428th Meet-

ing. PP. 3, 4).
Statement by the representative of the United States (Folder 24,
428th hleeting, pp. 5-6, 8).
Statement by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (Folder 24, 428th hleeting, pp. 8-10).

Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 24,
428th Meeting, p. 14). .
Statement by the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic (Folder 24, 428th Meeting,.pp..16-17). .
Statement by the representative of the United Kingdom
(Folder 24, 429th Meeting, p. 4).
. .
Statement by the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic (Folder 24, 429th Meeting, pp. 4-6).
Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 24,
429th Meeting, pp. 12-13).

Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 24,
431st hleeting, pp. 9-10).
Statement by the representative of Argentina .(Folder 24,
439th Meeting, pp. 15-16).
Statement by the representative of Argentina (Folder 24,
440th Meeting, p. 7). , IVRITTES STATEIIEST OF USITED KATIOSS (20 I jo) 55

C. Rules of firocedzwegoverning the admission ofnew Members.

In the Statement of the Representative of the Secretary-General
of the.United Nations before the Court in the question concerning
the conditions of admission of a State to membership in the

United Nations, he ha?, occasion to indicate briefly the procedure
actually followed in the Security Council and the General Assembly
with respect to applications for admission to membership in the
United Nations 5. In connexion mith the present question
before the Court, it may be pertinent tostate the Riiles of procedure
of the two principal organs governing the admission of new
Rlembers. It is thought that the deliberatioris on some of the

issues in the several stages of elaboration of these rules may help
to throm some light upon the question under consideration.

I. Earlier Rules of procediire governing the admission of new
Nembers.
(a) The Provisional Rules of procedure of the General Assembly.

The Provisional Rules of procedure of the General Assembly
were first drawn np by the Esecutive Committee of the Preparatory
Commission of the United Nations in 1945 % Rules 119 to 123,
inclusive, concerned the admission of new &lembers. The draft
Provisional Rules were revised and approved by the Preparatory
Commission. The rules governing the admission of new hlem-

bers were adopted, with minor drafting changes, and figured as
Rules 104 to 107, inclusive 7.Upon the recommendation of the
Preparatory Commission, the Provisional Rules of procedure
were adopted provisionally by the General Assembly at the Second
Plenary Meeting, during the First Part of the First Session, on
II January, 1946 In the course of the First Part of the First
Session of the General Assembly, the Provisional Rules were

revised The rules on the admission of new Rlemhers remained
the same but were renumbered. These were as follows :
Rule 113.-Any State which desires to becorne a Mernber of
the United Nations shall submit an application to the Secretary-
General. This application shall be accompanied by a declaration
of its readiness to accept the obligations contained in the Charter.

Rule 114.-If the applicant State so requests, the Secretary-
General shall inform the General Assembly, or the Itembers of
the United Nations if the General Assernbly is not in sessioii,
of the application.

5 International CourofJustice: Conditions of admission of a State to member-
shipin the United Xations, Pleadings. Arguments, Documents, pp.47, 48.
Report of the Preparatory Commission, Doc. PC/zo. p. 18.18-29.
Dm. A/j>r. General Assembly, Official Records, First Part of First Session. Ple-
naryMeetings, pp. 50-66.
' Doc. A/71.
6 WRlTTEll STATEXENT OF USITED KATIONS (20 1 50) 57

Harle 55.-Any State which desires to become a Member of
the United Nations shall submit an application to the Secretary-
General. This application shall be accompanied by a declaration
of its readiness to accept the obligations contained in the Charter.
Htrle 56.-The Secretary-General shall immediately place the
application for rnembership before the representatives on the
Security Council. Unless the Security Council decides otherwise,
the application shall be referred by the President to a committee
of the Security Coiincil upon which each Member of the Security
Council shall be represented. The committee shall examine any
application referred to it and report its conclusions thereon to
the Council not less than thirty-five days in advance of a regular
session of the General Assembly, or, if a special session of the
General Assembly is called, not lessthan fourteen days in advance
of such session.
Rule 57.-The Security Council shall decide whether in its
judgment the apl~licant is a peace-loving State, and is able and
willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
and accordingly whether ta recommend the applicaut State for
membership.
Iii order to assure the consideration of its recommendation
at the next session of the General Assembly following the receipt
of the application, the Security Council shall make its recom-
mendations not less tlian twenty-five days in advance of a regular
session of the General Assembly, nor less than fourdays in advance
of a special session.
In special circumstances, the Security Council may decide to
make a recommendation to the General Assembly concerning an
application for membership subsequent to the expiration of the
time-limits set forth in the preceding paragraph.

(c) The Australian view and its discussion.

In the course of the discussions '5 of the Report of the Com-
mittee of Experts, the representative of Australia advanced for
the firsttime a thesis which was to be oft repeated by his Delegation
in connexion with the Rules of procedure on the admission of new
Members. He contencled that the General Assembly was the only
body which, acting on hehalf of the Organization, could make the
final and binding decision on the subject of admission ; that the
General Assembly, before it makes its decision to admit a candidate

to membership, has to satisfy itself that the candidate is not only
able to carry out. its obligations in respect to secunty, but is able
and willing to carry out the obligations contained in al1 parts of
the Charter; and that the recommendation which the Security
Council could make on the admission of a new Member could
concern only matters relating to security. He further asseited
that, in spite of the recommendation of the Security Council, the
General Assembly was not bound to admit the applicant, although

ISSectrrifCoitncil OficidRecords, First YeaSo. 2,pp.261-277.it was quite true that the General Assembly could not admit an
applicant \vithout recei\,i~ig the Security Council's recommend-
ation.
On the basis of these observations, the representative of Australia

suggested that a more appropriate procedure for the admission
of Members \vould be as follo!vs : The applicant State xvould
address a communication to the Secretary-General, and the Secre-
taryGeneral ~vould inform al1 Members of the United Xations,
or, if the General Assembly \vas in session at the time, would
transmit the application to the President of the General Assembly.
The General Assembly ~vouldthe11decide whether the application
should be entertained and, having made that decision, it would
immediately remit it to the Security Council. The Security Council
would consider it and prepare its report on the admissibility of
the aplilica~it. The General Assembly would give consideration to
such a report and, in the light of other factors which it might have
to weigh, would decidc whether or not to admit the applicant.
The representative of Australia, accordingly, proposed that the
Security Council defer the consideration of the liules of procedure
governing the admission of ncw Members recommended by the
Committee of Experts, and that the Security Council request its

President "to discuss with the Presidcnt of the General Assembly
the best method of consultation between the appropriate repre-
sentatives of the General Asseinbly and the Security Council with
a view to bringing about the adoption by both the General Assembly
and the Security Council, early in Septeinber 1946, of rules appro-
priate to each organ regarding the admission of new Members".
The representative of the United Kingdom spoke in favour of
the rules submitted by the Committee of Experts. \trith reference
to the contention of the representative of Australia, he pointed
out that the Security Council had a special responsibility in regard
to the admission of new illembers, laid upon it clearly by the
terms of the Charter. "The Assembly", he said, "plainly cannot
admit a new Blember unless that Member has been proposed by
the Council. That is toSay, the admission cannot be granted except
upon the recommendation of the Council." He therefore questionecl
the view of the Australian representative that any recommend-
ation the Security Council might make on the subject of the
admission of new illembers could concern only the effect of such
admission on security. The representative of the United Kingdom

cited Article97 of the Charter, which provided that "the Secretary-
General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the
recommendation of the Security Council", and pointed out that
"obviously in making that recommendation the Council cannot
have had in mind security interests alone, because the Secretary-
General has duties in regard to al1 the activities of the United
Nations". \VRITTEK STATEUENT OF UKITED NATIONS (20 1 50) 59
The representative of thc United Kingdom further referred to
Article 6 of the Charter, which provided that "a Rlember of the
United Nations which has persistently violated the principles

contained in the present Chartcr may be expelled from the Organ-
ization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of
the Security Council". He pointed out that the Security Council
\vas not limited to recommending expulsion solely on security
grounds. As to the procedure for the admission of new Members,
suggested by the rcpresentative of Australia, the representative
of thc United Kingdom stated that it was impracticable that
applications for admission should be refcrred in the first instance
to the Gcneral Assembly, since the dccision of the Security Council
to recommeiid the application ~ivs an indispensable condition to
the admission of a candidate.
The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
spoke in favour of the reconimendation of the Committee of

Experts. He said that the Charter left no cloubt that the decision
to admit a ne\\, 3Iember to the Organization could be taken only
if correspnding decisions were taken by the Security Council and
the General Assembly. hloreover, thcre \\.as no doubt as to the
procediire to be followed iii considcriiig applications for the admis-
sion of new ùlembers. He stressecl that the urords"iipon the recom-
mendation of the Security Coiincil" in Article 4, paragraph 2,
of the Charter meant that the General Assembly could not take
a decision \rithout the recommendatioii of the Security Council.
He therefore thought that it was "purposeless" for the General
Assembly to consider ail application for admission before a recom-

mendation had becn made by the Security Council.
The representative of China declared himself in full accord with
the obscn~ations of the represeiitative of the United Iiingdom
and cspressed the vie\\. that the decision of the General Assembly
regarding the admission of a proposed Member should be subse-
quent to a recommendation by the Security Council.
The representative of Rlcxico also expressed objection to the
position of the representative of Australia. He felt that, although
the General Assembly was giveii the power to decide on the
question of admission of ne\ir hlembers, this po\\.er \vas dependeiit
upon the recommendation of the Security Council. "This may
not have been our wish", he added, "but that is the test of the
Charter as it \\.as finally adopted".

The representative of the United States of America spoke in
favour of adopting the niles subniitted by the Cornrnittee of
Experts.
The draft resolutioii of Australia \\,as put to the vote and was
rejected by IO votes to I.60 IVRITTES STATEIIEST OF UXITED 'ATIOSS (20 I 50)

2. Rules of procedure in force at the time of the Foiirth Session
of the General Assembly.

(a) Resolution 36 (1) of the General Assembly.
In the course of the Second Part of the First Session of the
General. Assembly, on 2 Xovember, 1946. the representative of
Australia submitted to the First Committee a draft resolution

regarding the rules of procedure governitig the admissi011 of new
Members 16. This draft resolution provided :
"The General Assembly, recognizing tliat tlie admission of new
Members to the United Nations is a corporate act of the whole
Organization, requests the Security Couricilto appoint a committee
to confer with a Committee on Procedures of the General Assembly,
with a view to preparing rules governing the adinissioii of new
Members wbich will be acceptable both to tlie General Assembly

and to the Security Council.
In the preparation of such rules, regard should be paid to the
following principles :
(a) The admission of new Members is a corporate act.
(b) The General Assembly has primary and fiiial responsibility
in the process of admission.
(c) The Security Council, not having been given any general
power covering aii matters within the scope of the Charter,
its recommendation for the admission of an applicant to
membership should be based solely on the judgment of the
Council that the applicant State is able and willing to cary
out its obligations under those sections of the Charter which
come within the competence of the' Security Council."

The draft resolution \vas discussed at the 17th and 18th Meetings
of the First Committee on II and 12 November, 1946 17.
In explaining his draft resolution, the representative of Australia

suggestcd that the procedure for the admission of new Members
should be on the following lines :
(1) Applications for admission would first be submitted to the
General Assembly, which would be competent to judge of
their re$eivability ;
(2) The General Assembly would refer to the Security Council
those applications which it deemed receivable and the Security
Council would then see whether the applicant States fulfilled
the conditions laid down in .4rticle 4 of the Charter ;

(3) The Security Council would make its report to the General
Assembly, with positive or negative recommendations :
(4) The General Assembly would receive the Security Councii's
report and decide to accept or reject the Security Councii's
recommendations.

''Doc. A[C,1/23[Rev 1.
1'Generol Asse>?tbly Oficial RecorSecond Part ofthe First SessiSu.mmary
Recordsof the Fint Committee, pp. 72-83. WRITTEF STATEJIEST OF USXTED S.ATIOSS (20 1 50) 61

In this connexion, the representative of Australia stressed
that, although the General Assembly could not admit any candi-
date to membèrship in the United Xations without a favourable
recommendation from the Council, it mas authorized to reject a
favourable recommendation of the Council or refer hack for further
consideration such applications as had not received its recom-
mendation.

\Vhile some representatives expressed approval of the proposal
contained in the Australian draft resolution to request the Security
Council to appoint a committee to confer with a Committee on
Procedures of the General Assembly with a view to preparing
niles governing the admission of new Members which would
be acceptable to both of the principal organs, many members
of the First Committee took exception to the three principles
set forth in the draft resolution. It was pointed out, for instance,
by the representative of China, that if the "corporate act"
mentioned in Principle (a) meant that under Article 4 of the
Charter the phrase "in the judgment of the Organization" should
be given special importance and that the word "Organization"
\vas intended to refer to the General Assembly, he doubted the
soundness of snch an interpretation. His Delegation likewise
rejected the thesis of Principle (6). Responsihility for the
admission of new &Iembers \vas shared between the General

Assembly and the Security Council. .Since the Charter required
the General Assembly to act upon the recommendation of the
Security Council, the General Assembly could not be said to
have primary responsibility, even though it might reject a Couiicil
recommendation. He further said that Principle (c) raised even
greater doubts, since it appeared to add something to the Charter
and to interpret the Security Council's powers in a very restricted
sense. The Security Council's duty was to reach decisions on
the basis of the whole Charter.
The representative of Australia finally 'requested that the
second part of his resolution, which contained the three principles,
be suppressed and the first part amended to read as follows :

"The GeneralAssemblyrequests the Security Councilto appoint
a committee to confer with a Comrnittee on Procedures of the
General Assembly with a view to preparing niles governing the
admission of new lllembers which wiIl he acceptable both to the
General Assembly and to the Security Council."

The draft resolution, so amended, mas adopted by the First
Committee. bv roll-cal1 vote. \\riz> votes in favour.., a-ainst,
with 6 abstentions.
The draft resolution \vas submitted to the General Assembly
bv the First Committee at the Fortv-ninth Plenarv Bleetinz on
g'Xovember, 1946 It was adopted by 32 votes to g, &th I abLten-62 WRITTES STATEalEST OF USITED NATIONS (20 1 50)
tion '5.At the Sixty-seventh Plenary Meeting, on 15 December,
1946, the General Assembly appointed the following ;\lembers to

serve on its Committee on Procedures: Australia, Cuba, India,
Nonvay and the Soviet Union.
(b)Appointment of a Sub-Committee of the Committee of

Experts of the Security Council.
In pursiiaiice of the request of the Geiieral Assembly, the
Security Couiicil, at its Eighty-first lleeting on 29 November,
1946, decided to "instruct the Committee of Experts to name a
small Sub-Committee from among its own number to meet with

and listen to the proposals which the Committec appointed by
the Assembly might have to malie and to report on those proposals
to the Council for further instructions". Representatives of the
foilowiiig Nembers were appointed to serveon this Sub-Committee :
China (Chairman), Braiil and Poland.

(c)Joint meetings of the Committees of the General Assembly
:rnd of the Secunty Council.
The General Assembly Committee \vas convened on 26 May,

1947. It held four joint meetings with the Sub-Corninittee of the
Committee of Experts of the Security Council.
The representative of Australia submitted to the two Committees
a set of nine draft rules goyeming the admission of new Members,
to serve as a basis for discussion '9The main points of these draft
rules, insofar as they might bear upon the question before the
Court, were the following :

4. The General ..\ssembly shaU consider the application, and
if it finds that the application has been submitted in due fom
by the appropriate authority of the applicant State and that
the applicant State has showvnits williiigness to carry out the
obligations of the Charter, shall refer the application to the
Security Council for its recommendation.
5. The Security Council shall examine the application and
shall send its recommendation thereon to the General Assembly,
together with a complete record of the discussion in the Council
and the evidence submitted to it. This recommendation shall
be based on the consideration of:
(a) The ability of the applicant State to carry out the obligations
containecl in the Charter of the United Xations so far as
such obligations relate to matters within the jurisdiction
of the Security Council.
(b) Consideration of the question whether the applicant is a
peace-loving State.
6. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Security Council,
the General Assembly shall consider whether the applicant is a
--
18 Geneval AsscniblOficial Records, Second ParttheFirst Session, Plenary
Rleetingspp. 994-996.
lg Doc.A/AC.ii/W.z. WRITTEN ST.4TEAlEST OF USITED SATlOSS (20 1 50) 63
peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the
obligations contained in the Charter. In its consideration the
General Assemblyshall take into account the evidencetransmitted
by the Security Council.
7. If the Security Council recommends the applicant State for
mcmbership, the General Assembly shall decide by a two-thirds
majority of the Alemberspresent and voting upon its application

fo8. If the Security Council recommends the non-admittance of

an applicant State, the General Assembly may, after full con-
sideration, in terms of Rule 6 refer the application together with
a full report of the discussion in the General -4ssembly back to
the Security Couiicil for fiirtlier consideration.
In introducing his draft rules, the representative of Australia

reiterated, in substailtially the same terms, the three principles
contained in the Australiari resolution presented to the First
Committee .of the General Assembly, quoted above 2'. These
principles were refiited by various Members, and notably the
representative of Poland 2'.Ll'ith regard to the Australian thesis
that "admissiori of new Members is a corporate act of the whole
Organization", the representative of I'oland pointed out that the

phrase "in the judgment of the Organization" in Article 4 of the
Charter could only rnean in the concurrent jiidgment of the Security
Council and the General Assembly, which represented the Organiz-
ation for the purpose of adinitting ne\\, blembers. Since only .t\vo
of the Organizatioii's orgaiis \trerc involved, the corporate act
could not meaii the juclgrneiit of the whole Organization.
As to the Australian contention that the General Assembly
adrnitting
had primary and final respoiisibility in the process of
applicants and was not bound by any Secunty Council recomrnend-
ation, the representative of Poland urged that the General Assembly
had final responsibility, but initial responsibility \vas vested in 1
the Security Council by Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter.
He further argued that there were also other cases where action
may be taken by the General Assembly "upon the recommendation
of the Security Council" :Articles j, 6, 93 (2)and 97 of the Charter

and Articles 4 (3) and 69 of the Statute of the International Coiirt
of Justice. It \vas claimed that in al1 thcse cases the General
Assemhly could not act without a positive and specific recommend-
ation from the Security Council. The General Assembly could
reject the recommendation of the Security Council, but the ini-
tiative belonged to the Security Council and the General Assembly
had no primary responsibility.
The representative of Poland also took exception to the third

principle advocated by the Delegation of Australia. This principle
stated that the "Security Council could consider an applicant

20Doc. A/r\C.rr/SR.3/Rev.1, pp. 2.3.
2'DOC. A/AC.II/SR.~ ,p. 2-4. IVRITTES STATEJIENT OF USITED NATIOKS (20 I jo)
64
in the light of Article 4(1) only insofar as the obligations mentioned
therein related to those sections of the Charter which came within
the competence of the Security Council". It \vas maintained
that it would be illogical, for instance, for the Security Council,
iii coiisidering the appointment of a Secretary-General under
Article 97, to consider his qualifications only in relation to "the
maiiitcnance of international peacc and security" and not to

economic and social affairs, etc. It would be equally illogical,
he added, to bar the Security Council from examining racial
discrimination, if a question of expulsion of a Member on that
issue should arise under -4rticle 6.
In reply to the foregoing criticisms, the representative of
Australia22 explained that the Australian concept of a "corporate
act" \vas that full weight and effect should be given to the principle
spelled out in the phrase "in the jodgment of the Organization".
The Australian Delegation, he continued, believed that the General
Assembly had primary and final responsibility in admitting new
Members. His Delegation recognized the clear fact that under
Article 4 there could be no admission without a positive Council
recommeiidation. The Australian draft rules nowhere suggested
that the Assembly could admit an applicant without such a recom-

mendation, but nowhere in Article 4 was it specifically stated
whether the Assembly or the Council should take the first forma1
steps in the process of admission of new ;\lembers.
\qith reference to the Articles of the Charter cited by the
representative of Poland in which the phrase "upon the re-
commendation of the Security Council" had occurred, the repre-
sentative of Australia contended that the fact that a recom-
mendation of the Security Council was requested and that final
approval devolved on the General Assembly did not necessarily
determine which organ should first consider the matter. The
nature of the particular case should be the deciding factor. In
the admission of new Members, his Delegation thought it fitting
for the General Assembly to consider the applications first. With
regard to the question of the jurisdiction of the Security Council,

the representative of Australia argued that the citation of special
Articles authorizing action by the Security Council in economic
and social matters sholved that, as a general rule, the Security
Council had no authority in the economic and social spheres.
The representative of the Union 'ofSoviet Socialist Republics ZS
stated that the main aim of the Australian draft rules was to
revise the Charter. In particular, the intention of Rule 4 \vas
that no proper attention should be paid by the General Assembly
to the primary importance of a positive recommendation from
the Security Council, which \vas required by Article 4 (2) of the

''Doc. A/AC.ii/SR.4,p. 5. 6-8. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF UPIITED KATIOSS (20 I 50) 65
Charter. The same rule also "clearly meant a preliminary

consideration by the Assembly before any Council action, and in
this respect too it revised the Charter". He further pointed out
that the Security Conncil adopted its rules governing admission
of new Members when the General Assembly already had its
present Rule 115, nhich \iras known at that time as Rule 106.
This, he said, proved the General Assembly's recognition of the
principlc that it should examine an application only subsequent ~
to a positive recommendation of the Sccurity Council.

After the joint meetingsz4 with the Sub-Committec of the
Committee of Experts of the Security Council, the Committee of
the General Assembly decided by 3 votes (India, Xorway, Soviet
Union) to z (Australia, Cuba) that it was the Security Council
and not the General Assembly which was entitled to consider the
application first. In consequence, the Committee rejected draft
Rule 4. It also rejected draft Rule 5 (a) by 3 votes (India, Nonvay,
Soviet Union) to z (Australia, Cuba). The Committee of the

General Assembly further decided to include in its report a
statement that the General Assembly was not entitled under
Article 4 (2) of the Charter to decide on the application of a State
except upon a recommendation in the affirmative by the Security
Council. The representative of Cuba reserved the position of
his Government on this point z5.
Moreover, it was agreed by a majority (India, Norway and the
Soviet Union voting for, and Australia and Cuba voting against) :
(a) that the Committee could not suggest any procedural rules

which would have the effect of defining or limiting the powers
and jurisdiction of the Security Council in relation to the ad-
mission of new Members ; and (b) that the Secunty Council was
entitled to consider the application first.
The Committee next decided to recommend the addition of a
new Rule 116 to the General Assembly Rules of procedure and the
addition of two new paragraphs to Rule 60 of the Security Council
Rules of procedure. According to new Rule 60,the Security Council

would he required to forward to the General Assembly a complete
record of its discussion when it recommends an applicant State
for membership, and to çubmit in addition a special report to the
Assembly if it does not recommend admission or postpones the
consideration of the application. In new Rule 116, the General
Assembly asserted the right to send back to the Council for further
consideration and recommendation or report applications which
have not heen the object of a recommendation by the Council.
What was requested of the Council in the proposed Rule 60 was

what the Council did voluntarily the year before, and what was

*'For records of proceedings of the joint mseeDocs. A/AC.r/SR.?/Rev1;
sR.)/Rev.~: SR.+ andSR.5.
'5Doc. A/AC.II/SR.~.p.r.Report of the Committee, DA/384.p.?.66 \VRITTES STATEIIEST OF USITED SATIOSS (20 I jo)

asserted in the proposed Rule 116 ws what the Council actuaüy
acquiesced in when it accepted the five non-recommended applic-
ations referred back to it by the Assembly.
The majority of the Committee also proposed two minor changes :
the word "decide" should be changed to "consider" in the first

paragraph of Rule 60, and Rule 114 should be redrafted to make
it obligatory for the Secretary-General to seiid a copy of the applic-
ation to the Rlembers of the United Nations.
The text of the proposed rules \vas forwarded by the Chairman
of the Gcncral Assembly Committee to the Chairman of the Secu-
rity Coiincil Committee with an explanatory letter dated 30 June.

'947 28.
(d) Ilecisions of the Security Couiicil and its Committee of
Experts.

After consideration of the draft of the Geiieral Assembly Com-
mittee, the Committee of Experts amended the rules proposed
and submitted for approval to the Security Council a revised text,
together \vith ail explanatory report Ki.
At its 197th hleetiiig, on 27 August, 1947 2B..theSecurity Council
adopted this rcport and a resolutioii siimming up its essential

points. By tliis resolution 2" the Seciirity Coinicil accepted (1)
the proposcd change in Rule 114 andthe addition of a new Rule 116
(General Assembly rules), and (2) the additioii of tw paragraphs
to Rule 60 (Security Council rules) as proposcd by the General
Assembly Committee. The change from the word "decide" to
"consider" in the first paragraph.of Rule 60 \vas not accepted.
In addition, the Secunty Council proposed an amendment to

net\ Rule jS. It \\.as pointed out that ail applicant State becomes
a hlember of the United Xations immediately upon a favourable
decision by the Gcneral Assembly (Article 4 (2) of the Charter)
and immediately assumes the obligations and acquises the rights
of hlembers of the United Nations, for example, the right to take
part iii the decisions of the Organization. The Security Council

believed, therefore, that it would be preferahle that an instrument
should not be submitted after the decision had been taken by the
Asseinbly, as was provided in Rule 116 of the then existing Rules
of procedurc of the General Assembly ; such an instrument should,
on the coiitrary, accompany the application. Xe\\, Rule jS \\,as
therefore amciidcd as follows :

"Any State which desires to become a Afemberof the United
Xations shall submit an application to the Secretary-General.
This application shall contain a declaration, made in a formal
instrument, that it accepts the obligations contained in the
Charter."
'ODot. S/~?O,nciziex.
''Doc. S/520.
Secuvily CouncilClficiKiecovds, Second Year. No. 85, 2256-2267.
'ODGC. S/5?8. WRITTEN STATEbIENT OF UNITED XATIONS (20 150) 67

As a consequence, Rule 113 had to be changed to make it
conform to the new text of Rule 58, and Rule 117 had to be
amended. The Security Council suggested the following text for
the latter:

"The Secretary-General shall inform the applicant State of the
decision of the General Assernbly. If the application is approved,
membership will becomeeffective on the date on which the General
Assembly takes its decision on the application."
Amendments were introduced to the proposed rules by the
representative of Australia mainly providing for the prior consi-

deration by the General Assembly of an application for member-
ship and for restricting the powers of the Security Council. These
amendments were al1 rejected.
Upon the invitation of the Chairman of the Security Council
Sub-Committee, the General Assembly Committee held a joint
meeting with the Sub-Committee of the Cornmittee of Experts
of the Security Council, on z September, 1947 3O. The Chairman
of the former explained to the conference the reasons for which
the Security Council had modified the proposals made by the
Assembly Committee.

(e)Decisions of the General Assembly Committee.

The General Assembly Committee met immediately after this
conference and, following a short discussion, accepted the changes
made by the Security Council31.
The Australian and Cuban representatives reserved the rights
of their Delegations to raise in the General Assembly the questions
of principle which they had advocated but which had not been
accepted by the Geiieral Assembly Committee and the Security
Council.
The redrafted Rules of procedure governing the admission of
new Rlembers which the majority of the Cornmittee on Procedure
of the General Asscmbly recommended were as follows:

General Assembly Rules.
New Rule 113.-Any State which desires to become a Member
of the United Nations shall submit an application to the Secretary-
General. This application shall contain a declaration, made ina
forma1 instmment, tliat it accepts the obligations contained in
the Charter.

New Rule II+.-The Secretary-General shall send for information
a copy of the application to the General Assembly, or to the
Members of the United Nations if the General Assembly is not
-- in session.

=aDOCAp. /AC,II/SR.IO. joint meeting. see do~. A/AC.I~/SR.~.68 WRITTES STATEYEXT OF USITED NATIOSS (20 I 50)

Statefor membership, the General Assembly shalls consider whether
the applicant is a peace-loving State and is able and wiüing to
carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and shall
decide, by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and
voting, upon its application for membership.

New Rule 116.-If the Security Council does not recommend
the applicant State for membership or postpones the consideration
of the application, the General Assembly may, after full con-
sideratioil of the special report of the Security Council, send back
the application to the Security Council, together with a full record
of the discussion in the Assembly, for further consideration and
recommendation or report.
New Rtrle (116) 117.-The Secretary-General shall inform the
applicant State of the decision of the General Assembly. If the
application is approved, membership will become effective on the
date on which the General Assembly takes its decision on the
application.

New Rule 58.-Any State which desires to hecoine a ïvlember
of the IJnited Nations shall submit an application to the Secretary
General. This application shall contain a declaration, made in a
formal instrument, that it accepts the obligations contained in
the Charter.

Rule 59.-The Secretary-General shall immediately place the
application for membership before the representatives on the
Security Council. Unless the Secunty Council decides othenvise,
the application shall be referred by the President to a committee
Council shaii be represented. The committee shall examine anyy
application referred to it and report its conclusions thereon to
the Council not less than thirty-five days in advance of a regular
session of the General Assembly or, if a special session of the
General Assembly is called, not less than fourteen days in advance
of such session.

Rule 60.-The Security Council shall decide whether in its
judgment the applicant is a peace-loving State and is able and
willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
and accordineu, whether to recommend the a~olican' State for
membership.
membership, it shdi forward to the General Assembly the recom-
mendation with a complete record of the discussion.
If the Security Council does not recommend the applicant
State for memhershi~ or nostoones the consideration of the
application, it shall su6rnit a Specialreport to the General Assernbly
with a complete record of the discussion.
In order to ensure the consideration of its recommendation at
the next session of the General Assembly following the receipt WRITTEN STATEXENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50)
69
of the application, the Security Council shall make its recom-
mendation not less than twenty-five days in advance of a regular
sessionof the General Assembly,nor less than four days in advance

of a special session.
In special circumstances, the Security Council may decide to
make a recommendation to the General Assembly concerningan
application for membership subsequent to the expiration of the
time-limits set forth in the preceding paragraph.

(1) Consideration in the General Assembly and its First
Committee.
The report of the General Assembly Committee on procedure
for the admission of new hlemberssz was considered at the

116th Meeting of the First Committee on 19 Xovember, 1947.
The amendments recommended therein to the Rules of procedure
of the General Assembly were ad~pted~~.
The report 31 of the First Committee recommending the amended
Rules of procedure goveming the admission of new Members

was considered, and the amended rules were adopted by the
General Assembly at the ~zznd Plenary Meeting on 21 November,
1947 35. These rules have not since undergone any revision and
remained in force during the Fourth Session of the General
Assembly

(g) Adoption of the amended Kules by the Security Council.

The revised Rules of procedure of the Security Council goveming
the admission of new hfembers adopted by the Committee of
Experts were transmitted to the Security Council by a letter
dated z December, 1947, from the Assistant Secretary-General
in charge of Security Council affairs, addressed to the Presi-

dent of the Security Counci137. They were adopted at the
zzznd Meeting of the Security Council on 9 December, 1947 38.
These rnles have not since been revised and remained in force
at the time of the consideration by the General Assembly of the
question which led to the decision to request the Court to give

an advisory opinion 3g;
s2Dot. A1384.
Canerai Assetnbly OficialRecords, Second Session. First Committee,
PP. 523-527.
=anoç. A/~z.
'3 General Assembly OficialRecords, Second Session, Plenary Meetings,
pp. 1216-1218.
a'These rulesivereincluded in the Rules of procedure of the General Assembly
and were reiiumbeied therein izj to 127 inclusive. Doc.A/jzo. During its
Fourth Session. at the 236th Plenary Meeting o22 October, 1949,the General
Assembly adopted a number of amendments and additions to its Rules of procedure.
antl decided that they should enter intoforcé onI January, ~gjo. The rules
governing the admission of new Nenibers, however, remained unchanged.
Doc. S/6i2.
S8ci'ril Cot'ncil OficinRecavds,SecondYear, No. 106,p. 2771.
'*These ruleswere included inthe Provisional Rules of procedure of the Security
Council, Doc. Sigb/Kev.3. \VRITTES STATEJIEST OF USITED S.&TIOSS (20 1 50)
70

III. RECORDS 01: THE UNITEDXATIOSSCONFERESCE OS ISTER-

NATIOSSL ORGANIZAT~ON (TR.~VAUX PRÉPAR~\TOIRES OF
ARTICLE 4, FARACRAPH 2, OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED
XATIOSS)

A. Dtimbnrtoiz Oaks I'roposals.

The paragraph iii the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals dcaliiig ivith
the proccdiire for admission of new Members to the Organizatiori
is paragraph 2 of 'Chapter V, Section B, on the Fnnctions nftd
Powers of the General Assenzbly. This paragraph is as follo\vs :

"2. The General Assembly should be empoweredto admit new
Itembers to the Organizationupon recommendationof the Seciirity
Council." (Doc. I, G/I, p. 4, U.X.I.O., Vol. 3, p. 5.)

B. Sziggested anteitd~itetzlsaizd cofitments to Dztrfzbarton O~ks

Proposals.
Amendments and comments to this paragraph of the Dumbarton
Oaks Proposals were suggested by the Delegations of Egypt

(Doc. 2. G/7 (q) (I), p. 4; U.N.I.O., Vol. 3, p. 456) ; Brazil (Doc. 2,
G/7 (e), pp. 6-7; U.N.I.O., Vol. 3, pp. 237-238) : Guatemala
(Doc. 2, G/? (f) (1 p. I ; U.N.I.O., Vol. 3, p. 257) ; Australia
(Doc. 204, I1/1/5, and Doc. 239, 111114(a); U.X.I.O., Vol.8,
pp. 299 and 307); Paraguay (Dac. 2, G/7 (I), p. 2; U.N.I.O.,
Vol. 3, p. 346) ; Vcnezuela (Dac. 2, G/7 (d) (I),p. g; U.N.I.O.,
Vol. 3, p. 197) ;Ecuador (Doc. 2,G/7 (p), p. 12 ;U.N.I.O., Vol. 3,

p. 405) ; Uruguay (Doc. 2, 'G/7 (a) (I), p. 5 ;U.X.I.O., Vol. 3,
p. 38). These amendments were coiiected by the Secretariat
and submitted as annexes ta the agenda for the Second aiid Third
Meetings of Committec 1111 (Doc. 161, II/1/3, U.X.I.O., Vol. S.
pp. 289-291 ;DOC.204, 11/1/5, U.X.I.0.. Vol. 8, p. 299 ;DOC. 201,
I1/1/4. U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, pp. 301-303 ; Dac. 239. I1/1/4 (a), U.N.I.O.,
\'al. 8, p. 307). The proposed amendments as listed by the

Secretariat were as follows :
The Egyptian Delegation proposes that paragraph z should
read :

"The General Assembly shall be empowered, after taking
the advice of the Security Council,to admit new Membersto
the Organization."

The Brazilian Delegation suggests that Chapter III of the
Dnmbarton Oaks Proposals be replaced by the following :
"1. The International Organization shall be coinposed of al1
sovereign States that now exist or which in the future may
exist under their own independent conditionsof life.
2. No State may be expeued from the Organization or
voluntarily withdraw from it." WRITTEN STATEMENT OF UNITED NATIOXS (20 1 50)
71
The Guatemalan Delegation has made the following comment :
"This Delegation thinks that the Organization contemplated

would stand on a firmer basis if it were giveu absolute univer-
sality, in such wise that every State should by the very fact
of its being such be included as a hfember. The Organization
would thereby embrace the whole international community."

The Australian Delegation proposes the following revised
amendment for Section B, paragraph z:
"The General Assembly *ay admit new Afembers to the
United Nations : Provided that the General Assembly shall not,
without the recommendation of the Security Council, admit
to membership a State which, at any time since 1st September,

1939,has been at war with any hfember of the United Nations,
or a State which since that date has given military assistance
to aiiy such State."

The I'araguayan Delegation cornments asfollows on Section B,
paragraph 2 :
"Tlie Assembly, in which representatives of al1 peace-loving
nations of the world may have seats, is not competent even to
admit to its membership another nation xvithout the recom-
mendation of the Council. This unbalance of powers could be
corrected insuch a way as ta satisfy the feelings and the authority
of the iiations represented in the Assembly with the preferential

status accorded to the Council."
The \'enezuelan Delegation comments on Section B, paragraph z,
as follows :

"Tliis numbcr of tlie draft establishes that the admission
of new Members of the institution shall be made by the Assembly,
by a special 213 majority and recommendation of the Council.
The Assembly is thus deprived of any initiative for admitting
iiew Menibers and, apparently, it would have left only the
power to veto the proposa1 of a new hlember recommended
by that body. The traditional and invariable rule in this kind
of organization has been that the admission of Rfernbers belongs
exclusively to the deliberative body or General Assembly and

this is natural and logical. This was done in the League of
Nations. The suppression of the initiative of the Assembly and
its subordination to the recommendation of the Security Council
seems, consequently, an unnecessary or unsuitable mutilation
of the powers of the former."

The Ecuadoran Delegation makes the following proposal rele-
vant to Section 13, paragraph 2 :
"Tlie Gen$rül Assembly shall determine, at a time which it
may consicler proper, the qualifications and conditions to be
retluired of sovereign States which are not members of the
Organization for admission to membership, and it is empowered
to pass on such admissions, requiring in either case a rnajority
of two-thirds of the votes of the Assembly."

7 The U~guayan Delegation proposes that Chapter V, Section B.
para.rap. 2, should be worded as foiiows :

"The General Assemblv shall be em~owered to admit new
Members to the 0rganiiation upon récornmendation of the
Security Council and to support such recommendations '0."

C. .First consideration by Committee I of Comfi~ission II

It was determined that the conditions under which a State
might be admitted to membership in the Organization should
be discussed by Committee 112, 'but the procedure by which
Jlembers should be admitted should be discussed by Committec

1111. (See Summary Report, Second Meeting, of Committee
1111, 9 May, 1945 (Doc. 211, I1/1/6, U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 295).)
Committee 1111 first discussed the procedures for admission of
new illembers during its second meeting on 9 May, 1945. The
Summary Report of this discussion is as follows 41 :

Discussion of Cltapler6, Sectio)~B, paragraplt 2 (admission of
newMembers).
The Committee discussed the text of this paragraph and the

amendments and comments submitted by the Delegations of
Egypt, firazil, Australia, Paraguay, Venezuela, and Ecuador.
The Secretary reported that amendments and comments by
Guatemala and Uruguay liad heen received too late for inclusion
in the documentation.
The Delegate of Egypt proposed that the Assembly should
admit new Members, not upon recommendation of the Security
Council, but after taking its advice. He indicated that the main
responsihility of the Security Council is to maintain peace and
guarantee security and said that the admission of new Members
was not a question of this character. The Egyptian amendment,
therefore, was iiitended to give the .4ssembly initiative in the
admission of new *lembers. The Australian Delegate espressed
the view that only if a real question of security were involved
should the Assembly be required to act on the recommendation
of the Security Council in the admission of new hlembers. He
advanced as a compromise, between the text of the Dumbarton
Oaks Proposais, on the one hand, and the suggestions of other
governments that the Assembly should have full authority in
this matter. on the other, the proposal that the recommendation

-- of the Security Council should be necessary for the admission of
40 It appearç from the Verbatim Minutes of the Third Meeting of Committee
II/, (Running iqumbcrs 26 and 42, U.N. Archives. Vol59) that thc Uelegate of
Uruguay desired the last phrase of thiç proposcd amendment to read "and to
promote such a recammendntion".
41 For pertinent abstracts from the Verbatim Alinutçee Annex 1. It should
be pointed out that the officidocuments of the Conferenceare the Summary
Reports quotrd in the text of this Statement. ThVerbatim Alinutes aresteno-
graphic reports which are for the most part uncorrected by the Delegates con-
cerned. They do hoivever canstitute a mare complete record of what was actually
said. WRITTEN STATEIIIEKT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50) 73

countries which have been at war with any of the United Nations
at any time since September 1939.
'The Delegate of the United States emphasized the predominant
importance of security considerations in the Charter being written,
and expressed the opinion that the Membersof the new Organization
must have unquestioned confidence in their associates in the
future.
The Delegate of the United States also emphasized the necessity
of having the exact text of amendments before the Committee
before action could he taken. (Doc. 211, I1/1/6, p.z; U.N.I.O.,
Vol. 8. p. 296.)

At the Third Meeting of Committee 1111on IO May, 1945, this
paragraph was again considered. The Committee rejected al1
of the proposed amendments, and approved in substance para-

graph z, Section B, Chapter V, of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals
by a vote of 22-9. The Summary Report of this discussion is
as follows 42:

2. Disc~~ssionof paragraph z of Seclion B, Chapter V (admis-
sion of Members). The Chairman ruled that the Brazilian suggestion
for universal membership in the Organization should he discussed
in Committee 112.
The Committee discussed the revised Australian amendment
on Section B, paragraph 2 (Doc. 204). It was urged that the
Australian amendment represented a compromise hetween the

Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, which require a Security Council
recommendation for admission of Blembers of the Organization,
and the position reflected in several amendments submitted to
the Conference which would give the General Assembly final or
sole authority on the admission of blembers. It was pointed out
that the Australian amendment provided that no State whicli
had been at war with any Member of the United Nations since
September 1, 1939, or had given military assistance to such a
State, could be admitted without the recommendation of the
Security Council. The United States Delegate stressed the dangers
to be found in admitting to the Organization those who hypo-
critically professed sympathy with the United Nations. Several
delegates emphasized that the primary concern of the Conference
was the writing of a Charter which would provide security against
a repetition of the present war. It was urged that the Security
Council should have predominant authority and that no provision
be written into the Charter which might invite a dispute between
the General Assemhly and the Security Council. The Delegate
of China suggested that if a date were nritten into the Charter
as a criterion for admission of a Member at war with the United
Nations, it should be September 1931, when Manchuria was
invaded. It was pointed out that the Australian amendment made
it necessary to determine in every case whether the proposed
new Members had rendered military assistance to the enenlies of
--
@ For pertinentabstractfrom the Verbatirn hlinutes, see AnnII. WRITTEN STATEIllENT OF UNITED NATIOXS (20 1 50)
74
the ünited Nations. This made clear the necessity for the Security
Council to assume responsibility for admission of Members.

Decisio?~: The Committee rejected the proposed amendments of
Egypt, Australia, Brazil, Paraguay, Venezz~ela,and Uruguay
(see Doc. 201).

The Committee approvedparagraph 2, Section B, Chapter V,
of the Dumbarton Onks Proposals by a vote of 22-9. (Doc. 236,
II/i/7, pp. 1-2 ; U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, pp. 309-310.)

At this same meeting, a drafting Sub-Committee was

established by Committec 1111 to prepare texts based upon
the decisions taken by the full committee. (Doc. 236,
lI/1/7, p. I ; U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 309.) The Suh-Committee,
at a meeting on 19 May, 1945, considered drafts submitted by
the Belgian and Canadian Delegates on the sections which had
been passed by Committee 11/1. Thc Sub-Committee approved
the suggcsted draft for Chapter V, Section B, paragraph z, with-

out discussion. (Minutes of Drafting Sub-Committce, Doc. 471.
11/1/A. 1, p. I ; U.X.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 531.) This text, submitted
to the full committee in the Report of the Drafting Sub-Committee
of 25 May, 1945, is as follorvs 43:

Section B. Functions and Powers.
z. The General Assembly should be empowcred to may admit
new hlembers to the Organization upon the recommendation ofthe
Security Council.

Section B. Fonctions et pouvoirs.
2. L'Assembléegénéralea le pouvoir d'admettre de nouveaux
Membres dans l'Organisation sur la recommandation du Conseil

de Sécurité. (Doc. 560, II/I/A/z, p. 2 ; U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. j4o.)
Committee 1111at its 11th Meeting on 24 May, 1945, approved
the above text without discussion by a vote of 28-0. (Doc. 594.

11/1/28, p. I ; U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 398.)
ildraft report mas prepared by the liapporteur of Committee 1111
covering inter alia the text on admission of new Members as
approved by the Committee (Doc. 570, 11/1/26, pp. 1-2 ;U.N.I.O.,
Vol. 8, pp. 407.408). This draft report was discussed in general
terms and then considered paragraph by paragraph by Committee

1111 at its 12th Meeting on 26 May, 1945 (Doc. 631, 11/1/30, p. 4 ;
U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 421) 44. A revised Draft Report 45 (Doc. 636,

4s It willbe noted that words deleted from the textof the Dumbarton Oaks
Proposals aredefaced, whereas aùditioniare underiined.
44 For pertinentstatements from the Verbatim Records of this meeting,see
An4sxIt may be noted that the only change in the paragraconcerning admission
of new hlembers iç that the phrase "many delegates" in the original drait is changed
to "several delegates"inthc revised draft. The texofthis paragraphappears in
the Verbatim illinutes of Commission II, which are quoted in Section D fallawing. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50) 75
11/1/26 (1); U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, pp. 426-427) of the Rapporteur was

considered and approved at the 13th Meeting of Committee 1111
on 28 May, 1945 (Doc. 660, Il/1/32, p. I ;U.N.I.O., Vol. 8,p. 444,
and Doc. 666, 11/1/26(1) (a),pp. 1-2 ;U.N.I.O., Vol. 8,pp. 451-452).

D. First consideration by Commission II.

Commission II had its first meeting on 30 May, 1945, and con-
sidered this report. The pertinent passages from the Verbatim
Minutes of this meeting are as follows :

Admission of new Members.
\Vil1the Rapporteur please read the corresponding paragraph
in the Report.
12apporteur (speaking in Rnssian ; English version delirrered by
interpreter follows): "Admission of new Members (Chapter V,
Section B, paragraph 2).The Committee recommends that new
hlembers be admitted by the General Assembly upon recom-
mendation of the Security Council. In supporting the acceptance
of this principle,several delegates emphasized that the purpose
c~fthe Charter is primarily to provide security against a repetition
of the present war and that, therefore, the Security Councilshould
assume the initial responsibility of suggesting new participating
States."

President :Any desire, Gentlemen, to discuss this item ?
No desire.
It is agreed to. (Doc. 719, 1118,p. 4; U.N.I.O., Vol.8, p. 30.)

E. First consideratiox by Co-ordination Committee.
'Meanwhile, the Co-ordination Committee, alter considering
suggestions regarding the arrangements of the Charter, decided

to incorporate Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 2, of the Dum-
barton Oaks Proposals into Chapter II on membership. (See Doc.
C0/3. CO/lo, CO/13, U.N. Archives, Vol. 31, and the Summary
Reports of the Fourth and Fifth Meetings of the Co-ordination
Committee (\VD 23, CO/14, and WD 32, CO/16, U.N. Archives,
Vol. 27).) In the arrangement originally agreed iipon, this para-
graph appeared as Article 5 of the Draft Charter. However, at
the Third and Fourth _Meetingsof the Advisory Committee of
Jurists on 5 and g June, 1945, it \vas decided to present this
paragraph as paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Charter (Summary

Reports of the Third and Fourth Meetings of Advisory Committee
of Jnrists, WD 207, C0/96, and \VD 268, CO/rro, U.N. Archives,
Vol. 28).
The text of this paragraph first submitted to theCo-ordination
Committee was the original text from the Dumbarton Oaks
Proposals as approved by Committee 1111 on 10 May, 1945. It
was as follows :76 WRITTES STATEMEXT OF UNITED SATIONS (20 I 50)
2. The General Assembly sliould be empowered to admit new
Alembersto the Organization upon recommendation of the Security
Council. (Doc. 431, CO/5, Drafting Paper 3, U.N.I.O., Vol. 15,
P. 34.)

-The Secretariat, in submitting this text to the Co-ordination
Committee, suggested that it should be modified as follows :

Arlicle 2.-New hlembers of the United Nations shall be admitted
by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security
Council. (For this paragraph, seeDrafting Paper 3.) (Doc.431, C0/5,
p. z ; Drafting Paper I, U.X.I.O., Vol. 15, 11.32.)
However, before these texts were examincd by thc Co-ordination

Committee, thc new text adopted by Committcc 1111 on 25 May,
1945, was receivcd. This tcxt read as follows :
2. The General Assembly may admit new Members to the
Organization upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
(\\ID 44, C0/18, p. S ; U.N. Archives, Vol. 30.)

The Secretariat suggested the following :

New Afeinbers of the Organization may be admitted by the
General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security
Council. (Ibid., p. 3, Drafting Paper 27.)

At its 8th 1fi:eting on 30 May, 1945, the Co-ordination Committee
took up the consideration of this last text suggested by thc Secre-
tariat. The Siimmary Report of the discussion is as follo\vs :
Article ir. Robertson stated that Article 5 was deficient
in two respects: (1) it fails to lay down a procedure for the sub-
mission ancl approval of applications for membership ; (2)it fails
to make clear the manner in which a State accepts the obligations
contained in the Charter. The Secretary stated that tbis was
interided to be covered by Article 4, which envisaged that the
Organization would work out its own procedure for admission.
Tlic Chairnian suggested that the words "upon their acceptance
of the obligations contained in the Charter" rnight be added to
Article 5.
hlr. Jebb stated that MI. Robertson's proposal was logical but
had riever been found necessary under the League. He felt that,
as a practical matter, new hlembers would, of course, accept the
Charter obligations, whether by ratification or some otlier proce-
dure.
The Chairman referred to the previous discussion of wliether
new Alembers would sign the original agreement. hfr. de Freitas
Valle stated that only original Aiembersshould sign. Mr. Robertson
pointed out that interim arrangements were being made to keep
the Charter operi for signature foilowing the San Francisco Con-
ference for those not possessing full powers to sign here. The
Secretary was asked to explore this question further and report
to the Committee at a later date. (WD 60, CO/zg, p. 3 ; U.N.
Archives, Vol. 27.) WRITTEN STATEhlENT OF UXITED NATIONS (20 1 50)
77
The Co-ordination Committee again considered this text at the
9th Meeting on I June, 1945. It tentatively agreed on a new
wording but decided to refer this point to the Advisory Committee
of Jurists. The pertinent passages from the Summary Report of

this meeting are as follows :

Article 5. Skeleto~tCltarter.
This article had been approved by the Co-ordinationCommittee,
but the Secretary pointed out that in the first line the words
"new hlembers may be admitted were not entirely satisfactory,
grammatically speaking, since States did not become Nembers
until after admissioii to the Organization. He suggested instead
the words: "States may be admitted to membership in the
Organization". &Ir.Golunsky thought there would be some dimculty
in translating this thought into Russian.

The Committeeagreedto refer the poirzt to the Jurists Committee.
(Summary Report, of 9th Meeting of Co-ordination Committee,
WU 158. C0/7g, p. 3 ; U.N. Archives, Vol. 27.)

F. Co?tsideratior~by Advisory Committee of Jz~rists.
Following this meeting, the Secretariat transmitted to the

Advisory Committee of Jurists the follo\ving document (IVD 109,
Col33 (1), U.N. Archives, Vol. 29) :

Tent as approued, at first readirzg,by the Co-ordinatiort
Committee al ils Ninth Ilfeeting, June r, 1945.

Article 5.-States may be admitted to membership in the
Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation
of the Security Council.
Note by the Secretariat : ïhere appears to he some question
as to whether the above article in its present form is susceptible
of accurate translation into Russian and possibly otber languages.
The article has therefore been referred to the Advisory Committee
of Jurists for consideration of this matter.

The Advisory Committee of Jurists considered this questton at
its Third Mectiiig on 5 June, 1945, and at its Fourth Meeting on
g June, 1945, approved the following text :

2. The admission of any State to membership in the. United
Nations will be effectedby a decision of the General Assembly upon
the recommendation of the Security Council. (WD 255, Co132 (z),
p. I ;U.N. Archives, Vol. 29.)
At the Ninth Meeting on 16 June, 1945, the Advisory Committee

of Jurists again considered the chapter on membership and approved
the text in both French and English as follows (WD 315, CO/127,
p. I ;U.N. Archives, Vol. 30) : The admission of any State L'admission de 'tout État
to membership in the United comme Membre des Nations
Xatioiis will be effected by a Unies est prononcée par l'As-
decision of the General Assem- semblée généralesur la recom-
bly upon the recommendation mandation du Conseil de Se-
of the Security Council. cririté.

The Summary Reports of the above meetings of the Advisory
Committee of Jurists on this paragraph are as follows hu :

Suntmary Refiort of Third iMeetingof Arlvisory
Commillee O/ jurisls (N'il 207, CO/g6,
p. 2-4, U.N. Archives, Vol. 28).

Article5.-There was general agreement that Article 5 is not
clear as to when an applicant becomes a &lember of the Organiz-
ation. iIr. Golunsky poiiited out that two courses are open :
(1) the government of a State may apply for membership, such
membership may be voted by the General Assembly upon recom-
mendation of the Security Council, and then the government
of the State may seek ratification by its parliament ; or (2) the
government may secure ratification by its parliament before it
applies to the Organization for membership. If the first course
is followed, the parliament of a State might place the Organization
in the embarrassing positioil of refusing ratification of admission

\+.hich had already been approved by the General Assembly.
Sir IVilliam Afalkin and Mr. Golunsky declared tliat it should
be made plain thnt admissioii to membership does not depend
upon action by a State subsetluent to the affirmative vote of
the .General Assembly.

MI. Hackworth stated that ratificatioii by a State should precede
its application for membership, and that when the GeneralAssembly
votes approval, the State should enter the Organization imme-
diately. He suggested that the provision of Article 4 that member-
ship is open to States which are ready und able, etc., covers this
situation. The General Assembly, he pointed out, would not admit
a State unless the parliament of that State had already ratified
membership according to its constitutioiial processes.
At the opening of the meeting, the Secretary explained that
Article 4 \vas being referred to Committee 112 upoii the instructions
of the Co-ordination Committee, and that accordingly tliis article
was iiot now before the Advisory Committee. The members of
the Committee felt, Iiowever, tliat Articles 3, 4 and j ivere so
clozely related that discussion of tirticle4 could not be altogether
avoided at this time.

Mr. Rasdevant suggested that if Article 5 were altered to the
effect that the admission of new Memhers is decided by the General
.4ssembly iipon the recommendntion of the Security Council, it
would be quite clear thiit the action by the General Assembly
was final. WRITTEN STATEMEST OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50) 79

Mr. Garcia Robles proposed that Article 4 be altered to provide
for admission of States which accordingtu their i?zterna/legislalion
are able and ready, etc. Mr. Hsu Mo suggested that the Security
Council and the General Assembly would be competent to deter-
mine in each case if a State was fully prepared, according to its
constitutional processes, to enter upon merr~bership.
It was suggested by several hfembers that Article 4 be altered
to rnake it plain that a State which had applied for rnembership

would not be considered to be able and ready to carry out the
obligations of mernbership unless it ha$ completed al1requirements
of its own constitutional processes for admission. It was agreed
that a phrase to this effect would be inserted in Article 4.
Mr. Golunsky stated that Article j might contain two paragraphs,
the first providing that application for rnembership could be
made when a Statc, in accordance with its constitutional processes,
had taken al1 steps .necessary for admission, and second, that a
State would be admitted by the General Assembly upon the
recommendation of the Security Council. It was pointed out that
the first of these two paragraphs might be covered in Article 4.
.
&Ir. Hackworth suggested that Articles 4 and 5 might be com-
bined to forrn a single article with two paragraphs. Mr. Basdevant
pointed out that the present sequence of Articles 3, 4 and j is
logical, since3 deals with the original Members, 4 deals with the
conditions for admission of new hfembers, and 5 with the procedure
for admission of new nlembers.
Several revisions of Article 5 were suggested by members of
the Comrnittee. After some discussion, the Comrnittee reached .
tentative agreement on the following draft :

:'The admission of such States shall be effected by a decision
of the General Assembly upon the recornmendation of the
Security Council."
It was agreed that at its next meeting the Committee would
give further consideration to this draft of Article 5.

Snmmary Ke$ort oj Fourth Meeting of Aclvisory
Committee of Jurists (WD 268, CO/rro, pp. I and
z ; U.N. Archives, Vol. 28).

Articles 3,4, and 5.

The Secretary, Mr. Darlington, presented for the consideration
of the Committee draft texts of Articles 3 and 4, as tentatively
revised by the Advisory Committee of Jurists at its Third Meeting
on June 4, and additional drafts prepared by the Secretariat.
The draft text of Article4in the Jurists text included as paragraph z
the substance of Article 5.

Article 4.

Article 4 was approved as drafted by the Secretariat.80 WRI'T.TEN STATEMENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50)

Summary RePort of Ninth Meeting of Advisory
Committee of Jnrists (WD 386, C0/158, p. I ;
U.N. Archives, Vol. 28).

ChapterII-Meinbership (Dac. WD 31j.CO/127).
The Committee approved Articles 3, 4, and 5 in both English
and Freiich.

lt should be yointed out that the material which follows deals
with that part of the San Francisco proceedings with regard

to Article 4, paragraph 2, to which frequent reference has been
made by the representative of Argentina.
The Summary lieport of the 14th Meeting of the Advisory
Committee of Jurists on 18 June, 1945, contains the follo\ving
statement :

A question from the Co-ordination Committee as to whether
paragraph 2 of Article 4 made it clear that the Assembly might
accept or reject a recommendation of the Security Council was
answered in the sense that the text was clear in this respect.
(\VD 404, C0f166, p. I :U.N. Archives, \'ol. 28.)

No verbatim minutes \vere kept of this meeting4'.

G. Secretariat 1l4enzoranda.

The officia1 documents of the Conference do not reveal the
exact background for the putting of this questioii to the Advisory
Committee of Jurists. However, it appears from memoranda
of the Secretariat of the Conference now in the Archives of the

United Nations that on the morning of 18 June, 1945, MI. \Villiam
A. Bro\\fii. Jr.. Secretary of Committee 1111, telephoned to
Mr. James F. Green, Special Assistant to the Secretary-General
of the Conference, requesting the latest papers relating to Article 4
on membership. hlr. Browii pointed out that the draft of Article 4
dated 14 June did iiot make clear that the General Assembly
should have pouver to accept or reject a recommendation of the
Security Council. Rlr. Browii said that, unless tliis provision

1s clarificd in the draft no\\. being considered by the Advisory
Committce of Jurists, it would be necessary for him to consult
his Committee. He said that since his Committee mas meeting
for the last time that night, he needed the latest draft urgently.

'' It may be noted that the members of the Advisory Committee Jurists
present at the 14th Al~tinwere:
Chairman Green H. Hackworth
China Hsu Mo
Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics S. B. Krylov
United Kingdom Sir William Dlalkin
France Jules BasdevantThis request was communicated to hfr. Norman J. Padelford,
Secretary of the Advisory Committee of Jurists, in a memo-
randum from hfr. Green.
Following the 14th Meeting of the Advisory Committee of
Jurists referred to above, Mr. Padelford, iii a memorandum to
hlr. Brown, stated :

Reference is made to the concern which you expressed to me
and to Afr. Green whether the test of Article 4, paragraph 2, as
approved by the Co-ordination Committee (CO/127) makes clear
that tlie General Assembly has power to accept or reject a recom-
mendation of the Security Council.
The matter \vas discussed by the Committee of Jurists at its
meeting tliis morning. The Committee believes that the word
"decision" leaves no doubt that the General Assembly may accept
or reject a recommendation from the Security Council. That is
to say, the General Assembly might accept or reject a recom-
mendation for tlie admission of a new >lember, or it might accept
or rejecta recommendation to the effect that a given State should
not be admitted to the United Nations.
Note \vas taken of the language employed in Article 20 con-
cerning the general powers of the ilssembly and voting therein.

H. Second.consideratioiaby Committee III1

This memorandum \vas read by hfr. Brown to Committee 1111
at its 15th and final Meeting on the same day, 18 June, 1945.
Following the reading of this memorandum, the Chairman stated :

Chairtizaic(translation from French) : After the explanation
which we have heard given as to the decision taken by the Com-
mittee of Jurists, 1 do not think that we need be afraid that the
Committee of Jurists lias changed our decision or has reduced
the scope of our former text. Our text, the meaning of our text,
remains iiitact. (Verbatim Minutes of 15th Meeting of Committee
1111K ,unniug Number 6; U.N. Archives, Vol. 60.)

The following exchaiige of remarks between the Delegate of
Greece and the Chairman inay also be noted :

tlie explanation given by the Honorable Secretary regardingether

tative for the future functions of the Assembly. 1 want to findthori-

out wliether this interpretation is the interpretation that will
be accepted, or will it be that we will have another interpretation
in the future.
Chairman(translation from French) : We can insert this inter-
pretation in our minutes. 1s that sufficient for you, Mr. Delegate ?

4'A copy of this rnernorandurnwillbc found in Annex VI.
A copy of this rnernorandurwillbe found in Annex VII.82 WRITTEX STATEXEKT OF USlTED XATIOSS(20 1 50)

Delegale of Greece: Yes, Afr. Chairman. (Verbatim Minutes of
15th Meeting of Committee II/I, Running Nurnbers 6-7 ; U.N.
Archives, Vol. 60.)

The Summary Report of the 15th Meeting of Committee 1111,
which is the officia1 record, contains the following passage jO:

2. Admission of new Members.
The Committee considered the following tests of Chapter V.
Section R, paragraph 2,of the Dumbarton Oaks I~roposals,which
were under consideration by the Co-ordination Committee :

"The admission of any State to membership iri tlie United
Natioris will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly
upoii the recommendation of the Security Council."
"L'admission de tout État comme Membre des Nations
Uiiics est prononcée par 1'Assembléegéiiérnlesur la recom-
maiidation du Conseil de Sécurité."
The Secretary reported that he had been advised by the
Secretary of the Advisory Committee of Jurists that that Com-
mittee felt tbese texts would not in any way wenken the original
text adopted by the Cornmittee. In the light of this interpretation,
the Committee approved the texts. (Doc. 1094, 11/1/40, pp. 1-2 ;
U.N.I.0 Vol. 8, pp. 487-4SS ; see also Doc. \VD 383, 11/1/38.
U.N.I.O., Vol. S. p. 481.)

The above incident \vas included in the Second Report of the
Rapporteur of Committce 1111 as follows :

Admission O/ New Members (Chapter V, Section H, paragraph 2,
of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals).
The Comrnittee considered a revision of the test of this
parngraph which was under consideration by the Co-ordination
Cominittcc in order to determine whetlier ttie power of the Asscmbly
to admit new Members on recommendatioii of tlie Security Council
w:is in no way weakened by the proposed tcxt.

The Committee was advised tliat the new test did iiot, in the
view of the Advisory Committee of Jurists, weaken the right
of the Assembly to accept or reject a recommendation for the
admission of a new Member, or a recommeiidation to the effect
thnt a given State should not be admitted to the United Xations.
The Committee agreed that this interpretation should be
included in its minutes as the one that sliould be given to this
nrovision of the Charter. and on this basis a~vroved the test as
Suggested by the CO-ordination Comrnittee. li30c. 1092. 11/1/39,
p. 2; U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 493.)

This Report was revised and circulated to the mcmbers of the
Committee for their approval on 19 June, 1945.

" The VerbatirAIinutes arset outinAnnex VI111. Second consideration by Commission II.
The Second Report of the Rapporteur of Committec 1111 was
considered by Commission II at its 4th Meeting on 21 June, 1945,

The Verbatim Minutes contain the following paragraph in a
statement of the President which was pertinent to this question :
The next point, the admission of new hlembers, does not cal1
for any action. The matter to be clarified was whether the text
as adopted weakened the position of the Assembly, and the
Committee of Jurists advised that it did not. Committee I there-
fore recommends that the Jurists' opinion should be included in
' the minutes. That will be done, so that no action need be taken
by us. (Doc. 1151, 11/17, p. 4; U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 193.)

At the close of the meeting, the Presidrnt stated :

President : The debate is closed now, Ladies and Gentlemen,
this report and the recommendations being adopted any o?jection to

No objection ?
Adopted. (Doc. 1151, 11/17, p. 28 ; u.N.I.o., Vol. 8, p. 217.)

The Report of the Rapporteur of Commission II contains oiily
the following brief reference to admission of new Members :.

the Security Council, to admit new Mernbers, to suspend the
rights and privileges of hlembers against which preventive or
enforcement action is taken by the Security Council, and toexpel
Members which persistently violate the piinciples contained in
the Charter. It will have important functions in electing Members
of the Security Council and the Trusteeship Council, and the
Members of the Economic 'and Social Council and the judges
of the International Court of Justice. On recommendation of
the Security Council, it will elect the Secretary-General.
(Doc. 1180, 11/18 (1), p. 2 ; U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 266. See also
Doc. 1177, 11/18. p. 2; U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 250, for preliminary
draft of this Report.)

However, the Rapporteur, in delivering his Report to the
9th Plenary Session of the Conference, stated :

its rapporteur's report, and each report was considered ands in
approved by the Commission. The reports of the rapporteurs of
the four technical committees constitute integral parts of the
report of the Rapporteur of Commission II, which has been
circulated to you and which .I have the honour hereby to submit
to the plenary session for its consideration and approval. (Doc.
1210, P/zo, p. 12 ; U.N.I.O., Vol. 1, p. 623.)

The Rapporteur's Report concludes with the following formal
recommendation to the plenary session :64 WKImEP; STATEMEXT OF UXITED KATIONS (20 1 50)

Commission II proposes to the plenary session that this report
be approved and that the draft articles which give effect to the
recommendations of the Commission and which will be received
by the plenary session directly from the Co-ordination Committee
be inserted in the Charter of the United Nations. (Doc. 1180, 11/18
(1),p. 8; U.N.I.O., Vol. 8, p. 272.)

J. Second considerationby Co-ordination Committee.

Meanwhile, the Co-ordination Committee at its 32nd Meeting
on 19 June, 1945, had again considered Article 4. The Summary
Report is as follows :

Article 4.-There was considerable discussion as to whether or
not some procedure should be prescribed for completing the
admission of a State to membership in the Organization. It was
pointed out that the jurists had already agreed there uras no
necessity for such a provision and that paragraph 2 made it clear
that the decision of the Assembly was the moment when the
State became a Member. The significant words in the paragraph
were "States which acceptthe obligations". The General Assembly,
upon recornméndation by the Security Council, would judge
whether or not "acceptance" had been expressed. In making
an application, each State must act in accordance with its respective
interna1 procedures. No provision for adherence, before or after
action by the General Assembly, is necessary. (WD 432, C0/1g6,
p. 4; U.N. Archives, Vol. 28.)

Finally, at its 36th Meeting on zo June, 1945, the CG-ordination
Committee again considered Article 4 and confirmed thetcxt with
the insertion of the word "such" between the words "any" and
"State", thus making a reference to States in paragraph I of
Article 4. The Summary Report of the consideration of Article 4

is as follows :
Article 4.-The Committee had before it Doc. WD 402. Co/164~'.
The reading"any snch State" was confirmed.(WD 436, CO/zoo,
p. II ; U.N. Archives, Vol. 28.)

K. Consideration by Plenary Session of the Conference.
The Conference considered the Report of Commission II at its

9th Plenary Session on 25 June, 1945. Following the reading of
the Report, by the Rapporteur, it was approved by the Conference
\vithout comment or objection. (Verbatim Minutes of 9th Plenary
Session (Doc. 1210, P/zo, p. 12 ; U.N.I.O., Vol. 1, p. 623).) The
final text of the Charter including Article 4, paragraph z, as con-
firmed by the Co-ordination Committee, was unanimously approved
--
" The text of Artic4,para.z,contained in Doc. \V402, C0/16~i,ç asfoilows:
"2.The admission of any State to membership inthe United Nations wilL
be effected ba decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation
of the Security Council."by the Conference at this same session. (Doc. 1210, P/zo, p. 20;
U.N.I.O., Vol. 1, p. 631.)
The final text of paragraph z of Article 4 is as follows :

2. The admission of any such State to membership in the
United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General
Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

20 January, 1950,

(Signed) Dr. IVAN S. KERNO,
Representative of the Secretary-General. ANNEXES

The materials in the following Anneses are from the United Nations
Archives. Annexes 1 to V and \'III contain abstracts from the Verbatim
Minutes of Committee 1111and the Advisory Committee of Jurists
which may have some relevancy to the present question. If the Court
should desire, the full Verbatim Minutes may be made available.
Annexes VI aiid VI1 contain copies of Secretariat Memoranda which
are on file in the Archives.
It is pointed out that the materials in these Annexes are not official
documents of the Conference and have not been subject to examination
or correction by the representatives of governments concerned. They
do, however, present a fuller picture of the proceedings of the Conference.

Alinex I.

COAfhlI'iTEE l1/1
VEKBATIhI hlINUTES OF SECOND MEETINGL
9 hIAY, 1945 ; 8.30 P.M.

MT. Saka (Turkey), Chairman (speaking in French ; translation as
delivered by the intcrpreter follows) :

...............................
\Vhat ne are dealing witli, in fact, issimply a question of the admission
of hlembers, hou. they are to be admitted, whether this is to be done
on the recommendation of the Security Council or by tlie General
Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, or otherwise.

...............................
Dele~atzfrom Egypl (speaking in French :English version as delivered
by interpreter follows) : hlr. Chairman, 1 xvishto speak on the-amend-
ment that has been proposed by the Egyptian Delegation. \\le are
proposing that the test before us be modified so as to make it possible
forthe General Assembly to initiate action on the admission of mem-
bership. Now 1 think that this proposa1 is in accord with the spirit of
several of the other amendments. It is our understanding of the func-
tioning of the Security Council that its main responsibility is to maintain
the peace and to guarantee security. Now it does not seem to us that
the admission of a new Member is, in any direct sense, a threat to
peace or security ; and it seems to us that this might well come under
the powers of tlie General Assembly ; that is, the initiation of the
proposa1 of membership for a new nation.
Now this requires, perhaps, a remark on the amendmeiit of the
Australian Delegation which concerns specifically the possibility of
admission of countries which, siiice the first of September, 1939 . ay

' Running Surnbers 7. 24-25. 25-28. 29-31U.K. Archives. Vol59 WRIïTEN STATEMENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50) 87

at any moment have been in a state of war with a Member of the
United Nations. Now, there 1 can see perfectly well that a question of
delicacy might be involved, and that possible considerations of security
might enter into the consideration of admission.
1thereforemake for our amendment the reservation which is expressed
in this amendment of the Australian Delegation.

Delegatefrom Australia :1 don't want to take anybody else's place.
1 just want to explain, Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment.
As it is at present, no new Member could be admitted without the

approval of the Securitv Council. We have an amendment-dealt with
eisêwherein the document-restricting the veto power to cases under
Section B of Chapter 8.
But this recommendation of the Security Council is, of course, neces-
sary to new &lembers. Weil, the delegate who has just spoken-from
Egypt-stated in a sentence what 1 think is the point in regard to
the admission of new Members. If there is a real question of security
involved in their admission. we think that the matter sh~u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ared
through the Security couniil ; and therefore we are prepared to modify
the present text requiring the Security Conncil's recommendation to
give the Assembly the power, providing that that doesn't extend to

States which have been the enemies of the United Nations in this war.
And 1 think that there too should be added : Nations which have given
military assistance to the Axis in this war, too. That is to say, the"
might not have been openly at war-which is by declaration-with
us. That does not refer to the members of this Conference. Everyone
comes here with a clean slate, so to speak. \Ve are not examining the
past. JVe are looking ahcad. But 1 think that it is only right that first
of al1 countries that were at war since 1939 should run the gauntlet
of the Security Council ; and in those countries should be included any
country which has given military assistance to the enemies of the
United Kations during the war. It wouldn't mean any country repre-

sented by anybody in this room.
Delegatefrom Egypt : Just to be clear, what kind of assistance ?

Delegutefrom Austrulia : Military assistance. Now that might involve
some philosophical or metaphysical analysis of what is "assistance"
or "indirect assistance". 1 don't want to get into anything caused by
the indirect, but something tangible. Military assistance to our enemies
during the war. That isn't a fair thing. Such a country should have
to have its case looked at by the Security Council before jurisdiction
is given to the Assembly to admit such a country.
1 think that is a reasonable compromise between the present proposals
which give the Security Council authority in either case, and it gives
the Security Council the right of saying "no" in every case, and the
opposite view which would give the Assembly the right to say "yes"
without any reference to the Security Council.

That is our proposal, nfr. President, and 1 submit it to the Committee
as something which is justified in principle. And again 1 thank the
representative of Egypt forputting the position in principle so precisely.
It is exactly the view we take.86 WRI~TES STATEMEST OF USITED XATIOSS (20 I 50)

Delegate /rom Vefiezcrela(speaking in French ; English version as
delivered by interpreter follows) : &Ir. Chairman, 1 wisli to make a
brief explanation of the purpose of our amendment. The reasons why
of admitting new Members is that this procedure seems to us more
democratic than the other.

Xow, as to the second part of the Australian amendment which
touches on tliis, 1 wish to make the following statement ;that is, on
the part recommending that countries or States which at any time
since September 1, 1939, have been at war with any Memher of the
United Nations, should not he admitted without the recommendation
of the Security Council.
On this point, in a Committee this afternoon, Alr. Kolin. mho had
\%.ideexperience at the League of Xations in Geneva, explained in
considerahle detail, and with great persuasiveness. the enormous diffi-
culties which the League of Xations had encountered with this same
kind of provision. The League of Nations, in fact, discovered, after a
certain length of time, that Germany created more difficulty by remain-
ing outside the League than it would have had it heen admitted : and
eventually an invitation-practically-was extended to Germany to
come into the League.
We do favour giviiig the General Assembly the power to admit
Members, with the reservation, however, that they shonld duly examine
the qualifications of any nations that might be candidates for admission.

Delegate /rom the United States: Before you are ready to vote,
MI. President, I'd like to Say a few words. 1 hope the delegates will
forgive me for getting to my feet so often, but you know members of
Congress must talk, and that is al1 there is to it.
But I'd like to impress on the delegates here that we are framing
a Charter here for security; and in answer to the gentleman from
Venezuela 1 don't think it would have made very much difference if
Germany had heen left out of the League of Nations or not. She would
have created the same disturbance some time or other.
Now, hlr. President, the thing that we want to do here is to he sure
that our associates-tliat Members that we are going to bring in to Our
fold-the people with whom we are going to sit in consultation, are
they the people that we waut to associate witli, and talk with, and
get their counsel ?
Mr. President, 1 have been through three wars. 1 have been in thii
war since 1935, since the very beginning, and 1 know what it is to
have the right kind of associate, to have that word "~ECURITY" burned
into our hearts.
l'ou are not here writing just a piece of paper that can be tom up.
Ii'e are going to livc up to the provisions that we have in this Charter,
and we iiiust be careful who our associates are going to be in the future.
1agree with the delegate from Australia with reference to the IIembers
before Septemher 1st ; but 1 also agree, Mr. President, that we have
got to be careful of the other people, and 1 know what 1 am talking
about. 1Iiave been through this thing, and these are not just idle words.
IVe Iiave got to bc very careful, and we've got to writc something intothis Charter-not things said on this floor-but we've got to have it
in some concrete form before us, and we've got to see the loopholes.
That is the thing we have got to consider. We are considering security.

Annex II

COMMITTEE 1111
VERBATIM hfINUTES OF THIRD MEETING '

IO MAY, 1945 ;5 P.M.

Delegateof Belgium (speaking in French ; English version as delivered
by interpreter follows) :
................................

1don't think we should deny the Security Council the right to speak
a word in that very important matter. On one hand it will be understood
that the admission of new Members will always, or nearly always, be
linked with the question of security. On tlie other side, al1 confidence
in the wisdom of the Security Council not to change things too much
and not to propose people or nations who have been at war with us,
and to make a very clear distinction, so we might admit that in its
wisdom the Security Council will only propose illembers who aredearly
admissible to the Organization. In that case 1 propose that we just
stick to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals.

...............................
Delegate of the U.S.S.R. (speaking in French ; English version as
delivered by interpreter follows) :

...............................

It bas ieen very ably pointed out by both the Delegatesof the United
States and Belgium that the main point of our association is security.
Now let us go back to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Chapter V,
Section B, first paragraph, reads : "In order to insure prompt and
effective action by the Organization, Members of the Organization
should by the Charter confer on the Security Council primary respons-
ibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and
should agree that in the carrying out of these duties and these respons-
ibilities it should act on their behalf". Kow there is a very little doubt
that the admission of new Memhers is strictly within the meaning of
the word "'security", and that it should be the duty of the Security
Council to act upon it. What do we want-a strong effective elastic
Organization. Now if we should admit for one second that there could
be a dissent of opinion between the Assembly and the Council. so far .
as admission of new hlembers is concerned, we might create a dispute
which would be rather lengthy, which would certainly be to the dis-
advantage of both of these, and the power and elasticity of the new
Organization. But why provide in this Charter occasioiis of having

' Kunning Numbers zz, z)-zj75, 27-28, 28-29, 36; U.S. Archives, Vol. 59 90 IVRITTEX STATEiIIENT OF DNITED NATIONS (20 1 50)
quarrels between the two bodies of the Organization ? We should on
the contrary do our utmost to avoid the instances where those clashes
are possible. On the other hand, we must have tvithin our Organization
a body which is strong enough, with authority that is strong enough,
as to bind the whole Organization in the right channels, atid that is

the reason why, taking into consideration what has been said, the
delegation of the Soviets is very much in favour of what has been
stated both by the Delegates of the United States and Belginm.
.........................

Belegate'of China (speaking in Chinese ; English version as delivered
by interpreter follows): Mr. Chairman, and fellow delegates, the
Chinese delegatiori mentions views very similar to those heard by
the United States and Belgium.
.........................

Delegate of Australia : ................
The real position is tliat under the Dumbarton Oaks Proposais,
&lembers carinot be admitted except on the recommendation of the
Security Council. There are a great many delegates who have suggested
the widening of that. One of the difficulties, of course, is that a proposal
to admit membership might be vetoed by one of the great Powers
on tlie Security Council, and many members of the Conference think
that tliat is not right.
But.the Australian amendment is designed to achieve a compromise,
that is to Say on security matters the Security Council should have
full power, and those security matters are the admission of enemy
States and admission, of States who have given assistance to the
enemy. It seems to rite to be a reasonable proposition, but 1 will leave
it to the meeting.

.........................
Delegate O/ the United IGngdom : Mr. President, it seems to me
that about the Australian amendment-we are really coming back to
the same thing that there must be a recommenùation from the Security
Council, and 1 think that has been the difficulty when many illembers
have not thought-maybe we could get away from it. 1 think the
very amendment put forward shows the difficulty, for, after all, who
is to decide that a State has given military assistance to any such
State ? Well, 1 presume the Security Council ~vouldhave to be asked
to decide, for no other organ of the Organization would, 1 think, take
that responsibility.Therefore, any new State coming in, it seems,

under this amendment, the Security Council would have to be the
one to examine the credentials, the one which would decide whether
they had given military assistance, and it seems to me tiow that the
Australian delegation has added that last sentence, it has rather proved
. that the Security Council must have the responsibility because they-
that Council would bave to decide this matter, look into the matter
to see if they had given assistance and then recommend to the Assembly,
and it seems to me by this discussion we have really brought out afresh
the need for tlie Security Council to have a Say, because, as the Delegate
of the United Stateshas said so ably, this is an Organization for security.
.........................92 WRITTES STATEJIEXT OF USITED SATIONS (20 I 50)
Delegateof U.S.A. :Mr. Chairman, 1 only know one word in French,
and that is the word "méme chose".

Chairman (speaking in French ; Englisli version as delivered by
interpreter follows) : That isagreed.

Ar~rtexIV.

ADVISOKY COMMITTISE OF JUKIçTS
VERBATIM MINUTES OF THIRD MEETING '
5 JUNE, 1945 ;3.40 P.M.

1)elegateof Cltina : As to your point, 1 think there could be no
organization in existence until the original Members, at least 28, had
ratified, and there could be no question of States being admitted to
membership until the General Assembly comes into existence.
Delegate of the U.S.S. :R.Of course.

Delegateof the United Kiagdom : And the Security Council.
Delegateof the U.S.S. R. : That is obvious.
..........................

Delegate of the United Kingdom: Al1 1 want to do is to niake it
quite plain that admissioii is not contingent for its effect on some
subsequent action by the State concerned or its Parliament .or any
other power.
.........................

Delegateof France (speaking in French ; English version as delivered
by interpreter follows) :The Delegate says that the difficulty is due
to the fact that you start with saying, "The States may be admitted
to membership", etc., but if you start with "The Assembly" and
Say that the "admission of new Members is decided upon by the
Assembly. upon the recommendation of the Security Council", then
tliat makes it quite final, makes it quite clear that that is the final
step.
Chairman : The text which we had before this Committee \vas that
"New Members may be admitted to the Organization ...." That was
objected to on the ground that they were not new RIembers until they
had been admitted.
Delegateof France (speaking in French ; English version as delivered
by interpreter follows) : But that is taken care of if you Say that the
Assembly decides on the admission of new Memhers.

Chairman : What was the suggestion again ?
Ilelegate of France (speaking in Frerich ; English version as delivered
by interpreter follows) : The Assembly decides on the admission of
near Members on the recommeiidation of the Securitv Council.

' Running Numbers 20, 23. 24-25, 31-32,42-43, 47. 47-49 ;U.N. Archives.
Vol. 100. WRITTEN STATE>lENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50)
93
Delegateof the United Kingdom : That is the same thought-"The
admission of new hlembers is effected by the General Assembly, upon
the recommendation of the Security Council." If you say "effected",
that takes care of it.

article before. When yousing talk about admitting new Mernbers. you
must realize that they are not Members until they are admitted. There-
fore, you don't admit new Members.

Delegateof China :It should be the admission of States as Mernbers.
Delegateof the United IGngdom :IVould you rather Say, "The admis-
sion of States to membership is effected...." ?
'
Chairman: That will take care of it.

Chairman : I want to raise a question on the word "Organization".
When we say, "In the judgrnent of the Organization", we are thinking
in tems of the Council and the Assembly.
Delegate of the U.S.S.R. : Of course.
Chairman: But they do not constitute the Organization. The
0rganization.i~ made up of these two organs, plus these other things.
the Secretariat for example. But the Secretariat and tliese other organs
do not have anything to do with admission. 1 think that Article 4
needs to be doctored up a little. 1 think you have got to carry in this
more specifically what you mean by "Organization". Perhaps it would
be better to Say, "which in the judgrnent of the Security Council and
the General Assembly are able and willing to carry out the obligations".
The same idea is conveyed in Article 5, but it seems to me that
Article 4 is a little loosely drawn. The Organization as such does not
pass upon the matter, only component parts of the Organization.

Delegate of the U.S.S.R. : 1 think that when the Assembly or the
Security Council acts on behalf of the Organization, we can Say that
the Organization acts.
Chairman : 1know, but why don't we spell it out ?"In the judgment
of the Organization, acting through the Security Council and the
General Assembly."
.........................

Chairman: That is right. Now, carrying out Professor Golunsky's
idea, what would you think of taking alternative Article 4, with the
changes already suggested, as paragraph 1, and as paragraph z have
the following : "The admission of such States shall be effected upon
the recommendation of the Security Council and the approval of the
General Assembly."
Delegateof theU.S.S. R.: Why can't you say, "will be effected by the
General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council" ?
..........................

Chairman: "The admission of such States shall be effected by the
approyal of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the91 WRITTES STATEMEXT OF UXITED SATIOSS (20 1 50) '
Security Council." 1 must Say 1 think the word "cffccted" is an
awkward worcl, but that mas in bath these drafts.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delegate of the United Kingdom: Shouldn't we Say "by a decisioii
of the Assembly" ?

Delegate of h'ussia: Yes, 1 think we had better.
Delegate of the United Kingdom : 1 am not sure what it will approve.
Delegate of the U.S.S.R. : It should be understood that the Assem-
bly approves of the statement.

~~airntan: You don't need to Say "approve". You could Say "be
admitted on the approval of the General Assembly". You have got it
fine now.
Secretary : As it stands now, do we Say it like this : "Such States
shall be admitted by tlie General Assembly, upon recommendation
by the Security Councii" ?
Delegnte of China : That is exactly the same wording oii the original
Article 5.
Chairman: We are just putting into a separate paragraph in 4.

Delegate of China : No, the idea of starting tlie sentence with the
word "admission" and following with "effected" is to show at what
moment the admission takes place.
Chairman: 1 thought that was al1 right. 1s it al1 right with yon?
Delegate of the U.S.S.R. :It is al1 right in Russian.

Secrelary : \\'bat is the decision-"shall be effected by a decision
of the General Assembly" ?
Chairman : The reason 1 said "approval" is because a decision of
the General Assembly might be contrary. The decision of the General
Assembly might be one way or the other.
Delegate of Ihe U.S.S.R. : It implies ....

Chairman: Well, 1 think that is al1 right. We can have another
draft.

ADVISORY COAIMITTEE OF JURISTS
\'ERBATLM MINUTES OF FOURTH hlEETING '
g JUNE, 1g4j ; 3.40 r.ar.

Chairman: \Vhy couldn't we make short work of this by com-
bining Articles 4 and 5 of this second draft, making Article j para-
graph z,and having it read somewhat as follows : "The admission
of any such State", that is, these other peace-loving States, you see,
"the admission of any such State ta membership in the Organizatioii
--
1 Running Xurnbers 6, 8.9, g-II U.N. Archives,Vol. IO~. Delegateof the United Kinfdom: It is imperative.
Cliairntan: But Iiere "it shall be done" is future. It hasn't been
done, it shali be done in the future.
Delegateof United Kinfdom That is what 1 think. 1 would rather
say "wili" for that, rather than....

chairman: It is just a choice of words, and either one suits me.
"Will be effected" then. "\Vil1 be effected by a decision of the....".

Annez VI.

AIEMOIIANDUM FROhf hlR. JAMES F. GREEN, SPECIAL

ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF
THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATION, TO >IR. NORMAN J. PADELFORD,
SECRETARY OF THE ADVISORY COAfMlTTEE 01: JURISTS'

June 16, Ig4j.

AIEMORANDUAI

To : hlr. Padelford.

From : Xlr. Green.

hl. Brown telephoned this morning to ask for the latest papers
relating to Article 4 on membership. Mr. Brown points out that the
draft of Article 4 dated June 14 (CO/127) does riot make clear that
the General Assemhly should have power to accept or reject a recom-
mciidation of the Security Council. Mr. Brown says that. unless this
provision is clarified in tbe draft now being considered by the Advisory
Committee of Jurists, it will be necessary for him to consult his com-
mittee. Since Iiis committee is meeting for the last time ta-night, he
iieeds the latest draft urgently.

1This memorandum ison file ithe Archives of theLnitedNations. WRITTESSTATEhIEXT OF UNITEDXATIONS(20 1 50) 97

Alinex VII.

AIEMORANDUMFROfil AlR. NORMAX J. PADELFORD,
SECRETARY OF THE ADVISOIIY CORIilIITTEE OF JURISTS,
TO AIR. \VILLIAI\I A. BKO\VX, JR.. SECRETARY

OF COAIAIITTEE 1111 '

THE UNITEDNATIONSCONFERESCE
ON INTERKATIOKA OLRGANIZATIOS

To : filr. \Villiam A. Brown, Jr.-Secretary II/I.
From : Sorman J. Padelford.

Reference is made to tlie concern whicli you expressed to me and
to Mr. Green whether the text of Article 4, paragraph 2, as approved
by the Co-ordination Committee (CO/127),lnakes clear that the General
Assembly has power to accept or reject a recommendation of the
Security Council.
The matter was discussed by the Committee of Jurists at its meeting
this morning. The Committee believes that the word "decision" leaves
no doubt that the General Assembly may accept or reject a recom-
mendation from the Security Council. That is to Say, the General
Assembly might accept or reject a recommendation for the admission
of a new filember, or it might accept or reject a recommendation ta
the effect that a given State should not be admitted to the United
Nations.
Note was taken of the language employed in Article zo concerning
the general powers of the Assembly and votiiig therein.

(Signed) XORMAN J. PADELFORD,
Secretary, Committee
of Jurists.

Anrrex VIII.

COAIMITTEE 1111

VERBATIM MINUTES OF FIETEENTH ilIEETIXG
18 JUNE. 1945 ;6.30 P.M.

The Secretary is going to make a statement.
Secretary : 1 have distrihuted Document No. 383. \VD 383. which
shows a change in the wording of Chapter j, Section B, paragraph 2,
witli regard to the authorit~ of the Assembly ta admit new illembers
ta the Organization upon the recommendation of the Seciirity Council.
His Excellency, our Chairman, was not present ivhen the Co-ordi-
nation Committee reached this article which is now put in another

This mernarandurn is ofilein tlie Archives of tlie United Nations.
a Runnin: Xumbers 4-8,LIN. Archives, Vol60.98 WRITTES STATEXIEST OF UNITED SATIOSS (20 1 j0)
chapter in the new order of articles in the Charter. And as Secretary
of this Committee, it seems to me it would be desirable to cal1 your
attention to a change in the wording which, at first sight, it seems
to me might possibly raise some question as ta whether it lirnits the
authority of the Assembly to reject the recommendation. Clearly it
means "act oii the recommendation of the Security Counci1"-whether
it then had full liberty to use its own judgment in the matter, 1
thought might possibly not be clear from the new test which is found
at the hottom of this document. 1 am perhaps a little over-cautious,
but 1thouglit tlic Committee would like to see that text and be assured
that it didn't change Our meaning. 1 cal1 the attention of this to the
Committee of Jurists and 1 have received a letter from the Secretary
of the Committee of Jurists which 1 will read to you.
"
Reference is made to the concem which you espressed asto whether
the text-test of the new article-the test of Chapter 5, Section B,
parag~aph 2, as approved by the Co-ordination Çommittee, makes
clear that the General Assembly has power to accept or reject a recom-
mendation of the Security Council. The matter was discussed by the
Committee of Jurists at its meeting this morning-that was the day
before yesterday-the Committee believed that the word "decision"
leaves rio doubt that the General Assembly may accept or reject a
recommendation from the Security Council. That is to Say the General
Assembly might accept or reject a recommendation for the admission
of a new hlember or it might accept or reject a recommendation to
the effect that a given State should not he admitted to the United
Xations. Notice is taken of the language employed in what is now
Article 20 concerning the general power of the Assembly and voting
therein. That is the paragraph 2, Section C, Chapter j, wliich states
that a "two-thirds majority of the Assembly is required to admit a
page is not weakened by the new fom.Jurists advises us that the lan-
1 merely thought that the fom having been considerahly changed,
some question might possibly anse, and 1 therefore wanted ta report
on it to Our Committee.

Chairmapz(traiislation from French) : After the explaiiation which
we have heard given as ta the decision taken by thc Committee of
Jurists, 1 do not think that we need be afraid that the Committee
of Jurists has changed our decision or has reduced the scope of Our
former test. Our text, the meaniug of Our text, remains intact.
Delegate of France (interpretation from Iireiicli) : 1 only want to
point out a very small difference hetween the English and the French
texts. In English 1r.eSay "the admission of any State will be effected".
That is future. Anclin the French we say: "l'admission detout Etat est
prononcéew-the admission of any State is effected. It is in the present.
The two tenses of the verb are different in lSnglish and French.
Delegateof Ildia: >Ir. Chairman, may 1 suggest that that is merely
the normal difference in the methods of drafting <locuments in the
English as opposcd ta the French. In English, the imperative is nor-
mally expressed in future fom-such and such a thing shall be done
or, as here, will be done; whereas to the French editions are in the
present. WRITTEN STATEIIENT OF UNITED NATIONS (20 1 50) 99

Delezate of Greece: hlr. President, 1 want -to find out whether the
explanation given by the Honorable Secretary regarding the Jurists'
interpretation, if this interpretation will be authoritative for the
future functions of the Assembly. 1 want to find out whether this
interpretation is the interpretation that will be accepted, or will it
be that we will have another interpretation in the future.
Chairman (translation from French) : We can insert this inter-
pretation in our minutes. 1s that sufficient for you, Mr. Delegate?
Delegate of Greece : Yes, fils. Chairman.

Chairman (translation from French) :As regards the slight difference
to which reference wasmade by the Delegate of France, the Chairman
says that the Secretary will do what is necessary so that both texts
will coincide.
We now pass to the third question in our agenda, namely ....
Delegateof the United States (interposing): Before puttiiig in another
question 1 think, as a matter of record, you ought to have a vote to
find out what the Committee did with reference, to tlie matter before
the Committee at the time, because the record will show that there
has been no vote taken. ive haven't decided on anything, and 1 think
as a matter of procedure we ought to have a vote on it.
Chairmax (translation from French) : You want this question voted ?
Delepte of the United States : Oh, you must have a vote, Mr. Chair-
man, because the record will show that nothing has been done ou
it at all.

Chairman (translation from French) : ii'eput to the vote point 2.
Those who agree, please raise the hand.
Against ? Adopted. 2. L13TT1311FROM THE CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES A.I.

OF THE U.S.S.R. IN THE NETHERI>ANDS

[Unoficial translation]
The Hague, January 16th, 1950.
Sir,
In reply to your letter No. 9226 of the 2nd of December, 1949,
about the question of the forthcoming consultative decision of the
Court on the acceptance of neiv blembers by the U.N.O., 1 have the
honour to inform you that the Soviet Government confirm their
position in this matter as stated by the Soviet Ilelegation on the

4th Sessionof the General Assembly on the ~2ndof November 1949.
The pro\~isions of the Charter of the U.N.O. dealing with the
acceptance of new Members arenot subject to interpretation by the
International Court of Justice as the Soviet Delegation, when dis-
cussing this question at the 2nd and 4th Sessions of the General
Assembly, has pointed out. The decision of the General Assembly
about submitting this question to a consultative decision of the
International Court of Justice is unjustified because the question is
quite clear and the corresponding provisions of the Charter do not
need any interpretation. The procedure of the acceptance of new
blernbers into the U.N.O. is defined by Article 4, paragraph 2, of
the Charter of the.U.N.0. That article directly pro\~ides for the
necessity of a recommendation of the Security Council for the

acceptance as a bfember of the U.N.O. This procedure, as it is
established by the Charter, is one of the basic principles of the
Charter and absolutely no derogation on this procedure can be
admitted.
Moreover, it must be kept in mind that in general the interp e-
tation of the Charter cannot be subject to the consideration of the
International Court of Justice whose functionsare defined by the
Statiite of the Court, and, in particular, by Article 36 of the Statute
dealing with the interpretation of treaties in connexion with a legal
dispute that has arisen and not about the interpretation of such
a quite peculiar document as the Charter of the U.X.0.
Article 96 of the Charter of the U.N.O. that confers the right
to the General Assembly to refer al1juridical questions to the Inter-
national Court of Justice, for consultative decisions, can also not

serve as a basis for the consideration, by the International Court
of Justice, of the question of the procedure of the admission of
new Members into the U.N.O. The whole content of the discus-
sions about this question at the sessions of the General Assembly
shows that tliis is a political question and therefore that it does LETTER FROM THE U.S.S.R.(16 I 50) IOI
not helong to the category of questions that are provided for hy
-4rticle 96 of. the Charter.

In addition, it must he pointed out that the question of the
interpretation of the Charter was specially discussed at the Con-
ference of San Francisco. That conference rejected a Belgian
proposal stipulating that : "As a rule, al1 matters about which
differences are arising hetween the various organs of the U.N.O.
as to the understanding of the Charter, must he suhmitted, for
interpretation, to the International Court ofJustice." (Document 873,
June 9th 19453
The Conference recognized that "al1the organs of the U.iq.0.
must have.the right to interpret, in the course of their daily \vorli,
those parts of the Charter that are put into practice hy these

organs" (Document 30. 933. June ~zth, 1945).
As the acceptance of new Members of the U.N.O. is a question
that belongs to the competence of the General Assemhly and the
Security Council, it is just these organs that are to interpret the
provisionsof the Charter related to this question.
1 remain, etc.

(Signed) M. VETROV. 3. TÉLÉGRARZRIE DU MINISTRE DES AFFAIIIES

ÉTIIANGÈRES DE LA R. S. S. D'UKRAINE

Kiev, 7009 3691366 17 2315, via Belradio État.
[Tradz~ction]

Sur instructions du Gouvernement de la R. S. S. d'Ukraine,
en réponse à votre lettre no 9226 du z décembre 1949, relative
à la question soumise à la Cour à find'avis consultatif au sujet
de l'admission de nouveaux Membres à 1'0. N. U., ]'ai l'honiieur
de vous communiquer ce qui suit :Le Gouvernement de la R. S. S.
d'Ukraine maintient actuellement la position prise,à l'égard de
cette question, par sa délégation, lors de la Deuxième Session
ainsi qu'au cours de la 251~0 séance de la Quatrième Session
de l'Assemblée générale (22 ~iovembre 1949). La délégation de

YU. R. S. S. a indiqué que l'ordre d'admission d'un État comme
Membre de l'O. N. U. est réglépar le paragraphe 2 de l'article 4
de la Charte, qui prévoit, pour l'admission d'un Etat comme
Nembre de l'O. N. U., une recommandation obligatoire du Conseil
de Sécurité.Les dispositions de la Charte, ainsi que la questioti
elle-même relative à l'admission des nouveaux Membres, sont
absolument claires et n'exigent aucune interprétation coml~lé-
mentaire. En conséc]uence,la décision, prise lors de sa Quatrième
Session, par l'Assemblée générale,de demander à la Cour inter-
nationale un avis consultatif sur cette question paraît êtreinsou-
tenable : cette décision se trouve en contradiction directe avec
la Charte des Nations Unies. Il est également nécessaired'iiidiquer
que la Cour internationale, dont l'activité est régiepar un Statut
spécial, n'est pas autoriséeà interpréter la Charte. L'article36

du Statut de la Cour parle seulement de l'interprétationdes
traités, lorsqu'il surgit des contestations d'ordre juridiqueet il
ne peut certainement pas servir de fondement à l'interprétation
de la Charte des Nations Unies. La question relative à l'admission
des nouveaux Membres, ainsi que l'ont démontré les débats
devant l'Assembléegénérale,paraît êtreune question politique :
c'est pourquoi l'article 96 de la Charte des Nations Unies ne
fournit pas de base en vue de l'examen, par la Cour internationale,
de la question relativeà l'ordre d'admission de nouveaux Membres
à l'O. N. U., parce que cet article ne permeàl'Assembléegénérale
de demander un avis consultatif à la Cour internationale que sur
des questions juridiques.Il y a lieu de rappeler que la Conféreiice
de San-Francisco, quand la question relative à l'interprétation
de la Charte a été débattuedevant elle, a rejeté une proposition
belge qui tendaità renvoyer à la Cour, à titre de procédure établie

et constante, l'interprétation des divergences existant entre les 3. TELEGRABI FRORI THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS'OF THE UKRAINIAX S.S.R.

Kiev, 7009 3691366 17 2315, via State Belradio.

[Translatioiz]
In reply to your letter No. 9226 of December znd, 1~~ 9n,the
question submitted to the Court for advisory opinion on the
admission of new RIembers to the U.N., and upon instructions of
the Government of the Ukrainian S.S.R., 1 have the honour to
submit to you the following :The Government of the Ukrainian
S.S.R. maintains the position taken on the matter byits Delegation
at the IInd Sessionand during the z51st Meetingof the IVth Session

of the General Assembly (November zznd, 1949). The U.S.S.R.
Delegation declared that the procedure for admission of a State
to membership in the U.N. \!,as determined by paragraph z of
Article 4 of the Charter, \'hich requires imperatively the recommen-
dation of the Security Council for admission of a State to member-
ship. The provisions of the Charter and the question itself of
admission of new Members are perfectly clear and require no
additional interpretation. Therefore, the decision taken at its
IVth Session by the General Assembly to request the advisory
opinion of the Court on the matter is not justified.This decision
is contrary to the Charter of the U.N. It is also necessary to
point out that the functions of the International Court are
determined by a special Statute, which does not permit inter-
pretation of the Charter. Article 36 of the Statute of the Court
deals exclusively with interpretation of treaties in case of legal
disputes and certainly cannot justify interpretation of the Charter
of the U.N. The question of admission of new Members, as
shown by the discussions in the General Assembly, is a political
matter. Therefore, Article 96 of the Charter does not justify
consideration of the matter of the procedure for admission of
new hlembers in the U.N. by the International Court, because
under this article the General Assembly can ask the Coiirt for
an advisory opinioii oiily on legal questions. It must he
remembered that whcn the question of interpretation of the
Charter was discussed at the San Francisco Conference, the latter
rejected a Belgian proposa1 to refer to the Court as an established
and permanent procedure the interpretation of disagreements

between the rarious organs of the U.N. regarding the test of the
Charter (Doc. 873. of June g, 1945). .4 resolution \vas there
adopted giving the right to the various organs of the U.N. tb
interpret, in the course of their activity, the provisions of the
Charter dealing with their respective functions (Doc.933, June12,
9103 TÉLÉGRAMME DE LA R.S.S.D'UKRAINE (17 I 50)

divers organes de I'O. N. U. sur le texte de la Charte (doc. 873,
du 9 juin 1945). A ce moment a étéadoptée une résolution selon
laquelle les divers organes des Nations Unies doivent avoir le
droit, dans le cours de leur foiictionnement. d'interpréter les
parties de la Charte qui s'appliquenà leurs fonctions particulières
(doc. 933. du 12 juin 1945). Sur la base de ce qui précède,on voit
que l'admission de nouveaux Membres à I'O. N. U. ressortit à

la compétence du Conseil de Sécuritéet de YAssembléegénérale,
et cela signifie que le droit d'interpréterles dispositions de la
Charte qui ont trait à la présente question appartient seulement
& ces organes.

(Signé 1)).MANUILSKI,
hlinistre des Affaires étrangères
de la R. S. S. d'Ukraine. TELEGRAM FROM THE UKRANIAN S.S.R.(17 1 j0) 103
For these reasons, the admission of new Members in the
U.N.).is under the jurisdiction of the Secnrity Council and the

General Assembly, which means that these organs alone have
the nght to interpret the provisions of the Charter on the present
matter.
(Signed) D. MANUILSKI,

Minister for Foreign Affairs
of the Ukrainian S.S.R. 4. TÉLÉGRARIME DU ~TIINISTRE DES AFFAIRES

ÉTRANGÈRES DE LA R. S. S. DE BIÉT>ORUSSIE

Minsk, 7018 4271425 18 0105, via Belradio.
[ Tradzcction]

Sur instructions du Gouvernement de la R. S. S. de Biélorussie.
en réponse à votre lettre no 9226, du 2 décembre 1949, relative à
la question soumise pour avis consultatif à la Cour internationale
au sujet de l'admission de nouveaux Membres, j'ai l'honneur de
vous communiquer ce qui suit : Le Gouvernement de la R. S. S.
de Biélorussie confirme de nouveau son point de vue sur cette
question, point de vue qui a déjà étéexprimé par ladélégation
biélorussienne à la Commission politique spéciale, lors de la Qua-
trième Session de l'Assembléegénérale,le 2 novembre 1949, ainsi
qu'au cours de la Deuxième et de la Quatrième Session de l'Assem-
blée générale,quand cette question a étéexaminé;.
La délégationbiélorussienne a indiqué que la disposition de la
Charte de l'O. N. U. relative à l'admission des nouveaux Hembres

ne peut êtresoumise à l'interprétation de la Cour internationale et
que, par conséquent, la décision, prise par l'Assembléegénérale,
de soumettre la présente affaire à la Cour internationale à fin
d'avis consultatif, ne paraît pas just; la question elle-mêmeet les
dispositions de la Charte qui y ont trait paraissent si claires qu'elles
n'exigent aucune interprétation. Le paragraphe z de l'article4 de
la Charte des Xations Unies précise. de manière absolument nette
et sans équivoque, l'ordre d'admission à l'O. N. ti.l,quel prévoit
directement la nécessité be la recoinmandation du Conseil de Sécu-
rité pour admettre un Etat comme Membre des Nations Unies.
Cet ordre, établi par la Charte, paraît être un principe de base
de celle-ci et, par conséquent, aucune déviation de cet ordre n'est
admissible. Les limites de l'activité de la Cour internationale sont
fixéespar le Statut de la Cour, et, en particulier, par l'article6,
qui offre la possibilité d'interpréter les traités à propos des contes-
tations juridiques qui surgissent, mais n'autorise pas l'interpré-
tation d'un document de caractère aussi particulier que la Charte
des Nations Unies. En conséquence, l'interprétation de la Charte
des Xations Unies ne peut, en général,faire l'objet d'un examen

par la Cour internationale. L'article96 de la Charte, qui accorde
à l'Assemblée généralele droit de demander des avis coiisulta-
tifsà la Cour sur toute question juridique, ne fournit aucune base
en vue de l'examen, par la Cour internationale, de la question rela-
tiveà l'admission de nouveaux Membres à l'O.N. U. Ainsi qu'il
ressort du débat qui a eu lieu devant l'Assemblée générale,la
question relative à l'admissioii des nouveaux Membres paraît 4. TELEGRAM IFROhl THE MINISTEIZ FOR FOREIGN

t\FFAIlZS OF THE BYELO-RUSSIAN S.S.R.

Minsk, 7018 4271425 18 oros, via Belradio.
[Translation]

In reply to your letter No. 9226 of Deccinbcr znd, 1949, dealing
mith the question submitted to the Court for advisory opinion
on the admissioii of ne\v Nembers, and upon instructions from
the Government of the S.S.R. of Byelo-Russia, 1 have the honour
to state :The Government of the Byelo-Russian S.S.R. reasserts
the views on the matter already statcd by the Byelo-Russian
Delegation to the Ad lzocPolitical Commission during the IVth Ses-
sion of the General Assembly on November znd, 1949, and during
the IInd and 1Vth Sessions of the Gcneral Assembly when the
question was csamined.

The Byelo-Russiaii Delegation declared that the provision of
the Charter dealing with the admissioii of ne\\, hlembers is not

subject to interpretation by the International Court and there-
fore the decision takcn by the General t\ssembly to refer the
present matter to the International Court for advisory opinion
is incorrect. The question itself and the relevant provisions of
the Charter seem so clear that they nced no interpretation.
Paragraph z of Article 4 of the Charter states perfectly clearly
and without ambiguity the procedure of admission to membership
in the United Nations. It provides directly for the necessity of
a recommendation of the Security Council to admit a State to
membership in thc United Nations. The procedure laid down
by the Charter seems to be a basic principle thereof, and therefore
no deviation of this kind is admissible. The scope of the Court's
jurisdiction is dctermined by the Statiite of the Court, and in
particular by Article 36, which permits interpretation of treaties
in connexion with legal disputes but does not permit interpretation
of a document of such a special character as thc Charter of the U.X.
Therefore, as a general rule, interpretation of the Charter of
the U.N. cannot be submitted to the International Court of

Justice. Article 96 of the Charter, which allows the Assembly
to rcquest the advisory opinion of the Court on any legal question,
does not justify consideration by the Court of the question
concerning the admission of new Membcrs in the U.N. The
discussion before the General Asscmbly showed that the matter
of admission of new Members is political and not legal. Therefore,
it does not come within the scope of Article 96 of the Charter.
Furthermore, it is necessary to point out that the matter of105 TÉLÉGRA~IYE DE LA R.S.S.DE BIÉLORUSSIE (18 1 jo)

êtrede caractère politique et non juridique, et, par conséquent,
elle ne rentre pas dans la catégoriede celles que prévoit l'article 96
de la Charte. Eu outre, il faut indiquer que la question de l'inter-
prétation de la Charte a étéspécialementdébattue à la Conférence
de San-Francisco. Celle-cia rejeté une proposition belge qui tendait
à renvoyer à la Cour, à titre de procédure établie et constante,
l'interprétation des divergences existant entre les divers organismes
des Nations Unies sur le texte de la Charte (doc. 873, du g juin
1945). La Conférencea admis que chacun des organes de l'O. N. U.
doit avoir le droit, dans le cours de son fonctionnement, d'inter-

préter les parties de la Charte qui s'appliquent à ses fonctions
particulières (doc. 933, du12 juin 1945). Par conséquent, la ques-
tion de l'admission de nouveaux Membres à l'O. N. U. ressortit
à la compétencede l'Assembléegénéraleet du Conseil de Sécurité,
et ce sont précisémentces organes qui doivent interpréter les dispo-
sitions de la Charte relativeà cette question.

(Signé) K. KISELEY,
Ministre des Affaires étrangères
de la R. S. S. de Biélorussie. TELEGRAB1 FROBI THE BYELO-RUSSIAN S.S.R. (18 150) 105

interpretatioii of the Charter was specially discussed at the San
Francisco Conference. A Belgian proposa1 referring the inter-
pretation of disagreements between the various organs of U.N.
.regarding the text of the Charter to the Court as an established
and permanent procedure was rejected (Doc. 873, of June 9,
1945). The Conference decided that eaeh organ of the U.N. has

the right, in the course of its activity, to interpret the clauses
of the Charter dealing nith its particiilar functions (Doc. 933,
of June 12, 1945). Therefore, the question of the admission of
new Illembers in the U.N. belongs to the jurisdiction of the General
Assembly and the Security Council, as the particular organs
competent to interpret the provisions of the Charter on the matter.

(Signe Kd) KISELEV,
Minister for Foreign Affairs
of the S.S.R. of Byelo-Russia. DÉPARTEMEXT DES COSFÉREKCES
DES ORG~NIS.~T~OX ISTERNATIONALES
ET DES TRAITES

LE CAIKE

Le Gouvernement égyptien est d'avis qu'aux termes de l'article 4.
alinéa z, de la Charte des Xations Unies, l'admission d'un nouveau
Membre au sein des Nations Unies est l'Œuvre dela x!o!ontéconcor-
dante du Conseil de Sécuritéet de l'Assembléegénérale.sous forme
d'une recommandation pour l'un de ses deux organes, et d'une

décisionpour l'autre.
z. L'Assembléegénéralene peut êtreappelée à se prononcer sur
l'admission d'un nouveau Membre qu'en présence d'une recom-
mandation formelle di1Conseil de Sécurité,c'est-i-dire, qu'aprèsque
le Conseil aurait épuiséla compétcnce à lui confiéepar l'alinéa 2
de l'article4 précitéde la Charte.

Cette manière de voir ressort clairement de la lecture des termes
mêmes dudit article, ainsi conçus :
l'admission ...se fait par une décisionde l'Assembléegénérale
SUR recommandaiion du Conseil de SécuritC: ».

En anglais : 11 .... upon the recommendation of the Security
Council ».
3. Cette recommandation du Conseil qui, par ailleurs, iie lie

pas l'Assembléegénérale, n'est pasun simple avis mais une cléci-
sion au sens propre du mot qui doit répondre aux conditions pré-
vues par l'article 27 de la Charte : le terme arecommandation >)
impliquant nécessairement le sens c d'avis favorable I),c'est-à-dire
l'accord explicite di1 Conseil de Sécuritéquant à l'admission du
Membre nouveau.
S'agissant d'une question d'importance qui ne saurait être quali-
fiéede question de procédure, le Conseil de Sécuritédoit formuler
cette recommandation » par une décision comprenant les votes

. des cinq hlembres permanents, ou du moins à laquelle iic s'oppose
pas expressément l'un d'entre eux.'
4. La volontéconcordante, en cette matière, de ces deux organes :
le Conseil et l'Assemblée,est inévitable pour formuler ele jugement
de l'organisation ,i(the judgment of the Organization), dont parle
alinéa de l'article 4 de la Charte.
le
En voulant ignorer la volonté de l'un de ces deus organes ou
y passer outre, l'autre organe ne pourrait émettre une décisionrégulièreet valable. Il ii'csprimerait, pour ainsi dirc, que la imoitié
du jugement de l'organisation 1).
Pour les motifs brièvcmyt rappelés ci-dcssiis, le Gouvernement
égyptien est d'avis qu'uii I-tat ne peut étre admis commc Nembre

des Xatioiis Unies en csCcutioii de l'alinéa z de l'article 4 de la
Charte, par décision dc l'Assemblée générale,si, pour un motif
quelconque, le Coiiseil cleSéc~iritén'a pas recommandé son adniis-
sion.

Pour copie conforme.

[ï'rnt~snlis#ar lettre du 23 jatluier ~gjo] 6. LETTRE DE L'EXVOYÉ EXTRAORDIXAIRE
ET RIIXISTRE PLÉXIPOTENTI.~I~ZE
DE LA REPUBLIQU ECHÉCOSLOVAQUE

No 697/jo La Haye, le 24 janvier ïgjo.

alonsieur le Greffier,

l'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de vos lettres en date du
2 décembre et du 2 janvier derniers, numéros 9226 e9'46 1, sujet
de la résolution de l'Assemblée géiiéraledes Nations Unies du
22 novembre 1949, concernant la compéteiice de l'Assembléegéné-
rale pour l'admission de nouveaux hlcmbrcs des Nations Unies.
Faisant suite à votre invitationj'ai l'honneur, d'ordre du Gou-
vernement tchécoslovaque, conformément à ce qui a étéditpar sa
délégationau cours de la discussion à la qLnA e ssembléegénérale
des Nations Unies, de soumettre à la Cour ce qui suit:

Il'après le paragral,he2 de l'article 4 de la Charte, l'admission
de nouveaux Membres des Nations Uiiies se fait par décision de
l'r2ssemblée généralesur recommandation du.Conseil de Sécurité.
Ainsi, conformément au texte qui, par sa clarté, ne laisse aucun
doute, les deux principaus organes de l'organisation doivent
intervenir aux fins de l'admission d'un nouveau Membre. Comme

il a déjà étéconstaté à San-Francisco, IThe Security Council
should assume the initial responsibility of suggesting newartici-
pating States n.
La Charte prévoit à plusieurs reprises, et toujours pour les
questions importantes, une pareille coopération entre l'Assemblée
géiiéralequi décide sur une recommandation préalable du Conseil
de Sécurité.Pourêtre valable, la recommandation doit évidemment
répondre aux prescriptions requises par la 'Charte, donc êtreprise
- conformément àson article 27, par. - par un vote affirmatif
des sept Membres du Conseil de Sécuritédans lequel sont comprises
lcs voix de tous les Membres permaiients.
Aucune disposition de la Charte ne permet de dévier de ces
prescriptions, qui sont d'ailleurs dans le système de la Charte
d'importance fondamentale. Lorçcliie le Conseil de Séciiritén'a
pas recommandé l'admission d'un iiouveau Membre, 1'Asscmblée
ne peut prendre aucune décision,car une recommandatioii négative

n'est aucune recommandation. A la lumière de ce qui précède,il semble bien que ce ii'était pas
l'aspect juridique de la question qui avait motivé la soumission

à la Cour de la demande pour l'avis coiisultatif présent, mais
certaines tendances politiques enue d'arriver par une voie détour-
née, et sous l'autorité de la Cour,à amender la Charte. La Cour
n'a évidemment aucune qualité à cet effet, de mêmequ'elle n'est
pas, de l'avis du Gouvernement tchécoslo\~aque, appelée à inter-
préter les dispositions de la Charte dans l'affaire consultative pré-
sente, celle-ci étant, en plus, d'ordre politique.
Veuillez agréer, etc.

(Signé )r J. RIARTINIC,
Envoyé estraordinaire et Ministre
plénipotentiaire de Tchécoslovaquie.7. \VRITTEN STATEBIENT OFTHE GOVERNhIEXT OF THE
UNITED STATES ON QUESTION CONTAINED IN GENERAL
ASSEBIBLY RESOLUTION OF NOVEMBEK 22, 1949

On Novembcr 22, 1949, the General Assembly of the United
Kations adopted a Resolution deciding to submit the following
question to the Interiiational Court of Justice, with a request for
an advisory opinion :

. "Can the admission of a State to membership irithe United
Xations, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph z, of the Charter, be
eflected by a decision of the General Assembly wheii the Security
Couiicilhas made iio recommendation for admissioii by reasonof
the candidate failing to obtnin the rcquisite majority or of the
iiegative vote of a permanent hfember upon a resolution so to
recommend ?"

B. lssz~esraised bythe Assembly's qfhestion.

The question submitted to the Court by the Geiieral Assembly
deals with a situation \vhere the Security Council has considered
and voted upon a membership application and mhere the vote
bas not resulted in a recommendation to the General Assembly
in favor of admitting the applicant. As the Assembly's question
shows, the situation contemplated is on& where no affirmative
recommendation resulted from the voting because (a) the applicant

failed to obtaiu the requisitemajority, or (6) a negative vote was
cast by a permanent Member.
The question does not raise the issue of whether the iiegative
vote of a permanent hlember is effective to defeat an affirmative
recommendation by the Security Council when seven or more
lfembers of the Council have voted in favor of admitting an applic-
ant. The question assumes that no affirmative recommendation
has been made by the Council when an applicant has failed to
obtain the requisite maioritv of votes or when a permanent Member
has cast a nêgative vite. -
The issue raised by the question which the General Assembly
has submitted to the Court mav thus be stated sim»lv : Can the
General Assembly admit a State to membership the United
Nations if the Security Council has considered and voted on the

application and has not made an affirmative recommcnclation? \!'RITTES STATE\IEST OF THE U.S.A. III

II. VIEW OF THE GOVERKIIEST OF THE UKITEDSTATES
The Government of the United States believes that the General
Assembly is iiot empowered to admit a State to membership in

the United Nations in the absence of an affirmative recommend-
ation by the Security Council. In the view of this Government,
the question submitted to the Court by the General Assembly
does not involve serious difficulty.
The provision of the Charter concerned, Article 4, paragraph 2,
seems clear in its purport. The practice of the United Xations
organs having responsibility for admissions to membership has
been uniform. Both the Security Council and the General
Assembly have proceeded on the theory that the Assembly could
not admit an applicant \\rithout the Council having recommended
affirmatively. This is evident from the deliberations in both
bodies, from their action on membership applications, and from

their Rules of procedure. While a certain portion of the legisla-
tive history of Article4,paragraph z,of the Charter has sometimes
been cited in organs of the United Nations to support the view
that the General Assembly may admit an applicant for membership .
in the absence of an affirmative Security Council recommendation,
examination of the context-and of the legislative history as a
whole-discloses that the legislative history fails to support the.
thesis for which it has sometimes been cited. Indeed, the history
makes quite clear that Article 4, paragraph z, \\,as designed to
require an affirmative recommendation of the Security Council
hefore the General Assemblv could admit an applicaiit to member-
ship in the United Nations. . .
The follo\ving statement is submitted tothe Court hy the Govern-
ment of the United States in ex~lanation of its view concerning
-
the question referred to the court' by the General Assembly.

A. The Charter text.
Article 4 of the United Nations Charter provides :

"1. Membership in the United Xations is open to al1 other
peace-loving States which accept the obligations containedinthe
present Charter and, in the judgment of therganizatjon, are able
and willing to carry out these obligations.
2. The admission of any such State to membership in the United
Kations willbe effectedby a decisionof the GerieralAssemblyupon
the recommendation of the Security Council."
It is obvious from this provision that some recotnmendation of
the Security Council is required before a "decision of the General

Assembly" can effect the admission of a new State. The decision
isto be made "upon the recommendation of the Security Council",
not "after having received the recommendation of the Security
Council". The language used thus indicates that the Security II2 WRIïTEX STATE>IENT OF THE U.S.A.

Council's role in admission to membership is not merely consult-
ative. The word "recommendation" in. Article 4, paragraph 2,
has the same meaning as if it read "favorable recommendation"
or "affirmative recommendation".

B. Constructio?tof Article 4, $aragra$h 2, by the General Assembly
and the Sectcrity Council.

It is believed that the Court will wish to give great weight to
the construction which has in practice been placed on Article 4,
paragraph 2, by the organs of the United Nations which have the
responsibility for giving effect to this provision. As will be shown
below, the interpretation given to Article 4, paragraph 2, by the

General Assembly and the Security Council has been uniformly
in accord with that which has been set forth above. An affirm-
ative recommendation by the Security Council has always been
considered necessary. The practice in which such construction
has been registered may be briefly summarized as follows :

(1) Geneval Assembly disczgssionof Argentine $ro$osals.

At the Second and Third Regular Sessions of the General Assem-
bly in 1947 and 1948, the Argentine Delegation presented proposals
embodying the view, inter alia, that an affirmative recommend-
'ation by the Security Counci1.i~ not necessary. In 1947. in the
First Committee, it proposed resolutions to admit the applicantson
which the Security Council had made no affirmative recommend-

ations hecause of Soviet vetoes '. In the debate in the Committee,
these resolutions were opposed by nearly al1of the speakers on the
subject At the conclusionof the debate, the Argentine represent-
ative stated that he would not insist upon a vote on his proposals S.
In 1948, the Argentine Delegation submitted in the Ad hoc
Political Committee a proposa1 with the following operative para-
graphs :

"1. Applications for membership sliall be siibmitted to the
consideration of the Assembly when tlic Security Council has
reached its decision ;and the Security Council'sdecision shall be
deemedto be a recommendationin favour of admissionif the applic-
ation has received sevenor more affirmative votes, even if one or
more permanent >lembershave cast a negative vote.

' General Assembly Documents h/C.1/184 and i85.Official Records of the
Annexes 14b andofr4hc.p. 5Sof.Aswmbly, First Committee. Summary Record.
' As indicated in the Summary Record ofmeetings, at least r5 delegations
expressed opposition: l'oland (ibi..,343f.)A.uçtruliu (p. 349).United States
(p.354).U.S.S.R.(p. 358)Pakistan (p. 360f.)I,ndia (p. 3.enezuela (p. 365f.),
China (p. 372).Unitecl Iiingdom (p. 378)Yugoslavia (p. 379).Brazil (p. 381).
Xorway (p. 381).Czechoslovakia (p. 383).France (p. 384).Philippines (p. 388).
Iraq indicated support (pp. 343,364).
Ibid.,p. 396. \VRITTES ST.ATTE>IEST OF THE U.S.A. 113

2. The General Assembly may both reject an application for
admission with a favourable recommendation and grant an applic-
ation with an unfavourable recommendation, always provided
that siich a decision is supported by a two-thirds majority of its
Members present and voting 4".

After a large majority of speakers had stated their inability to
accept the proposal 5,the Committee rejected a motion by Yugo-
slavià to the effect that the Assembly was incompetent to adopt

the proposal. The representative 'of Argentina then withdrew
his proposal ; a motion to declare nul1 and void the vote on the
Yugoslav motion was, however, rejected. Thus the Assembly's
proceedings on the 1947 and 1948 Argentine proposals may fairly
be summarized by the statement that the proposals received the

express support of very few States and were opposed, on Charter
grounds, by a large majority of speakers.

(2) Adoption 01 Rules of procedzwe O/ the General Assembly
and Secz~rityCozmcil.

Rule 115 of the Provisional Rules of procedure of the General
Assembly, adopted in January 1946,provided for Assembly consid-
eration of an application only in case of an affirmative recommend-
ation by the Security Council. It stated: "Il the Secz~rityCoz~?zcil
reconznzendstheafiplicant Statefor membership, the General Assembly

shall consider whether the applicant is a peace-loving State and
is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the
Charter, and shall decide, by a two-thirds majority of the Blembers
present and voting, upon its application for membership." (Italics

suppliecl.) Otherwise, the rules made no provision for Assembly
action.

(3) Disclission O/ new General Assembly and Secz~rity Cozrncil
Rules of procedz~reon adiizission O/ 9tew Members.

In 1946, the Australian Delegation at the second part of the
First Regular Session of the General Assembly proposed a resolu-
tion setting forth principles concerning the respective powers of
the General Assembly and the Security Council in the admission
of new Members and providing for the appointment of an Assembly

General ~\sscmbly Ilocuinent A/AC.~~/I~.
Over twcnty speakers expreçsed opposition to the proposal.See çtatements
of the following dclegations, Official Records of the Third Session of the General
Assembly. l'art 1. Ad hoc Political Committee Siimmary Record : Netherlvnds
(p. 58). Uruguay (p. 63 1.). U.S.S.R. (p. 65 ff,nited States (p. 77 1.). Egypt
(p. 8r 1.). Paland (p. 8q f.), \'enezuela (p. 87 1.). India (p. go), Pakistan (p. 9,).
United Kingdom (p. 95). Ecuadar (p. 97f.)Colombia (p.gS).China (p. gg), Dami-
nican Rcpublic (p. 99 i.). Sorway (ioo), Hrazil (p. ioz 1.). Yugaslavia (p. 103).
Canada (p.c134).110). Denmark (p. 115). Ethiopia (p. 116). France (p. 118) and
Four speakers indicated support. or commçnted favorably on the proposal:
Lebanan (p. 107). Iraq (p106).Paraguay (p. log)and Bolivia (p112).114 WRITTES STATEAIEST OF THE U.S.A.

committee to meet with a similar committee of the Sccurity Council
to draw up joint rules emhodying these principles8. In view of
opposition to the proposed statement of principles, expressed in
the Committce debate, the Australian delcgation withdrew al1
of the resolution except the provision for the appoiiitment of a
committee to draw up rules acceptable to the General Assembly
and the Security Council. and the resolution \vas adopted in this

form 7. The General Assembly Committee, appointed pursuant
to the resolution, decided as a basis for its work as follows :

"lt was agreed that the GeneralAssemblywasnot entitled under
Article 4,2, of the Charter to decideto admit a new Memberexcept
upon an affirmative recommendation by the Security Council.The
represeiitative of Cuba reserved the position of his Government on
this point...O"

Xo rule authorizing the Assembly to act \vithout an affirmative
recommendation was suggested. The rules agreed upon by the
Committees and adopted by the Security Council and General
Assembly merely make explicit the right of the .4ssembly to request
the Security Council to reconsiderapplications in cases where "the
Seciirity Council does not recommend the applicant State for
membership or postpones the consideration of the application9".

(4) Acliols on membership applications.
In 1946, the Assembly \'as faced with a situation in which the
Security Council had made no affirmative recommendations with

respect to five applicant States, the admission of three of these
States being held up by Soviet vetoes. At its Second, Third and
Fourth Regular Sessions, in 1947. 1948 and 1949, the same problem
continued to face the General Assembly. However, despite the
general reseiitment expressed concerning this situation, the General
Assembly did not go beyoiid declaring its view concerning the
action of one permanent ivlember of the Security Council and

requesting that the Security Couiicil reconsider these applications.
It may fairly be said that the conception that an affirmative
recommendation by the Security Council is necessary for the admis-
sion of any application bas been implicit in every important action
on the subject that has been taken by the Assernbly and Council-
in the adoption of Rules of procedure by the General Assembly

and Security Council ; the consideration of membership applic-
ations by the Security Council; the action of the Assembly in
requesting the Security Council to reconsider rejected applic-
--
"ficial Itecordofthe Second l'arofthe First Session of the General :\ssernbly,
First Corninittee, SurnrnRecord. p.3,s.
Ibid. ,. Sz i.
Report ofCornmitteeon Proccdiirforthe admission of new Alernbers. General
Xssernbly Document :\/jSqp. 2.
Sccurity Council llu58toGo; Gençral .AçsernblyRulesof proçe<123eto127. \\'RITTES STATEJIEXT OF THE U.S.A. IIj

. ations ; and in the consideration given by the Assembly to resolu-
tions embodying the conception that an affirmative recommend-
ation by the Security Council is not needed.

C. Legislative history of Article 4, paragvaph z.

(1) Dttmbarton Oaks Proposals ; cominents and suggestedamend-
ments thereto by governments.

The relevant section of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals States
that "the General Assembly should be empowered to admit new
Members to the Organizatioii upon the recommendation of the
Security Council la".

Thisparagraph was generally understood to mean that no State
could be admitted to membership without a favorable recommend-
ation from the Security Council.
This understanding is very clearly reflected in the comments
on, and amendments to, the paragraph which were submitted by
governments prior to the San Francisco Conference for consider-

ation by the Coiiference. One of these proposalsprovided that the
concurrence of the Security Council should'be necessary for the
admission of only such States as had been at \var with any Member
of the United Nations ; others were designed to make the Security
Couiicil's recommendation purely advisory in character ; stiü
others called for eliminating altogether the participation of the

Security Council in the admission of ne\\, ïifembers.
The Government of Australia proposed that paragraph z of
Chapter V, Section B, be amended to read as follows :

"The General Assembly ma dmit iiew Members to the United
Nations: Provided that the zzeral Assembly shall not, without
recommendation of the Security Council, admit to membership a
State which at any time since first September 1939has been at war
with any hiember of the United Nations "."

The Ecuadoran Government proposed the following :
"All of the present sovereign States of the world or those which
may subsequently become so, shall have the power to apply for
admission as Members of the Organization and shall be admitted
in effect if they possess the qualifications and fiIl the requirements
which shall be determined in due course by a vote of two-thirds of
,the General Assembly '2."

The Government of Egypt suggested the followingtest :
"The General Assembly shall be empowered, after taking the

advice of the Security Council,to admit new hlemhersto the Organ-
izatioii'S."

'0 Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, Chaptcr V, Section R(2).
Dac. 2,G/rq (1).U.N.C.I.O. Documents, Vol. 3, p. 545,
Lx DOC. 2,G. 7 (p), ibip,.401.
la Doc. 2,G/7 (q). ibid., p. 456.116 \\'RITTES STATEMEST OF THE U.S.A

The text proposed by the Government of Mexico read :

"The General Assembly should be empowered to admit new
hlembers to the Organization upon its own initiative or upon the
recommen<lation of the Security Council, altliough, in the former
case, the Security Council would, during the first eiglit years of the
Organization, be empowered to veto the atlrnission of a new hlember
by a unaiiimous vote of its semi-perrnaiient Members 14."

The Government of Paraguay made tlie following comment :
"The Assembly, in whichrepresentatives ofal1peace-lovingnations
of the world may have seats, is not competent even to admit toits

membersliip another nation ivithout the recommendation of the
Council.... 15"

The Government of Uruguay suggested the following test :
"The General Assemblyshall beempowered toadmit newMembers
to the Organization upon recommendation of the Securitv Council
aiid to suiport such rècommendations m."

The Venezuelan Government commented as follows :
"This nurnber of the draft establishes that tlie admission of new

Members of the Institution shall be made by the Assembly by a
special two-thirds majority and recommendation of the Council.
The Assembly is thus deprived of any initiative for admitting new
hlembers aiid, appareiitly, it would have left only the power to veto
the proposa1 of a new Member recommended by that body. The
traditional and invariable rule in this kind of organization has been
that the admission of Xfembers belongs eaclusively to the deliber-
ative body or General Assembly, and this is natural and logical.
This was done in the League of Xations. The suppression of the
initiative of the Assembly and itssubordination to the recommend-
ation of the Security Council seems, consequently, an unnecessary

or unsuitable mutilation of the powers ofthe former '7."
(2) San FvanciscoConference.

The procedure for the admission of ncw Members was one of
the matters considered by Committee 1111of the San Francisco

Conference. This Committee had before it the Dumbarton Oaks
proposa1 and nll the related comments and amendments set
forth in the precediiig section. The discussioii in the Committee
reflects clearly the rinderstanding that the Dumbarton Oaks

proposal would make the approral of the Security Council as well
as of the General Assemblynecessary for the admission of a hlember.
The Egyptian clelegatc spoke in favor of his Government's proposal,
which \vould have limited the Security Council's role in admissions

'* Doc. ?,G1.i (c)(1).ibid., pp181-182.
1s Doc. 2.G/7 (1).ibid., p346.
In the discussio)innCornmittee II/I, the Uruguayan deiegate pointed oiit that
the word "support" should hcrcplaced by the word "proriiotç".
" Doc. 2,G/7 (d) (1)iiiid., 197. \VRI'I"I'ESSTATEMENT 01: THE U.S.A. II7

ta that of being consulted by the Assembly. In explaining his
Government's proposal, the Australiaii tlelegate said in part :
"As it is at preseiit, no new hIember could be admitted mithout
the approval of the Security Council ...." In support of his sugges-
tion to limit the number of cases iii which Security Coiincil approval

mould be required, he said: "1 think that it is only right that
first of al1 countries that were at \var since 1939 should run the
gauntlet of the Security Council ...." The verbatim minutes
contain no suggestion of a contrary interpretation. The whole
assumption of the discussions \vas that under the Dumbarton Oaks
'proposal the assent of the Security Council to each admission \iras
required.

The summary report of the second meeting of Committee 1111-
the first meeting at which the membcrship problem \vas discussed-
on May 9, 1945 .eads as follows :
"The Delegate of Egypt proposed tliat the Assembly should admit
new Members, not upon recommendation of the Security Council,
but after takineitsadvice. He indicated that the main res~onsibiiitv

of the Security Council is to maintain peace aiid guarantee securit;
and said that the admission of iiew Members was not a question of
this cbaracter. The Eev~tian amendment. therefore. wai intended
to give the ~ssembl~~~tiative in the admission of new Members.
The Australian Dele.,te ex~ressed the view that onlv if a real
i,iic,.srionof icciirtru.,:riiiv~~lvc<illiniild rhc :\s;enil>bc icluircd
Io iciiiiitlitr~.cuinriiviirI:iti~f tlirSeciirit!. C<>iiiiiiitli<.,iltnis-
sion of new Members. He advanced as a compromise, between the
text of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposais, on the one hand, and the
suggestions of the other governments that the Assembly should
have full authontv in this matter. on the other. the ~r. .saltliat the
rtcoriiiiic~ii~lali>~tlic Sc<:iirityCouiicilsl~oiilillie iiececs:iryfor tlie
adniisiioii of couiirri~j whicli hcivc becn :it iinr ivirliniiy of [lie
United Xations at any time since September 1931). .
The Delegate of the United States emphasized the predominant
importance of security coiisiderations in the Charter being written,
and expressed the opinion that the Alembersof the iie\vOrganization
must have unquestioned confidence in their associates in the future.
The Delegate of the United States also emphasized the necessity
of having the exact text of amendments before the Committee
before action could be taken 's."

Before the third meeting, the Australian delegation revised its
amendment sa as to read as follows :
"The General Assembly will admit new hlcmbers to the United
Xations : Provided that the General Assembly shall not, without
the recommendation of the Security Council, admit to membership
a State which, at any time since 1st September, 1939l, ias been at
\var with any Member of the Uiiited Nations, or a State which since
that date has given military assistaiice to any sucli State IQ."

'8 Doc. 211,U.N.C.I.O. Docurnçnts, Vol.8, p.296
1% DOC. 204,ihid.. p. 2g9.11s \!'RITTEX ST.ATEZIEST OF THE L7.S.A

The Ecuadoran delegation proposed substitution of the follo\iring
text :

"The General Assernbly shall determine, at a time whicli it may
consider proper. tlie qualifications and conditions to be reqiiired of
sovereien States. which are not members of the Oreanization. for
admissron to membership, aiid it is empowered topass on such
admissions, requirinc iii cither case a major.ty o- two-thirds of the
votes of the Aisembïy

The summary report of the third meeting of Committee I of
Commission II on May IO, 1945, recorded the discussion on para-
graph 2 (of Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, Chapter V, Section B) as
follo\vs :

"The Committee discussed the revised Australian amendment on
Section R, paragraph 2 (Doc. 204). It "as urged that the Australian
amendment represented a compromise between the Ilumbarton
Oaks Proposals, which require a Security Council recommendation
for admission of >lembers to the Organization, and tlie position
reflected in several ameiidments submitted to the Conference which
would give the General Assembly final or sole authority on the
admission of &lembers. It was pointed out that the Australian
amendment provicled that no State which had been at \var with
any Member of the United Nations since Septemher I, 1949,or Iiad
given military assistaiice to such a State, could be admitted without
recommendation of the Security Council.The United States Delegate
stressed the dangers to be found in admitting to the Orgariization
those who hypocritically professed sympathy with the United
Nations. Several delegates emphasized that the primary concern of
the Conference \vas the writine of a Charter which would ~rovide
ieciirity njiîii~st n rcl>etitiorivf111cprïbcnt !r..irII \\,asiirg::d tlint
tlic Securit!. Couiicil ihould h;t\,r ~~redoiniri:iiitautliorit! nilil tlint

ri8,1>ro\.ls1one ii,rirteiiiiito tlic Cli;irtrr ivliiclirniglit iii\.itca disputé
I~cta.eeiith~.Gencriil:\sseinbly:ind IIIC5,-C-iirit).Ciiiiii.lie 1)clejiaté
of Cliirin suggcste(i 1li;iif a dale \i.?retvriit~:niiito the Ct1:irter;as
ciitcrioiift,r:iclin~sjionof;Illeinl>r:rnt \var u.itli thc Uiiited Xatioris,
it shoiild 1)~S: epicrnber t031, \vIicii\l;iiichiirinii.:iin\.;~<lç(.t ir:ij
vuiiitt<l <,iitth;it tl~c:\iistrali~ii nni~ndrnt.ii1in;i(it iieccss:iri, Io
determine in everv case wliether the ~rooosed new Rlembers-had
rendered military assistance to the enemiis of the United Nations.
Tliis made clear the riecessity for the Securitv Council to assume
responsibility for admissioii of Rlembers 21."
At this meeting, followiiig prolonged discussion of the votiiig

procedure to be followecl in this question, al1 of the suggested
amendments were defeated and the Dumbarton Oaks proposal was . .
adopted by 22 \,otes to 9.
The Committee authorizcd its Chairman to appoint a drafting
sub-committee to prepare drafts of a final Chartcr 22.

'0DOC. 239. ibid., p. 307.
?'Doc. 236,ibid.. p. 309.
'>Dm. 2.36.ibid.p. 309. \!'RITTEK STATEXENT OF THE U.S.A. II9

Committee 1111ai its 11th Meeting on May 25 approved by a
vote of zS to O and without discussion the following revised text
reported to itbyits draftingsub-committee. "TheGeneral Assembly
may admit new Members to the Organization upon recommendation
of the Security Council 23."

This text is the same as that of the Dumharton Oaks proposal,
except that the Dumbarton Oaks langnage "shall be empowered to"
is replaced by the word "may".
The report of the Rapporteur of Committee I, Commission II,
approved by Committee 1111as Doc. 636, May 28, 1945, States :

"The Committee recommends that new Members be admitted
by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security
Council....In supporting the acceptance of this principle, several
delegates emphasized that the purpose of the Charter is primarily
to provide security against a repetition of the present war and
that, therefore, the Security Council should assume the initial
responsibility of suggesting new participating States

Thisreport completed the initial and-so far as the question here
under discussion is concerned-only substantive phase of the
consideration of this provision. The changes which were subsequently
considered and adopted were of a drafting character.
These changes arose in the Co-ordination Committee and the
Advisory Committee of Jurists. Each of these bodies was created
under a plan approved by the Stccring Committee on May IO;

which established the Conference procedure in drafting the final
Charter z5.Under this plan, the Co-ordination Committee had the
responsibility of recommending to the Executive Committee the
final draft of the Charter. as a whole or in parts, and, to that end,
of examining the drafts received from the technical comrnittees
with a view to eliminating iuconsistenciesbetween them, in consult-
ation if necessary with the committees concerned or by reference to

the Executive Committee. The Advisory Committee of Jurists had

view of terminology. In pracfice, both hodie; adhered io their
function of ascertaining whether the substantive decisions of the
technicai committees (such as Committee 1111)were embodied in
satisfactory language, of refraining from substantive decisions, and

of referring back to the technical cornmittees sections of the Charter
in which the meaning intended bythe technicai committee concerned
was unclear. The changes which these committees made in the
provision under consideration here should be appraised inthe light of
the general function of these committees. Aswillbeseen below, these
changes were, and wereintended to be, of apnrely draftingcharacter.

" Doc. 594, ibid., 398.
25DOC. 243,ibid.,Vol.j,p. zzz.120 \\'RITTES ST.ATE>IEST OF THE U.S.A.

(a) Redraft. by Co-ordinritio~Ct onzmittee.
At its Eighth and Xinth hleetiiigs, on May 30 and June I, the
Co-ordination Committec considered thetext reported by Committee
1 It was noted that the text coiitained a logical difficulty

in that it authorized the General Assembly to "admit" new
"Members", although actually a Statc could become a "Mcmber"
only through tbis proccss of bcing admitted. Accordirigly, the
Committee approved the follouing substitute draft :

"States may be admitted to membership in the Orgaiiizatioii by
Council."al Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security

However, because the Soviet represcntativc forcsam difficulty in
translating this ne\\. language into an acceptable Kussian version,
the text vas referred to the Advisory Committee of Jurists.

(b) Redraft by Advisory Contntitteeof Jairists.

The Advisory Committee of Jurists considered this test at its
Third and Fourth Rlcetings, on Jiiiie 4 and g. After considering
mainly the question whether, in the procedure of admission, ari
applicant should accept the Charter before or after thc action of
the Assembly, the Committee adopted a new text which is the
final form of Article 4, paragraph z :

"The admissionof aiiy such State to membership \vil1bc cffccted
by a decisionof the General Assemblyupoii the recommendation of
the Security Council."
(c) I~tterpretntivestntemeitts on new text.

The question \vas raised iii the Co-ordination Committee whether
the new language had made it clear that the Assembly might
accept or reject a recommendation of the Security Council. The
test previously adopted by the Co-ordinatioii Committee clearly
left some discretion to the General -4ssembly-"States muy be
admitted to membership by the General Assembly upon the recom-

mendation of the Security Council." The new language of the
Advisory Committee of Jurists-"the admission ...will be effected
by a decision of thc General Assembly upon the reconiineiidatioii
of the Security CouncilM-might possibl -be understood to require
the General Assembly to admit a State if recommcnded by the
Security Couiicil.
The Committee of Jurists included in the report of its 14th
Meeting on June 18 this statement :

"A question from the Co-ordination Committee as to whether
paragraph 2 of Article 4 made it clear that the Assembly miglit
accept or reject a recommendation of the Security Council \vas
answeredin the sensethat the test \vasclear in this respect'0."
--
'W.3.C.I.O. Document \VI)404,CO/i66. WRITTEX STATEDIEXT OF THE U.S.A. 121

During the discussion of the Jurists' text by Committee 1111
at its 15th Meeting 011 Junc 18, the secretary of that Committee
read a letter which he had received from the secretary of the
Advisory Committee of Jurists, as follows (verbatim minutes) :

"Reference is made to the concern which you expressed as to
whether the text of Chapter V, Section B, paragraph 2, as approved
by the Co-ordination Committee makes clear that the General
Assembly had power to accept or reject a recommendation by the
Securitv Council. The matter was discussed bv the Committee of
~urists" at its meeting this morning (June ;6). The Committee
believes that the word 'decision' leavesno doubt that the General
Assembly may accept or reject a recommendation from the Security
Council. That is to say the General Assembly may accept or reject
a recommendation for the admission of a new hfember or it might
accept or reject a recommendation to the effect that a given State
should not be admitted to the United Nations. Notice is taken of
the language employed in what is now Article 20 concerning the
general power of the Assembly and voting therein. That is the
paragraph 2, Section C, Chapter V, which States that a two-thirds
majority of the Assembly is required to admit a Member."

The Summary Report of that same meeting of Committee 1111
contained the observation :

"The Secretary reported that he had been advised by the Secre-
tarv of the Advisorv Committee of Turists that that Committee felt
tl.e;c tcur. \i.oiilil riii ,il!\i,\.\ii>:ikcit[lie sriginîl rixt .tilc~prcil
hi, th.. L'uiiiinitt.Iiitlail-ylioi tlii.inrerl>rer:itti,tlic('oiiiiiiittr'~
approved the texts 7."
The second report of the Rapporteur of Committee 1111 for

submission to Committee II, revised and circulated to the Mernbers
of the Committee for their approval June 19, 1945, included the
following :
"The Committee considered a revision of thetext of thisparagraph
which was under consideration by the Co-ordination Committee in
order to determine whether the power of the Assembly to admit
new Members on recommendation of the Security Council was in

no way weakened by the proposed text.
The Committee was advised that the new text did not, in the
view of the Advisory Committee of Jurists, weaken the right of
the Assembly to accept or reject a 'recommendation for the
admission of a new Member, or a recommendation to the effect
that a given State should not be admitted to the United Nations.
The Committee agreed that thisinterpretation should be included
in its minutes as the one that should be given to this provision
of the Charter, and on this basis approved the text as suggested
by the Co-ordination Committee 18."
Taken as a whole, therefore, the legislative history of Article 4,

paragraph z, clearly supports the conclusion that an affirmative
" Doc. ~ogq,U.S.C.I.O. Documents, Vol. 8,pp.487-488.
Doc. 1092,zbid.V,ol. 8, p. 495.122 \\'RITTES STATEJIEXT OF THE U.S.A.
recommendation of the Security Council is necessary for the admis-
sion of any State to. membership. The question before the Court

\vas squarely before Committee 1111in the form of the Egyptian
amendment and, to a certain estent, in the Australian amend-
ment. The purposes of these amendments werc made fully clear,
and the amendments were rejected. Their rejcction reflects clearly
the Committce's understanding of the text whicli it then adopted.
The two changes subsequently made in the Committee 1111
text had nothing to do with the question before the Court. They
were made for the drafting purposes set forth above. The inclu-
sion, by the Secretary of the Advisory Cominittee of Jurists, of
the clause "or reject a recommendation to the effect that a given
State should not be admitted to the United Nations" in his letter
explaining that the Advisory Committee of Jurists did not consider
the Assembly's rights weakened by the ne\\, text, and the inclusion
of this language in the interpretative statement accepted by
Committee 1111,cannot be taken as showing a design to make the

Security Council's function purely consultative.
It shouldhe noted that the statement gives no indication concern-
ing the nature of "the right to reject" an unfavorable recommend-
ation of the Security Council ;it does not suggest that this right
constitutes a power to admit a State in those circumstances. The
right should probably be construed as merely the power to refer
the application back to the Security Council for reconsideration.
The surrounding circumstances make it impossible to accept the
thesis that the right to reject constituted a power to admit an
applicant without a favorable Security Council recommendation.
For, if the new text indeed authorized the General Assembly to
admit applicants without Security Council approval, it reversed
al1 of the previous decisions on the main question that had arisen
conceming the provision up to that time. Committee II/. had, .
after the issue was presented to it by the Egyptian and Australian

amendments, adopted a text which called for an affirmative Security
Couiicil recomniendation. The new text was proposed for drafting
reasons,and the only question raised was whether or not it had
weakened thc Assembly's right. If it anthorized the Assembly
to act without a Security Council recommendation, it not only
did not weaken the Assembly's right under the previous text ;
itvastly broadened that right, granting everything sought to be
covered by the Egyptian amendment and more than the Australian
amendment was designed to accomplish. It is not reasonable to
conclude that so complete a change \vas adopted'without any
explanation or discussion of its real scope but rather with explan-
ations showing a far more limited purpose and character. 8. STATEBLENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE

KEPURLIC OF ARGENTINA

The Argentine Government, on behalf of whom 1 am presentiiig
this paper, isespecially interested in the advisory opinion which
the General Assembly of the United Xations requested in the
follolving terms from the International Court of Justice with refer-
ence to the admission of new Xembers :

Tire Geiteral Assembly,
Considering Article q of the Charter of the United Nations;
Considering the eschange of views which has taken place in the
Security Council at its Two hundred and fourth, Two hundred
and fifth ancl l'wo hundred and sixth Meetings, relating to the
admission of certain States to membership in the United Nations ;
Considering Article 96 of the Charter ;
Requests the International Court of Justice to give an advisorv
opinion on the following question :
1sa Alemberof the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue
of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounceitself by its vote, either
in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admis-
sion of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically
entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on condi-
tions not expressly provided by paragraph I of the said articl?
In particular, can siich a filember, while it recognizes the conditions
set fortli in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned,
subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other
States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together
with that State ?
Instructs the Secretary-General to place at the disposal of the
Court the records of the above-mentioned meetings of the Security
Council.

During its pcriod as a non-permanent >Lember of the Security
Council (1948-1949) and at each session of the Gcneral Assembly,
the Argentine Delegation has, upon special instructions from its
Government, insisted that the United Nations give the widest
interpretation to paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Charter.
Xine applications for membership \\.hich obtained seven or more
favourable votes in the Security Council have not gone through
the stages as required by the provisions of the Charter, because
in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, some doiibt
has ariseii with regard to the juridical implications of the use of
the "veto" in connexion with the admission of new Members.
The Argentine Delegation considers that the above-mentioned
pnvilege cannot be invoked in the case of applications for admis-
sions of new Nembers. Noreover, we have maintained that even124 STATE>IEST OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGESTISA
though one or more of the permanent Nembcrs of the Council cast

a negative vote, such ncgative votes \\-ould logically carry weight
iii the miiids of the hlembers of the General Assembly when these
are called upon to vote, but cannot hold up proccclures or prevent
a final decision of the Asscmbly.
The Argentine Delcgation has mai~itained that, wheii the Security
Couiicil examines applications for membership, any seven or more
fa\fourahle votes constitute a favozirable recom~itendntio~~.
Such recommendations. whether favourable or iiot, must be
rcferred to the General Asscmbly, and it is for that body to decide
rcgarding the admissioii, as it can either ignore a favourable recom-

meiidation and reject the applicatioii, or ignore an iiiifavourable
recommendation and admit to membership a State unfavourably
recommended.
An application which obtains a two-thirds or grcater majority
in thc Assembly is, ipso facto, accepted, and an application which
does not obtain a t\r.o-thirds majority is ipso facto rejected (Arti-
cle 18).
\\le have further maiiitained that the Security Council may
sziggeslthe postpoiiemcnt of thc consideration of any giveii applic-
ation, but iio organ of the United Xations, with the exception of
the Assembly itself, caii decide either with regard to this'post-
ponemeiit or to the fiiial question of the admission.

Such an interpretation of the Charter has been opposed by some
delegations, more particularly by those enjoyiiig permanent
membership iii the Security Council, but the Argentine Ilelegation
defendcd, aiid at the last session of the General Asscmbly succccded
iii obtaining a majority for, a draft resolutioii requesti~ig the
Intcriiatioiial Court of Justice to advise the General Asseinbly on
the po\vers granted the Security Council and the Assembly under
paragraph z of Article 4 of the Charter.
My Government understands that that draft iiiquires of the
Court whether, according to the Charter, the Ceneral r\ssembly
may consider as an il>r/avorirable reconimeildatioi~or as a refzisal to
recofzitneitdwhen the Secitrity Council interrupts proceedings on

the applications for admission of new Members hecause :
(a) the applicant State has riot obtained seven affirmative votes ;
or hecause
(b)Iiaviiig obtained seven affirmative votes, one of thcpcrmancnt
blcmbers of the Council has cast a negative vote.

Moreover, my Governmciit \\ronders if, in either of these cases,
thc Asscmbly, with the matter in hand, examines the application
for admission and takes the fiiial decision referred toiiiparagraph z
of Article 4, by either acceptiiig or rejecting the admission of the
applicant State.
My Government holds that the Assembly definitcly has that
right, and further believes that any douhts on this matter could STATEILETT OF THE KEPUBLIC OF ARGENTIXA IZj

be disposed of rebz~ssic stuntib~rsthrough the exercise of that
politicalpo\lrer to interprct the Charter which u~ideriiably belongs
to the different organs of the United Nations,szcbjectto thelimitatio~z
@lacedi@o?zthe @owersgranted each one. '
1 shall show later how, on this same subject, the Seciirity Council
has exercised that political right of interpretation without the
Assembly having questioiied it.
Having thus clearly propounded the question siibmitted to the
International Court of Justice for its consideration and advice,
1 venture nou7to outline to the Court the legal bases for the inter-

pretation maintained by my Govcrnment.
*
* *
The provisions of paragraph z of Article 4 of the Charter may
be examined in the light of:

(1) the grammatical and juridical "wording" of the paragraph ;
(2) the juridical correlation to the "context" of the Charter ;
(3) the "background" from which that provision emerged,
including whatever resolutions may have been adopted at the
San Francisco Conference prior to the acceptance of the Charter ;
(4) the general principles of law usually follolved in the inter-
pretation of positive international law ;
(5) the rebzls sic stantibz~sclause.

1

Paragraph I of Article 4 of the Charter states that membership
in the United Nations is open to al1 other peace-loving States
which accept the obligations contained in the Charter and which,
ZVLthe iz<dpmentof tlzeOrra~zization.are able and u'illine to carrv
out those"ob1igations. "
-ara"ra~L -z of the same article establishes the brocedzweto be
followed when forming that jtcdgmewt of the Organization, and
states that "the admission of any siich State to membership in
the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General
Assembly upon the recommendution of the Security Council".

It should be noted that paragraph z of Article 4 lays dom the
firocedz<resubject to which the jzidgment of the Orga?zization(para-
graph I of Article4) regarding the admission of any State applying
for membership will be made known. That mcans that the Charter
does not leave this procedure to the will or whim of the Organiz-
ation. It also means that neither the Assembly nor the Security
Council can lay do\\.n that procedure. The Assembly cannot
subject the Council to special rules in order to obtain the latter's
recommendation, nor can the Council prevent the Assembly from
sanctioning rules it deems appropriate to the adoption of its
decision.126 STATEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTIN4
It should be pointed out that the procedure thus established
is to be found in Chapter II of the Charter dealing with membershi;b

in general, without specifying to which organs the Nembers may
belong. Therefore, we are of the .opinion that that procedure is in
no way related to, nor can it be included among, those procedures
which the Charter later lays down for the exercise of the powers
of the General Assembly (Chapter IV) and the specific powers of
the Security Council (Chapter V).
1 wish to point out, furthermore, that the Organization does
not select States in order to suggest their admissio;States desiring
it voluntarily apply for admission. The Organization neither
studies a case nor decides thereon until the State has submitted
its applicatioil. 1 say this in order to avoid misunderstandings,
because there are those who have affirmed that it is the Security
Council which suggests the States that can be admitted.
The text laying down the procedure to be followed in the forming

of the judgment of the Organization appears at first sight crystal
clear. Once an application for admission has been received, the
Security Council should make the recommendatiolzwhich it deems
appropriate to the General Assembly ;and the General .4ssembly,
having noted the said recommendation, should decide on the
acceptance or rejection of the application.
However, not everyone agrees. The permanent Members of
the Security Council maintain that such a recommendation vnz~st
be fauourable, othemrise the Council makes no recommendation
and the General Assembly cannot exercise its right to decide.
1 hasten to state that when the permanent Members of the
Security Council refer to this matter, they do not speak in terms
of a favoz~rablerecommendation (au expression 1 use to explain
their conduct), but merely do not accept the application. They
behave as though among the specific powers granted.the Council

by the Charter was the right to choose,from applicant States, the
admissible ones. The applications not chosen or, to quote the
Charter, those not recommended are postponed sine die, and no
action taken. But, when seven affirmative votes have been cast,
any of the permanent Members so desiring believes it has the
right to apply the "veto", thereby automaticallyhalting al1further
action.
In fact,the truth is that the Security Council claims it has the
right to give only favo.urablerecomntendations.
1 affirm that by so acting, the Security Council is committing
an act of "supererogation", ultra,vires, and 1 propose to prove it.

*
* *128 STATEMEKT OF THE KEPUBLIC OF ARGEKTINA
General Assembly has been given the power to decide"upoii recom-
mendation" of the Security Council.
When applying Article 4, the Council must consider the applica-

tions for admission of ncw Afembers and give its opinion thcrcon.
Paragiaph I of the article lays down the conditions required for
the admission of a State. Having considered the matter, each
Member of the Council forms his opinion and can express by voting.
Those in favour vote affirmatively and those against vote negatively.
Let us suppose that the necessary votes are obtained for a
favourable majority recommendation-then the application must
be sent to the General Assembly for it to adopt the necessary deci-
sion.
However, in certain cases, the negative votes mal, be so numerous
as to constitute a majority or even the unanimity of the votes

cast-and insuch cases, that majority or unanimity would express
the will of the Council against the admission of the applicant State.
The facts cannot be gainsaid. There being neither unanimity in
favour, no against, the vote takes two directions and the recom-
mendation bccomes either favourable or unfavourable, according
to the number and direction of the votes cast.
Let us overlook for a moment the existence of the "veto".
Seven affirmative votes out of eleven represent a favourable
opinion, and the Council makes that fact known to the Assembly.
Less than seven votes represents an unfavourablc opinion and
the Council must also communicate that fact to the General

Assembly.
According to the procedure followed heretofore, in the second
case mentioned above, the Council does not communicate, and
contends that if there is no favourable recommendation, no
recommendation exists, and therefore none is emitted. But why ?
Because it understands that the Assembly can adopt no décision
unless the Council pronounces itself in favour of the applicant
State. It understands too that when the Charter lays it down
that the admission of a new Member will "be effected by a decision
of the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security
Council", it means that the Council has the right to suggest the
States which may be admitted, and that, lacking such suggestion,

the application cannot be considered by the Assembly.
Let us, however, for one moment suppose that the "veto"
(paragraph 3 of Article 27) be applicable. In spite of the fact
that Severi or Inore Me~nbers of the Security Courlcil have voted
in favour of the application, if one of the permanent &lembers
has voted against, the Council contends that that negative vote
cancels the others and that no matter how many votes were
cast in favour of the application, the applicant State should
not be recommended.
Personally, 1 repeat that even in this last supposition the
facts remain ; the contrary opinion of the Council has been made STATEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA 129
known by the vote and the unfavourable recommendation should
be communicated to the Assembly for this body to take the
appropriate decision.
But the point is not worth labouring. For the moment, it is
sufficient to say that whatever the usage followed before in the

Security Council in the application of Article 4, the pronoun-
cements of this body show that the action of recommending
works in two opposite directions and that according ta the votes
for or against, the facts point to the possibility of recommending
either in favour or against the admission of the applicant State.
As there is no express provision in the Charter giving the
Council the privilege of not presenting a recommendation to the
General Assembly for its decision on the applicants that have
not obtained the Council's blessing, it is obvions that the behaviour
of the Council constitutes a supererogation ultra vires.
On the other hand, in the application of Articlc 5 there can
only be one type of recommendation :that of requesting suspension
if the Security Council deems it appropriate to do sa. In this case
there is no application to be considered one way or another-no
Statc can ask that it be suspended-it is for the Council to take

the initiative.
And the same occurs in the case of Article 6 : no Member
applies for expulsion. Here too it is for the Council to take the
initiative.
According to Article 93, it is for the Security Council to determine
the conditions under which a State, not a member of the Organiz-
ation, can becomc a party to the Statute of the International
Court of Justice. In this case there exists an application presented
by the State concerned. It would be difficult, not to Say impossible,
for an application to be presented by a State pnworthy of becoming
a party to the Statute of the Court, but no doubt the case might
occur, and in that case, the Security Council could advise the
General Assembly not to determine the conditions referred to
in Article 93. In other words, not to accede to the request that

the State become a party to the Statute of the Court. Therefore
the use of the phrase "upon recommendation" in Article 93 is
similar to its use in Article 4, and if, in accordance with it, the
Security Council were to act as it has iii the case of Article 4,
the application of the State concerned could be permanently
shelved witliout answer unless it obtained the approval of the
Security Council.
The same applies in the case of the phrase "upon recommenda-
tion" in Article 97 as it did in Articles 5 and 6. In Article 97,
there is no application upon which the Council may have to <ive
an opiiiion; the initiative belongs to the Security Council, and
until itsNembers have agreed upon a candidate, no recommenda-
tion can be made and the General Assembly can appoint noI3O STATEIIEST OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTIXA
Secretary-General. In this case action can only be taken in one
direction, viz. to recommend a candidate.

At the request of the Soviet Delegation, .the San Francisco
Conference annulled a first decision by virtue of which the Security
Council could present candidates for the post of Secretary-General
if seven affirmative votes were obtained, and laid down the rule
that the votes of the five permanent Nembers had to be included
among those seven. This decision is not stated in the Charter;
bùt it was adopted by the Conference at a plenary session on
20th June, 1945, after approval by the First Committee of Com-
mission III.
This was merely a resolution which clarified the provisions of
Article 97, and was adopted solely to state that in order to recom-

mend a candidate for Secretary-General, the acquiescence of the
five permanent Mcmbcrs of the Security Council \vas necessary.
According to some, this circumstancc would tend to show, by
nnalogy, that the expression "upon recommendation", established
in paragraph 2 of Article 4 with regard to the admission of neiv
Members, must be understood as also requiring the concurring
votes of the five permanent Members.
But that apzalogyis non-existent. In the case, of the admission
of a new Member, the Security Council can either recommend
favourably or unfavourably, according to whether the applicant
State does or does not fulfil the conditions required in paragraph I
of Article 4. On the other hand, in the appointment of a Secretary-

General there is no application to consider ; on its own initiative
the Security Council must recommend a candidate once he has
obtained the necessary majority of 7 out of II votes. It is obvious
that such a recommendation will be much more difficult to came
by with the "veto" than without it, but it is also obvious that
without the "veto" there could be no candidate, however many
times the vote were taken, until the seven votes were cast in
favour of a certain candidate.
But this does not anse when recommending the acceptance or
rejection of an application for admission to membership in the
United Nations, presented by a sovereign State. In this latter

case, only one vote is taken : seven or more affirmative votes
show that the Council wishes to recommend favourably upon the
application, whereas six or less affirmative votes show that the
Council wishes to recommend unfavourably or, if it be preferred,
that the Council wishes not to recommend the admission of the
applicant State.
The dissimilarity in these two cases lies in the fact that in the
admission of new Members the Council can choose a favourable
or an unfavourable [....] to be made on an application spontaneously
presented by a State which has not bcen selected by the Council,
whereas in the presentation of a candidate for Secretary-General,
the Security Council cannot be against anything or anyone, it STATElIENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA 131

can only be in favour of a person whom the Cotcncilitseli has
selectedand decidedto recommend.
In passing, 1 should like special note to be taken of the fact
that if paragraph 3 of Article 27 is applicable in the appointment
of a candidate for Secretary-General, it is not because the Charter
so lays it down, but because of the resolution alluded to before, '
which says : "that the system of voting in the Security Council
as adopted by the First Committee of Commission III at its

20th session on 13th June, 1945. at 10.30 am., regarding non-
procedural matters is applicablein the afipointment of Secretary-
General". (U.N.C.I.O. Vol. II, page 571.)
Finally, in the application of Article 4 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice, that is, the determination of the
conditions under which a State,party to the Statute of the Court,
non-member of the United Nations, may participate in the election
of the members of the Court, the meaning of the phrase "upon
recommendation" is similar to that of Article 93, and States that
the Security Council recommends in favour or against the granting
of that privilege. The final decision, as in other cases, lies with
the General Assembly.

*
* *

We have just found that "upon recommendation" can be used
in entirely different circumstances and be given completely dif-
ferent meanings according to the case.
In order to suspend a Member State from the exercise of its
rights and privileges of membership (Article 5), if the Council
wishes to act, it cannot avoid recommending the suspension ; it
cannot propose its non-suspension ! To expell a Member from the
Organization (Article 6), if the Council wishes to act, its only
recourse is to recommend such an expulsion ; it is inconceivable
that the Council recommend a non-expulsion ! For the General
Assembly to appoint, a Secretary-General (Article 97) it is imper-
ative that the Security Council propose a candidate for that office.
,
In these three cases the first move is made by the Council and by
it alone. In these three cases the proposed action can be in but
one direction : suspension, expulsion, appointment. The Council
can recommend in no other sense.
But in reply to a State, non-member of the United Nations,
which desires to become a party to the Statute of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice (Article 93), or, being a party to that Statute
and not a member of the United Nations, nishes to take part in
the election of members of the Court (Article 4 of the Statute),
the Council can recommend either in favour of that request or
against it, according to the circumstances and in order to guide the
decision of the General Assembly. In both these cases the first
move is made, not by the Council, but by the applicant State.

II132 ST.~TE~~ENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA
In hoth these cases, the action of recommending can move in two
directions : in favour of or against the application.
The self-same thing occurs in the case of the admission of a
new Rlemher (Article 4) ;the action can move in either of two
directions :in favour of or against the admission, in favour of or
against the application. The first move is made not hythe Council

but the applicant State. The favourable or unfavourable recom-
mendation, however, is made by the Council. But a previous
study of the qualifications required according to Article 4, para-
graph I, must be made, Le., that it he a State, that it be a peace-
loving State, one that accepts the obligations of the Charter, one
that shows itself willing and able to do so.
Summing up therefore, in three of the only six cases in which
the Charter uses the expression "upon recommendation", the
Council can only act in one direction if it wishes to act at ail, and
there can be no douht that at least in the case of the appointment
of a candidate for Secretary-General, the Council must act. In
the other three cases, it can act in two directions : in favour or
against, and even in three directions if we consider the possibility

of a postponement.
In the case of the admission of new Members, the Council mus1
act. In this case, recommending is a junction and not a powev.
hloreover, the Council cannot decide the number of States that
will compose the Organization, and thus interfere in one of the
most important institutional prerogatives of its Memhers expressly
meeting in plenary assemhly.

\F1ithreference to the existing relation hetween the recommenda-
tion of the Security Counciland thedecision ofthe General Assembly
to which 1 have referred, and in order to enhance the importance
of the recommendation, it has heen argued that in so faras concemç

the admission of new Members, the recommendation is a decision
of the Security Council.
There can he no doubt regarding this. All volitional act.
however insignifiant it he, requires a decision. But those who
argue thus forget that paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Charter
which refers to procedural matters also refers to decisions. Aç
does also paragraph 3 of the same article.
\Vhat we should like to know is mhether that "decision" of
the Security Council solves the matter conclusively, or in other
~vords,whether it is a final decision.
The reco~~tnte~tdationwshich the Security Council may make in
the fulfilment of its specific tasks of maintaining peace and security
hy pacific means, are not mandatory but are nonetheless final
decisions. No other organ of the United Nations can either modify

or cancel them. And the General Assembly is obliged to refrain STATEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA I33
Irom interfering with recommendations on any matter whatever
so long as that matter is being considered by the Council.

The phrase "npon recommendation" used in Chapter II, Article 4,
as an obligation of the Security Council, has nothing whatever to
do, nor can it be compared, with the recommendations mentioned
in Chapter VI. These latter are final decisions of the Council
and are adopted in the exercise of its specific powers.
The recommendation mentioned in Article 4 with regard to the
Secunty Council is not isolated. It may certainly be considered
a decision, but never a final one ; it is linked to a decision which
is to be taken by the General Assembly, and this last decision is

final and cannot be either modified or annulled by any other organ
of the United Nations. Therefore, the recommendation of the
Council is only a procedural decision, and were the system of voting
of Article 27 applicable-as some contend-it is paragraph 2 and
not paragraph 3 ahich should be applied.
Because in the final analysis, the entire process of the admission
of new Members-from the moment that the original application
is presented and until the General Assembly adopts its final deci-
sion-is al1 procedural ; and one of the stages of this procedure
is the recommendation called for from the Security Council. This
procedure cannot be intermpted by the will of one of the organs
which take part in it, no matter what importance that organ attri-
butes to itself. The only matter of substance is the final decision.
that is when the admission is permitted or not, and in this final
act the Council takes no part.

The word "recommendation" is very often in the Charter outside
of Articles 4, 5, 6, 93and 97. In Chapter IV, when it refers to the
functions and powers of the General Assembly (Articles 10, II,
12, 13, 14 and 17) ; in Articles36, 37 and 38 of Chapter VI, when
considenng the specific powers of the Security Council with regard
to the pacific settlement of disputes ;in Chapter VII, when these
same powers are considered with regard to the action to be taken
by the Council in cases of breaches of the peace and acts of

aggression (Article 39) ;in Chapter IX, when it examines inter-
national economic and social CO-operation(Article 58) ; in Chap-
ter X, when laying down the functionsand powers of the Economic
and Social Council (Articles 62,63,64 and 66) ;and in Chapter XIV,
which refers to the International Court of Justice and considers
the possible decisions of the Security Council upon measures to
be taken to give effect to the judgments of the Court.'34 STATEhlENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA
The meaning of the word in these cases is very varied ;recom-
mendations vary according to the circumstaiices. They can be
positive or negative, or coiiditional, to do or not to do, etc., and

nothing will be gained by labouring tliis point.
\Vith regard to the meaning of the phrase "upon recommenda-
tion", it woiild be useful to find out whether the Council can or
shoz~ldmake recommendations.
It is well knolvn that recommendatioiis are not biiiding-but
that is not the question at issue. \Vhat we must find out is whether
the orgaiis to \\.hich the Charter gives the power of recommending
are bouiid to exercise that power.
In the case of Articles 5 and 6 dealing with the suspension or
tlie expulsioii of Members, it is obvious that the recommendations
become sanctions, that is to say, the putting into effect of estreme
and punitive measures which, as countries are involved, are not
easy to adopt because of the reactions they may provoke and
because they jeopardize peaceful international existence and

CO-operation.
\Vhen .the Security Couiicil recommends such measures and
the General .4ssembly, haviiig accepted the recommendation,
applies them, these organs are fulfilling a iiecessary and approp-
riate fzinction in order to ensure the IveIfare of the Organization;
but such a function is not automatic. As albvays when political
sanctions are applied, the person or orgaii enforcing them, in this
case the Security Council, exercises at the same time a fiower.
The Security Council has to weigh the causes, the timeliness,
the consequences before it can recommend such grave measures,
and to this estent it exercises a fiower that it alone can wield.
Howe\.er grave the causes, in the opinion of some of its Members
or of third parties, the Security Council asnot bozindto recommend
the suspension or expulsioii of a State, however numerous the

reasons it may have for so doing. And thus the function entrusted
to it is identified with the power of enforcing it or not according
to the dictates of the conscieiice of its eleven Members.
Naturally, therefore, the General Assembly cannot exercise its
power of decision until the Council has recommended the measure.
However, notwithstanding the fact that the situation is entirely
different with regard to Articles 4,93 and 97 of the Charter, even
in these cases the General Assembly decides fifionrecommendation
of the Security Council.
In order to exercise that right, the Charter has granted the
General Assembly the help of the Security Council, tifion the
recommendation of which it adopts its decisions. But the Charter
has very clearly and specifically laid down the conditions to be
fulfilled by the applicant States before they can be admitted.

Hence the task of the Security Council is a function given it by
the Charter, and that function is bound to the life of the Organ-
ization and lis not a special fimer which can be added to the STATEhIENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA I35

"specific" powers referred ta in Article 24 and defined in Chap-
ters VI, VII, VI11 and XII.
For that reason. the Securitv Council is obli~ed t" make a
recommendation by virtue of Article 4 hecause it is not exercising
a power but fulfilling a function.
The same applies for Article 97. The Charter requires the Organ-
ization to have an officer called the Secretary-General who is
also the Chief Administrative Officer. The General Assembly must
appoint such an officer zdfion recommendata'onof the Security
Council once every five years. Can the Council omit to propose a
candidate ? No. The Security Council is botcnd to recommend a

candidate, and by so doing itis not exercising a fiower as of right.
but fulfilling a fzcnction as of duty.
The same applies to Article 93. The recommendation of the
Security Council is not an exercise of power, it is the fulfilment
of a function and a function which the Security Council has no
right to leave unfulfilled.

1 have only a few more remarks to make before concluding this
part of my argument.

\lie have drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions
of paragraph I of Article 4 which refer to the jzcdgment of the
Organization.
The Charter requires that the judgrnent of the Organization be
known in order to decide upon the admission of new Members,
and this is the only occasion in which the Charter uses that expres-
sion. Many articles refer to the "Organization" as an abbreviation
of the titlc "United Nations Organization". But it is only in
Article 4, when dealing with the future of the United Nations, that
the Charter speaks of the "jscdgnze~to t f tlze Organization" and lays
down that the Security Council and the General Assembly shall
make known their judgment through a recommendation of the
former and a final decision of the latter.

The Assembly has not been given the right ta take a final
decision for a mere whim. The constitutional powers are vested
in the Assembly because it consists of al1 the Member States
(Article 9) ; the power to renew the other organs are vested in
the Assembly (Articles 23, 61 and 83) ; and so are the powers of
control over the entire Organization (Articles IO and 15). In the
Assembly lies that spirit which on the 1st January, 1942, gathered
together in Washington the 41 nations who wished to unite ta
win the war, that same spirit which brought together jo nations
at San Francisco on the 25th April, Igqj, to organize and maintain
peace.
The Charter could not, in fact did not, decide otherwise ! On
the other hand, that interpretation which the Argentine Delegation136 STATE~IEST OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTISA
has contested and \\,hich it now contests in this present document,
tends to hand over the future of the Organization to the vote, if
not to the caprice, of merely one of the permanent Rlembers of the

Security Council. And this is no esaggeration. The negative vote
of any one of the permanent Nembers is sufficient to create the
fiction that the Security Council has arrived at no decision and
thus hinder the esercise of the final power of decisiori of the
Geueral Assembly.
This is tantamount, and practice bas proven it so, to placing
the right of decision in the Iiands of the Security Council, but the
Charter says nothing conceruing the judgment of the Secuvity
Council, it requires the jztdgnient of the Organization and lays
down the procedure whereby that judgment is to be given. The
practice followed heretofore riolates the Charter, and, what is
yet more serious, jeopardizes the future of the Organization.

Having thus grammatically and juridically proved the precise
meaning of the phrase "upon recommendation of the Security
Council" which appears in paragraph z of Article 4, may 1 now
be permitted to test that proof by a study of the context of the
Charter. The juridical correlation of the different chapters will
bring us to the same conclusion.

The authors of the Charter have been blamed for certain tautology

due to their lack of legal experience, more particularly in ArticlesI
and 2, also for the inadequate use of certain phrases. If such were
the case, the defects could be ascribed to the fact that the document
in question is a multilateral treaty which \vasprepared and approved
by a political conference at which were present 50 States having
the right to speak, submit proposals and vote.
However; it must be admitted that the structure of the Charter
is very clearly defined insofar as it refers totheatute of theorgan-
ization which it was desired to set up.
Setting aside the two first chapters which lay down the purposes
and principles upon which the proposed Organization was to be
set up, and which States who are and who might become Members-
and these are chapters of fundamental importance and essential
to the creation of the said Organization-the Charter consists
of a nucleus of 13 chapters (III to XV) which form the true con-

stitution or organic Charter of the United Nations, and an appendix
of 4 chapters (XVI to XIX) mhich deal with different questions
of an accessory character though necessary in this type of document. STATEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA I37
The nucleus begins by defining the organs established in order

.to make the Organization work (Chapter III). Subseqnently a
chapter is devoted either specifically to each of the organs concerned
(Chapters IV to XV), or to matters related to the object for which
those organs were established.
It is worth looking at those chapters in detail. Chapter IV
.deals with the General Assembly ;Chapter V nith the Security
Council ; followed by Chapters VI, VI1 and VI11 which define
its specificpowers. Chapter X deals with the Economic and Social
Council and is preceded by Chapter IX which establishes the general
principles of economic and social CO-operation ; Chapter XII1
,deals with the Trusteeship Council and the preceding Chapters XI
.and XII refer to non-self governing territories and to the intema-
tional trusteeship system. Chapter XIV deals with the Interna-
tional Court of Justice, and finally Chapter XV is devoted to the
Secretariat.
For obvious reasons 1 am setting aside the last two chapters

and shall concentrate on an analysis of Chapters IV, V, X and XII,
Le., those referring to the General Assembly, the Security Council,
the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council.
Each of those chapters was carefully but uniformly broken up
into sections which in clear and precise terms define the problems
to be dealtwith in regard to the four organs mentioned above.
Both in the case of the General Assembly and in the case of
the three Councils, these sections bear the same titles :"Composi-
tion", "Functions and Powers", "Voting", "Procedure". No
particularly snbtle legal perspicacity is required to realize that the
authors of the Charter accurately defined the composition, func-
tions and powers, voting, and general mles of procedure of each
.of the four organs concerned. Having carefully defined them,
they were separated in order to avoid al1possibility of misunder-
:standing or duplication of functions.
There was an additional safeguard provide'd in the case of the

'Security Council. In Article 24, the first in Section "Functions
:and Powers", reference is made to the "specific powers" granted
to the Secunty Council for the discharge of its duties defined in
Chapters VI, VII, VI11 and XII.
These facts lead us now to affirm that al1reference to the func-
.tiens and fiowers of the General Assembly and the three Conncils
is contained in the appropriate chapters of the nucleus of the Char-
ter, and that the voting and the generalrules of firocedurehave been
provided for the General Assembly and the Councils, bearing in
mind those very fnnctions and powers, as limitedly enumerated
in those four chapters and the others closely related to them.
In other words, the voting and rules of procedure established
in Chapter IV are applicable only in the exercise of the functions
and powers granted to the General Assembly in Chapter IV. The
voting and the rules of procedure establihed in Chapter V are138 STATEMEKT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA
applicable only in the exercise of the functions and powers granted
to the Secunty Council in Chapters V, VI, VII, VI11and XII ; the
voting and niles of procedure estabiished in Chaptcr X are applic-
able only in the exercise of the functions and powers granted to
the Economic and Social Council in Chapters IX and X ;and finally,

the voting and niles of procedure established in Chapter XIII
are applicable only in the exercise of the functions and powers
granted to the Trusteeship Council in Chapters XI, XII and XIII.
If, on the other hand, we look beyond the central nucleus of
the Charter which relates to the General Assembly and the three
Councils (Chapters III to XIII) and try to find faculties or attri-
butes related to the objects at the basis of the establishment of
lhese organs, our search will be in vain. Should we discover siich
attributes, they will be found to be related to the structure proper
of the.0rganization. but that in no case are they related to the
activities of its organs. Reference to the latter is found in their
respective chapters.
With regard to the attributes connected with the structure of
the Organization, they are to be excercised subject to the text
of the ~rovisions mhich establish them and the inherent character
thereof.
1 referred previously to the six special powers granted to the
General Assembly and the Security Council, namely, those con-
tained in Articles4, j and 6 (Chapter II), Article 93 (Chapter XIV),

Article 97 (Chapter XV) of the Charter and Article 4 of the Statute
of the International Court of Justice. In each of these articles, the
General Assembly is granted the right to make decisions upon
recommendation of the Security Council.
An attempt has been made to exercise functions proper to and
necessary for the life of the Organization. The General Assembly's
share in the first three allotted to it has been dealt with in Chap-
ter IV (Article 18), among them, tbose matters to be considered
as im~ortant and therebv conferring r-al Dower uvon the General
~ssekbly.
The Security Council's share in those chapters is not mentioned
amone .aose enumerated in Cha~ter V and related cha~ters. and
consequently represents the exercise of a function.
A correlated study of the whole text of the chapter shows.
therefore, that paragraph 3 of Article 27 is not applicable when
the Security Council considers what recommendation it is to make
with regard to the admission of a new filember from among those
applications which are submitted to the Organization.

III

Eveii in those cases in which a correct interpretation is given
after an analysis of the text of the Charter, ratification could be STATEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA l39
sought in the preparatory work of the establishment of the Charter,
and not considering this superfluous, 1 now propose to do this.

The provisions of paragraph z of Article 4 of the Charter are
based upon the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals (Chapter V, Section B.
paragraph 2) regarding the admission of new Members. That
proposa1 reads as follows :-
"The General Assembly should be empowered to admit n,ew
Memhersto the Organization upon recommendation of the Security
Council."

At the meeting on May 9th of Committee 1111 (Committee I
of Commission II), the Egyptiau Delegation proposed that the
General Assembly should admit new Members after consideration
of the opinion of the Security Council. It affirmed that the admis-
sion of new Members was not a matter constituting a threat to
the peace or to international security.

The Anstralian Delegation proposed that the Security Council
shonld not intervene except in cases where the State concerned
had been at war with one of the United' Nations subsequent to
September 1939.
The Delegation of the United States of America affirmed that
Member States of the Oraanization should have unauestioned
confidence and faith in thgr future colleagues.
At the same committee's meeting of the 10th May, some delegates
were of the opinion tbat the Security Council should have deciding
authority in the matter and that care shonld be taken to avoid
inclusion in the Charter of any provisions which might be liable
to provoke disputes between the General Assembly and the Security
Council.
The Chinese Delegation proposed to change the date given by

the Australian Delegation and make it September 1931, date of
the invasion of Manchuria.
At the above-mentioned meeting, Committee 1111rejected the
amendments suggested by Egypt, Australia, Brazil, Paraguay,
Venezuela and Uruguay and approved the Dumbarton Oaks
proposa1 as it stood, by zz votes to 9.
On the 25th May and by a vote of 28 to O, it confirmed that
decision after having submitted the text previonsly approved to
'a drafting sub-committee. The text was worded as fo1lows:-

"The General Assemblymay admit new Membersto the Organ-
ization upon recommendation of the Security Council."
On the 30th May, the rapporteur's report to the Commission II
was considered, approved by it, and the text referred to the Com-

mittee for Co-ordination.
On the 18th June, the Co-ordination Committee advised the
substitution of the text approved by the Committee and the
Commission by the following :I4O STATEhlENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTISA
"The admissionofany State'to membershipin the United Nations
shallbe madeby a decisionofthe GeneralAssembly uponthe recom-
mendation of the Security Council."

That same day, Committee II/I, presided over by Hasan Saka.
of Turkey, examined and approved the text as revised by the
Co-ordination Committee.
On the 19th June, Committee 1111 considered and approved
the second report of the Rapporteur, to be submitted to Com-
mittee II. The pertinent part of that report is as follows :-
Admission of new Members (Chapter V, Section B. paragraph z.
of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals).

"The Committee considered a revision of the text of this para-
mittee in order to determine whether the power of the Assembly
to admit new Members on the recommendation of the Security
Council, was in any way weakened by the proposed text.
The Committee was advised that the new text did not, in the
view of the Advisory Committee of Jurists, weaken the right of
the Assembly toaccept orreject a recommendationfor the admission
of anew Member, or a recommendation to the effect that a given
State should not be admitted to the United Nations:
The Committeeagreed that this interpretation should be included
in its minutes as the one that should be given to this provision
of the Charter, and on this basis, approved the text as suggested
by the Co-ordination Committee."
011 the zrst June, Commission II, presided over by Marshal
Smuts, approved the text submitted by the Co-ordination Com-

mittee which had been adopted two days previously by Com-
mittee II/r. In this connexion, the words of the Chairman of the
Second Commission should be recalled. Marshal Smuts stated :-
"The next point (on the agenda), the admission of new Members,
does not cal1for any action. The matter to be clarified was whether
the text, as adopted, weakened the position of the General
Assembly, and the Committee of Jurists advised that it did not.
The First Committee therefore recommends that the Jurists'
opinion should be included in the minutes. That will be done,
so that no action need be taken by us." Thus the Second Com-
mission uiianimously adopted the text which its Committee I
had approved on the 19th of June.
Under the chairmanship of Lord Halifax, the Conference met
in plenary session on the 25th of June, and having heard the report
of Dr. Alfaro, Rapporteur of the Second Commission, unanimously

approved the text to which we have referred.
Shortly after, the Itembers of the Conference rose to their feet
and unanimously approved the Charter, together with the reports
of the four Commissions, and the text to which we have referred
became Article 4, the article which is the basis of this stndy.
3 * * ST.4TE\IEST OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGESTIKA I4I

It is clear from the foregoing that the preparatory \vork leading
up to the adoption of Article 4 of the Charter fully confirms the
interpretation to which \Irehave arrived from a grammatical and
juridical examination of the text of the article, and from acorrela-
tion of the different provisions contained in the Charter itself.
The resolution which was approved on the 19th June by Com-
mittee I of the Second Commission (Committee II/I), which \iras
the expert body which prepared matters relating to the admission
of new Members, could not bc more clear. According to thnt rcsol-
ution, the General Assembly may accept or reject a Security
Council recommendation in favour of the admission of a new

hlember, just as it caii likewise accept or reject a SecuritCouncil
recommendation against the admission of any given State to
membership in the Organization.
First the Committee, then the Commission, and finally the
Coiiference itself, in plenary session, approved the resolution
ordering that note be taken in the records that such \\.as the only
interpretation to be given that article-Article 4.
An analysis of both thetext and its context, and an examination
of the preparatory work, lead to the same coiiclusion, and therefore
we are able to state that the Security Council is bound to make
either a favourable or unfavourable recommendation on each
occasion in which it considers an application for admission from
a State. By so doing, the Council will be fulfilling the function
ascribed to it without hindering the exercise of the power of thc
Assembly to make the final decision.
Reference was made previoiisly to the importance of the com-
plementary resolutions adopted by the San Francisco Conference,
and on that occasion 1 was referring to the resolution which was
adopted whereby the recommendation of the Security Council
concerning the candidate for Secretary-General should be voted
upon subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 27. That
resolution is not in the Charter, but it is in the records and therefore
must be respected.
The same a~~lies to the resolution \vhich was ado~ted (and to
which 1 have referred) iii conilexion with the admiSsion of new
Members. This resolution is not in the Charter either, but it too

is in the records and therefore must also be respected. Hence, when
considering applications for the admission of new Members, the
Security Council may make a favourable or an unfavourable
recommendation, but it is obliged to make a recommendatioii of
some sort that the General Assembly will be able to take the
final decision.
* * *

It has been argued that some delegations defended the view
that in this matter the Security Council should have a preponderant
part, and this is so. But there were also those who defended theI42 STATEME'JT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA

universality of the Organization, unfettered and, in particular,
free from al1 intervention from the Security Council.
We are of the opinion that we should abide by thetext sanctioned
and the explanatory resolution adopted.
The views of those countries which opposed the intervention
of the Security Council must have carried some weight at the time
when thetext which had been approved and revised was submitted
to the Co-ordination Committee for its opinion and study as to

whether the riehts of the General Assemblv had been weak~ned~ ~ ~ ~
in this matter:
The Co-ordination Committee consulted the Advisory Committee
of Jurists and retumed the text drafted in the form in which it
was finally adopted and accompanied by the explanation to which
we have alluded. Both the text and the explanation were approved
with the addition that thelatter was ordered to be inserted in the
records as constituting the only interpretation to be given to the
said wording.

* * *

1 have already pointed out the importance of the explanatory
and complementary resolutions of the Charter, and 1 have referred
to two of them :the first, specifying the right of the Members of
the Security Council to use the "veto" in connexion with a recom-
mendation regarding a candidature for the post of Secretary-
General, and the second which sets up as the only rule for the
interpretation of paragraph z of Article 4, the power of the Security
Council to make a recommendation, either in favour of the admis-

sion of a new Member or against it.
But 1 feel constrained to deal with a third. resolution. The
Charter contains no resolution-nor provisions-with regard to
the right of Nembers to withdraw from the Organization ; yet the
Conference recognized the existence of that right, and, with a view
to avoiding any possible discussion thereon, approved a comple-
mentary resolution establishing that right.
The resolution in question states :

"Declnrt4tion 0% withdruwnl.

The Committee (Committee II of the First Commission) adopts
the view that the Charter should not make express provision either
ta permit or to prohihit.withdrawal from the Organization. The
Committee deems that the. highest duty of the nations which will
become hlembers is to continuetheir CO-operationwithin the Organ-
ization for preservation of international peace and security. If,
however, a Member, because of exceptional circumstances, feels
constrained to withdraw, and leave the burden of maiutaining
international peace and security on the other Members, it is not
the purpose of the Organization to compel that Member to continue
its CO-operationin the Organization.I44 STATEXENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTISA
One of the generally accepted-and ohserved-rules of positive
international law is that of reasonable interpretation. If a clause

of the Charter gives rise to two interpretations,one of which gives
a reasonable or practical meaning to the text and another which
leads to an absurd conclusion or which presents the fulfilment of
the purpose for which it was included in thetext, it is clear that the
interpreter of said clause should prefer the first.
In the case before us, that rule confirms my argument. The
interpretation maintained by the Argentine IJelegation permits
the fulfilment of the purpose which the founders of the Organiza-
tion had in mind-an organization which may be aggrandized by
the admission of new States so long as they comply with the require-
ments of the Charter. The opinion of each Member of the Security
Council, particularly that of the permanent Members, can carry
the required weight in the minds of the Members of the General
Assembly which has to present a two-thirds majority vote for the

admission of a new llember. The opposition of the Security Coun-
cil, and especially that of the permanent Members, will be patent,
and may easily constitute a vote of a third plus one, which is
required in order to reject an application unfavourably recom-
mended.
On the other hand, the interpretation which we are contesting
might, for political reasons, close thedoors of the Organization to
States which fulfill the requirements of paragraph I of Article 4,
and might create the absurd situation in which one State alone
could oppose the will of the remaining 58.

How can one admit the fact that the interpretation which we
contest prevails over the text and context of the Charter and in
spite of the explanatory resolutions discussed and more than once
amended and examined by the searching eyes of the Committee
of Jurists and the Co-ordination Committee and ultimately and
unanimously approved by the plenary session of the San Fran-
cisco Conference ?
How can one possibly countenance an interpretation which
expressly contradicts the true and real meaning given to a clause
of the Charter by the officia1 reports of the Conference?
It is perfectly clear that the action taken thus far by the Security
Council with regard to the admission of new Members is not a
reasonable interpretation of paragraph zof Article 4 of the Charter. ST.4TEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA
I45

The Argentine Delegation has often made reference to the
"spirit of San Francisco", but that spirit has unquestionably
disappeared, vanished, deserted us. And to such an extent, that
even the most optimistic of us is forced to talk of a "cold" \var as
a euphemism to descnbe the present crisis in the realm of inter-

national politics.
Indeed yes, the spirit of San Francisco has gone. The fiolitical
sitziation has changed. The Charter \vas signed under the impression
that the oft-vaunted rzile of ttnanimity would operate with clock-
work regularity. But the facts make it painfully ohvious that the
principle of unanimity only operates when it is a question of
defending the privilege which it sanctifies. It is common know-
ledge that the nations not thus privileged agreed to accept the

adoption of this principle solely hecause it was to have been the
guaraiitee of absolute peace and international security.
At that time, we were told that the "veto" would only he used
under exceptional circumstances. But in actual fact, it is brought
out daily, even to the point of utilizing it where it is illegal to do
so-in the case of the admission of new hfembers.
Conditions have changed, and the States that accepted the prin-

ciple under the duress that there would be no Charter without it,
and with the promise that it would only be invoked in exceptional
cases, have at present entire right to withdraw from the Organ-
ization because one of its organs, the Security Council, far from
carrying out the functions for which it was established, twists
and tums and is, practically speaking, unable to act.
However, the Argentine Delegation does not propose a with-
drawal, nor does it intend a dissolution of the Organization. \Ve
seek to strengthen the United Nations hy attracting new Members

that will infuse into it new vigour, new ideas, and that will con-
tribute to emerging from the intfiasse into which the Organization
has heen forced.
The campaign against the veto in San Francisco could now
become a campaign for withdrawal from the Organization, thus
leaving the "greater Pomers" to solve their own differences without
jeopardizing the moral prestige of the lesser Powers. But that is
not Our intention.

In view of the difficulties which have arisen regarding the admis-
sion of new Members, the Argentine Delegation has appealed to
its peers to tum to the political power of the Organization, and,
with their decision and vote, defend the right of the General
Assembly to consider the applications for admission, regardless
of the attitude of the Security Council. STATEMEKT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA
146
Such a decision of the General Assembly could not be appealed
against, and the Security Council would have no alternative but
ta accept the facts and bow to them, accepting the view that the
General Assembly will no longer tolerate the supererogation of , .

powers which it has permitted thus far. Such an attitude of the
General Assembly would be worthy of the noble reasons for which
the Organization .has Members.
And the General Assembly has the right to act thus, first of all,
because any legal body which has the right to apply a legal principle
has the power to interpret it. Then too, if the Assembly act in

this way, it would merely be following in the footsteps of the
Security Council in the same matter. The Security Council main-
tains that' paragraph 3 of Article 27 is applicable in the recom-
mendation for admission of a new hfember, that is to Say, that
seven or more affirmative votes-including those of the five per-
manent Membersare required. However, when the application
of Israel was considered, the Council accepted it by the vote of

only four of thefiermanent Members. The fifth abstained from voting,
and in flagrant violation of the Charter, the Security Council
decided that in the case of an abstention, four votes equalled five
votes.
The General Assembly was weak enough to accept this turn-
about, and cannot be blamed for it, because as far as the Argentine

Delegation is concerned, the veto cannot anyway be applied in
the case of the admission of new Members.
1 bave cited this case simply to show that the Security Council
exercises its political power to interpret-as it deems fit-the
clauses which it alonc is in a position to apply. And 1 maintain,
with even more justification, that since the General Assembly and
it alone is entitled to decide, it should exercise its political powers

of interpretation in order to affirm those powers confirmed for it
by paragraph 2 of Article 4.
Furthermore, the San Francisco Conference expressly author-
izes the General Assembly to proceed in this manner when, having
decided not to include in the Charter a special authorization to
interpret it, itadmitted in a report unanimously adopted that the

different organs of the United Nations have the right to interpret
those clauses which refer specifically to the powers coiiferred upon
them.
On May the 28th, Committee IV12 discussed the question of
the interpretation of the Charter and decided to appoint a sub-
committee ta advise it with regard ta this matter.

That sub-commiftee examined the debate on the question and
decided that the following could be drawn from it : STATEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA I47

In the course of the daily work of the different bodies of the
Organization, it is inevitable that each organ will interpret the
provisions of the Charter in the light of its own functions. This
procedure is inherent in the proper functioning of each orgau which
works in accordance with a Statute defining its powers and func-
tions. It will he made obvious in the work of such bodies as the
General Assembly, the Security Council and the International
Court of Justice. Therefore, it is not necessary that the Charter
carry a special provision authorizing or permitting the applica-
tion of the normal meaniug of this principle.
Itis possible that certain difficulties may arise if there is a con-
trary opinion expressed among Members of the Organization about
the correct interpretation of certain provisions of the Charter.
Therefore, two bodies may hold, express and even act in accordance
with different points of view. In national governments, the final
decision on such matters can be entmsted to the Supreme Court,
or to any other national authority. But, nevertheless, the character
of the Organization and its actions do not appear to be such as

to invite the inclusion in the Charter of a provision of this sort.
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .
It is, of course, understood that if an interpretation given by one

organ of the Organization, or by a Committee of Jurists, is unac-
ceptable to all, then such an interpretation is not obligatory.
In such cases, or when an anthorized interpretation is required to
serve as a precedent for the future, it may be necessary to include
such an interpretation in an amendment to the Charter.
The underlining is my own.

On the 7th June, Committee IV12considered the sub-committee's
report andstated that if two organs had different opinions regarding
the correct interpretation of the Charter, they can request au
advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, or they
can establish a Committee of Jurists ad hoc to consider the matter,
or even to cal1 a joint conference of the two bodies concemed.

On the 15th June the report was adopted by the Fourth Commis-
sion and on the 25th of the same month, the plenary meeting of
the Conference did likewise.
1 should like now to cite a few of the ideas of Kopelmanacfrom
his book L'Organisation des Nations Unies.

"When an organ votes in accordance with the conditions set
forth in the firovisions which gouern its competence and functions,
it gives to the interpretation imFlemented in that act the same value
as that given the actionitself, and ij that act is to be abided by by al1
the Members of the Organization, the above-mentionedinterFretution
must automatically Froduce the same efect."
1214~ STATEMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA

The underlinings are my own.
Kopelmanas adds-and 1 share his views-that such an inter-
pretation is not a precedent, and only has validity for the specific
case in which it was applied.
For al1these reasons, 1 believe that the General Assembly could

interpret paragraph z of Article4 of the Charter in the manner
which has been consistently defended by the Argentine Delegation.9. EXPOSÉ ÉCRIT DU GOUVERNEMENT DU VENEZUELA

I. Dis$ositions de la Charte des Nations Unies.

L'article4 de la Charte établit les conditions par lesquelles
un État peut êtreadmis comme Membre de l'organisation. Ces
conditions sont claires et précises: K Peuvent devenir Membres
des Nations Unies tous autres États pacifiques qui acceptent
les obligations de la présente Charte et, au jugement de l'Orga-

nisation, sont capables de les remplir et disposés à le faire» Le
paragraphe z du mêmearticle détermine les conditions auxquelles
sera soumise l'admission : al'admission comme Membre des
Nations Unies de tout État remplissant ces conditions se fait
par décision de l'Assemblée générale sur recommandation du
Conseil de Sécurité. 11
La lecture des deux paragraphes met en relief l'existence d'un
très fort lien qui fait de ces deux parties un tout harmonieux
et inséparable. En effet, le paragraphe I affirme, en des termes
qui ne laissent aucun doute, que pourront ètre Membres des
Nations Unies les États qui, riau jugement de l'organisation,

sont capables de remplir lesdites conditions et disposésà le fair».
Le jugement de l'organisation n'est pas en ce cas la décision
isolée de l'Assemblée,puisque le paragraphe z exige pour l'ad-
mission de ces Membres le concours de volontés du Conseil de
Sécuritéet de l'Assembléegénérale.
Sans doute, il y a des situations dans lequelles la simple décision
de l'Assembléeconstitue par soi-même le jugement de l'organi-
sation ; mais dans le cas qui nous occupe ce Ijugement u exige
l'opinion favorable des deux organismes comme condition requise
indispensable ;si le seul vote de l'Assembléeétait suffisant dans
cette matière, les rédacteurs de la Charte auraient eu bien soin
d'y établir comme étape préalable du procès, la recommandation

du Conseil de Sécurité.Celui-ci n'est pas le seul cas dans lequel
l'acquiescement commun des deux organismes soit exigé. La
Charte, en effet, signale spécifiquement les affaires qui, pour
ètre considéréesde grande importance, exigent le concours de
vue du Conseilet de l'Assemblée,avec l'indiscutable caractéristique
que ce soit toujours le Conseil de Sécuritéle seul appelé à agir
et à exprimer son opinion dans l'étape initiale de chaque procès.
Par exemple, il apparaît clair que la suspension des droits
et privilèges d'un Membre ne peut être décidéepar l'Assemblée
sans la préalable recommandation du Conseil de Sécurité.Tel
est, à notre avis, le sens et la portée corrects du'texte de l'ar5icle

de la Charte, qui, dans sa partie finale, renforce davantage les
pouvoirs du Conseil de Sécuritéquand il établit que la restitution
de l'exercice des droits et privilèges suspendus peut êtreaccordée
par la décision du Conseil de Sécuritésans qu'il soit nécessairerjo EXPOSÉ DU GOUVERXEZIENT VÉNÉZUÉLIEX (17 I 50)

pour cela du consentement de l'Assemblée générale.Il n'y a
donc pas de doute que la facultéspéciale - conféréepar la Charte
au Conseil de Sécurité - naît ou s'établit du fait du caractère
permanent de celui-ci, ce qui lui donne la possibilité d'agir en
n'importe quel moment et en toute émergence, tandis que l'As-
semblée ne se trouve réunie que périodiquement, et, partant,
attendre la décision de l'Assembléedans des problèmes ou des
cas qui méritent une solution rapide, ne ferait qu'un obstacle
au fonctionnement de l'organisation des Nations Unies. Cet
exemple peut donner une idée exacte de l'ampleur des pouvoirs
que la Charte confère au Conseil de Sécurité.
Il convient peut-etre de mentionner d'autres cas ou situations

dans lesquels l'Assemblée générale et le Conseil de Sécurité doivent
agir de plein accord :
I) Expulsion définitive de Membres (article 6 de la Charte) ;

2) Élection du Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies (article 97
de la Charte) ;
3) Élection des membres de la Cour internationale de Justice
(article4 du Statut de la Cour).

Il est clair que dans le cas susmentionné la phrase r par recom-
mandation du Conseil de Sécurité», qui apparaît à plusieurs
reprises dans la Charte, n'est pas simplement une formalité,
mais au contraire un élémentindispensable et de grande signifi-
cation, apporté délibérémentpour imposer l'accord des deux
organismes - Assemblée générale et Conseil de Sécurité - dans

les affaires qui, par leur transcendance, pourraient affecter le
fonctionnement et le développement des Nations Unies.

2. Attributions de I'Assembldeet dz~Conseil de Sdczcrité.
Quelques-unes des dispositions de la Charte déterminent l'orbite
de l'Assembléeet du Conseil et leurs études pourraient démontrer
la force logique des conclusions ci-dessus mentionnées. Ainsi les
articles IO et II confèrent à l'Assemblée générale des pouvoirs

étendus pour discuter des affaires de toute sorte, mais cette
faculté n'a pas un caractère discrétionnaire vu que l'article IO
établit la première limitation quand il détermine que «l'Assemblée
généralepeut discuter toutes questions ou affaires rentrant dans
le cadre de la présente Charte)). De ceci on peut déduire que
la souveraineté de l'Assembléen'est pas sans restriction et qu'eue
doit &tre exercée d'accord avec les nonnes dictées par la Charte.
La Charte, en effet, exige en forme expresse l'accomplissement
des conditions données, afin que les différents organismes des
Nations Unies puissent remplir les fonctions qui leur ont été
respectivement assignées.

L'article 12 établit une deuxième limitation à l'action de l'As-
semblée générale : uTant que le Conseil de Sécurité remplit, à ESPOSÉ DU GOUVERNEMENT \,ÉSÉZUÉLIEN (17 1 50) 151

l'égardd'un différend oud'une situation quelconque, les fonctions
qui lui sont attribuées par la présente Charte, l'Assembléegénérale
ne doit faire aucune recommandation sur ce différend ou cette
situation, à moins que le Conseil de Sécuriténe le lui demande. 11
Ce texte représente une importante restriction aux pouvoirs de
l'Assemblée.

3. Emplacement du problèmedans les termes de ln Charte.
L'article 27, paragraphe z, de la Charte établit que sur les
questions de procédure,le Conseil de Sécuritéprendra ses décisions
par le simple vote affirmatif de sept de ses membres, sans distinc-

tion de catégorie. Le paragraphe 3 du mêmearticle détermine
que les décisionsdu Conseil sur toutes les autres questions seront
prises également par le vote affirmatif de sept membres, y com-
prises Rles voix de tous les membres permanents n.
En face de ces deux sortes différentesde votations on se trouve
en présence du problème de déterminer si l'admission d'un État
comme hfembre des Nations Unies est, oui ou non, une simple
question de procédure. Le ministère des Affaires étrangères du

Venezuela juge que la clarté de l'esprit et du texte de la Charte
en ce point ne laisse aucun doute. En effet, l'article 18, para-
graphe 2,sur lesquestions importantes, qui doivent êtreapprouvées
par une majorité de deux tiers des membres présents dans l'As-
semblée générale,mentionne expressément comme appartenant
à cette hiérarchie nl'admission den ouveaux Membres 1)aux Nations
Unies. Cependant, la Charte définit bien que le problème en
étude n'est pas un simple cas de procédure, mais CIune question

importante » ou de fond.
En fixant ainsi la nature du problème, il est évident que, pour
sa bonne solution, on doit tenir compte du principe sanctionné
par l'article27, paragraphe 3, qui exige l'unanimité de cinq mem-
bres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité.Le vote adverse d'un
des cinq membres empêcheraitautomatiquement l'admission d'un
nouvel État.
Nous ne nous arrêteronspas à des considérations sur les avan-
tages ou inconvénientsdu système. Il s'agit ici de fixer un jugement

sur la droite application des termes de la Charte, jugement qui
s'appuiera exclusivement sur des principes essentiellement juri-
diques, sans faire cas d'influences politiques qui pourraient déna-
turer les postulats essentiels de l'organisation.

4. Sens dt~mot recommandation.

Dans plusieurs réunions de L'Assembléedes Xations Unies, la
délégationdu Venezuela a eu l'occasion d'exprimer son avis à ce
sujet. Le terme «recommander B doit être interprété dans un
sens favorable, ainsi que dans le langage courant. Il est, en effet,
difficile d'imaginer qu'il puisse exister une nrecommandation »152 EXPOSÉ DU COUVERSEMENT VÉNÉZUÉLIEN (17 1 50)
défavorable ou négative ;mais en tout cas, à l'examen arrêté
de la forme et du texte du paragraphe 2 de l'article 4, la chan-
cellerie vénézuélienne juge par simple norme herméneutique que

le mot K recommaiidation >I doit être interprété,en ce cas, dans
un sens positif, car, en sens inverse, il apparaîtrait complètement
inutile de l'exiger.
En relation avec ceci, le ministère des Affaires étrangères du
Venezuela trouve tout à fait juste l'attitude du Conseil de Sécunté
quand il s'abstient de communiquer A 1'Assembléele vote négatif
dans l'admission de nouveaux Rlembres. Ce vote négatif constitue
l'absence de « recommandation IIPar ailleurs, le Conseil a I'obli-
gation d'en informer l'Assemblée, mais il peut le faire à une
autre opportunité, comme par exemple au moment de rédiger
les mémoiresannuels ou spéciaux, prévus dans l'article 24, para-

graphe 3,et en cette occasion il pourrait en référerà l'Assemblée
sur la sollicitation ou demande «non recommandée n.

5. Le $rinci$e de l'uniuersalitd.
L'universalité est, sans doute, l'un des principes essentiels des

Nations Unies ; mais la lecture de la Charte révèlequ'une telle
universalité n'est pas conçue comme principe absolu, ni même
comme un fait totalement réalisé.Les Nations Unies penchent
vers l'universalité commeun desideratzim,mais avec les restrictions
établies par la même Charte. On peut observer, par exemple,
que seuls les États upacifiques» peuvent devenir Membres des
Nations Unies, d'où il découleque les États qui ne remplissent
pas cette condition, ne peuvent opter à devenir Membres de
l'organisation. De même,la Charte confirme l'existence du système
de gouvernement des temtoires non autonomes, et cependant
personne ne pourrait soutenir, comme appui du principe de
l'universalité, que ces territoires doivent êtrerendus immédiate-

ment indépendants pour qu'ils puissent devenir Membres des
Nations Unies comme entité souveraine, ce qui serait une véritable
transgression des dispositions de la Charte. Les mêmes consé-
quences pourraient en résulter, du fait de ne pas tenir compte
de la recommandation du Conseil de Sécuritédans le cas de
l'admission de nouveaux hfembres.

6. Harmonie des di8érentsorganismes desNations Unies.

L'harmonie des principaux organismes des Nations Unies,
l'Assembléegénérale,le Conseil de Sécurité,le Conseil économique
et social et le Conseil d'administration fiduciaire, existe conjoiote-
ment avec le principe de l'universalité de l'organisation des
Nations Unies et elle se trouve implicitement mentionnée dans
la Charte. Par la nature et l'importance de ses fonctions et par
I'ordre dans lequel s'établissent ses attributions dans la Charte,
il n'y a pas de doute que l'Assembléegénéraleet le Conseil de EXPOSÉ DU GOUVERNEMENT VÉSÉZUÉLIEN (17 1 50)
1j3
Sécurité sont les organismes de plus grande signification ; et,
si l'on fait abstraction ou si l'on ne tient pas compte de la recom-
mandation du Conseil pour l'admission de nouveaux hfembres,
ceci le mettrait en directe opposition à l'Assemblée, cequi serait,
par ailleurs, contraire à l'esprit, à l'équilibre juridique et à l'har-
monie des différentes parties dans l'ensemble, que précisément

les représentants à San-Francisco eurent bien soin d'établir dans
la Charte. *
* *

En raison de ceci, la chancellerie vénézuélienneestime que
l'admission d'un État comme Membre des Nations Unies par la
:seule décisionde l'Assembléegénéraleet sans la recommandation
du Conseil de Sécurité(soit parce que l'État aspirant n'ait pas
réuni le nombre de voix nécessaires oupour avoir obtenu le vote
adverse d'un des membres permanents) représenterait une violation
de la Charte des Nations Unies avec toutes les graves consé-
quences que ceci pourrait entraîner.

Caracas, le 17 janvier Igjo,
Sceaz~:

EE.UU. de Venezuela,
Legacion en La Haya.