Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) - Historical Background

I.C.J. Corrununio,uéNo• 30.
Unofficial.

. The following information, emanating from the Registry of the

international Court of Justice, has been communicated to the Press

The International Court of Justice will meet in public session
at The Hague on April 22 to consider the request for an advisory
opinion on the conditions of admission of a State to membership in
the United Nations. A Resolution of the General Assernbly, adopted
November 17, 1947, asks the Court :

1Is a Member of U,e United Nations which is called upon,

in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by
, its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General
Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the
United Nations, juri~cally entitled to make its consent to
the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided
by paragraph 1 of the said Article ? In particular, can such
a Uiember, while it recognizes the conditions set forth 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 ?"

This resolution was adopted after long months of discussion in
the Security Council and the General Assembly.

The Article of the Charter concerning the admission of now
Members (Article 4) states

11
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other
peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained
in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organiza­
tion, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

il2. 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."

The procedure now followed requires that any Stato which desires
to become a Member of the United Nations shall su'ornit an application
to the Secretary-General, containing a declaration made in a formal
instrwnent that it accepts the obligations contained in the Charter.
Having notified the ·Membersof the United Nations of the application,
the Secretary-General immediately places it before the representatives
on the Security Council. Unless they decide otherwisc, tho application
is referred by the President to a Corrunittce upon which oach 1:iembr:"o rf
the Council is reprosented. The Committoe examines the application and
reports its conclusions to the Council.

On the basis of this report, the Security Council decides \">'hcther
or Aot to re comme nd the ap.plicant Sta te for memberqhip.

Since the rccomraondation of an applicant Statc iA not a question
of procedure, it requiros the concurrence of sevan :Morribcrsof tho
Socurity Council, including all tho permanent M::!mbers. Theroforo, tho
negative vott:J of one permanent Momberof tho Council sufficcs for tho
rcjcction of an application.

Aftor examination by tho Sccurity Council, one of two things may
happen :

l.r

-2-

1. If tho Council rocommends the applicant State for mcmbcrship,
it forwards to the Gcnero.l Assembly the recommcndation with a
complete record of the discussion.

2. If the Council does not reco1runcndthe State for memborship,
or postpones the consideration of the application, it submits
a special report to the Assombly with a complete report of the

discussion.

In tho first case, the General Assembly considors whether tho
applicant is pcaco-loving, able and willing to carry out the obliga­
tions containcd in the Charter, and decides, by a two-thirds majority
of the Mcmbcrs prcs~n antd voting, Ùpon its application for membership.

In the second alternative, tho Assombly may, after full considera­
tion of the special report of the Sccurity Council, send back tho appli­
cation to the Council, together with a full record of the dis·;)ussion in

the Assombly, for furthor consideration and recommandation or .report.

To date, Afghanistan, Iceland, &vcdcn, Siam, Yomenand Pakistan
have been admittcd to the United Nations as new Members; news of
Burma's accoptance by the Sccurity Council has been publishod in the
press.

But clcven other applications (Albania, Outer ~ongoli aransjordan,
Ireland and Portugal; Hungary, Ru;nania, Bulgaria, Austria, Finland and
Italy) have boen rejcctcd. In most cases, the interpretation of the
11
phrase p8ace-loving ••• able and willing to carry out .•• obligations
[Or the Charterl" gave rise to sharp disagreement. In support of sorne
States, the applicants' contribution to the war-effort against Axis
aggression was adduced; in opposition, their fe.ilure to reaffirm
pre-1939 bilateral trcaties, to maintain diplonutic relations with one
of tho permanent Membors of the Council, their sympathy for the A.."tis
Powers and Franco Spain, or their grave suppression of human rights
and liborties, go.vc risc to serious doubts as to the willingness and
ability of the applicant States to carry out Charter oblieations .

.Tho cases of Finland and It:üy wore special in the sense th<lt they
would have boen recommended t-:Jmcmbcrship except that one of the
permanent Members could not <;tgreo that they should be set apart from
othor States (Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria) and admitted sepo.rately.·
In fact, the acceptance of Finland o.nd Italy was expressly conceded
provided the other States wcro accepted at tho same timo.

During the last Session of the Genor~l Assembly, in o.ddition to
tho Resoluticr1 requesting the e.dvisory opinion of tho International
Court of Justice, scvcn othor resolutions were adopted. According to

one of these, the General Assembly decided to rocommend to the
permanent Mcmbers of the Security Council to consult v1ith a view to
roaching agreement on the admission to membership of the o.pplicants
which had not boen recommcnd~ h ithorto, and to submit their conclusions
to the Security Council. The othor Resolutions dctermined that, in the
judgmont of tho General Assembly, Eire, Portugal, Transjordan, Italy,
Fin.land <.>.ndustria werc peacc-1-Jving States within tho moaning of
Article 4 of the Chartor e.nd should therefore be admittod to membership
in the Unite.d Nations. And the Assembly roqucsted the Security Council
to r·Jconsider the applicJ.tions of these States in the light of this
determination.

Resolution 2 of this series ,;f eight Resolutions, presented by the
First Committce and adopted by the General Assembly, requests the
International ..•
.. -------

-3-

International Court of Justice to givo the advisory oplnlon on tho
question quotcd at the begihning Gf this communiqué. It "l)fQadoptcd
by forty vote-s to cight, with two abstentions.

Such is the historical background of tho question of the admission
of new Members which has beon rcferrcd to tho Court.

In accordance with Article 66 of tho Statute of the Court, Members
of the United Nations were -notified that, ,as signatories of the Charter,
they might submit, by February 9, 1948, a writt'Oln statement of their
observations on "':ohisquestion. Tho following States have availed them­
selves of this right: China, 3alv.;,dcŒ, Guatemala, Honduras, I,1dia, Canada,

the United States of A.merico., Grescc, Yugosléivia, Belgium, IrEtq, Ukraine,
the U.S.S.R., Australia and Siam.

To the question asked of the Court by tho Resolution: ncould a
Member of the United Nations, in the exwmination of an application for
membcrship, li!élkeits consent depend on conditions not expressly providcd
for by paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter ?11 twel ve c'f the above
fiftoen Governments answered in tho negative, insisting in most cases
that the terms of Article 4 were perfectly clear.

On the other h~nd, the stQtement submitted by Yugoslavia expresses
the cpinion that the terms of tl1e pertinent article are perfectly clear
and adds that the question raised by the resolution is essentia1ly
political, not juridical.

In its observations, the Ukra.inian Soviet Socialist Republic said
that this so-called advisory opinion was to be regarded, not as a con­
sultation on an ordinG.ry legal question as provided in Article 65 of
the Court's Statute, but as an interpretation affocting the substance of

the Charter and the United Nations itself. Such an interpretation was
not provided for anywhere in the Charter, either directly or indirectly,
and was consequently not within the competence of the Interno.tional .
Court of Justice.

Similarly i~ its observations, the Government of the U.S.S.R.
expressed the opinion that the question did not lie within the competence
of the International Court of Justice. Theomethod of- admission of a
Member to the United IIJations was determined by the Charter and could not

be subject to an interpretation by tho Court, inasmuch as this was not
provided for in the Charter of the United Nations.

The following Governmonts have announced that an oral statement _
will be submitted on tl1eir behalf: .France, Yugoslavia and Belgium.

At·the beginning of the public hee..ring, Dr. Ivan Kerno, Assistant­
Sccrete.ry-General of the United Ne,tions in charge of tho Legal Depa.rtment,

will make a stntement on behalf of the Sccretary-General.

The Hague, April 19th, 1948.