Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 3 March 1950

Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document

COMPETENCEOF THEGENERALASSEMBLY FOR THE
ADMISSION OF ASTATETOTHEUNITEDNATIONS

AdvisoryOpinionof3March 1950

The question concerning thecompetenceof the General assumedin suchacasethenon-existenceof a recommenda-
AssemblyoftheUnitedNationstoadmitaStatetotheUnited tion.
Nations had been referredfor an advisory opinion tothe The questionwas thereforewhether,in the absenceof a
Court by the Assemblyin its Resolution datedNovember recommendationbytheCouncil,the Assemblycouldmakea
22nd, 1949. decisionto admita State.
Thequestionwasframedinthefollowingterms: The Courthas nodoubtas to themeaningof therelevant
"Can the admissionof a State tomembership in the clause: paragraph2 ,ofArticle4 of the Charter.WO things
United Nations, pursuant o rticle4, pariagraph2, ofthe wererequired toeffectadmission:a recommendationby the
Charter,be effectedbya decisionof the General Assem- Councilanda decisionbytheAssembly.Theuseinthearti-
bly,whenthe SecurityCouncilhasmadeno recommenda- cleofthewords "recommendation" and "upon" implied the
tion for admissionby reasonof the candidate failingto idea that therecommendationwasthefoundationofthedeci-
obtainthe requisitemajorityor of the negativevote ofa sion.Boththese actswereindispensableto form the "judg-
permanentMemberuponaresolutionsotc~ recommend?" ment"oftheOrganiz,ation(paragraph1ofArticle4),the rec-
TheCourtansweredthequestioninthenegativebytwelve ommendation being theconditionprecedent to the decision
votesagainsttwo.ThetwodissentingJudges-Judge Alva- bywhichthe admissionwaseffected.
rez and Judge Azevedo-each appendeadstatementoftheir Attemptshad been made toattributeadifferentmert..agto
dissentingopinion tothe Court's Opinion. thisclausebyinvokingthe "travauxpr&paratoires"B.utthe
first dutyof a tribunalwhich wascalleduponto interpreta
textwas toendeavourto give effectto the words usedinthe
contextin whichthe:yoccurred,by attributingto themtheir
naturalandordinary:meaning.Inthe presentcase,therewas
no difficultyinascertainingthenatulndordinarymeaning
TheRequestforOpinioncalledupontheCourttointerpret ofthewordsinquestion,andof giving effectto them.Hav-
Article4, paragraph2, oftheCharter.Before:examiningthe ingregardtothese considerations, the Court consideredthat
meritsof the question,the Court considered tobjections paratoire".permissible forit to resort to thevaw prd-
thathad been madetoitsdoingso,eitheronthleground thatit
wasnotcompetent tointerpretthe Charter,orbecauseofthe Theconclusionstclwhichthe Courtwasledbyits exami-
allegedpoliticalcharacterofthequestion. nationof paragraph2 of Article4 were confirmedby the
structureof the Charter, and particularlyby the relations
Sofarasconcernsitscompetence,the Courtreferredtoits establishedbetweenthe GeneralAssembly andthe Security
Opinionof May28th. 1948,inwhichit declared that tould Council. Both these bodies were principal organsof the
provisionwhichprohibitedit fromexercising,in regardto position.Moreover,the organsto whichArticle4 entrusted
Article4 of theCharter,a multilateral treaty,an interpretthejudgmentoftheOrganizationinmattersofadmissionhad
tive functionfallingwithinthenormalexerciseofitsjudicial consistentlyrecognisedthat admissioncouldonlybegranted
powers.Withregardto the secondobjection,theCourt fur- on the basis of a recommendationby the Council. Ifthe
therpointed outthatitcouldnotattributeapoliticalcharacterAssemblyhadpowertoadmitaStateintheabsenceofarec-
to a Request which, framedin abstractterms, invitedit to ommendationbythe (Zouncil,thelatterwouldbedeprivedof
undertakeanessentiallyjudicialtask, the interpretationof animportantroleintheexerciseofoneoftheessentialfunc-
treatyprovision.Therewasthereforenoreasonwhyitshould tionsof thOrganiza1:ionN. or wouldit bepossibleto admit
notanswerthequestionputto itbythe Assembly. that the absenceof a recommendationwasequivalentto an
"unfavourable recornmendation"upon whichthe General
Thatquestionenvisagedsolelythecasien whichtheSecu- Assembly could base decisiontoadmita State.
rityCouncil,having voteduponarecornmend;ationh,adcon- While keeping withinthe limits of the Request, it was
cluded from its vote that therecommend~tionwas not enoughfor theCourtto saythatnowherehadthe Assembly
becauseof the negative voteof a permanentemberof theity,oreceived the powertatchange,to the pointof reversing, the
Council.Itthushadinviewthe caseinwhich.the Assembly meaningof a vote by the Council.In consequence,it was
wasconfrontedwiththeabsenceof a recommendationfrom impossibletoadmitthiattheAssemblyhadpowertoattribute
theCouncil. TheCourtwas notasked todeterminetherules to a voteof the Security Council the charaof a recom-
governing the Council'svoting procedure cx to examine mendation,whenthe Council itself consideredthat o such
whetherthe negativevote of a permanent Memberof the recommendationhad 'beenmade.
Councilwaseffectivetodefeatarecommendationwhich had Suchwerethereascwswhichledthe Courtto replyinthe
obtainedsevenormorevotes. Indeed,thetext,ofthequestion negativetothequestionputto itbytheGeneralAssembly.