Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CONDITIONS 01FADMISSION OFASTATETOMEMBERSHIP
INTHEUNITEDNATIONS (ARTICLE 4 OFCHARTER)
AdvisoryOpinionof 28 May 1948
Courttogiveanadvisoryopiniononthedquestionconcerning form tothe requirementsof Article4 in giving theirvotes,
the conditionsof admissionof a Statetonbership in the thequestiondoesnotrelatetotheactualvote,thereasonsfor
United Nations(Article4 oftheCharter). which are a matterc~findividualjudgment anare clearly
subjecttonocontrol,buttothe statementsmadeby aMem-
upon, in virtueof Article4 of the Charter,to pronounceerconcerningthe voteitproposes togive. TheCourtisnot
itselfby its vote, eitherin the Security Councilor in theedupontodefinethemeaningandscopeoftheconditions
GeneralAssembly,ontheadmissionofaStatetomember- in Article 4 of the Charter,on which admissionis made
shipintheUnitedNations,juridically entitto makeits dependent. Itmustm~:relstatewhethertheseconditionare
consent tothe admission dependenton conditions not exhaustive.If they are, a Memberis not legallyentitledto
expresslyprovidedbyparagraph1of thes.aidArticle?In make admission dependon conditionsnot expressly pro-
particular,can such a Member, while it recognizes thevidedin the article.'I'hemeaningof a aeaty provisionhas
conditions setforthin thatprovisione fulfilledbythe thustobedetermined,whichisaproblemofinterpretation.
Stateconcerned, subject itsaffirmativevoteto the addi- It was neverthelescontended that the questionwas not
tional conditionthatother Statesbe admittedtomember- legal,butpolitical.TheCourtwasunabletoattributeapolit-
shipin theUnited NationstogetherwiththatState?" ical charactera rquest which, framedin abstracttenns,
The Court answeredthis questionin the negativeby nine invitesit toundertakeanessentiallyjudicialtaskbyentmst-
votestosix.Thesixdissentingjudges joineditastatement ing it withthe interp~etatof a treaty provision.It is not
of the reasons for their dissent.therNIembersof the concerned with the motives which may have inspired
CourtwhoagreedwiththeOpinionaddedafuKtherstatement the request, nor has itodeal with the views expressed
oftheirviews. in the SecurityCounc:ilon the variouscaseswith whichthe
Council dealt. Conse:quently,the Court holdsitself to be
competent evento interpretArticle 4 of the Charter; for
nowhereisany provisiiotobefoundforbiddingittoexercise
inregardto thisclauseina multilateraltreaty,an interpreta-
tive functionwhich falls within the normalexerciseof its
TheOpinionbeginsbygivinganaccountoftheprocedure. judicialpowers.
The request foran Opinionwasnotifiedto all signatoriesof The Courtthen analyses Article4, paragraph1, of the
theCharter,i.e., toall MembersoftheUnited.Nations,who Charter.The conditior~tshereinenumeratarefive:acandi-
were informedthat the Court waspreparedto receive infordatemustbe(1)aState; (2)peace-loving;(3)mustacceptthe
mation from them.Accordingly,written statementswere obligationsoftheCharter;(4)mustbeabletocarryout these
sentinon behalfoftheGovernmentsofthefollowingStates: obligations(5)mustbewillingtodoso.Alltheseconditions
China, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,India, Canada, are subjectto the judgmentof theOrganization,i.e., of the
U.S.A., Greece, Yugoslavia, Belgium, haq, Ukraine, Security Counciland of the General Assemblyand, in the
U.S.S.R., Australia andSiam.Oral statementswe&made lastresort,oftheMembersoftheOrganization.Astheques-
NationsandbyrepresentativesoftheFrench,'Ifugosla, el-d tionrelates,nottothe vote,buttothereasonswhichaMem-
gian,Czechoslovak and PolisGovernments. ber gives beforevoting, it is concernedwiththe individual
attitudeof eachemt~rcalleduponto pronounceitselfon
TheCourt then makesa fewpreliminaryobservationson thequestionofadmission.
Continued on next page Are these conditionsexhau~stive?heEnglishandFrench stancesof fact aswouldenabletheexistenceofthe requisite
textsof the provisionhavethe samemeaning;:toestablisha conditionstobeverified.TheArticledoesnotforbidthe tak-
legal rulewhich, while itfixestheconditionsof admission, ing into accountofanyfactorwhichit is possible reasonably
determines alsothe reasons for which admissionmay be and ingood faith toconnectwiththeconditionslaid down.
refused. Theterm "Membe~?ship in the United :Nationsis Thetaking into accounotfsuchfactorsisimpliedinthe very
open to all otherpeace-lovingStates" indicates that States wideandelasticnatureoftheconditions. Norelevantpoliti-
whichfulfiltheconditions staad havethequalificationsreq- cal factor, thatisto say,noneconnectedwith theconditions
uisite for admission. Theprovisionwould 'loseits signifi- ofadmission,isexcluded.
canceif other conditionscouhdbe demanded.These condi-
tions areexhaustive,and an:not merelystiitedby way of menteto the contrarycan be drawn from paragraph2 of the
informationorexample.They arenotmere1:ythenecessary Article which is only concerned with the procedure for
conditions,butalsothe condi1:ions hichsufifice. admission.Norcananargumentbedrawn fromthe political
It was arguedthat these conditionsrepresentedan indis- characterof the organsof the UnitedNationsdealingwith
pensableminimuminthe sensethatpoliticalconsiderations admission. Forthis character cannot releasethem from
could be superimposedon them, and form an obstacleto observanceof the treaty provisionsby whichthey aregov-
admission.This interpretatio~sinconsistentwithparagraph erned, whentheseprovisionsconstitute limitationson their
2 of the Article, whichprovides for"the admissionof any power;thisshowsthatthere isnoconflict betweenthe func-
such State." It would lead to conferringon Members an tionsof thepolitical organsandtheexhaustive characterof
indefiniteand practicallyunilimitedpower to imposenew theprescribedconditions.
conditions;such a power co~lldnot be reconciledwith the
character of a rule which establishes a close connection TheCourtthenpassesto the second partof the question,
between membership and th.eobservanceof the principles namely, whethera State,whileit recognizesthat the condi-
andobligationsofthe Charte:]:a,ndthus clearly constitutesa tions setforth in Articlearefulfilledbyzlcandidate,can
legal regulationof the questionof admission.If the authors subordinateits affirmativevoteto the simultaneousadmis-
of the Charterhad meantto leaveMembenrfree to import sionofotherStates.
intotheapplicationofthisprovisionconsiderationsextrane- Judgedonthe basisoftherulewhichthe Courtadoptsinits
ous to the principlesand okdigationsof the Charter,they interpretationof Article4, sucha demandconstitutesa new
wouldundoubtedly haveadopteda differentwording.The condition;foritisentirelyunconnectedwiththoseprescribed
Court considers the provision sufficientht clear; conse- inArticle4. Itisalsoin anentirelydifferentc~gory, sinceit
quently, it follows the constant practiceof' the Permanent makesadmissiondependentnotontheconditionsrequiredof
CourtofInternationalJusticeandholdsthat thereisnoocca- applicants, but on extraneous considerations concerning
sion to resort to preparatorywork'tointerp~t its meaning. other States. Itwould, moreover, prevent eacapplication
Moreover,the interpretationgivenbythe Courthadalready for adniissionfrom being examinedandvoted onseparately
been adoptedbythe SecurityCouncil, as isshowlninArticle and onits ownmerits.This wouldbe contraryto the letter
60 ofthe Council's Rulesoflkedure. andspiritoftheCharter.
Itdoesnot,however,followfrom theexhaustivecharacter Forthesereasons, theCouratnsweredthequestionputtoit
ofArticle4 thatanappreciati,oisprecludedofsuchcircum- inthenegative.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948