Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962

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

CERTAIlY EXPENSES OF THEUNITEI) NATIONS
(ARTICLE 17, PARAGRAPH 2,OFTHECIIARTER)

Advisory Opinionof 20 July1962

The questionof certainexpensesof the United Nations (FirstPhase)andJudgmentsoftheAdministrative Tribunal
(Article17,.paragraph2, of theCharter)lbeen puttothe oftheZLQ uponComplaints madeagainstUnesco,andfound
Courtforanadvisoryopinionbyaresolutiot~adoptedbythe no 'kompellingreason" whyit shouldnotgivetheadvisory
GeneralAssemblyof the UnitedNationsof 20 December opinionwhichthe GeneralAssemblyhad requestedof it.
1961.
Byninevotesto fivethe Court declaredthatthe expendi-
tures authorized in certain General Assemiblyresolutions
enumeratedinthe requestforopinion,relatingto the United
Nations operationsin the Congo and intlle Middle East
undertaken in pursuanceof Security Council and General TheCourtthenexaminedtheviewthat itshouldtakeinto
Assemblyresolutionslikewise enumeratedin the request, consideration the rejectionof a French amendmentto the
were "expenses of the Organization" withinthe meaning requestfor advisory opinion.The amendment wouldhave
of Article 17, paragraph2, of the Charter of the UnitedaskedtheCourtto g:ivean opinionon thequestion whether
Nations. theexpendituresrelatedtothe indicated operathad been
Judges Sir Percy Spender, Sir Gerald Fitzmauriceand "decidedon inconformitywiththe provisioftheCharter".
Morelliappendedtothe Opinionof the Courtstatementsof Onthis point theCourtobservedthat therejectionof the
their SeparateOpinions. Presidentiniarskiand Judges Frenchamendmentdid notconstituteadirectivetotheCourt
Basdevant,MorenoQuintana,KoretskyanclBustamantey to excludefromits considerationthe question whether cer-
Riveroappendedto theOpinionof the Cou~~ sttatementsof tain expenditureswere "decided on in conformitywiththe
theirDissentingOpinions. Charter", ifthe Court foundsuchconsiderationappropriate.
Nor could the Court agreethat the rejectionof the French
amendmenthad any bearin uponthe question whether the
GeneralAssemblyhad sought topreclude theCourt from
interpreting Article117in the light of other articlesof the
Charter, thatis, inthe:wholecontextofthetreaty.
The Presidentof the Court, in pursuanceof Article
paragraph2, ofthe Statute,havingconsidem1thatthe States
MembersoftheUnitedNationswerelikelytc~ beabletofur-
nishinformationonthequestion,fixed20February1962as
the time-limit withinwhichthe Courtwouldbe preparedto
receive written statements from them.fo~llowing em- Wing then tohe questionwhich had beenposed, the
ber sftheUnited Nationssubmittedstatements. nosrlet- Courtfound that it involvedan interpretationof Article 17,
ters settingforth theirviews:Australia,Bulgaria,Byelorus-ragraph2, of the Charter,andthat the firstquestionwas
sian Soviet Socialist RepubliCanada, Ci~~choslovakia, thatof identifyingat are"the expensesof the Organiza-
Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan,the:Netherlands,tion".
Pbrhlgal,Romania, South Africa, Spain.UkrainianSoviet The text of Article 17, paragraph 2, referred to "the
Socialist Republic,Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,expensesof the Organization" withoutany further explicit
United Kingdomof Great Britain and Northern Ireland, definition. Theinterpretationof the word "expenses" had
UnitedStatesofAmericaandUpper Volta. Althearingsheld beenlinkedwith the!word"budget" in paragraph1of that
from14to21MaytheCourtheardoralstatementsbytherep- Articleandit hadbeencontendedthatinbothcasesthequal-
resentativesof Canada, the Netherlands, Italyt,he Uniteifying adjective "regular" or "administrative" should
Kingdomof Great Britainand NorthernIreland, Norway, understoodtobeimpliied.Accordingtothe Courtthiswould
Australia, Ireland,the Unionof SovietSociadistRepublicsbe possible onlyif such qualificationmust necessarilybe
and theUnitedStatesof America. impliedfromthe provisionsof the Charterconsidereasa
whole.
Concerning theword "budget" in paragraph1of Article
17,theCourtfoundthatthedistinctionbetween"administra-
tivebudgets"and"operational budgets"hadnotbeenabsent
fromthe mindsofthedraftersoftheChartersinceitwaspro-
In its opiniothe Court firstrecalled that it had beenvided in paragraph of the same Article that the Gened
arguedthat the Courtshould refuseto gian opinion,the Assembly"shallexaminetheadministrativebudgets"ofthe
questionputtoitbeingofapoliticalname, anddeclaredthat specialized agencies:if the draftershad intended that para-
inviteditoundertakeanessentiallyjudicialtask,namely theUnited Nations organizationitself, the word "administra-
interpretationof a treaty provision.In this connectionttive" would have beeninsertedinparagraph1sithadbeen
Courtrecalledtheprinciples previously sbythePerma- inparagraph3.Actually,thepracticeoftheOrganizationhad
nent Courtof InternationalJusticein thei.soryOpinion been from the outsetto includein the.budget itemswhich
concerningtheStatusofEasternCareliaand1)ythe present wouldnot fallwithinmy of the definitionsof "administra-
Court in theAdvisoryOpinions concerningthe Interpreta- tivebudget"whichhailbeenadvanced. TheGened Assem-
tionofkace lfeatieswithBulgariaH, ungaryandRomania bly had consistentlylcludedin the annual budgetresolu-tionsprovisionfor"unforeseenandextraordinaryexpenses" vide for the financingof measures designed to maintain
arisingin relationto the "mail!ntenancef peace and secu- peaceandsecurity.
rity". Every year from 1947through 1959theiresolutionon
these unforeseen and extraordinary expenses have been Replyingto the argument thatwithregard tothe mainte-
adoptedwithoutadissentingvote,exceptfor 1952.1953and nance of internationalpeace and security the budgetary
1954, owing to the fact thatin those years Itheresolution authorityof the General Assembly is limitebdy Article 11,
includedthe specificationof ;Icontroversialitem-United maintenanceof internationalpeace andsecurity]on whiche
NationsKorean wardecorations.Finally,in 1961,thereport action is necessaryshallbe referred tothe Security Council
of theWorkingGroupof Fifteta on the Examinationof the bytheGeneral Assemblyeitherbeforeor afterdiscussion".
Administrativeand Budgetary Procedures d the United theCourtconsideredthatthe action referredtointhat provi-
Nationshad recorded the adoption withouo tppositionof a sionwascoerciveorenforcementaction.Inthis context,the
statement that "investigationsand observation operations word"action" mustmeansuch actionas was solelywithin
undertakenby the Organization to prevenp tossible aggres- the provinceof theSecurity Council,namely thatindicated
sion shouldbe financed asparr:of the regularbudgetof the by the title of Chapter V11 of the Charter: "action with
United Nations."Takingthese:facts intoconsideration,the respecttothreatstothepace, breachesofthepeace,andacts
Courtconcludedthat therewas nojustificationfor reading ofaggression".If theinterpretationof theword"action".in
intothetextofArticle17,paragraph1,any limitingorquali- Article 11, paragraph2, were that the GeneralAssembly
fyingwordbeforetheword"budget". could mr~kerecommendations onlyof a general character
affectingpeace andsecurityin theabstract,andnot inrela-
tion to specifcases,theparagraphwouldnot have provided
that theCieneralAssembly mightmakerecommendations on
questionsbroughtbefore ibt yStatesorbytheSecurityCoun-
cil. Accordingly, the last sentenceof Article 11,paragraph
'hrning to paragraph2 of Adicle 17,the Court observed 2, had no application where the necessary actiownas not
that, on its face, the term "expensesof the Organization" enforcementaction.
meantall the expensesandnotjustcertaintypesofexpenses The Courtfoundtherefore that theargument drawn from
whichmightbe referredto as "regular expenses".Finding Article 11,paragraph2, to limitthebudgetay authorityof
thatanexaminationofother partsoftheChartershowedthe the General Assembly inrespectofthemaintenanceofinter-
varietyofexpenseswhichmustinevitablybeincludedwithin national peace and security asunfounded.
the "expensesof the Organization",the Cou:rtdid not per-
ceive any basis for challengiingthe legalityof the settled
practiceofincluding suchexpensesinthe budgetaryamounts
whichthe GeneralAssembly i~pportioneamongtheMem-
bersinaccordancewiththe autln~orityhich wasgiventoitby TheCourtthen turnedtotheexaminationoftheargument
Article17,paragraph2. drawn fromArticle 43of the Charterwhich provides that
MembersshallnegotiateagreementswiththeSecurityCoun-
cil on its initiative, forthe purposeof maintaininginterna-
tionalpeaceandsecurity.Theargumentwas thatsuchagree-
mentswereintendedtoincludespecificationsconcerningthe
allocatio~nf costsof suchenforcementactions asmightbe
Passingthen to the considerationof Article 17fromthe takenby directionof the Security Council,and that it was
standpointofitsplace in thegeneralstructurendschemeof onlythe SecurityCouncilwhichhadtheauthority toarrange
Articlewerethe vestingof cal~atroolver thefinancesof the formeetingsuchcosts.
Organizationandthe levyingof apportionedamountsofthe AfterstatingthatArticle43wasnotapplicable, the Court
expensesoftheOrganization.Replying totheargumentthat addedthat even if itwere applicable,the Court could not
expenses resultingfrom operiationsfor the maintenanceof acceptsuch aninterpretationofits textforthe followingrea-
internationalpeace andsecurilywerenot "expensesof the sons.AMemberStatewouldbeentitled,duringthenegotia-
Organization"withinthe meaningof Article 17,paragraph tionof suchagreements,to insist,andthe SecurityCouncil
2. oftheCharter,inasmuchasflheyfelltobedealtwithexclu- would beentitledto agree, that some partof the expense
sivelybythe SecurityCouncil,and moreespeciallythrough should be borne by the Organization.In that case such
agreementsnegotiatedin acccrrdancewithArticle43 of the expense .wouldformpartoftheexpensesoftheOrganization
Charter,the Court foundthatunderArticle24theresponsi- and wouldfallto be apportionedby the General Assembly
bilityof theSecurityCouncilin the matterwas "primary", underArticle 17.Moreover,it followed fromArticle50 of
notexclusive.TheCharter rna~lditeabundantlyclear that the theCharterthattheSecurityCouncil mightdeterminethatan
GeneralAssemblywas also to be concernedwith interna- overburdenedStatewasentitledtosomefinancialassistance.
tionalpeace andsecurityUnderparagraph2ofArticle17the Such finrmcialassistance,ifaffordedbytheOrganization,as
General Assemblywas given the power to apportionthe itmight Ix,wouldclearlyconstitutepartofthe"expensesof
expensesamongtheMembers .whichcreatedtheobligation theOrganization". Furthermore,theCourtconsideredtha itt
of eachto bearthat part of thr:expenseswhich wasappor- could notbesaidthat theCharterhadlefttheSecurityCoun-
tionedto it. Whenthoseexpensesincludedexpendituresfor cil impotentin the face of an emergencysituationwhen
themaintenanceofpeace and~ecurityw , hichwerenot other- agreementsunderArticle43hadnot beenconcluded.Itmust
wiseprovidedfor, it wasthe GeneralAssem'bly which had liewithinthe powerofthe SecurityCounciltatpoliceasitua-
the authority to apportion the latter amounts ainong the tion even though it did notresort to enforcement action
Members.Noneoftheprovisionsdetermining therespective against itState. The costsof actions which the Security
functionsandpowersofthe Sec:uritCouncilandtheGeneral Council was authorized to take therefore constituted
Assembly supported the view ithatsuchdistributionexcluded "expensesofthe OrganizationwithinthemeaningofArticle
fromthepowersof theGeneralAssemblythepower to pro- 17,paragraph 2". Havingconsideredthegeneralproblemof the interpreta- theconclusionthattheexpensesofUNEFwere"expensesof
tion of Article 17, paragraph2, in theghl:of the general the Organization" since otherwisethe General Assembly
structureoftheCharterandoftherespectivefunctionsofthe wouldhave had no ;authorityto decide thatthey "shall be
GeneralAssemblyandtheSecurityCouncil,w , itha viewto borneby the United Nations"or to apportionthemamong
determiningthemeaning ofthe phrase "the expenseo sfthe the Members.The Court foundtherefore that,fromyearto
Organization", theCourt proceededto examinetheexpendi- year, theexpensesof UNEFhadbeentreatedbytheGeneral
tures enumeratedin the requestfor theadvisory opinion. It Assembly asexpensesofthe Organizationwithinthemean-
agreed thatsuchexpendituresmust be testeldby their rela- ingofArticle17,paragraph2.
tionshipto the purposesof the UnitedNatioasin the sense
thatifanexpenditureweremadeforapurposewhichwasnot
one of the purposesof the UnitedNations, it could notbe
consideredan "expense of the Organizatio~n".When the king next to the operationsin the Congo, the Court
Organizationtookactionwhichwarrantedthe assertionthat recalledthattheyhaclbeeninitiallyauthorizedby the Secu-
itwasappropriateforthe fulfilmentofoneofthepurposesof rity Councilin the resolutionof 14July 1960, whichhad
the UnitedNationsset forthin Article1of theCharter,the been adopted withouta dissentingvote. The resolution,in
presumptionwas that such actionwas not ultra vires the the lightof theppealfromthe Governmentof the Congo,
Organization.Iftheactionweretakenbythewrongorgan,it the report of the Secretary-Generaland the debate in the
was imgular, but this would notnecessarilymeanthat the Security Council,had clearlybeen adopted witha view to
expense incurredwas not anexpenseof the Organization. maintaininginternationalpeace and security. Reviewintghe
whichthe bodycorporateor politicmightbe boundby anes in resolutionsandreportsof the Secretary-Generalrelatingto
ultra viresact of anagent. As the UnitedNationsCharter theseoperations, the Court found thaitn thelightof sucha
includednoprocedurefordeterminingthe validityoftheacts record of reiterated consideration, confirmation, approval
ofthe organsof theUnitedNations,each orgianmust,inthe and ratificationby the Security Counciland by theGeneral
firstplaceatleast,determineitsownjurisdiction.IftheSecu- Assemblyof the acti.onsof the Secretary-General,it was
rityCouncil adoptedaresolutionpurportedlyforthemainte- impossibleto reachtheconclusionthat the operationinthe
nanceof internationalpeace andsecurityanclif, in accord- Congousurpedorimpinged upontheprerogativesconferred
ance with such resolution, theecretary-Ge:nerailncurred bythe Charterofthe !SecuritCouncil. Theseoperationsdid
financial obligations,those amountsmust be presumedto not involve"preventi.veor enforcementmeasures" against
constitute "expensesof the Organization". Recalling its anyStateunderCharter V11and thereforedid notconstitute
Opinion concerning Eflectsof Awardsof Compensation "action" asthatterm was usedin Article l l. The financial
made by the United Nations Administrative Tribun tal, obligationswhich the Secretary-Generalhad incurred, in
Courtdeclared thatobligationsofthe Organization mighte accordancewiththeclearandreiterateda,uthorityofboththe
incurredbytheSecretary-Generalactingontheauthorityof Security Council anti the General Assembly, constituted
theSecurityCounciloroftheGeneralAssembly, and thatthe obligations of the Chganizationfor which the General
GeneralAssembly "has noalternativebut tcbhonourthese Assemblywasentitlecltomakeprovision undertheauthority
engagements". of Article17,paragraph2, oftheCharter.
Thisreasoning,appliedtotheresolutionsm~zntioneidnthe Inrelationto the financingoftheoperationsintheCongo,
requestforthe advisoryopinion,mightsufficeasa basisfor the Court,recalling the GeneralAssemblyresolutions con-
the opinionof the Court. TheCourt went on, however,to templatingthe apportionmenotfthe expensesinaccordance
examine separately the expenditures relatito the United with the scaleof assessmentfor the regular budget, con-
Nations Emergency Forcein the Middle East (UNEF )nd cluded therefrom that the General Assembly had twice
thoserelatingtotheUnitedNations operation!intheCongo decidedthateven thoughcertain expenseswere "extraordi-
(ONUC). nary" and"essentiallydifferent"fromthoseunderthe"reg-
ularbudget",they werenonetheless"expensesoftheOrgan-
AsregardsUNEF,the Courtrecalledthatil:wasto be set ization" tobe apportionedin accordancewith thepower
up with the consentof the Nationsconcerned,which dis- grantedtotheGeneralAssemblybyArticle17,paragraph 2.
missedthe notionthat it constitutedmeasun:sof enforce-
ment.Ontheotherhand,it wasapparentthatthe UNEF oper-
ationswereundertakentofulfilaprimepurposeof theUnited
Nations, thatis, to promote and maintaina peacefulsettle-
mentof the situation. The Secretary-Generahad therefore Havingthuspointedout on theone hand that the text of
obligations; the expensesprovidedfor by suchobligationsal clusion that the expenses of the Organizationwere the
mustbeconsidered"expensesoftheOrganization". Reply- amountspaidout to defray thecostsof carryingoutthepur-
ingtotheargument thattheGeneral Assembly never, e~ther poses of the0rganiza.tion and onthe otherhand that the
directly or indirectly,regarded theexpensesof UNEF as examinationof the resolutions authorizingthe expenditures
"expensesoftheOrganization within thememdngofArticle referredto intherequestfortheadvisory opinionhadledto
17, paragraph 2,of the Charter", theCourt stated thatit thefindingthatthey had beenincurredwiththatendinview;
couldnotagreewiththis interpretation.Analyzingthe reso- and havingalso analyzedand found unfoundedthe argu-
lutions relatingto the financingof UNEF,the Courtfound mentswhichhadbeen advancedagainst the conclusionthat
thattheestablishmentofaspecial accountdidnotnecessarily the expenditures in question should be considered as
meanthatthefundsinit were notto bederived fromcontri- expensesof the Organizationwithinthe meaningof Article
butionsof Members asapportionedby the General Assem- 17, paragraph2, of the Charterof the UnitedNations, the
bly.The resolutionsonthismatter,whichhadbeenadopted Court arrivedathe cor~clusiothat thequestionsubmitteto
by the requisitetwo-thirds majorit, usthaverestedupon itbyth e eneralAssemI3lmustbeanswed intheaffirmative.