Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

320/12–1252: Telegram

The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Department of State

priority

New York, December 12, 1952—2:34 p.m.

Delga 359. Verbatim Text. Re membership. Below are texts of draft res on membership which were submitted yesterday in ad hoc comite:

“Peru: Draft res”

“The GA,

“Considering:

• “1. That by res dated 1 February 1952 it recommended the SC to reconsider all pending applications exclusively on the basis of the conditions laid down in the charter, in keeping with the advisory opinion of the Internat’l Court of Justice of 28 May 1948 to the effect that a member of the UN voting on the application of a state for membership in the UN is not juridically entitled to make its consent dependent on conditions not expressly provided by Art 4, para 1 of the charter;
• “2. That it appears from the proceedings in the SC that, even though it has been recognized unanimously, in opinions, votes or proposals for admission, some of them in identical terms, that the applicant states in question fulfill the conditions governing admission to the UN, a veto was pronounced at the time of voting which seems to have been influenced by motives outside the scope of Art 4 of the charter and hence in conflict with the opinion of the ICJ of 28 May 1948 and in disregard of the GA’s express recommendation;
• “3. That the principle of universality which underlies the charter requires only that the applicant states should fol a policy in keeping with internat’l law, and that hence this principle may not be restricted on other grounds, which if they prevailed would transform into a political alliance the organization set up by the will of the peoples represented at San Francisco to be the universal legal community;
• “4. That this arbitrary application of the unanimity rule is preventing the UN from accomplishing one of the essential purposes of the charter, namely to enlist the cooperation of the peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the charter;
• “5. That the unanimity rule, the purpose of which is to achieve the effective cooperation of the great powers in the consolidation of peace, was not conceived or accepted as a means of authorizing any power to deny the proved and recognized qualifications of the states applying for membership and so to exclude them indefinitely from the legal community to which they are entitled to belong as internat’l persons in conformity with the spirit and letter of the charter;
• “6. That while, according to the advisory opinion of the ICJ of 3 March 1950 both the recommendation of the Council and the decision of the Assembly are required for the admission of new members, the Court did not express an opinion on the form of the vote in the SC:
• “7. That there are sound reasons for claiming that the unanimity rule, being an exception, should only be applied restrictively and hence only in the cases which involve the functions exclusively vested in the SC;
• “8. That in the matter of the admission of new members, as is shown by the records of the San Francisco conference, the final decision lies with the Assembly, and that accordingly the SC’s recommendation, though necessary, is from the legal point of view a previous step or a procedural stage which, by its nature and according to the spirit and letter of the charter, does not require the application of the unanimity rule;
• “9. That even if the unanimity rule were applicable to the SC’s recommendation it would be inadmissible in cases in which it involved a violation of the charter, such as would be constituted by accepting a veto to the admission of new members which had been acknowledged, by the power exercising the veto in the SC, as eligible within the meaning of Art 4;
• “10. That the GA res entitled ‘uniting for peace’, approved almost unanimously by the Assembly has laid down the doctrine that the exercise of the veto by a power cannot paralyze the organization or relieve the GA of its responsibilities under the charter;

“Resolves:

• “1. To note the SC’s report concerning the admission of new members;
• “2. To note that the concurring opinions, votes and proposals laid before the SC concerning the admission of new members signify, with respect to the states to which they relate, that they are unanimously recognized as fulfilling the conditions required for membership of the UN pursuant to Art 4 of the charter;
• “3. To consider, in the light of the purposes and principles of the charter and in view of the circumstances described above, each of the applications of the states to which the foregoing paragraph relates.”

“Admission of new members

“Costa Rica, El Salv, Hond and Nicara: Draft resolution

“First draft

“The GA,

“Conscious of its responsibilities with regard to the solution of the problem of the admission of new members to the UN;

“Concerned by the fact that many cases are still pending, though they secured the supporting votes of seven or more of the members of the SC;

“Considering that it is essential for the purposes of the UN to facilitate the admission of new members who are peace-loving and who fulfill the other conditions laid down by Art 4 of the charter;

“Considering that in order to secure the adoption at the conference of San Francisco of the rule regarding the unanimity of the permanent members of the SC it was necessary for the sponsoring powers to settle the doubts of various dels as to the scope of that rule, and for that purpose to issue the declaration of 7 June 1945 in which it is stated that the permanent members may make use of the veto in cases which relate to the maintenance of internat’l peace and security and which, according to the declaration, consist exclusively of cases in which the SC has to make decisions which involve its taking direct measures in connection with settlement of disputes, adjustment of situations likely to lead to disputes, determination of threats to the peace, removal of threats to the peace and suppression of breaches of the peace;

“Considering that according to that same declaration restricting the scope of the veto, decisions of the SC which do not involve the taking of any of the measures previously referred to, but which are connected with the maintenance of peace and internat’l security are to be taken by a procedural vote, that is to say by the vote of any seven members of the Council;

“Considering that the expression ‘a procedural vote’ used in the declaration is itself proof that the subjects to which it refers may not be procedural matters in the strict sense of the term but are governed, by assimilation thereto, as if they were procedural;

“Considering that, although it is a subject which may be connected with the maintenance of peace and security, the admission of new members to the UN is not included among the cases in which, according to the permanent members of the Council themselves, they may make legitimate use of the privilege of the veto, but is included among the cases which are dealt with by a procedural vote;

“Considering that, as the organ with which responsibility for deciding on applications for the admission of new members chiefly rests, the GA has the right and also the duty to decide on the cases pending, and in so doing can and should apply the criterion maintained in the declaration of San Francisco of 7 June 1945, according to which the SC acts on this subject by a procedural vote;

“Decides to consider separately each of the applications for admission that are pending and in each case to decide in favour of or against admission in accordance with the merits of the case and the results of a vote taken in the Security Council in conformity with Art 27, para 2, of the charter,”

“Admission of new members

“Costa Rica, El Salv, Guatem, Hondur, and Nicara: Draft res

“Second draft

“The GA,

“Considering that notwithstanding the efforts that have been made for some years, it has not as yet been possible to solve the important problem of the admission of new members to the UN;

“Recalling that various states members of the UN have made specific proposals or put forward suggestions with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution of the problem of admission;

“Recalling that on two occasions the ICJ, at the request of the GA, has given advisory opinions on the above mentioned problem;

“Bearing in mind that the applications for admission of a large number of states are still pending, despite the fact that seven or more votes were cast in favour of the admission of many of them in the SC;

“Resolves:

• “1. To establish a special comite composed of a rep of each of the fol member states: Belg, China, Cuba, Egypt, El Salv, Fr, Gr, Ind, Leb, Neth, NZ, Peru, USSR, UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and USA;
• “2. To instruct the spec comite to make a detailed study of the question of the admission of states to membership in the UN, examining the proposals and suggestions which have been made in the GA and its comites or which may be submitted to the spec comite by any members of the UN, such study to be conducted in the light of the discussions in the GA and its comites, the advisory opinions of the ICJ and the principles of internat’l law;
• “3. To request the spec comite to submit a report on its work and its conclusions to the GA at its eighth regular session and to transmit that report to the SYG in time for distribution to member states at least two months before the opening of the eighth session;
• “4. To request the SYG to place at the disposal of the spec comite the staff and the facilities it requires for its work;
• “5. To arrange for the item ‘admission of new members’ to be included in the provisional agenda of the eighth regular session of the GA.”

Austin