Disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the present convention, including those relating to the responsibility of states for genocide or any of the other acts made punishable by the convention, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute. The General Assembly approved also a resolution, submitted by the Sixth Committee, by which the International Law Commission is invited to study the desirability and possibility of establishing an international judicial organ for the trial of persons charged with genocide or other crimes over which jurisdiction would be conferred upon that organ by international conventions. Finally, the Assembly approved a resolution recommending that the parties to the convention which administer dependent territories should take such measures as are necessary and feasible to enable the provisions of the convention to be extended to those territories as soon as possible. PROBLEMS OF DEPENDENT The Charter of the United Nations contains specific provisions for the promotion of the well-being and advancement of dependent peoples. According to chapter XI, Members having responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants are paramount and accept the obligation to promote their well-being. Futhermore, chapters XII and XIII provide for the establishment of an international trusteeship system for the administration of territories placed thereunder by individual trusteeship agreements. Consideration of matters arising under these three chapters constitutes annually a significant portion of United Nations business having wide implications and long-range importance. Trusteeship Activities Members of the United Nations in 1948 devoted increasing attention to the problems of 15,000,000 inhabitants of 10 trust territories under the international trusteeship system. During its 71 meetings the Trusteeship Council carefully examined three annual reports submitted by administering authorities and considered thirteen petitions. The Council also dealt with two special questions referred to it by the General Assembly-the City of Jerusalem and South West Africa. The Trusteeship Council's conclusions and recommendations were further debated for several weeks in the Fourth Committee and in the plenary meetings of the Third Session of the General Assembly. Four resolutions designed to promote the progress of the trust territories were unanimously adopted by the Assembly on November 18, 1948. Meanwhile, between July 20 and September 21, the Trusteeship Council's first regular visiting mission had observed conditions in an area containing nearly two thirds of the total population under the trusteeship system, the two East African trust territories of Tanganyika and Ruanda-Urundi. The mission's recommendations, embodied in a 430-page report, will be studied at the Fourth Session of the Trusteeship Council in 1949. EXAMINATION OF ANNUAL REPORTS The examination of annual reports submitted by administering authorities is one of the most important functions of the Trusteeship Council. Based on an exhaustive provisional questionnaire prepared by the Council, these reports give a detailed picture of conditions in the trust territories. Three reports, covering the British, Australian, and Belgian trust territories of Tanganyika, New Guinea, and Ruanda-Urundi, were examined during the Second and Third Sessions. To supplement this information the members of the Trusteeship Council questioned a special representative sent from each trust territory by the administering authority. The United States, along with the United Kingdom and the Philippines, was assigned to devote special attention to the field of educational advancement. Keen interest was shown in the Council, and subsequently in the Assembly, in the need for additional educational facilities in trust territories. Several Council representatives commented on the small number of children in school and the low proportion of the total budget spent on education. The Philippine Delegate stressed the need for higher education in order to accelerate political, economic, social, and educational progress by training indigenous leaders. According to the report of the Trusteeship Council the allocation for education was 7.34 percent of the total budget in Ruanda-Urundi, 1.59 percent in the combined territories of New Guinea and Papua, and 9.2 percent in Tanganyika. The Philippine Delegate pointed out in contrast that "from the very start of American administration in the Philippines no less than 33 percent of the entire budget was allotted to education." The role of missionary schools in the educational system of the three territories was also discussed. A number of representatives contended that missionary schools should be replaced or supplemented as rapidly as possible by government schools. The United States Representative and others, while pointing out the contributions of the mission schools to education, held that the administering authority should supervise and set standards for the entire educational system, a view which was accepted by the Council. In the discussion of political advancement, the major issue was a dispute over administrative unions between trust territories and territories under the sovereignty of the administering authorities. The debate on administrative unions centered around the establishment of an interterritorial organization linking Tanganyika with the British territories of Kenya and Uganda, and the "Papua and New Guinea Act, 1948", a bill proposing joint administration under a single administrator for New Guinea and the Australian territory of Papua. Several members of the Council expressed the fear that these administrative unions might lead to the obliteration of the boundaries of the trust territories and to the loss of their political identities. The administering authorities concerned, however, renewed their assurances that the identity of the trust territories would be maintained. They also contended that the establishment of administrative unions was fully within their powers under the terms of the trusteeship agree ments. After extensive discussion, the Council decided that it would be premature to form a definite opinion regarding the interterritorial organization in East Africa but welcomed the assurance given by the United Kingdom that the existing status and identity of Tanganyika would be maintained. The proposed administrative union between New Guinea and Papua was more sharply criticized. The Council questioned whether the proposed union would not "compromise the preservation of the separate identity of the trust territory." Accordingly, it recommended that the administering authority "review the matter of administrative union The Australian Government subsequently announced that, in the light of the Trusteeship Council's comments, it was prepared to make certain changes in the text of the Papua and New Guinea Act. During the debate on administrative unions disagreement also arose as to whether an administering authority must inform or consult the Trusteeship Council before establishing an administrative, fiscal, or customs union, or federation, or extending any such arrangement already in existence. The Belgian, French, United Kingdom, and Australian Representatives contended that by insisting on advance consultation the Trusteeship Council would be unwisely assuming an administrative rather than a supervisory role. Representatives of China, Mexico, the Philippines, and the Soviet Union, however, argued that any measures changing, or likely to change, the status of a trust territory must be submitted by the administering authority to the Council before being put into effect. Spokesmen for the remaining two administering authorities, New Zealand and the United States, expressed the opinion that prior consultation, though not required, was desirable. The United States Representative expressed the view that "it would not only be a courtesy but also would facilitate the practical work of the Council if an administering authority should inform the Trusteeship Council before implementing any plan it has formed for establishing such a union or federation." He declared that the United States for its part would "notify in advance the appropriate organ of the United Nations in the event of any proposed changes which might affect the separate administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, such as an administrative union or federation between the trust territory and the territory under United States sovereignty or control." The Council finally voted to note that the interterritorial organization was put into effect without prior consultation with the Trusteeship Council and to express the hope that "the administering authority would consult the Trusteeship Council before undertaking any extension or modification of the present arrangement which might affect the status of Tanganyika." The Council also gave attention to ways and means of promoting the social and economic advancement of the three areas under discussion. In the economic field, emphasis was placed upon the importance of safeguarding the interests of indigenous land owners, while in the social field the need for a greater number of qualified medical practitioners was stressed. VISITING MISSION TO EAST AFRICA The Trusteeship Council, in contrast to the Permanent Mandates Commission, is empowered to send missions to visit areas under its supervision. Although a special mission investigated a specific problem in Western Samoa in 1947, the year 1948 marked the dispatch of the first regular visiting mission. Departing from Lake Success on July 15, this mission traveled through the East African trust territories of Ruanda-Urundi and Tanganyika. Made up of four representatives appointed by the Council, and assisted by six members of the United Nations Secretariat, the mission studied conditions in the two areas and gave a number of oral hearings to petitioners. A visit to the four West African trust territories is scheduled for 1949, while the four Pacific trust territories will presumably be visited a year later. The Council decided to appoint nationals of Australia, China, Costa Rica, and France to the East African mission. H. Laurentie of France was named chairman, despite Soviet objections that a former colonial administrator could not be expected to be impartial. The Soviet Delegate also objected to appointments of individuals, arguing that countries and not persons were members of the Trusteeship Council and must therefore be members of the mission. A majority of the Council, however, including the United States, maintained that members of visiting missions, although nominated by governments, are appointed by the Council as individuals and are responsible only to the Council. Another controversy concerned the directions given the mission by the Trusteeship Council. While the nonadministering authorities proposed detailed items for the mission to investigate, the administering authorities sought to instruct the visiting mission in very general terms. The Soviet Representative phrased his suggestions of topics for investigation in such a way as to condemn the administering authorities, a procedure which was naturally objectionable to the latter. The decision on the proposal to list specific details marked the first instance in the Council's history when a vote on an important item was evenly divided between the administering and nonadministering members. In accordance with the Council's rules of procedure, a second vote was then taken. Since the result was again a tie, the proposal was lost. PETITIONS Another important function of the Trusteeship Council is the examination of petitions from inhabitants of trust territories or other interested parties. Two of the thirteen petitions examined at the Third Session provoked a controversy over matters of principle. The first petition, from an American citizen who had lived many years in Tanganyika, made a number of allegations regarding conditions in that territory and requested an investigation on the spot. On the question of granting the petitioner the opportunity of an oral hearing to present his views, the opinion of the Council was divided. The Soviet Representative contended that any petitioner had the right to make an oral presentation, while other representatives argued that only a resident of the trust territory could appear in person. The United States considered that the place of residence of a petitioner |