Изображения страниц

the draft of the Court Statute which had been prepared by a Committee of Jurists, a preliminary committee convoked in Washington just before the San Francisco Conference. Most of the United Nations were represented on that Committee; and in the course of its work a draft of a statute based on the statute of the existing Permanent Court was prepared and was presented to the San Francisco Conference.

There was no document available for the Conference on the very important question of international trusteeship until the Conference itself met. That question had not been discussed at Dumbarton Oaks. It was left there for further exploration and study by the participating governments, which had already given it much study and had considered it at the Moscow Conference and on other occasions. At the Crimea Conference arrangements were made for putting this question on the agenda of the San Francisco Conference; and arrangements were also made for consultations among the four sponsoring governments and France on the subject of the scope and character of the discussions on trusteeship. The consultations took place in San Francisco, and out of those consultations there resulted a working paper which then became a part of the working documentation of the Conference.

Confronted with this mass of documentation, the Conference resolved itself into four commissions by dividing the subject matter into four parts. Each of the commissions had a number of technical committees to which the particular commission entrusted its work. There were 12 such committees. The committees took up various aspects of the problem and considered and discussed all of the proposals that were made with respect to that particular aspect. That is one reason why it took so long. There was a great deal to be studied and discussed in connection with each aspect.

The technical committees then formulated recommendations to their respective commissions as to the provision which would be included in the Charter itself. The commissions in turn debated the result of the work of the technical committees and formulated recommendations to the Conference as a whole. All delegations at the Conference were represented in these technical committees and in these commissions. Each provision had to be recommended and approved by at least a two-thirds vote. No provision emerged from the technical committees or the commissions which had not secured the approval of twothirds of the members.

The Conference had to go through another stage, because all of the provisions had been worked out in various technical committees separately. In the Coordination Committee, which consisted of representatives of 14 countries, the draft provisions which emerged from the commissions were assembled into a single document and were put in Charter language. The examination of the drafts for these purposes often disclosed, naturally, inconsistencies, overlapping, or lack of clarity. So it became necessary to iron out the difficulties by consultation with appropriate technical committees and commissions, and sometimes there were several committees or commissions involved.

Then when all of these difficulties had been ironed out the drafts were reviewed, from a legal point of view, by an Advisory Committee of Jurists which consisted of six eminent authorities on international law and treaty drafting. Then this text, worked over through all these stages, was presented to the delegations for their study. It was studied by the individual delegations, after which it was presented to the steering committee of the Conference and, finally, to the Conference itself in plenary session.

It is very significant, I think, that in spite of all the differences of view which emerged in the discussions that took place in the technical committees, in spite of all the kinds of thoughts presented there, when the document in its completed form, with each part welded to each other part, was placed before the Conference, it was adopted unanimously without any change. And that is the document which is before your committee now, Mr. Chairman.

The document begins with a preamble and two articles embodied in chapter 1, which are called Purposes and Principles. The arrangement of material in these two parts of the document is somewhat novel, and I would like to indicate the reason for this particular arrangement.

The material that is contained in chapter 1, that is, in articles 1 and 2, “Purposes and Principles," could just as easily have been embodied in the preamble. It was thought at Dumbarton Oaks and it was thought at San Francisco that it was very important to state in the document itself, in the body of the document, as clearly as possible, the rules of conduct by which it would be expected that the Organization and its Members would be governed. So we hit on the idea of stating specifically the purposes and principles of the Organization as the opening articles of the document itself. However, it was also thought important to declare the general motivation of the nations represented at San Francisco in performing the task which they performed there; and the best way of stating such a declaration was in the form of a preamble.

Thus, you will find that the document opens with four statements. There is, first, the statement by “We the peoples of the United Nations” as to what it is that they are determined to do, as to what things they intend to do, and their declaration that they "have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims."

Senator THOMAS of Utah. May I stop you there?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes, sir.

Senator Thomas of Utah. Was there any sort of agreement or understanding about what “We the peoples of the United Nations” meant ? Did they accept the idea of popular sovereignty?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. I think it was clearly understood that the phrase "We the peoples” meant that the peoples of the world were speaking through their governments at the Conference, and that it was because the peoples of the world are determined that those things shall be done which are stated in the preamble that the governments have negotiated the instrument.

Senator Thomas of Utah. And that the governments represented at the Conference were actually the agents of the peoples of those countries represented there?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. I do not know that that question was discussed in that particular form, as a matter of political institutions. The document, being in the form of a treaty, had to be negotiated by governments.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Are there any treaties in existence that you know of that start out with “We the people of the respective nations"?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. No; I do not know of any. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Then the very opening statement of this Charter is something new, is it not?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes, sir; it is something new. It is, however, in the form of a declaration. You see, the legal position here is that “We the peoples of the United Nations" have declared these things and “our respective governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."

Senator THOMAS of Utah. We can go so far as to say that there is nothing offensive to the thinking of Americans in that statement, can we not?

Mr. PasvoLSKY. I hope so. Of course, the phrase iteself, “We the peoples" is borrowed from a well-known document.

The article relating to purposes and principles states the ideas which it is hoped will

be the guiding rules of conduct for the Organization and its Members. I shall refer later on in several places to the use which is made of this device, but I would like to state here that there are three different places at which specific reference is made to the chapter on purposes and principles. The Security Council is enjoined in the performance of its duties to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Organization as stated in this chapter. That was thought to be important.

The General Assembly is given the right to make recommendations with respect to situations resulting from a violation of the purposes and principles of the Organization; and in the case of the trusteeship system the general purposes of the Organization are to be governing in the operation of the system.

So that is the practical application in this document of setting out at the beginning, in the form of chapter I and articles 1 and 2, the purposes and principles of the Organization.

I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether it would be necessary for me to go through the language and ideas contained in chapter I?

The CHAIRMAN. Unless there are some questions, I would not think it would be necessary.

Senator MilLIKIN. May I ask a question there, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Pasvolsky, is there anything in the preamble that is not in the statement of purposes and principles ?

Mr. PasvoLSKY. The preamble in general covers the same ground as the purposes and principles, in more general language and in a somewhat different form. There is a phrase relating to respect for the obligations arising from treaties which is specifically mentioned in the preamble and is implied or inherent in the statement of purposes and principles.

Senator MILLIKIN. Was that omitted for any particular purpose from the statement of purposes and principles ?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. No. It was thought that this was an obligation which was assumed by the Member states themselves rather than by both the Member states and the Organization.

In the article on principles we tried to niake the subject matter conform to the opening phrase, which is:

“The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the purposes stated in article 1, shall act in accordance with the following principles."

Senator MILLIKIN. It has seemed to me that the matters of the preamble are largely duplicated in the succeeding chapter I and chapter II, and I have been somewhat curious as to the reason for that.

Mr, PASVOLSKY. That is of course true. The basic ideas are the same. They are stated in the preamble as a motivation and in chapter I as rules of conduct.

Senator VANDENBERG. It would scarcely be expected that they would be in conflict, would it?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. No. They certainly cannot be in conflict. The question is how much is to be gained by reinforcing the expression of these thoughts by having them appear ið one form in the preamble and in another form in the chapter on purposes and principles.

Senator Millikin. Legally speaking, would the preamble have legal force?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. The position adopted at the Conference was that the preamble has the same force as the document itself; but the operating part of the document, of course, begins with the operating provisions.

Senator MILLIKIN. There is some contrary opinion on that, is there not?

Mr. PasvoLSKY. Yes; I know there is. There was some discussion of that question at the Conference, but the Conference adopted the view, which was supported by the Advisory Committee of Jurists, that the preamble would have the same legal force as the rest of the document.

Senator MILLIKIN. Did I understand you to say that the Conference accepted it?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes, sir.
Senator AUSTIN. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

Senator Austin. I notice a change in the regional arrangements relating to the subject of purposes and principles in the original Dumbarton Oaks proposals. The provision was that the activities of regional agencies should be consistent with the purposes and principles of the Organization; and in chapter VIII, article 52 of the treaty, the language is consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations"; and the words “purposes and principles” are capitalized. In your previous statement relating to specific references to chapter I, should it include this reference in article 52 of chapter VIII under “Regional arrangement”?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. The reference in article 52, Senator, is precisely to articles 1 and 2, that is, purposes and principles. That is why the words “purposes and principles” are capitalized in article 52. The words "the United Nations" are used in the document interchangeably with the word “Organization.”

Senator AUSTIN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions by any Senator on this point? [No response.]

All right; proceed.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Chapter II relates to the membership of the Organization. Here a good deal of discussion took place. In this country, and in other countries, a good deal of discussion has been going on as to the membership of an international organization. There are two schools of thought. One is that there should be universality of membership from the outset; that is, that each country should be automatically a member of the Organization. The other school of thought is that the Organization is created by a group of nations, as an association of nations of like mind, and that then the original members of the Organization would admit other members into their midst.

Both at Dumbarton Oaks and at San Francisco this question was discussed, and in both cases there was an overwhelming view to the effect that the Organization should be made up of a group of original members who would be charter members and who would then, by a method to be prescribed, admit other states to membership.

So that the language that is used here is the language of original membership, and there is a provision that the original members of the United Nations shall be the states which either participated in the San Francisco Conference or which previously to the Conference had signed the declaration by United Nations of January 1, 1942, and which sign the Charter and ratify it in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Charter itself.

Senator Austin. May I submit a question at this point ?
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Austin.

Senator Austin. Is it true that wherever the word "Member” appears in this document it refers to states instead of to individuals ?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Wherever the word "Member" appears, Senator Austin, capitalized, it relates to the Members of the Organization. Whenever the word “member" appears uncapitalized it refers to members of other bodies or of other organizations.

Senator Austin. That is not quite my question.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. The word “member" is used to refer to a state rather than to an individual. The individuals are referred to as representatives.

Senator AUSTIN. Thank you.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. But I wanted to call your attention, if I might, to the fact that when the word "member" is capitalized it means a Member of the United Nations. When it is not capitalized it means a member of one of the constituent bodies or of other organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. As, for example, a member of the Security Council, the Court, or the Assembly?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes, sir. Senator BURTON. May I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator BURTON. I assume that the reason for including the additional group of those who previously signed the original declaration of January 1, 1942, was to bring in some additional nations which were not in the Conference. Will you state what nations were brought in?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Poland.
Senator THOMAs of Utah. Was Poland the only one brought in?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes, sir.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »