« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
In the case of expulsion, nothing is said about restoration or reinstatement. The effect of that is that the reinstatement of a nation which has been expelled from the Organization would be by the same process as the admission of a new Member. That process is described in article 4, namely, that the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Security Council, by the kind of vote which I indicated this morning, would admit new Members to the Organization. The condition of membership is acceptance of the obligations contained in the Charter and the decision of the Organization that, in its judgment, the candidate for admission is able and willing to carry out the obligations.
I have no further comments on chapter II.
Chapter III is a very short chapter, which establishes as the principal organs of the United Nations a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice, and a Secretariat.
This same article gives the Organization—that is, its various organs—the right to establish such subsidiary organs as they may find necessary for the fulfillment of their duties.
Article 8, which is also a part of this chapter, states that the Organization as such shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in the work of the Organization, either as its officials or as representatives in its various agencies.
Senator THOMAS of Utah. What does that mean, Doctor?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That means that, as far as the employment of officials by the Organization is concerned, no distinction or no discrimination will be made against men or against women, as the case may be.
This article also mentions something which interested some delegations very much, and which appeared to some delegations as a rather remote contingency: that if a government wished to send as its representatives in any of the activities of the Organization women as well as men, or men as well as women, the Organization itself would not make that nondiscriminatory practice impossible by saying that only men or only women must be included in the delegation. Obviously, the decision as to which it will be rests with the governments themselves.
The CHAIRMAN. Chapter IV.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Chapter IV is a chapter in which the General Assembly is described in terms of its composition, its functions and powers, its voting procedure, and its general procedure in the discharge of its duties. The General Assembly is representative of all the Members of the United Nations. Every Member of the Organization has a right to be represented in the Assembly.
The Charter provides that each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly. That is something that has been dictated by experience, because an Assembly usually operates through a number of commissions, and it is important for the Member States to have an adequate number of official representatives to take part in the work of those commissions which, very frequently, meet simultaneously. On the other hand, it has seemed important not to have too many representatives at the meetings of the Assembly. So a compromise was struck by making the representation limited to five representatives of each of the Members.
Senator GREEN. In that connection, may I ask whether it is left to the Member to decide whether a majority of the representatives shall cast votes for the member?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. The provision under "Voting,” which comes later in this chapter, states that each member of the General Assembly. meaning each state represented in the General Assembly, shall have one vote.
Senator GREEN. I understand that. That was not my question. My question is: Suppose a member has five representatives. Can the member itself decide whether a majority shall represent the member?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes. The government of the member state is completely free to determine the method by which its vote will be cast in the General Assembly, but the vote will be only one vote.
Senator GREEN. The General Assembly, then, would have nothing to do with the vote to be cast by the representatives, whether it is one or five?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes. Each delegation will decide who will cast the vote for the delegation and how that vote will be determined.
Senator HILL. You say that a member of the General Assembly means the nation?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That nation; yes.
Senator Hul. I note on page 10, number 1 of article 18, that the word “member" there is written with a small "m." Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is the difficulty we got into this morning, because of the capitalization of "Members” in one place and not in another. The same nations are referred to when we speak of the Members of the United Nations in article 9 and members of the General Assembly in article 18, only in article 9 we think of them as Members of the United Nations, Members of the Organization, in their capacity as Members of the Organization and therefore eligible for election to the various bodies of the Organization, and so on. In article 18, we think of them in their capacity as members of the General Assembly. It is the same nation in each case.
Senator HATCH. I should like to ask a question that may sound very foolish, but it disturbed a very good friend of mine.
In this article about the Assembly, article 2, you use the words "discuss” and “consider.” They are used differently in different places. My friend asked me whether they were synonymous. I said, "Why, certainly. You cannot discuss without considering."
But he was troubled about that. Is there any reason for using those two words differently?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Well, there was a feeling that there was perhaps a shade of difference between them.
Senator HATCH. Will you please explain that, because I was asked to explain it, and I could not do it?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Perhaps the word "consider" is more comprehensive than the word "discuss," because the word "consider" may have an implication of leading to some sort of action-recommendation, for example.
Senator Hatch. Then, you did use the words deliberately?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. When you consider, you certainly discuss; and when you discuss, you consider. But you consider perhaps with a view to doing something about it.
Senator HATCH. The only reason why I am asking is to try to make it plain.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Of course.
Senator Hatch. But there is a real difference, then, between the two words?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. We thought when we were drafting these particular provisions that the use of the two words would reinforce the concept of free discussion and free consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Doctor.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. The articles which relate to the functions and powers of the Assembly spell out in considerable detail the things that the Assembly can do. I should like to say one word about the general field of operations of the General Assembly.
There is one basic concept which had to be agreed upon very early in the game, and that was whether or not the General Assembly and the Security Council, which obviously would be the principal organs of this Organization, would have the same functions and the same powers and would differ from each other only in the sense that when the Assembly is not in session the Council exercises all of its functions. The League of Nations was built very largely on that concept.
Those who worked on the Dumbarton Oaks document and those who worked on the same subject in San Francisco were very definitely of the opinion that experience had shown that it was well to separate the functions; that, particularly in the new Organization, there are two primary sets of functions that would have to be performed by the Organization.
In the first place, there is the function related to the maintenance of peace and security; that is, the function of doing everything possible to bring about peaceful adjustment of disputes that arise,
of removing threats to the peace when threats arise, and of suppressing breaches of the peace, if in spite of the preventive action, peace should be broken. It was the opinion that those comprise one great function of the new Organization.
The second great function of the Organization, it was thought, was the creation of conditions which would be conducive to the maintenance of peaceful relations among nations, which would make for stability, friendship, and good neighborliness.
It was thought that as between those two functions, the first one should be given to the Security Council as its primary responsibility; that the second function should be given to the General Assembly as its primary responsibility. The second function, obviously, involves a very wide and complicated field of activity, the field of economic, social, and related problems and relationships. So it was thought that if the General Assembly were given the function of having primary responsiblity in that vast and all-important field, it would then be the agency, being the fully representative body, for bringing about conditions in which the use of force as the ultimate sanction would be less and less necessary. After all this Organization will have to be judged not by the amount of force that it will use in maintaining peace and security, or the frequency with which it will use force, but precisely by how infrequently and how little it will be necessary to use force as the ultimate sanction in the maintenance of international peace and security. Hence the General Assembly is given here the functions of creating these indispensable conditions for orderly international living.
There is here a statement that "the General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter;" that it "may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.” Now, when you consider what sort of questions may come up for consideration by the General Assembly, it becomes necessary, or it was thought necessary in the process of formulating these provisions, to set forth some of the most important fields in which the Assembly would be expected to function. There are, first, the general principles.
Senator BURTON. May I interrupt at this point, Mr. Chairman, to ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Burton.
Senator BURTON. I just wanted to inquire about the use of the phrase "present Charter,” which occurs twice in article 10 and which occurs in other places in the Charter. It is rather unusual, is it not, to refer to “the present Charter”? Does that mean that it excludes the amended Charter and that every time it is amended, it is necessary to go back to those places and say that it is the amended Charter!
Mr. PASVOLSKY. The phrase "present Charter" rather than “this Charter" is used throughout the document on the recommendation of our Advisory Committee of Jurists, who thought that that was the best way of describing the document in legal terms. I do not think, Senator, that there is any implication there which would carry beyond the fact that this is a term of reference in the framework of the document as we have it.
Senator BURTON. That leaves it so that if there is an amendment to the Charter, you must be very careful to make sure that it applies everywhere you want it to apply, otherwise it will be expressly excluded in every place where you say “present Charter"?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. I can only venture a personal interpretation, of course, but I imagine that if an amendment is made to the Charter, then the new Charter becomes the present Charter as of that time.
The CHAIRMAN. And any amendment, wherever it applied in the Charter, would become effective.
Mr. PasvoLSKY. It would become effective, of corirse.
Senator THOMAS of Utah. May we emphasize that a little more, so that we get it down good and strong?
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Serator Thomas.
Senator THOMAS of Utah. I think that that is extremely important as it refers to article 11, the things which may be considered, and then to paragraph 2 in article 11, the things which may be discussed. If through an amendment you bring in a subject which is not mentioned here, you are sure, are you, Doctor, that that amendment will make it
possible for that subject to be discussed at any time? I am following up Senator Burton's logic.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Unless the making of an amendment makes the phrase "present Charter" apply as a limiting phrase, I should think that the word “present” here does not have the significance of limiting the Charter only to the original provisions. Surely an amendment to the Charter will become an integral part of the Charter, and therefore, whenever the Charter is amended, the amended Charter is the Charter to which reference is made here.
Senator THOMAS of Utah. You think, then, that the term “present Charter” does not have any more significance than the term “this Charter"
Mr. PASVOLSKY. We took this to be the exact equivalent of the phrase "this Charter."
The CHAIRMAN. If you used the term "this Charter," Senator Burton's point would be just as strong,
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Just as applicable. The CHAIRMAN (continuing). As if you used “the present Charter." My thought is that the amendment being the last and later act, whereever it touched anything that was inconsistent with it, that part of the Charter would have to give way to the amendment, if there were any inconsistency.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Our thought when we discussed this question certainly was that any amendment to the Charter becomes an integral part of the Charter.
Senator TUNNELL. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask if the same thing does not apply to our Constitution. We do not think of the Constitution as being a different one each time there is an amendment, it is still the same Constitution.
Senator HATCH. But the customary language is: “This Constitution and all amendments thereto." But that is not important, I am not arguing the point. The words "present Charter" are an unfortunate usage.
The CHAIRMAN. They came out of your profession, Senator.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Articles 11 and 12 relate to the functions which the General Assembly would perform in connection with the problem of the maintenance of international peace and security. The primary responsibility rests with the Security Council, but the General Assembly, as the representative body of the Organization, will obviously have to perform certain functions. It was thought that the general principles of cooperation, as they need to develop in relation to changing conditions, would have to be considered, formulated, and recommended to Members and to the Security Council by the General Assembly rather than by the Security Council, because that is not a function of a small number of states; that is a function of all the states. So the General Assembly is given the function in connection with general principles of cooperation, and that includes the principles governing eventual disarmament and the regulation of armaments, when the Organization comes to that.