« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
which I will have to discuss when we come to chapters XII and XIII, and with respect to its right to approve the budget of the Organization, to allocate expenses among the Member States, and to consider and approve financial and budgetary arrangements of specialized agencies, which is another topic I shall have to discuss a little later, Mr. Chairman—the administrative budget.
In addition to this, we have tried to keep from lengthening the Charter as much as possible, by not repeating in this chapter some of the other functions of the Assembly which are mentioned elsewhere in the Charter. These other functions relate to membership, to the election of the nonpermanent members of the Security Council, to the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, to the election of some of the members of the Trusteeship Council, to the election of judges of the Court, and to the amendment process, and to other matters.
The CHAIRMAN. They will all be reached in due course!
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Some of these functions are enumerated in the article in this chapter on voting procedure. They are made subject to the two-thirds rule.
The procedural matters relating to the General Assembly are very simple. It shall adopt its own rules of procedure. It shall elect its President for each session. It shall meet in regular sessions. It may meet in special sessions which can be convoked by the Secretary General on the request of the Security Council or of a majority of the Members, and it may establish such subsidiary organs 'as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.
That is the Assembly. We will come back to it later on in connection with these other functions.
Senator WILEY. I want to refer back to article 14, if I may, as to the phraseology "likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations." In our own Constitution the words "general welfare” have a good many connotations. We do not know exactly what it means now. Why is the word "or" used, instead of the word "and”?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. It was the thought in this connection, Senator, that the term "general welfare” may relate to something which goes beyond friendly relations among nations, or it may relate to something that does not quite fall within that framework.
Senator WILEY. Was there general discussion of the subject! Mr. PASVOLSKY. No. There are several expressions used here for which there was in some quarters a demand for a specific definition. There was particularly the expression “acts of aggression"—what constitutes an act of aggression, and there were others.
The CHAIRMAN. Does not the word “or” in that connection have the effect of "and"! In other words, if either one of these things occurred, the Assembly may take action, and, of course, if either one of them occurs or both of them occur, it may still act.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right. The word "or" means that it is not necessary for both to be impaired, but if either one is impaired the action can be taken.
The CHAIRMAN. And if both are impaired?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Of course, if both are impaired, action will become very much more likely.
Senator VANDENBERG. We were trying to get it as broad as the world.
The CHAIRMAN. "Regardless of origin."
Senator BURTON. Referring to article 18, there is a distinction drawn between those questions that are voted on by a two-thirds majority and those which are voted on by a simple majority. Recommendations with respect to peace and security constitute an important question and, therefore, would require two-thirds majority. I take it from that that a recommendation for peaceful adjustment would merely require a simple majority. Is that correct?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. No, not necessarily. Recommendations with respect to peaceful adjustment, while not enumerated here, could, of course, be brought under the category of the two-thirds vote by the action indicated in article 18, paragraph 3.
Senator BURTON. It is not intended by the listing, then, of recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security to exclude from the two-thirds class all recommendations as to peaceful adjustment?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Not at all.
Senator BURTON. But it would exclude those that would not be considered important?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right.
Senator BURTON. Therefore, the unimportant or lesser important recommendations would be by simple majority ?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes.
Senator BURTON. But the important adjustments, even peaceful adjustments, would still require a two-thirds majority?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes, sir.
Senator BARKLEY. Who would decide whether it was important or not?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. The General Assembly, by a simple majority of the members present and voting.
Senator BARKLEY. The Assembly would decide by majority vote whether it was of sufficient importance to require a two-thirds vote?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes, sir.
Senator BURTON. The decision as to whether it shall be considered important or unimportant, and whether it shall be by a two-thirds vote or a majority vote, is by the simple majority vote, is it not?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is correct, Senator. Senator MILLIKIN. I notice paragraph 3 of article 18 says: Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.
Assume that a category of such questions were established, requiring a two-thirds majority, and the Assembly decided to reduce or wipe out that category: Would it take a two-thirds vote or a majority vote?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. To wipe out a category I should say—
Senator MILLIKIN, I am not talking about those mentioned in paragraph 2; I am talking about those mentioned in paragraph 3. Would it take a simple majority or a two-thirds vote?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. I do not know. I suppose that a simple majority might suffice; but that would be a rule of procedure that would have to be established by the Assembly.
Senator MILLIKIN. The question is whether or not categories established under that paragraph could be wiped out by a majority vote or a two-thirds vote.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. I think that would be settled by future determination by the Assembly itself.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Doctor, as rapidly as possible. Mr. PASVOLSKY. The next chapter is chapter V, The Security Council." Here we have, first of all, the question of the composition of the Council, the fact that the Council shall consist of 11 members. The 5 permanent members are enumerated. The General Assembly elects the six non permanent members, and in the election of the nonpermanent members the General Assembly is enjoined to give attention to certain criteria. There are three such criteria mentioned here. The first is the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security. The second is their contribution to the other purposes of the Organization, and the third is equitable geographic distribution of membership.
These are not binding rules on the General Assembly. These are indications to the General Assembly that it should take those factors into account.
The nonpermanent members will be elected for a term of 2 years and will not be eligible for immediate reelection.
In order not to have the whole Security Council go out at the end of 2 years the provision is included that in the first election three shall be elected for a term of 1 year and after that the system will operate with three retiring each year.
The CHAIRMAN. May I make a comment right there? I happen to have been the United States representative on the committee that handled this question, and I want to explain why these criteria were established. Originally in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals there was no limitation whatever on the Assembly in this respect, but an amendment was offered by Canada on the theory that there were a number of smaller and medium-sized nations that had made substantial contributions to the war and that these nations ought to be given a little edge in the selection of the nonpermanent members. In the second place, the states of Latin America and certain other small and medium-sized states urged the same consideration be given to geographical distribution, so that they might have adequate representation in the Security Council. That is the reason the second criteria of geographic distribution was inserted in the Charter. There was quite a little discussion over this particular clause, but it finally carried in this form.
Senator Lucas. Would the doctor give us some examples of the second criteria, which refers to "other purposes of the Organization”? That is a very general term, and I was just wondering what was included in "other purposes."
Mr. PASVOLSKY. The development of international law, Senator, the development of friendly relations in other fields in which the
Organization operates. There may be some countries, and probably are some countries, which do not make a large military contribution, but which make a very substantial moral contribution to the peace of the world and to good relations among nations.
Senator Lucas. Any country that sought membership in the Security Council would have to take these three factors into consideration, I assume, and develop them before the whole Assembly!
Mr. PASVOLSKY. I suppose that when nominations are made in the Assembly they will be made in terms of how far the candidate qualifies under these and obviously other criteria which might be involved. • The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to note the presence of Dr. Eaton, who, together with Congressman Bloom, rendered very efficient and capable service in the Conference at San Francisco.
Mr. Eaton. I feel very grateful to have my presence noted by the distinguished chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Your presence is usually noted wherever you go. Proceed, Doctor. Mr. PASVOLSKY. The section relating to the functions and powers of the Security Council is very brief. The reason for that is that most of the functions and powers of the Security Council are dealt with at length elsewhere in the Charter, just as the functions and powers of the General Assembly with respect to economic cooperation and trusteeship questions are dealt with in extenso elsewhere than in the chapter IV.
There is a statement here which is of great importance [reading]: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties, under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
That delegation of responsibility is matched by the next sentence, which says (reading]:
In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
The reference here is, again, to articles 1 and 2 contained in chapter I, “Purposes and Principles.”
The Security Council is specifically enjoined to submit reports to the General Assembly.
Senator Austin. May I ask a question at this point, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN, Senator Austin.
Senator AUSTIN. Does the record show that any changes made from the Dumbarton Oaks proposal into this treaty on the subject of the Security Council were intended to change the primary responsibility that you pointed out?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. When we come to the next chapter, Senator, in discussing the problem of peaceful settlement of disputes, I will note, if I may, an additional power given to the Security Council.
Senator AUSTIN. That is what I have in mind. It is my purpose, if it is possible, to have the record which is made here adhere as closely to the original purposes of the Security Council as possible, pamely, security.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. It was thought, Senator, in connection with that particular provision, that in discharging its duties in the field of peaceful settlement of disputes or the encouragement of the use of peaceful means for the settlement of disputes, the position of the Security Council would be strengthened by giving it that extra authority which makes it possible for it to be one of the means of a country's own choice. But may I develop that in detail in connection with the whole conception of peaceful settlement ?
Senator AUSTIN. Yes; but I wish you would answer one further question before you proceed, and that is whether in changing the language so as to read as it does in paragraph 2 of article 37, so that it reads:
It shall decide whether to take action under article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate whether you therein intended to take the Security Council off the basis of first finding that the condition was one that threatened international security and peace.
Mr. PasvoLSKY. Senator, that language in no way affects the determination that you referred to. The Security Council would have to determine first of all, under this chapter that you refer to, that the dispute is of such a nature that its continuance would threaten international peace and security.
: Senator Austin. I think it is very important to have the record show that.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right. It cannot be just any situation.
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
This obligation is an obligation within the terms of the provisions of the Charter.
Senator THOMAS of Utah. Does that mean that the Security Council itself cannot act directly without action of the Members of the United Nations, or does it mean that each Member of the United Nations pledges itself to perform whatever functions the Security Council decides it should perform in the maintenance of peace?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. Within the framework of the provisions of the Charter, it means the latter.
Senator THOMAS of Utah. Can we go so far to say that the Security Council may determine that one nation shall represent the United Nations in seeing that peace is maintained ?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is a point which is specifically mentioned later on, and I would like to develop it at length. The Security Council is given discretion to determine whether or not an action shall be taken by all nations or only by some.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true of the military provisions, particularly, that the Security Council may designate certain nations to furnish troops or to take such other action as may be necessary.
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right.
Article 26 relates to the question of the regulation of armaments. There is no provision in the Charter establishing a system for the regulation of armaments. That is left to future determination, and it is something which obviously will have to be done by agreement among the nations. But the Security Council is given responsibility for formulating plans which would be submitted to the Members of the Organization, plans relating to the establishment of a system for the