Senator VANDENBERG. What are procedural questions, Doctor?
The CHAIRMAN. They are defined here.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. The question of what constitutes procedural matters is defined in an interpretative statement issued by the four sponsoring governments at San Francisco. In the first place, the matters in the whole section on procedure, which includes articles 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 are regarded as procedural matters.

I would like to recapitulate that if I may.

Article 28 says that the Security Council shall be so organized as to be able to function continuously. It says that there shall be periodic meetings of the Council at which there would be special representatives.

It says that the Security Council will hold meetings at other places than the seat of the Organization.

Whenever the Security Council is to make any decisions on these matters, it votes by an affirmative vote of any seven members.

Article 29 states that the Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions. Those decisions are made by the vote of any seven members.

Under article 30 the Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its President. There the Security Council acts by the vote of any seven of its members.

The Security Council under article 31 may invite any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council to participate without vote in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council whenever the Council considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected. The decision as to whether or not the interests of that Member are specially affected and . whether or not, therefore, that Member of the Organization should be invited to participate in the discussion would be made by the vote of any seven members of the Council.

Now, the same thing is true of article 32 which relates to the participation in the discussion by the Council of a dispute to which any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council is a party or to which even any state which is not a Member of the United Nations is a party.

In connection with this, the Security Council is given the authority to lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a non-Member state, and that decision is made by the vote of any seven members of the Council.

Senator WHITE, Mr. Chairman, I have not gotten clearly what is understood by the term "procedural question." Of course, that is very vitally important, because if a matter is a procedural question, it is beyond the reach of the veto power by the United States. If it is not a procedural question we have a power of veto.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right.

Senator WHITE. Is there formulated and in print anywhere a catalog of those matters which are considered procedural?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes, Senator White. May I recall the circumstances on this point?

At the Conference at San Francisco, the committee which dealt with the problem of the Security Council, and particularly with the question of the voting procedure, set up a subcommittee which formulated

a large number of questions which were addressed to the sponsoring powers as to their interpretation of the terms of this article 27 which I referred to a moment ago. The four sponsoring governments then prepared a statement which was issued by their delegations. It was a statement which was entitled "Statement by the Delegations of the Four Sponsoring Governments on Voting Procedure in the Security Council." That statement is incorporated in Mr. Stettinius' report to the President, and you will find it beginning on page 73 and going through pages 73, 74, 75, and 76. It is given there in extenso. I do not know whether you would want to take the time to have it read, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. No. May I interject at that point and say that it is probably one of the best considered papers at the Conference, because it was mulled over and revised and redrafted a number of times, so that in its final form it represented the crystallized views and opinions of the four sponsoring powers at the Conference. Is that true, Doctor?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is true. Secretary Stettinius asked this morning that this particular statement be put in the record, so it is now in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to insert it at this point?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. It has already been inserted.

Mr. STETTINIUS. I put it in this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. I remember you asked to have it done. Senator GREEN. May I interrupt? In article 28, section 2, it says that the Security Council shall hold periodic meetings at which each of its members may, if it so desires, be represented by a member of the government or by some other specially designated representative. Does that mean it is limited to one, or can they send several with the combined vote of the Member, as in the case of the General Assembly? Mr. PASVOLSKY. Senator, article 23 says that each Member of the Security Council shall have one representative. The representation on the Security Council is limited to one. This particular provision reflects two considerations involved in the operation of the Security Council; one that it was extremely important for the Security Council to function continuously, but at the same time it was thought very important that the meetings of the Security Council should provide an opportunity for periodic meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs or Prime Ministers of the various governments, particularly of the governments represented on the Security Council. So the provision. was written into this article that both procedures would be possible, in fact both procedures would be followed. Each member of the Council would be represented permanently on the Council by its representative at the seat of the Organization, and when it came to the periodic meetings each government would decide for itself whether it would want to be represented by its permanent representative or by its Foreign Minister or Prime Minister or other member of the government for those particular periodic meetings-and whether the specially designated representative would sit on the Council with the permanent representative or would replace the permanent representative.

Senator GREEN. I do not think the plan is very clear, because in article 23 it seems to assume that the permanent representative be

designated, but in article 28, section 2, it seems to assume that this Government, we will say, would send a member of the Government or some other specially designated representative other than the permanent representative; in other words, we or any other nation could send a different representative to every meeting; could we not? Mr. PASVOLSKY. Only at these special periodic meetings. Senator GREEN. Only what?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Only for these special meetings which may be held three or four times a year.

Senator GREEN. Well, article 23, section 3, says it shall have one representative.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right.

Senator GREEN. And they can change him as often as desired?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. One representative at a time.

Senator GREEN. But that can be changed as often as desired?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right.

Senator GREEN. But he is apparently excluded by implication in article 28, section 2, from those meetings.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Paragraph 2 in article 28 provides that at these special periodic meetings of the Council, the government, if it so desires, may be represented just for that one meeting not by its permanent representative but by a specially designated representative or by a member of the government.

Senator GREEN. And if that specially designated representative went, then the permanent representative would have to stay away; would he not?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. The permanent representative could be there with him, and they could decide between them as to which of them would vote when a vote is to be cast.

Senator GREEN. Is not that inconsistent with what you said, that they could not have several representatives?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. One of them would be the designated representative, and the other one for the purposes of that particular meeting would not be the representative but he could be present.

Senator GREEN. But it says "specially designated representative." Then you mean that a specially designated representative is not a representative?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. I mean this, that for the purpose of the continuous functioning of the Organization there is a permanent representative of each Member State at the seat of the Organization. Now, obviously when that representative is away from the seat of the Organization, somebody else could be appointed in his place by the government. The state is represented and the vote is by the state. Let us say that once every 3 months there would be a special meeting of the Council which would replace its regular meeting, that is, it would be stipulated that once every 3 months, there would be a special meeting, and the government of each of the Member States could, if it so desired, ask its Foreign Minister, let us say, or its Prime Minister or another member of the government or another specially designated representative to replace for that particular meeting the permanent representative at the seat of the Organization.

Senator GREEN. In other words, as I gather from what you are saying, it seems to me that the language implies that you could only

have one representative there, and if the special representative went, the permanent representative stayed home.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. He would either stay home or attend the meeting. Senator BARKLEY. As I understand it, if the permanent representative and the specially designated representative were both present, there would only be one vote and that would be the vote of the Member of the United Nations.

Senator GREEN. There is no question about there being only one vote, but my question was if they could have two there with one vote combined as in the General Assembly, they could have four or five with one vote, and you said "no," Doctor.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Officially at the Council there would be one representative. "Each member of the Security Council shall have one representative."

Senator GREEN. That means only one, doesn't it?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That means only one; but it does not mean that two or three persons could not be present at the meeting of the Council. Senator GREEN. Only one at any meeting? Is that what it means? Mr. PASVOLSKY. Let us say that only one can vote.

Senator GREEN. I do not care about the voting, I mean the representing.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Senator, I should say that the situation would be that only one would be regarded as the representative for that particular meeting.

Senator GREEN. And especial representative would not be regarded as the representative?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, he would.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. If the government desires to send a special representative, he would be the representative.

Senator GREEN. Diplomatic language is confusing to me.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. It is a somewhat confusing position.

The CHAIRMAN. Would not the man who bore the credentials of the government to the effect that he was the representative of the government at this meeting, regardless of who he is, would he not be the representative for that meeting?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Surely, but that does not mean that two or three other people could not be there.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course not. They might have an audience as big as we have here today.

Senator HILL. Under article 30 it says, "The Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its president." And under that right to adopt its own rules and procedures, it could determine to let one person in as the representative or let somebody else in too.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes; indeed.

Senator LUCAS. What was the theory back of relieving the permanent representative on the Council and substituting some other man for these periodic meetings?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. The idea was that the Security Council, in addition to the responsibilities which would be placed on it and in addition to the other functions that it would perform, would provide a very useful occasion for periodic meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, of the Prime Ministers, particularly of the large powers. It was

thought that it would be easier for them to come to such meetings. They obviously could not be permanent representatives because they could not be at the seat of the Organization, but if it were made clear that at certain stated intervals they would be expected, if they could, to come to these meetings, then they could arrange their affairs in such a way as to be able to attend these meetings. That might provide an opportunity for the permanent representative to visit his home country, to acquaint himself with conditions at first-hand, because he would have been away for some time. It would provide a flexibility in the operations of the Council, and it would provide the possibility for these more or less routine meetings of Foreign Ministers.

The operations of the League Council certainly demonstrated the very great usefulness of that kind of a meeting, because a great many questions which would have been very difficult to settle at ad hoc meetings were settled with relative ease when these statesmen were together anyway.

Senator THOMAS. Does it not mean that if you had a particular question you could send a particular delegate to take care of that question?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Certainly, for that particular purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Doctor; proceed.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. I have gone over the procedures in this chapter. Just to complete my answer to Senator Vandenberg's question-in addition to these, the election of judges is governed by a nonqualified vote of seven. The calling of a special conference is covered by that vote, and the question of discussion or consideration in the Security Council is governed by the procedural vote; the question there being as to when and how to have a discussion.

Now, Mr. Chairman, shall I go on with the three chapters which relate to the functions and powers of the Security Council? The CHAIRMAN. Go right on.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Chapter VI covers the procedure under which the Organization would operate in encouraging and bringing about pacific settlement of disputes. The procedure envisaged is somewhat as

follows:

In the chapter on "Principles," the Members of the Organization assume the obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a way that international peace and security and justice are not endangered. That is a general obligation.

This obligation is made specific for a certain category of disputes, the category of disputes the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Any countries which are parties to any such disputes obligate themselves by the terms of the Charter, first of all, before coming to the Council and before invoking any of the machinery of the Organization, to seek a solution of their difficulties by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or any other peaceful means of their own choice. That is, they are expected to resort to these means of their own choice and to exhaust them as fully as possible in an attempt to reach a pacific settlement of their dispute.

The Security Council at this stage is expected, under paragraph 2 of article 33, to watch the situation, and when it deems it necessary or