Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

that is, the setting up of new nations or the changes of boundaries, and all those things which will presumably be settled by the final Peace Conference when the war ends-if after that any of those decisions arrived at should continue to be threatening circumstances, or there should be dissatisfaction which would continue to be agitated by one nation or another, that might endanger the peace of the world no matter how long that controversy may have existed, if it is a current hang-over, as we might say, from an international situation, the Council could consider it?

Mr. PASVCLSKY. I think so. I should certainly think so.

Senator MILLIKEN. Mr. Pasvolsky, the question of the Senator from Kentucky brings to my mind the thought that sometime during the hearings there should be a rather complete discussion of the relation of the possible action of this organization to the things that are done in connection with our military occupation of defeated enemy countries, so let me at this time ask you would the Council, for example, have jurisdiction to inquire into the way that the Allied military forces were handling problems of the defeated enemies?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. No, Senator. The Charter provides that the handling of the enemies in this war would be in the competence of the victorious powers until such time as they chose to charge the Council with the performance of those duties and the Council accepts the responsibility. That is specifically stated in the Charter.

Senator MILLIKEN. So it follows from that that until the day comes when the military authorities turn the problems over to the organization, the organization will concern itself with problems arising in other parts of the world?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right; it will not be concerned with this. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Doctor. I suggest that when you reach a paragraph that is quite clear, unless some question is asked, you pass on.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Mr. Chairman, we are on chapter VII, which deals with action with respect to threats to the peace. I wonder if there are any questions on any of the articles in the chapter.

Senator BURTON. There is just one question that I should like to emphasize. I think there is no doubt about the answer, but I think it is of extreme importance that we realize it. Article 42 is the article which prescribes that [reading]:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

That is the paragraph that gives the right to acts by force?
Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right, Senator.

Senator BURTON. The distinctive feature, as I see it, apart from all other encumbrances, is that by a vote of 7 members of the world Members of this Organization, which have to include the 5 permanent members-but by 7 out of 50-those 7 now can, for the first time, turn to the whole world for enforcement of a measure. The 7 can order 50 to war and proceed with it.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. The 7 can decide that enforcement action should be taken by the 50. There is one proviso, however, which is contained in article 44, which states that the Members of the Organization which are not members of the Security Council may be invited, if they so

desire, each in turn to sit with the Council in the Council's decision as to the uses of that particular state's forces. The result is that when the Council, by the vote which you have indicated, has made a decision that armed force must be used, that decision is immediately binding upon all members who are obligated to carry it out. That obligation is, however, qualified by article 44 with respect to the use of forces of members not represented on the Security Council. But you are absolutely right in saying that this is something new and very important.

Senator VANDENBERG. I am challenged by the language used by the Senator from Ohio when he says that 7 nations can order 50 nations to war. I suppose that that might be literally true, but that certainly is not the theory upon which we are operating. Seven nations are going to order 50 nations to the use of force to preserve peace, which is a totally different conception.

Senator BURTON. I may say that I concur entirely in the Senator's point of view.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me interject there. When the Senator says that 7 members of the Council can do so and so, they are not doing it in their individual capacities; they are doing it as agents of the other 50. Under this Charter, they become the executive authority of all of them; just as when the President of the United States does something under his authority, he is doing it for the people of the United States who have invested him with that authority.

So I wish to concur in Senator Vandenberg's observation that it is not a warlike act; it is an effort to preserve the peace. The seven members of the Security Council are acting in their representative capacities..

Senator BURTON. Let me say this. I take it that 7 can speak for the 50 to the extent that article 44 permits them to speak. But what they can do is call them to arms in order to resist aggression, for example, upon the world.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. And, Senator, the Charter, of course, specifically states what you have just said: That the Security Council acts on behalf of all of the Members of the Organization.

The CHAIRMAN. The Members of the Organization, in this Charter, give them that authority.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Give them that authority specifically-in specific language.

Senator GEORGE. Doctor, as I understand it, one of the so-called Big Five permanent members is not precluded from voting when the situation passes outside and beyond the pale of peaceful means? Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right, Senator.

Senator GEORGE. It has that power when force is actually invoked? Mr. PASVOLSKY. When force is actually invoked.

Senator GEORGE. Although it is a party to the dispute.

Senator MURRAY Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murray.

Senator MURRAY. Dr. Pasvolsky, when the war comes to an end and the peace conference is held, there will be a settlement of these various acts of aggression that have occurred during the war. Do I

understand that after that peace conference has acted, the Security Council may review their acts and declare certain acts that have been settled in the peace conference as wrong and endangering the peace of the world, and would the Security Council be entitled to act on them?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. No, Senator. It would not be a question of reviewing any act. The power of the Security Council is to consider any situation which, in its opinion, constitutes a threat to the peace of the world, not to review any actions.

Senator MURRAY. I know; but still if the peace conference is settling some of these questions, I understand from some of your answers that, nevertheless, the Security Council could declare some of those acts as continuing to threaten the peace of the world.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Well, the Security Council would certainly be under obligation in performing its duties to consider all the circumstances that bear on any case which, in its opinion or in the opinion of somebody who brings the case to them, threatens the peace of the world.

Senator. MURRAY. In so doing, they may nevertheless be reversing some of the decisions made at the peace conference?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. They cannot reverse any decisions.
Senator MURRAY. What is that?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. The Security Council cannot reverse any decisions. Senator MURRAY. They would do it by declaring some of those acts of aggression as continuing and threatening the peace of the world. Mr. PASVOLSKY. Well, Senator, I cannot see how the Security Council can declare a settled situation

Senator MURRAY. I do not see how it can either.

Mr. PASVOLSKY (continuing). As a continuing act of aggression. Senator MURRAY. In some of your statements, however, you have said that if certain acts of aggression had occurred during the progress of the war and were still continuing and disturbing the peace of the world, the Security Council would be entitled to act.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Well, if my answer sounded anything like that, I certainly did not mean that. I could not mean that.

Senator MURRAY. That was the inference I draw.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. I am sorry. If the record shows that, I should like to correct it, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you.

Senator GEORGE. The most that could be said, Doctor, is that if the present situation is one that creates a threat to peace and security, then the jurisdiction of the Council may be invoked?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. I beg the committee's pardon for interjecting; I will try to stop it.

Suppose in the peace settlement boundaries should be involved between say Greece and Yugoslavia, and the peace conference settles them. Then suppose that after the peace conference was over, those two countries began to try to make war on each other over those boundaries. It would not be a question of settling the boundary; the question for the Security Council would be the action of those two countries in wanting to fight-a threat to the peace. If that were the

case, then the Security Council would intervene, maybe, not to change the boundaries but to say, "You stay on your side, and you stay on your side, and both of you stop this fighting."

Would not that be a case?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right, exactly.

Senator MURRAY. In so acting, they would recognize decisions made at the peace conference and endeavor to uphold the rulings made at the peace conference?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Senator, I do not think it will be a question of upholding or not upholding rulings. There will be a settled situation, a situation which exists by virtue of agreements, treaties, or whatever they may be. If out of that situation or out of any other circumstance there arises a condition or a situation which threatens the peace, then the Security Council acts in such a way as to see to it that a threat to the peace does not develop; or if it develops that it is stopped. As far as the relations between the particular states are concerned, the Council cannot impose upon them any kind of relationship that it thinks ought to exist between them, but the Council can urge them, help them provide facilities for them, to reach an amicable solution of whatever difficulties exist between them.

Senator GEORGE. In other words, a perfect world is not presupposed after all?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. No, that is right.

Senator GEORGE. Nor complete equities?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right.

Senator GREEN. Should it not also be considered that the same individuals, the same members, or the same nations-however you want to put it-will determine the terms of the peace conference and pass later on the same questions, so it is very unlikely that the nations that determine any questions at the peace conference would shortly thereafter be determining that those very terms were threatening the peace of the world; is that not true?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Well, certainly the list of the countries which are making the peace and the list of the countries which constitute the Organization are the same list, and the principal United Nations, the principal Allies in this war, are the permanent members of the Security Council.

Senator BARKLEY. Let me present a concrete situation which took place after the last war. In the final settlement Hungary, of course, lost a large amount of territory to Czechoslovakia and one or two other countries. There was a feeling among the Hungarians, especially in Budapest, that they signed as part of the agreement following the Treaty of Versailles an unfair restriction of the territory of Hungary. In the center of a square in Budapest, they planted, cultivated, and nurtured a flower bed showing in red and green and yellow territory that formerly was Hungary's but had been taken away. In the center of the bed was represented what was left of Hungary. Every Sunday the people marched up to that square with bands and pledged themselves to get back all that they had lost, although they had signed a treaty settling the boundary.

Now, if a situation like that should occur, creating an international situation threatening the peace of the world, the Council would not

have to sit idle and allow that thing to fester simply because it had signed an agreement fixing boundaries? If the two countries were sparring back and forth, threatening to go to war over what one of them regarded as an unsatisfactory settlement, although they had signed it, perhaps under compulsion, the Council would have jurisdiction to consider whether that situation, which had its origin away back in the last war, in a previous war, or in this war, might endanger the peace of the world? It could consider a situation like that? It could not change the boundary, but it could take steps to preserve the peace, could it not?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. I think that if the Council came to the conclusion that there was a threat to the peace, it would certainly have to take some sort of action. Of course if an enemy state was involved article 107 would apply.

Normally in a situation of the sort you described, somebody would come to the Council-some nation would come to the Council-and say, "We feel that peace is threatened." It may be one of the nations to which territory has been ceded; it may be one of the nations outside that particular complex, which feels that what is going on constitutes a threat to the peace. In such a case, of course, the Council could act. Senator BARKLEY. It does not matter how chronic that situation has been or how long it has endured, if at the moment it threatens the peace of the world under the language that has been placed in this Charter, which I think means what it says, this would be one of the origins of the situation that the Council can consider?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Surely; if, as you say, the situation does threaten the peace of the world today.

Senator TUNNELL. As I understand your explanation, the primary purpose of this organization, or the purpose of this organization, is not to punish for past acts of aggression but to stop present acts of aggression or prevent future acts of aggression.

Mr. PASVOLSKY. That is right, Senator, as far as this function is concerned. However, the purpose is also to create conditions in which difficulties can be adjusted and in which progress can be more expeditiously made.

Senator LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lucas.

Senator LUCAS. Dr. Pasvolsky, if the Security Council should determine that there is a threat to the peace and decides to call out, under article 42, the air, sea, and land forces, it can do that, as I understand it, by a vote of seven members of the Security Council. Now, you briefly touched a moment ago in your discussion certain. rights that other smaller nations might have through special hearing. Would you elaborate upon that, please?

Mr. PASVOLSKY. Yes, sir. Under article 43, all Members of the Organization undertake to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security by making available to the Security Council armed forces, facilities, and assistance necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Now, the amount and kind of armed forces, assistance, and facilities which each nation would provide would be governed by agreements concluded between it and the Security Council. Those agreements would be concluded after the Charter goes into effect; and as far as each country is con

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »