[Here follows the report of the Rapporteur of Committee III/2; see Doc. 1027, ante, p. 756.]

PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Arkadiev, for your report. Since the French translation of the report has been circulated among the delegates, I would like to ask whether there is any request here for the French translation to be read at this meeting. If there is not, I would suggest, in the interest of saving time, that we dispense with the reading of the translation. Now if there is a request, naturally it will be followed, and the French text will be read. Is there any such request? No request for a translation? I would then ask whether there is any discussion on the report which we have heard. Dr. Evatt has asked to address the Commission. Dr. Evatt.

Mr. EVATT (Australia): Mr. President, on behalf of our Delegation, I join with you in your thanks to the Committee which has worked so hard on this very important chapter of the world Organization Charter; and I speak only to draw attention to one point which it seems to me to be of great importance. It refers to the first article, the importance of which has been emphasized by the distinguished Rapporteur. It provides that the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall do certain things, if the dispute is a serious dispute, a dispute which is likely to endanger the maintenance of peace. They are under a duty. They shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, resort to regional agencies, so important in areas like Latin America, or other peaceful means of their own choice. Now in that respect the present text follows paragraph 3 of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. It is to the final sentence in that Article 1 to which I desire to direct attention. It says now: "The Security Council may call upon the parties to settle their disputes by such means", and in the present form it gives the Security Council complete discretion as to whether they do call upon the parties so to settle their dispute. The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals said something quite different. In paragraph 3 it said: "The Security Council should call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means", indicating that it was the duty or obligation of the Security Council to call upon the parties to settle these disputes by peaceful means, and that that power would be exercised in due course. Now the Rapporteur's report says, on page 3 (Doc. 1027)19: "In the second sentence, 'may' has been substituted for 'shall', primarily to make it clear that the parties to a dispute should not wait until the Security Council calls upon them to perform their obligations", and, Mr. President, that is obviously a very important point and a very sound point. But what is to be the position if the parties do not take action in accordance with paragraph 3 and do not endeavor to settle their dispute by peaceful means? That is the crux of the position. Is the Security Council merely to retain the power to call upon them to settle their disputes by such means, or should it not, after a reasonable time has elapsed, be obligated to call upon the parties to settle their disputes by such means? It might appear a technical point but it is not, because the Security Council's main work will, we hope, lie in the peaceful conciliation of parties to important disputes, and it should not merely be a matter of discretion

with the Security Council to act or not to act as it thinks fit. The intention of Dumbarton Oaks was otherwise, and I wish simply to reserve the point because I understand, Mr. President, the text even now is before the Coordination Committee for final approval. Is that right, Sir?

EXECUTIVE OFFICER (Mr. Kirk): Right.

Mr. EVATT: We think that it is of great importance that, after a certain time has elapsed when the parties to the dispute have failed to conciliate between themselves, the Security Council should say, should be obligated to say, to the parties: "You have to settle; you should settle your dispute by means of peaceful conciliation, because that is your duty under the Charter. It is your duty so to settle your dispute, and it is our duty as a Security Council to tell you to do so." I wish to reserve that point, Sir. I think it may turn out to be of importance for reasons which I shall not elaborate now, and it is only because of its importance and in order to safeguard the position that I rise now. If it were not reserved for the Coordination Committee, we would have to exercise our right to refer the matter to the Steering Committee, but we hope the matter will be adjusted along the lines I have suggested, and I understand the distinguished Rapporteur agrees that that is still possible. Thank you.

PRESIDENT: I want to thank the Delegate of Australia for his contribution, and proper note will be taken of his reservation.

The Rapporteur would like to make a statement with reference to the remarks of the Delegate of Australia.

RAPPORTEUR: I beg your pardon, but I can explain more exactly in Russian, and what I say will then be translated. (Speaking in Russian; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): I appreciate the noble intentions of the Honorable Delegate of Australia, Dr. Evatt, when he refers to Article 1, and in connection with this reference I want to give an explanation from the point of view of the actual work of the Committee.

The Committee understood that the Dumbarton Oaks text contained the word "should", but after consideration, this word was replaced by the word "may" for the following reasons. The parties to a dispute must themselves find peaceful means for settling the dispute according to the Charter, without waiting for a ruling from the Security Council. Yet at any time the Security Council may, according to Article 1, call the attention of the parties to the necessity of peaceful settlement without, however, referring to any specific methods or to the substance of the dispute. If the parties should fail to settle the dispute, they refer the dispute to the Security Council in accordance with Article 6, and the Security Council examines the problem substantively and then makes recommendations either under Article 4 or regarding such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate. This is the point I wish to indicate to the Honorable Delegate of Australia.

I would also like to indicate another point. The Coordination Committee only yesterday examined the recommended text in the presence of the Honorable Delegate of Uruguay, Señor Serrato, and myself, and it has tentatively decided that the word "may" should be replaced by the words "shall, if it deems necessary". The phraseology of the article in the report, however, has not been modified, and the new phraseology will be submitted to the Commission when the

665605-4651

Coordination Committee finishes its work. I hope that Dr. Evatt will consider my explanation as relating to the question which he put forward.

PRESIDENT: I recognize the Delegate of the United States, Commander Stassen.

Mr. STASSEN: Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, I rise only very briefly to clarify the point that has been raised. I, of course, agree that Dr. Evatt can reserve this point and bring it up in the subsequent proceedings, either before the Coordination Committee or any of the other reviewing procedures, but I do wish to clarify that on the matter of the duty and the obligation of the Security Council, there is no question that the Security Council does have the continuous and overriding duty and obligation to maintain the peace, and that is provided for in Chapter VI of Dumbarton Oaks, and will be provided for in the final document. In that Chapter VI, Section B, we find the principal functions and powers and duties of the Security Council, and it provides that the members of the Organization shall, by the Charter, confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and should agree that in carrying out these duties under this responsibility, it, the Security Council, should act on their behalf. It also provides that in discharging these duties to maintain peace and security, the Security Council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the entire Organization.

And

The Committee has discussed, as the very able Rapporteur has reported, the various wordings of "may", "shall", "should", and, "shall, if necessary". The decision taken can, of course, be reviewed, as Dr. Evatt has said, in the Coordination Committee when the action of this Committee goes to them, and in the other reviewing processes, as we move forward; and may I thank Dr. Evatt for his raising the question that it might be clarified at this time. may I also express the hope, as I know that it is the hope of the peoples of the world, that this section of this Charter, the section dealing with the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, may be the section that will be used more than any other, unless it be the Social and Economic section, in providing for the advancement of the welfare of the peoples of the world. Thank you.

PRESIDENT: No other delegate has signified his desire to address the Commission. Is there any more discussion?

There does not seem to be any. The Chair will entertain a motion for the approval of the report.

Mr. EVATT: I move that, Sir, subject to that point being cleared up by the Coordination Committee.

Mr. STASSEN: I second the motion.

PRESIDENT: The motion is for the Commission to approve the report with the reservation made by the Delegate of Australia, and that motion has been seconded by the Delegate of the United States, Commander Stassen. Will those in favor of that motion raise their right hands? Thank you. Those against? The motion has been unanimously approved.

As there is no other business before the Commission, this meeting stands adjourned.

Verbatim Minutes of Fourth Meeting of

Doc. 1149, June 22

Commission III, June 20

PRESIDENT (Mr. Morgenstierne, Norway): Ladies and Gentlemen, the fourth session of Commission III is duly opened.

Will you permit me first to introduce to you and to our guests my colleagues, the officers of Commission III: the Rapporteur, His Excellency Celso R. Velázquez, Ambassador of Paraguay to the United States; and the Assistant Secretary-General, His Excellency Julián R. Cáceres, Ambassador of Honduras to the United States; and the Executive Officer, Dr. Grayson Kirk.

Commission III deals with the all-important matter of the Security Council. At previous meetings of the Commission, we have adopted the reports of Committees 2 and 4 and part of the report of Committee 3. Today there is before this Commission the report of Committee 1, to which has been assigned the matters relating to structure and procedures of the Security Council. Committee 1 has held 27 meetings, and its 4 subcommittees have held a total of 7 meetings. The Committee considered 55 amendments in all. While the Commission, as you know, has had many important and fundamental matters before it, particular interest has been aroused by the problem of voting in the Security Council. On behalf of the Commission, I want to express sincere thanks to Committee 1 for its arduous and successful work, and quite particularly I want to thank the Chairman, His Excellency John Sofianopoulos, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece; the Rapporteur, His Excellency Hector David Castro, former Ambassador of El Salvador to the United States; and the Secretary, Mr. Paul G. Pennoyer. I will now ask these gentlemen to take their seats at the rostrum.

May I ask the Rapporteur to read the report. If it is agreeable to you, Sir, may I suggest that you first read Section A of Chapter VI, and that we then discuss and vote on Section A. We might then proceed to the subsequent sections.

RAPPORTEUR (Mr. Castro, El Salvador): Honorable President of the Commission, the Distinguished Chairman of Committee III/1, Ladies and Gentlemen, before reading my report, I want to express my deep appreciation to the Chairman of Committee III/1, the Honorable John Sofianopoulos, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, for his guidance and direction which have been most helpful to me in my work. I want also to express my appreciation to the Secretary of our Committee, Mr. Paul Pennoyer, who at all times has been ready to give me any cooperation which I needed. The same may be said of the Assistant Secretaries, Mr. Howard Johnson and Mr. Dwight Lee. The interpreters have done wonderful work in our Committee. They have been always ready to cooperate with me, and I want to acknowledge that cooperation by expressing my thanks for it.

The report is divided into four parts, the same parts into which Chapter VI of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, as completed at the Crimea Conference, was divided. The first part of the report refers to Section A of Chapter VI of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, as completed at the Crimea Conference.

[Here follows the part of the report of the Rapporteur of Committee III/1 on Section A, Chapter VI; see Doc. 1050, ante, p. 734.20]

PRESIDENT: I want to thank you again, Dr. Castro, for your report. The Commission has quite a heavy schedule ahead of it and I was wondering whether, in order to save time, we might dispense with the reading here of the French text. The French text has been distributed to the delegations and, if there is no request to the contrary, I will rule that we dispense with the reading of the French text. Is there any objection? There seems to be none. Then we will proceed to the discussion of the part of the report which we have just heard. The first speaker who has signified his desire to address the Commission is Sr. García Robles of the Mexican Delegation, who will make a statement on Section A of the report. Sr. García Robles. Mr. GARCÍA ROBLES: Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Mexican Delegation proposed an amendment in Committee 1 of this Commission to the section relating to the composition of the Security Council. The intent of the amendment was to state clearly the criterion followed, first at Dumbarton Oaks and then here at San Francisco, for the selection of the permanent members. We thought that our amendment would make the position of the permanent members stronger in the eyes of public opinion, especially of public opinion of the small countries. This amendment, nevertheless, was not adopted by the Committee. A chief reason put forward against its inclusion in Section A was that it was not necessary to do so because there would certainly be several speeches delivered at the meetings of the Commission and at the plenary sessions clearly stating what we had proposed to add to Section A. In case none of the speakers remembers to speak about this question, we thought it would be convenient to make the short statement that I am going to read.

The Mexican Delegation, in voting for the text of the article relating to composition of the Security Council as approved by its Committee 1, wishes to point out that it does so because it considers this text to be an implicit application-which it would have been preferable to make explicit, as I myself had the occasion to state fully in Committee 1 when this point came up for discussion of the juridical principle of correlation between powers and duties which safeguards the basic principle of equal rights of all states.

The Mexican Delegation interprets this article as the granting of broader rights to those states therein named to hold permanent seats on the Security Council, principally for the reason that these are the states whose responsibility for the maintenance of peace, owing to circumstances which it is not pertinent to analyze, "is greater in the international community" according to the criterion stated in the work entitled "Opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico on the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals", prepared as far back as October 1944 and submitted to this Conference.

The Mexican Delegation is convinced that its interpretation, the only one that it considers acceptable from a juridical point of view, is correct and unobjectionable, since it is supported by many and

20 The rapporteurs, in reading the reports of the committees to the commissions, sometimes departed slightly from the texts as approved by the committees and circulated to the members of the commissions. The versions read at the commission meetings have not been reprinted here.