connection by the various delegations. They reveal all the interest manifested in these questions and at the same time stress their complexity. Furthermore, the enumeration I have just given is not restrictive, for our mission comprises juridical questions in their entirety. Under these conditions, we should particularly proceed to the study of suggestions presented by various delegations with respect to the revision of treaties and situations the continuation of which may imperil the peace, to the development and codification of international law, to the dissolution of the League of Nations and to the integration within the new Organization of certain of its institutions, to the taking effect of the Charter, and to other problems of a legal nature. The reporter of the Committee will now tell you the various stages through which our work has gone and give you an account of the progress that has so far been made and of the excellent collaboration we have received from the members of the Committee.

I should like to pay a tribute to the Secretariat of the Committee for its work, and, in conclusion, to express to the President of Commission IV our great esteem for him and for the capacity with which he is directing our work.

PRESIDENT (speaking in Spanish; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): I now recognize His Excellency Dr. Mariano Argüello Vargas, of Nicaragua, Rapporteur of Committee 2.

RAPPORTEUR (Speaking in Spanish; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): The Committee on Legal Problems has held seven meetings, beginning on May 5, 1945. Thus far, the Committee has discussed three problems: Firstly, the privileges and immunities which should be accorded to the United Nations Organization, its officials and representatives of its members, in order to enable the Organization to function effectively; secondly, the registration and publication of treaties and international agreements, including the status of possible unregistered agreements and those which may be concluded before the adoption of the Charter; thirdly, the question whether the Charter should contain a provision relating to the abrogation or release from obligations previously concluded and continuing in existence which are inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations Organization. Each of these problems has occasioned extensive and fruitful discussion in the Committee, during which may points of view have been put forward. After preliminary discussion, each of the subjects was referred to a subcommittee for the draft of appropriate texts for inclusion in the Charter. Notwithstanding the complicated nature of many of the questions involved in each of these subjects, a considerable measure of agreement has already proved possible. In due course, this will be reported in detail to the Conference.

The Committee now has under consideration the texts of provision relating to privileges and immunities submitted to it by the subcommittee. In general, this provides that the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such privileges and immunities as are necessary to the fulfilment of its purposes; that representatives of the members and officials of the Organization shall enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary to the independent exercise of their functions; and that the General Assembly may take recommendations or proposed conventions to members of the Organization with a view to determining the detailed application of these

provisions. Thus, the principle is proposed that there shall be privileges and immunities enabling the Organization to perform its work. The Committee is also in substantial agreement that the principle of registration of treaties and international agreements shall be incorporated in the Charter. The drafting of a text has already been undertaken by the subcommittee. There is general agreement that the Charter should contain a provision dealing with obligations inconsistent with the Charter. It is the consensus of opinion of the Committee that the provisions should preclude any agreements by members in the future which may be inconsistent with the Charter. The Committee plans to take up several other topics. These include, firstly, the reconsideration of treaties, and secondly, the question whether the Charter should include a provision authorizing the Organization to further the development of international law. In conclusion, I'd like to express on behalf of my country, Nicaragua, the honor it feels in its Delegate having been selected as the Rapporteur for this Committee. I would like also to express gratitude and appreciation to our Chairman and to the secretariat of the Committee.

PRESIDENT (Speaking in Spanish; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): Fellow Delegates, you have heard the authorized words of the chairmen of the committees representing in their reports the progress that these committees have made. As you can see, Commission IV has been making favorable progress, and I am rather optimistic about the fruitful results that it will soon achieve. The committees have been working laboriously with the devoted intelligence of the delegates collaborating in this work.

I feel sure that I express the sentiments of all when I say I want to express to the secretaries, chairmen of committees, rapporteurs, and all the delegates participating in the deliberations our gratitude for the excellent progress they have been making. I believe that this is the sentiment of the Conference.

I would like to express a special word of thanks to the Chairman of Committee 1, Dr. Manuel Gallagher, and to the Chairman of Committee 2, H. E. Abdel Hamid Pasha Badawi, for the kind words which they have addressed toward me as President.

Gentlemen, I think at our next meeting we can have definite texts for further discussion, and in this way we can maintain the progress that our committees are making.

The work of the Commission will advance in such a way that perhaps before long we will be able to suggest a date for the conclusion of the work of Commission IV.

I feel that there is a sort of spirit of sportsmanship within our committees, because I find that they are all striving to be the first to complete their work. I am glad to report that we have not met with serious difficulties in the work of the committees.

May these be my final remarks before we adjourn, but before doing so, I would now like to recognize Dr. Ato Emmanuel Abraham, the Honorable Delegate of Ethiopia.

Mr. ABRAHAM: Honorable Delegates, Committees 1 and 2 of Commission IV will continue their meetings this next week with a view to completing their agenda. The next meeting of the Commission will be held when the Committees are ready to report definite pro

posals to the Commission for approval. The meeting will be convened on call by the President of the Commission.

PRESIDENT (speaking in Spanish; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): The meeting stands adjourned.

Verbatim Minutes of Second Meeting of
Commission IV, June 15

Doc. 1153, June 22

PRESIDENT (Mr. Parra Pérez, Venezuela, speaking in French; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): The meeting is called to order. This is the second meeting of Commission IV. You will remember that at the first meeting I stated the progress of our work and I expressed great optimism as to the future course of it. It is now for me to submit to you the results of our deliberations. As you know, the Commission was subdivided into two committees, one of which dealt with the articles to be included in the Charter and with the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The other committee had to deal with certain specific legal and juridical problems which were submitted to it. We now submit the results of the works of both of those committees; the first one of which held about 20 meetings, and the second one of which held about 14 or 15, not counting all the meetings of subcommittees. The reports of those two committees are now before you for approval. I shall, first of all, call on the officers of the first committee: Their Excellencies Mr. Manuel C. Gallagher, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Chairman of Committee 1; and Mr. Nasrat Al-Farsy, Delegate of Iraq, Rapporteur of Committee 1; and the Secretary of the same Committee. I shall now call on the Rapporteur of Committee 1 to make whatever remarks he deems appropriate at the present juncture. The report of Committee 1 was circulated both in French and in English and I therefore suggest that unless anybody specifically asks that it should be done, the report should not be read in this Commission meeting. If you agree we shall then open discussion on the articles to be inserted in the Charter. I call on Mr. Al-Farsy.

Mr. AL-FARSY: Mr. President, Foreign Delegates, it has been indeed a great honor for me to have served as Rapporteur to Committee 1 of Commission IV; and I am very happy to submit to you my report.

The task which has been entrusted to Committee 1 was to form the provisions of the draft Charter dealing with the International Court of Justice, and to draft the Statute of that Court. It is essential that there should be a court to settle disputes beween nations, and there must be courts to adjudge disputes between individuals, because it is only natural that legal disputes might arise between states as they occur between individuals and even between brothers. The goal which we are endeavoring to reach is that the peoples of the world should be as one community and that all should have recourse to one authority and be subject to one law, and there is no doubt that this is our goal. Thus, I may venture to say that among the organs of the United Nations Organization, the International Court of Justice is the one which can realize that objective more practically than any other at the present time. And, therefore, it is

665605-4657

not surprising that the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals contain such recommendations stressing the importance of the Court.

I feel that the provisions that have been drafted by Committee 1 for the Charter and for the Statute of the Court enable me to declare that we have advanced many steps along the road which will bring the International Court of Justice to the leading place it is entitled to hold in a world league, although we have not reached the final end of that road.

I do not wish to take up your time by repeating what I have written in my report, as it has been distributed to all delegations and is now before you. Yet, I think it will be of use if I speak about some of the major points dealt with in that report, particularly for the benefit of those who have not had an opportunity yet to read the report.

I consider it my duty to commence by emphasizing that Committee 1 was greatly aided in its work on the Statute by the existence of a draft prepared by the Committee of Jurists in Washington, for which that Committee deserves a public tribute. Nevertheless, the distinguished delegates in the Committee, which included many eminent jurists of the world, did not fail to expend their fullest energies and to devote all their experience and learning to introducing into the Statute every possible improvement and perfection.

You can read in the paragraphs of the draft Charter concerning the International Court of Justice that the Court is to be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations; that its Statute will form an integral part of the Charter; that all members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute; that each member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decisions of the Court in any case to which it is a party; that in the event of any party to a case failing to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems it necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to that judgment; and that not only the General Assembly or the Security Council may request the Court to give advisory opinions on legal questions, but other organs of the United Nations and the specialized agencies brought into relations with it may also be authorized by the General Assembly to request advisory opinions from the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

These provisions in the draft Charter, many of which did not exist in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the change in the status of the Court of International Justice, as compared with that of the Permanent Court of International Justice, reveals, in my opinion, the progress we have made.

With regard to the Statute, I have already summarized part of the vicissitudes of Committee 1 in my previous interim report, made at a meeting of this Commission on May 9. Therefore, I will make here only some brief observations on the Statute.

The first subject which was the concern of the delegates was whether the Permanent Court of International Justice should continue as the organ of the new Organization, or whether a new Court should be established. This was the subject of long discussions and examination upon all of its aspects. Most of the delegates were inclined to continue the old Court, and I was one of them. This was

very natural for me, because my legal education was derived from Islamic jurisprudence, which has its own characteristics of gradual and linked developments. One of the principles is that the law should be changed in accordance with the changing times, and that while a new good thing is accepted, the old good thing should also be retained. But the majority of the Committee, of whom I was one, finally decided that a new Court should be established as they found that the reasons for establishing a new Court were stronger than those for retaining an old Court. Nevertheless, the creation of a new Court will not break the chain of continuity with the past, since the Statute of the new Court is based upon the Statute of the old Court, a fact which will be expressly set down in the Charter. This is sufficient to show the close relations which will exist between the new Court and the past of the old Court.

In my interim report I dealt with the qualifications of the judges and the formation of the Court. One of the important points relating to the judges remained to be settled. The manner of electing judges was a matter to which the Committee gave very careful consideration. Some delegates wished to retain the method that prevailed in the old Court so that judges would be elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council, each acting independently of the other. It was believed that this method had worked well in the past, and that it would tend to secure the election of the best judges, irrespective of their nationality. Some delegates, on the other hand, held that this method gave double votes to states represented both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. Therefore it was proposed that the elections should be by the General Assembly alone. The Committee finally reconciled these two views by deciding that both bodies should take part in the election, that an absolute majority should be required in each body, and that no distinction should be made between permanent and non-permanent members in the voting in the Security Council.

Another important subject which occupied the careful attention of the Committee was whether the jurisdiction of the Court should be obligatory on the members of the United Nations or be left to their option. This careful attention was very natural, in view of the important position the Court was to occupy in the settlement of legal disputes between nations by peaceful means.

The general feeling of the Committee was in favor of endowing the Court with compulsory jurisdiction. However, the debate revealed a sharp division on the general question. On one side, stress was placed on the progress made since 1920 under the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, and on the necessity for extending the international legal order by recognizing immediately throughout the membership of the new Organization the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. On the other side, the delegates of some states pointed out that their governments might find it difficult at this time to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and that they felt if the jurisdiction of the Court remained optional, it would leave the door open for substantial advancement toward the goal of universal jurisdiction.

A compromise was then proposed which admitted the need of agreed exceptions and reservations, while accepting in principle the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. This, however, failed.