Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

MEMBERSHIP
(Chapter II)

Two concepts concerning the basis of membership in the Organization found consideration both before and during the San Francisco Conference. On the one hand, there were those who believed that the Organization should immediately embrace all the states of the world, save the enemy or ex-enemy states. According to this school of thought even these latter were to be admitted at an early stage in the development of the Organization. On the other hand, there were those who held that membership should depend on the fulfillment of certain conditions, leaving it to the Organization itself to decide whether these conditions had been met.

At first sight both the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and the Charter appear to reflect the idea of qualified and limited membership. A closer study of the provisions of the Charter and of the proceedings at the Conference reveals, however, that there is nothing in the Charter which would prevent any state from eventually becoming a member. The Charter thus combines regard for present realities with the hope that some day all the nations will join their efforts in maintaining the peace of the world and in advancing the welfare of their peoples.

ORIGINAL MEMBERS AND

ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS

The provisions of the Charter regarding membership retain the original text of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals-"Membership of the Organization is open to all peace-loving states"-but add the further qualification that new Members must accept the obligations of the Charter and that they must, in the judgment of the Organization, be able and ready to carry those obligations out. The original provision empowering the General Assembly to admit new Members upon the recommendation of the Security Council was maintained without change.

The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals made no provision regarding original Members of the Organization. When it was agreed that mem

bership should be qualified, it was found necessary to provide a clause defining original Members. It was agreed that original membership should include not only the nations which participated in the San Francisco Conference but also those which had previously signed the Declaration by United Nations, of January 1, 1942. This formula makes provision for the membership of certain countries which may not technically be called states but which are nevertheless signatories of the United Nations Declaration, as well as of a country such as Poland which was a signatory of the United Nations Declaration but was not represented at the San Francisco Conference.

As suggested above, the idea of qualified and limited membership prevailed only after considerable discussion. The advocates of universality sought to maintain their position by opposing any provisions in the Charter which would limit the possibility of universality, and they particularly directed their attention to the elimination of the Dumbarton Oaks provision on expulsion. While not pressing for a specific insertion in the Charter of a clause prohibiting withdrawal, they urged the adoption of an interpretative statement holding that the absence of a withdrawal clause was to be interpreted as meaning that the right of withdrawal did not exist. They likewise opposed the insertion in the Charter of any rigid qualifications for membership.

WITHDRAWAL

The United States Delegation was particularly concerned with the question of withdrawal. The Delegation took the position that there should be no explicit provision in the Charter either prohibiting the right of withdrawal or providing for voluntary withdrawal, but considered that an interpretative statement should be incorporated in the proceedings of the Conference explaining the silence of the Charter on this question. The attitude of the Delegation was first set forth in the following statement of Representative Eaton to the Technical Committee on May 21, 1945:

"It is the position of the United States Delegation that there should be no amendment prohibiting withdrawal from the Organization. The memorandum of the Rapporteur of the Drafting SubCommittee on membership read to this Committee on May 14 suggests that if there is no prohibition of withdrawal, and if the Charter remains silent on this matter, any possibility of lawful

withdrawal is eliminated. That is not my view. Rather, it is my opinion that if the Charter is silent on withdrawal, the possibility of withdrawal would have to be determined in any particular case in the light of the surrounding circumstances at the time."

A number of delegations held that there should be an express provision in the Charter permitting members to withdraw in the event of the entry into force of Charter amendments which they found it impossible to accept. They pointed out that this protection was needed because it might be possible for the Organization, acting through its normal amending procedure, or through a general conference, to increase the obligations of Members without their consent. In reply it was pointed out that under the kind of Organization that was being established, it would not be possible to compel Members to accept amendments to which they had not consented, but that it was not necessary to provide for a specific provision in the Charter to assure them of the right of withdrawal in those circumstances.

It was finally agreed that no provision be made in the Charter for withdrawal, but that a statement regarding it should be included in the report of the Committee handling the subject, so that it might be adopted by the Conference. The text of this statement, in which the United States Delegation concurred, and which was eventually adopted by the Conference, is as follows:

"The Committee adopts the view that the Charter should not make express provision either to permit or to prohibit withdrawal from the Organization. The Committee deems that the highest duty of the nations which will become Members is to continue their cooperation within the Organization for the preservation of international peace and security. If, however, a Member because of exceptional circumstances feels constrained to withdraw, and leave the burden of maintaining international peace and security on the other Members, it is not the purpose of the Organization to compel that Member to continue its cooperation in the Organ

ization.

"It is obvious, particularly, that withdrawals or some other forms of dissolution of the Organization would become inevitable if, deceiving the hopes of humanity, the Organization was revealed to be unable to maintain peace or could do so only at the expense of law and justice.

"Nor would a Member be bound to remain in the Organization if its rights and obligations as such were changed by Charter amendment in which it has not concurred and which it finds itself unable to accept, or if an amendment duly accepted by the necessary majority in the Assembly or in a general conference fails to secure the ratification necessary to bring such amendment into effect.

"It is for these considerations that the Committee has decided to abstain from recommending insertion in the Charter of a formal clause specifically forbidding or permitting withdrawal."

The result of the foregoing is a situation different from that which existed under the League of Nations. The League Covenant recognized withdrawal as an absolute right which any Member could exercise for any reason, or even without reason. In fact, the right was utilized primarily by would-be aggressors. Under the present Charter, withdrawal is permissible but it will have to be justified.

EXPULSION AND SUSPENSION

A number of delegations urged that the Dumbarton Oaks provision on expulsion be omitted from the Charter. They expressed the view that expulsion applied to a state and not to a government, and accordingly it would be more difficult to readmit a Member once expelled than it would be to suspend the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership, since these might be restored at any time by the Security Council. It was likewise suggested that the retention of the provision on suspension and the omission of the provision on expulsion would in effect impose a more serious penalty upon a recalcitrant Member because such a Member would continue to be bound by the obligations of the Charter. A state which was expelled, on the other hand, would not be so bound and might have greater freedom of action. Those who held this view proposed that the provision on suspension be extended to include the power of the Organization to suspend Members who gravely and persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter. While there was considerable support for this position, it was pointed out by a number of delegations, and particularly by the Delegation of the Soviet Union, that it would be unfortunate to have a Member persistently violating the principles of the Charter while continuing to remain a Member

of the Organization. Such a Member would be like a cancerous growth and ought not, it was thought, to be associated in any way with the Organization. In the end this view prevailed at the Conference, as did the view that the Dumbarton Oaks provision for suspension should also be retained.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »