five non-permanent members as a group to exercise a 'veto'. It is not to be assumed, however, that the permanent members, any more than the non-permanent members, would use their 'veto' power wilfully to obstruct the operation of the Council. "9. In view of the primary responsibilities of the permanent members, they could not be expected, in the present condition of the world, to assume the obligation to act in so serious a matter as the maintenance of international peace and security in consequence of a decision in which they had not concurred. Therefore, if a majority voting in the Security Council is to be made possible, the only practicable method is to provide, in respect of non-procedural decisions, for unanimity of the permanent members plus the concurring votes of at least two of the non-permanent mernbers. "10. For all these reasons, the four sponsoring Governments agreed on the Yalta formula and have presented it to this Conference as essential if an international organization is to be created through which all peace-loving nations can effectively discharge their common responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security". By the time the joint statement was presented to the Committee it appeared that there was no serious disposition on the part of other delegations to press certain amendments designed to eliminate the rule of unanimity of the great powers with respect to enforcement action. The only open question then as to voting procedure was in connection with peaceful settlement. Many delegations had proposed amendments to alter the voting procedure, several of them with the idea of removing the process of pacific settlement from the requirement of unanimity of the permanent members. This was the purpose of an Australian amendment, which, when offered originally, had enlisted the support of several other delegations, and, in a revised form, provided the test of conference sentiment on this problem after the issuance of the Sponsoring Powers' statement. The amendment was rejected, although many delegations abstained when the vote was taken. During the course of the debate on the Australian amendment and the voting formula itself, it was stressed by the great powers that their special voting position would be used with a great sense of responsibility and consideration of the interests of the smaller nations and that therefore the "veto" would be used sparingly. The eyes of world opinion will be directed upon the Security Council in all of its deliberations with respect to the maintenance of peace and security. Any misuse of the voting procedure would offend this great weight of opinion and impair the development of the prestige upon which the ultimate success of the Organization will depend. Since the great powers have carried the brunt of two great wars in one generation, their interest in building a strong and effective organization will surely make them ever conscious of maintaining this prestige. Finally, it was emphasized that in the consideration of the problem, the aspect of formal voting in the Council should not be over-emphasized in relation to the process of careful discussion and examination of alternative methods of procedure which in the vast majority of cases could be expected to result in agreement among the great powers. It was pointed out in this connection that for many months the great powers have been working together in the formulation of this Charter and that their efforts thus far have produced complete unanimity without the taking of formal votes. THE SECURITY COUNCIL'S PRIMARY RESPONSI- In addition to the special position accorded the great powers, a distinguishing characteristic of the Security Council is that, in relation to other parts of the Organization, it has primary responsibility for international peace and security. The League of Nations Covenant granted concurrent jurisdiction of the Council and the Assembly with respect to the peaceful settlement of disputes and the taking of enforcement action, whereas the Members of the United Nations in the first paragraph of Article 24 "confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility, the Security Council acts on their behalf". This feature of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals was incorporated in the final Charter without change, after the defeat of various amendments which attempted to place a share of the ultimate responsibility for peace and security on the General Assembly. All of these proposals, which ranged from assignment of primary responsibility to the General Assembly to the granting of a negative veto to the General Assembly over decisions of the Security Council, were rejected by large majorities. However, as described in Chapter IV of this Report, other amendments were adopted which clarify the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. One of the most difficult problems in this connection had to do with the nature of the reports to be submitted by the Security Council to the General Assembly and the extent of the latter's authority with respect to such reports. In the end an amendment was adopted which provided that the Security Council shall submit annual and where necessary special reports to the General Assembly (Article 24, paragraph 3); that these reports shall include an account of the measures which the Security Council has decided upon or taken to maintain international peace and security; and that the General Assembly shall receive and consider the reports. (Article 15). In another important respect the functions of the General Assembly and the Security Council are interrelated and placed in scale. Under Article 11, the General Assembly may consider the "principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments." Under Article 26, the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee, is responsible for formulating "plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments." This responsibility is placed on the Security Council in order "to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources". THE BINDING EFFECT OF DECISIONS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL A third characteristic of the Security Council is to be found in the principle set forth in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and incorporated without change in Article 25, which reads as follows: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". This is an important complement to the Security Council's responsibility for decisions relating to enforcement measures. It is a sharp departure from the League of Nations Covenant, inasmuch as each member of the League could determine for itself whether or not it would in any particular situation participate in sanctions. It is to be noted that the members of the Organization agree to carry out the decisions of the Security Council "in accordance with the present Charter". Thus the precise extent of the obligation of members under Article 25 can be determined only by reference to other provisions of the Charter, particularly Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII (Article 24, paragraph 2). Decisions of the Security Council take on a binding quality only as they relate to the prevention or suppression of breaches of the peace. With respect to the pacific settlement of disputes, the Council has only the power of recommendation. Moreover, with respect to enforcement measures, the character and amount of military assistance which members of the organization place at the disposal of the Council will be governed by the terms of special agreements which are provided for in Article 43. Thus the obligation of Members of the Organization to carry out decisions of the Council is made the subject of precise definition, while the Council, for its part, is under obligation by Paragraph 2 of Article 24 to act, in discharging its duties "in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations". The framework of the purposes and principles within which the Security Council is to take its decisions is set forth in Chapter I. Among the Purposes it is stated that the adjustment or settlement of international disputes shall be brought "about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law. . . .". Moreover, it is set forth as one of the Principles that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". It is, of course, a recognized principle of legal interpretation that a document is to be construed as a whole, and it was brought out in the debates at San Francisco that general provisions of the Charter must be read in conjunction with specific definitions of rights and obligations. CONCLUSION The foregoing description of the Security Council serves to emphasize its unique character. It is not a traditional alliance in that it is an integral part of a general international organization. It is hardly even "quasi-judicial" in its conciliatory function because of the latitude permitted for the play of political considerations. Its functions are mixed and, therefore, it cannot be characterized exclusively as a police body. Its novel character is matched only by the unprecedented conditions of the international relations of our time. |