Editorial Note
On October 3, 1952 Legal Adviser Adrian L. Fisher conveyed to the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs, John D. Hickerson, the opinion of the Legal Adviser’s Office that the United Nations General Assembly did possess jurisdiction to discuss the question of racial conflict in the Union of South Africa and to adopt a resolution which expressed disapproval of South Africa’s racial policies [Page 938] and which recommended that the South African Government revise them. The Legal Adviser based this opinion on Article X of the United Nations Charter, which granted to the General Assembly jurisdiction to deal with any question within the scope of the United Nations Charter and on Article 1(3), Article 13(1) (b), Article 55, and Article 56, which placed the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms within the scope of the United Nations Charter. Fisher maintained that Article 2 (7) posed no barrier to General Assembly discussion or recommendation on the racial policies issue, as neither discussion nor recommendation constituted intervention and as “the question [i.e. South Africa’s failure to fulfill its international obligations under the UN Charter] does not relate to a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of South Africa.” As for the possibility of referring the competency question to the International Court of Justice, Fisher advised that since the United States saw no substantial legal question on the Assembly’s competence, the “United States would not naturally on its own initiative seek to have the General Assembly request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice.” Only if other governments challenged the General Assembly’s competence on this question would the United States have a positive interest in seeing the matter decided by the Court. Fisher, however, qualified this latter point by noting that the United States should support referral to the Court, only if the governments requesting such a referral had a real interest in settling the matter through adjudication. The memorandum is marked “See Saw.” (845A.411/10–352)