501.BC/4–1546: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius) to the Secretary of State
urgent
[via Courier]
74. Daily Secret Summary . . . .
Committee of Experts . . . .
The bulk of the day’s discussion attached to the Soviet proposal to amend Rule 31 (Item 3; S/Procedure/17). At the outset, Professor Stein, the USSR representative,24 contended that the present rules on voting now in force are not precise enough, and that his amendment was intended to clarify the voting procedure using as the juridical basis the four-power declaration at San Francisco and the Charter itself. “The text is clear,” Professor Stein said. “It should be adopted or rejected as you like.”
Mr. Hasluck, the Australian representative, then questioned Stein as to what his amendment meant when it referred to, in paragraph two of his proposal,25 “… any other dispute which does not fall under Article 33 …” Stein replied that the Charter enabled the Security Council to discuss many types of disputes although its principal responsibilities related to those under Article 33.
Chairman Liang, giving his interpretation of the legal status of “disputes”, concluded, after a detailed analysis of the Charter’s references to disputes, that it would not be in accordance with the spirit of the Charter to limit the application of the abstention clause of Article 27, Par. 3, to disputes brought up under Article 33.
Mr. Johnson, U.S. representative, agreed with the chairman’s remarks and added that he could not in any case accept a rule of procedure limiting the obligation to abstain from voting solely to the type of disputes referred to in Article 33. The Egyptian representative, Mr. Saba, associated himself with the chairman’s and Mr. Johnson’s remarks, as did the U.K., French, Brazilian and Polish representatives.
Prof. Stein then said that since it was agreed that there were two types of disputes it was necessary “from the logical viewpoint” to distinguish [Page 266] between these two. The Council’s first duty is to distinguish between the two, and the second duty, after they have made a distinction is to decide whether the parties to the dispute should abstain from voting. He was not convinced that the voting process should be the same for both distinct types of disputes.
It was agreed that under Article 34, the Council first must decide to “investigate any dispute …” and second, must decide “whether the continuance of the dispute … is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.”
Liang agreed that there could be a distinction in disputes but added that they had different consequences. However, these had no bearing on the voting procedure, and Article 27(3) was effective in both cases. Johnson enlarged this point and stated that since a party to a dispute should not be a judge in its own case, a permanent member of the Council should not have the right to prevent determination of what particular class of dispute exists.
The committee discussed this problem further but adjourned at 1:00 p.m. until Tuesday, April 16, without coming to a decision. Since the Security Council meets at 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 16, the committee will probably meet at 3:00 p.m. Tuesday, for continued discussion on the Soviet veto proposal, and probably will take up immediately Paragraph 3 thereof.
In the course of Sunday, April 14, and Monday, April 15, U.S. representative Johnson informally and confidentially presented copies of the suggested U.S. revision of Article (A)—(S/Procedure/51)—relating to announcement of votes26 to his U. K., China, U.S.S.R. and French colleagues on the committee of experts, in the order given.
In each case Johnson made it clear that this was a suggestion on which the U.S. would like comments. He referred specifically to the two discussions in San Francisco on this point among representatives of the Big Five, and explained that this background was the reason for showing copies at this time only to representatives of the permanent members. Lawford and Chaumont27 made no comment on the substance. Liang thought China would accept the concept of abstention. Stein, while he made clear the need to talk to Gromyko, said that he personally was not in favor of forcing a state to vote if it wished to abstain. This is perhaps significant in light of the fact Johnson told Stein in detail of Lavrentiev’s position at San Francisco.
Johnson also discussed with Lawford and Liang the proposed rule relating to parties to a dispute (Department’s urtel 18).28 Both Liang [Page 267] and Lawford had doubts as to whether there was sound legal basis for this procedure. Johnson has not yet had time to discuss this matter with Chaumont and Stein.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Professor B. E. Stein had replaced Mr. Orekhov on March 28 as Soviet delegate in the meetings of the Committee of Experts.↩
- The Soviet proposal is found in New York’s unnumbered and undated telegram which was received in the Department on March 22; see p. 251. Paragraph two reads: “Should the Security Council consider a situation provided for by Article 34 or any other dispute which does not fall under Article 33, all the members of the Security Council are entitled to participate in voting.”↩
- That is, Mr. Johnson distributed texts of Rule B as set forth in telegram 18, to New York, April 13, p. 262.↩
- Mr. Chaumont was the French delegate on the Committee Of Experts.↩
- See Rule C, telegram 18, April 13, p. 262.↩