501.BC/4–2446: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius) to the Secretary of State
urgent
[via Courier]
105. Daily Secret Summary . . . .
Committee of Experts …
The Security Council’s Committee of Experts met at Hunter College at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, April 24, and proceeded to discussion of Item 3 of S/Procedure/17, the Soviet proposal for the redraft of Rule 31.32
[Page 269]The Committee agreed at request of Soviet representative Stein to discuss the third point in the third paragraph of this item, which says that the “decision . . . . whether the dispute is of the nature referred to in Article 33 of the Charter shall be regarded as accepted if it is voted for by seven members of the Security Council, including the concurring votes of all the permanent members of the Security Council.”
Van Blokland (Netherlands) gave a prepared statement which dealt primarily with the second point in the third paragraph of Item 3. This concerns the vote on the decision as to whether the question under consideration is a dispute or a situation. Van Blokland felt that the rule should be concerned not only with the vote on this question but also with the problem of determining whether the question is a situation or dispute.
The burden of his argument was that procedures should be set up to narrow the doubtful area between the two questions and make it easier for the Council to decide whether the matter was a situation or a dispute. In effect, his criterion for determining whether a dispute exists in a doubtful case is if a situation violates justice and international law and somebody brings it to the Council’s attention. As an example, he said if troops of one country lined the border of another country this could be considered only a situation, but if the first country conducted fifth column activities and charged that this was a fact, then the situation thus became a dispute. He left himself open on how the Council would decide on this point if the claim that a dispute exists was challenged by some other state. He understood both sides of the argument but leaned to the idea of considering it a procedural matter.
At this point, Stein called the Committee’s attention to the fact that they had agreed to discuss the third point of the paragraph and therefore requested the views of the members on this.
Liang (China), Lawford (U.K.) and Johnson (U.S.) all stated that they thought the decision relating to this point should be by substantive vote, but each insisted that the rule should contain provisions setting forth the obligatory abstention from voting of Council members who were parties to the dispute in question.
Hasluck (Australia), and de la Colina (Mexico), although agreeing tentatively on this point, did not express firm opinions on Stein’s specific proposal. Hasluck brought up the question of the binding effect of the four-power statement at San Francisco. Johnson and Chaumont [Page 270] (France) stated categorically that it is binding on the five powers, Chaumont specifically including France on this point.33
Hasluck denied that it bound any but the five powers, while de la Colina declared that this was at least a moot point. Johnson agreed with de la Colina and pointed out that at San Francisco, committee 3(1) had agreed not to vote on this point. Stein argued that the four-power statement was binding on all, basing his argument on the fact that he knew of no existing document which contradicts this interpretation.
Stein, at this point, indicated that he wished to summarize the debate, but Johnson, with Stein’s permission, proceeded to summarize the arguments he had presented in the committee on the three parts of the third paragraph of the Soviet proposal for Rule 31.
- 1) With respect to determining whether a procedural or substantive decision is involved, Johnson stated that the final paragraph of the four-power statement at San Francisco made it clear that such a decision must be substantive. However, he could not accept a rule such as the Soviets proposed unless there had previously been spelled out the vote by which decisions under each rule, where a decision is required, were to be taken. Indeed, he was not sure that even then the Soviet rule would be desirable.
- 2) As to the decision whether a situation or dispute exists, that also is substantive. Here again, however, Johnson opposed any rule on this point unless coupled with a satisfactory rule taking care of the distinct and separate issue of determining who are to be considered parties to a dispute for the purposes of Article 27 (3).
- 3) The decision whether the dispute is of the kind referred to in Article 33 is also substantive. Johnson opposed, however, a rule to cover only this question under Chapter VI and did not wish to accept it unless coupled with as many rules as the committee would draft relating to other decisions under Chapter VI. Moreover, the question, of abstention of parties would also have to be considered in connection with this rule.
Stein declared, after Johnson’s summary, that the USSR attached great importance to these amendments since they felt that the absence of rules of procedure on these points would hamper the work of the Council. The lack, or absence, of precise rules, he added, may have consequences not only of juridical but also political importance, and may block the work of the Council and affect its prestige.
He noted that even those who admitted they are bound by the four-power statement do not want these rules. He pointed out, “without criticizing”, that such binding includes the obligation to carry out the four-power statement with implementing rules. He came to the conclusion after the statements made by Liang, Hasluck, Johnson and [Page 271] Lawford on the Soviet proposals, that the committee should present an objective report to the Council, not at once, but in the near future, on the discussion on Rule 31 of the Soviet proposal.
As the meeting closed, Johnson requested permission to speak first at the next meeting in connection with certain remarks Stein had made in his summary and particularly on Stein’s proposal that a report should be made to the Council on the various views on the Soviet amendment. Hasluck also reserved the right to speak on these points at the next meeting. The committee meets again at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, April 25.
After the meeting, in a brief discussion with Chaumont, Johnson said that he opposed such a report as unnecessary and undesirable. Chaumont said that if his delegation agreed on this, he would support Johnson’s opposition to such a report.34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- The Committee of Experts had put this question aside and considered other matters during the period April 17–23.↩
- See footnote 96, p. 253.↩
- At the meeting on April 25 Mr. Johnson made a prepared statement declaring his opposition to the Soviet request that a special report be made on the Committee’s consideration of the Soviet rule for voting contained in the proposal for a new Rule 31. This statement was incompletely reported in telegram 110, April 25, from New York, not printed. (501.BC/4–2546)↩