IO Files: US/A/C.1/38
Minutes of Informal Meeting of Members Committee 1 Group2
Voting in Security Council
| Present: | Senator Connally |
| Mr. Herschel Johnson | |
| Mr. Fahy | |
| Mr. Joseph Johnson | |
| Mr. Noyes | |
| Mr. Wilcox | |
| Mr. Sanders | |
| Mr. Stokes | |
| Mr. Bechhoefer |
Mr. Joseph Johnson submitted to Senator Connally a revision (US/A/C.1/20, Rev. a), of the summary of the United States position on voting in the Security Council which was to be given to the heads of Assembly delegations of the other four permanent members of the Security Council. Mr. Johnson also submitted a revision (US/A/C.1/18, Rev. a) of the specific proposal for additional rules of procedure on this subject which would be made to the Security Council,3 and a draft memorandum on the proposed course of action to be followed by the United States.
The discussion in the meeting dealt chiefly with the first paper. Senator Connally commented with approval on the proposal for listing types of procedural decisions of the Security Council. He doubted, [Page 332] however, that after decisions were listed, the U.S.S.R. would be willing to accept the ruling of the chair that a particular decision was procedural without calling for a vote.
Mr. Joseph Johnson explained at some length the necessity for a rule of procedure which will make certain that no state should be a judge in its own cause on decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter. Senator Connally indicated his approval of this proposal.
Senator Connally stated that the third proposal which would permit a permanent member of the Council to abstain from voting on a decision without having such abstention regarded as a negative vote was in his opinion contrary to the express terms of the Charter.
In defense of this proposal Mr. Stokes suggested that the term “concurring” vote be given a different meaning from the term “affirmative” vote:—in other words that a permanent member be permitted to concur in the decision of the other permanent members without casting an affirmative vote. Senator Connally did not believe that such construction of the Charter was possible.
Mr. Fahy suggested that the permanent members by agreement among themselves could waive their right of veto since the right was primarily for their benefit. Senator Connally stated that the Charter was not the property of the five permanent members but belonged to all the members and therefore that its provisions could not be waived by an agreement of five members.
Mr. Joseph Johnson stated that a rule to permit voluntary abstention from voting without such abstention being regarded as a negative vote was submitted informally last Spring to the representatives of the permanent members on the Committee of Experts but was never discussed in the Committee. All of the permanent members excepting the U.S.S.R. reacted favorably to such a rule but foresaw difficulties in interpretating the Charter to permit such a rule. The U.S.S.R. representative believed that abstentions by the permanent members were bound to take place, stating that “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink,” but was unwilling to accept a rule.
Senator Connally asked whether the proposed rule would be applicable to decisions under Chapter VII as well as under Chapter VI to which Mr. Joseph Johnson replied that abstention under the rule would be permitted on any non-procedural decisions. Mr. Herschel Johnson and Mr. Wilcox suggested that as a practical matter it might be desirable to limit the application of any such rule to decisions under Chapter VI. Mr. Noyes and Mr. Joseph Johnson felt that the principle was the same regardless of the decision, the latter holding that there was no danger in covering Chapter VII as well as VI in a rule for voluntary abstention. Mr. Fahy suggested that it might [Page 333] be appropriate to provide that the rule apply to all decisions excepting those under Chapter VII. Mr. Herschel Johnson suggested that voluntary abstention should not be permitted in connection with the election of a Secretary General. After some discussion, it was suggested by Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Fahy, that a redraft of the rule for voluntary abstention of permanent members might be preferred which should apply to all decisions excepting those under Chapter VII. Senator Connally agreed that as a practical matter it would be desirable to loosen up the procedures in the Security Council except on decisions under Chapter VII. Senator Connally inquired as to the possibility of securing agreement in the Security Council on the proposals. Mr. Joseph Johnson felt that it might not be too difficult to secure a list of procedural decisions which would include substantial number of those suggested in the proposed rule and that likewise it might be possible to secure agreement on a rule for voluntary abstention by permanent members. He felt that the most justifiable of all of the rules, that to insure the carrying out of the Charter provision for abstention by parties to a dispute, would have the hardest sledding with the U.S.S.R.