315.3/12–1254: Circular telegram
The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic Missions
priority
302. 1. Ref Circular 301, important point out to governments proposed amendment in plenary by US with UK and other co-sponsors does not involve deletion of Belgian amendment from resolution. This point is in correction of first sentence paragraph four reference telegram. Instead, US amendment adds crucial language that GA “accepts the principle of judicial review of judgments of the UN Administrative Tribunal”. Other relatively minor changes conform balance text to language ICJ majority opinion that is “judicial review” instead “appeal”. Judicial review clearly conforms ICJ opinion, permits use advisory opinion procedure and expressly limits review to judicial process. “Appeal” might not be judicial and can be understood as excluding possibility using ICJ advisory opinion procedures.
2. Dels which supported Belgian amendment can support US amendment without any reversal or inconsistency since
- (1)
- no stay of judgments involved US amendment. Opposition to stay was only substantial objection of most who supported Belgian amendment.
- (2)
- Additional time to consider and consult governments has elapsed. Time factor was other substantial consideration for support of Belgian amendment since none supporters actually prepared oppose principle of judicial review.
Point out to Govts that US–UK etc. amendment offers them chance achieving substantial unanimity in plenary.
3. Believe basis latest conversations in New York that if governments clearly understand foregoing and instruct accordingly, most Dels will be anxious accept this final US compromise and vote for US amendment in plenary.