¹ See statement of the United States delegate on June 16, 1945, in Committee III/l of the San Francisco Conference, U.N.C.I.O. Docs., III/1/55, Vol. 11, p. 611; statement of Senator Tom Connallv in Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations,U. S. Senate, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 265; for comments, see Yuen-li Liang,“The Settlement of Disputes in the Security Council: The Yalta Voting Formula,”British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 24 (1947), p. 358.

² U.N.C.I.O. Docs., III/1/48, Vol. 11, p. 513,

³ Ibid., p. 515.

⁴ Doc. III/l/B/2(a), ibid, p. 707.

⁵ According to an unofficial report, this question was discussed by the four sponsoring governments and France in the Committee of Five which prepared the Statement on Voting Procedures, and the Committee decided to answer it in the affirmative. On the other hand, the Committee agreed that when a permanent member was a party to a dispute, its abstention would not prevent the Security Council from reaching a decision on a non-procedural matter. See Wellington Koo, Jr., Voting Procedures in International Political Organizations (1947), p. 156.

⁶ See Hans Kelsen, “Organization and Procedure of the Security Council,” Harvard Law Beview, Vol. 59, No. 7 (1946), pp. 1098-1099; Goodrich and Hambro, The Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents (1946 ed.), p. 133 (This categorical position was modified in the second edition, published in 1949, which referred only to the practice of not counting abstentions as negative votes; see p. 223). As late as 1948, Norman J. Padelford expressed the same point of view in his article: “The Use of the Veto,” International Organization, Vol. II, No. 2 (June, 1948), p. 245.

⁷ This figure is taken from U.N. Docs. A/INF/2 and S/INF/3. It is to be noted that from the first to the forty-eighth meetings, the records of the Security Council did not show the names of its members which voted or abstained from voting.

⁸ Security Council, Official Records, 1st Year, 1st ser., No. 2, p. 243. For a discussion of the nature of this resolution, gee Yuen-li Liang, loc. cit. (note 1, supra), pp. 358-359.

⁹ Security Council, Official Records, 1st Tear, 1st ser., No. 2, p. 245.

¹⁰ Ibid., 1st Year, 2nd ser., No. 28, p. 699 (December 19, 1946).

¹¹ Ibid., 2nd Year, No. 31, p. 680 (April 2, 1947).

¹² Ibid., No. 34, p. 727 (April 9, 1947).

¹³ Ibid., No. 68, pp. 1711-1712. At the 56th meeting of the Security Council, on Aug. 29, 1946, when the application of Transjordan for membership in the United Nations was under discussion, the representative of the Soviet Union stated that he would not support the application on the ground that Transjordan did not have normal diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. This led the representative of Australia to state that since the representative of the Soviet Union was a permanent member and had announced that he would not support the application, the application of Transjordan, therefore, would fail. Reacting to the Australian representative’s statement, the representative of China questioned the proper interpretation of Article 27 of the Charter in the following words:

“…Is it possible to interpret the Charter so that in this particular case, in the admission of new members, we are allowed to abstain and that abstention counts as a neutral vote?…”

See Security Council, Official Records, 1st Year, 2nd ser., No. 5, p. 95.

On another occasion, before a vote was taken on a Soviet draft resolution proposing the establishment of a special commission to insure proper supervision that the aid received by Greece would be used only in the interest of the Greek people, the United States delegate made the following statement:

“…I wish to have the record show that the United States will not exercise a veto, that the United States has considerable regard for a practice which has grown in the Security Council by usages until itconstitutes a very good practical construction of Article 27 of the Charter. And in this case, although the United States is opposed to the resolution, it will abstain, but will not veto.”

The Soviet draft resolution, having received only two votes in its favor, failed of adoption. See Security Council, Official Records, 2nd Year, No. 37, p. 803.

¹⁴ Security Council, Official Records, 3rd Year, No. 88, p. 13.

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 14-22.

¹⁶ U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 232, pp. 2-10 (Jan. 23, 1948).

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 11.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 12.

¹⁹ Security Council, Official Records, 4th Year, No. 17, pp. 2-3.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 14. When the recommendation by the Security Council on the admission of Israel to membership was considered by the Ad Hoc Political Committee at the second part of the third session of the General Assembly, the representative of Pakistan raised a preliminary question that the Security Council failed to comply with the explicit terms of Article 27 of the Charter in recommending Israel for membership. The representative of Iraq expressed the same point of view. See General Assembly, Official Records, 3rd Sess., Pt. II, Ad Hoc Political Committee, 42nd meeting, May 3, 1949, pp. 181-182, 184-185.

²¹ Security Council, Official Records, 4th Year,No. 41, p. 29. Mr. Arce made statements to the same effect on two other occasions, ibid., No. 18, p. 9, and No. 39, p. 15.

²² Security Council, Official Records, 1st Year, 1st ser., No 2, pp. 88-89. It is to be noted that at the 27th meeting on March 27, 1946, after the withdrawal of the Soviet Delegation, an Egyptian proposal to invite the Iranian representative to participate in the discussion was adopted. But before putting this proposal to a vote, the President of the Council (the representative of China) stated that since the proposal was “a purely procedural question,” a decision could be taken even in the absence of the U.S.S.R. representative. Ibid., p. 60.

²³ Ibid., p. 128.

²⁴ Ibid., pp. 248-250.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 251. At the 392nd meeting of the Security Council, after a vote was takenon the preamble of a draft resolution concerning the Indonesian question and the Ukrainian representative being absent, the representative of the United States, Mr. Jessup, asked whether an absent member was counted as having abstained. The President of the Council replied that: “It seems to me that he must be counted as having abstained. I do not see how we cold act otherwise.” There was no objection to this statement of the President. Although in this case the absence was that of a non-permanent member, the fact that absence was counted as abstention deserves attention. See Security Council, Official Eecords, 3rd Year, No. 134, p. 30.

²⁶ U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 461, p. 18.

²⁷ U.N. Docs. S/P.V. 462, p. 10, and S/1445. In reply to a statement of the Yugo-slav representative, the representative of the United States stated that the absence of a permanent member clearly was the absence volunteered by the representative himself and the Council had clearly indicated it would not take it as a deterrent to its proceeding in an orderly manner with its business. See U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 462, p. 12.

²⁸ Loc. cit., notes 14 and 15, supra.

²⁹ U.N. Docs. S/P.V. 470, p. 5, and S/1461.

³⁰ U.N. Doc. S/P.V. 471, p. 7.

³¹ U.N. Doc. S/1501.

³² U.N. Doc. S/1511.

³³ U.N. Doc. S/1588.

³⁴ U.N. Doc. 8/1657.

³⁵ U.N. Doc. 8/1517. A similar view was expressed by the Government of the U.S.S.R. with respect to theresolution of July 7, 1950. Cf. U.N. Doc. S/1596/Rev.l. See also statement made on July 4, 1950, by Mr. Gromyko, U.N. Doc. S/1603, p. 4.

³⁶ U.N. Doc. 8/1523.

³⁷ The Polish Government contended that the resolution of June 27, 1950, “cannot be considered as a resolution of the Security Council, but merely as a non-binding opinion of six members of the United Nations.” See U.N. Doc. S/1545, pp. 2-3.

³⁸ U.N. Doc. 8/1598.

³⁹ U.N. Doe. S/1600.

⁴⁰ U.N. Docs. S/1527 and S/1527/Corr.l; S/1554, p. 3.

⁴¹ U.N. Doc. 8/1583.

⁴² Security Council, Official Records, 5th Year, No. 17, p. 8.

⁴³ United States Policy in the Korean Crisis (U. 8. Department of State Pub. 3922,Par Eastern Series 34), pp. 61-63.

⁴⁴ See General Assembly, Official Records, 1st Sess., Pt. II, First Committee, pp. 92,94, 112, 115, 117. The Soviet representative, however, stated that “abstention of the permanent members was equal to invoking the unanimity rule.” Ibid., p. 99. Cf.U.N. Doc. A/C.l/63, p. 4.

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 115, 117.

⁴⁶ Ibid., pp. 109-110.

⁴⁷ U.N. Doc. A/C.l/95.

⁴⁸ General Assembly resolution 40(1).

⁴⁹ Security Council, Official Records, 2nd Year, No. 85, p. 2281.

⁵⁰ U.N. Doc. A/C.l/160, Sept. 2, 1947, p. 3.

⁵¹ General Assembly, Official Records, 2nd Seas., First Committee, p. 522.

⁵² Ibid, 2nd Sess., Pt. 1, Plenary Meetings, p. 123.

⁵³ General Assembly resolution 117(II), Nov. 21, 1947.

⁵⁴ U.N. Doc. A/AC.18/SC.3/2, March 23, 1948, p. 13.

⁵⁵ At the 18th meeting of the Interim Committee, the representative of France referred to the “custom of abstention” which “had been put into practice.” At the 19th meeting, the representative of Argentina again considered it illegal to maintain an abstention was not equivalent to a veto. See TT.N. Does. A/AC.18/SR.18, p. 5, and A/AC.18/SR.19, p. 8.

⁵⁶ General Assembly, Official Records, 3rd Sess., Pt. I, Ad Hoc Political Committee,p. 195.

⁵⁷ Ibid., Pt. II, Plenary Meetings, p. 52.

⁵⁸ Ibid., Pt. I, Ad Hoc Political Committee, p. 287. However, both at the second and at the third sessions of the General Assembly, the representative of Argentina, Mr.Arce, repeatedly argued that an abstention by a permanent member was a “hidden veto” and that even if it were agreed that such an abstention did not constitute a veto, it would nevertheless have to be admitted that this interpretation by members of the Security Council amounted to an amendment of the Charter. Ibid., 2nd Sess., Plenary Meetings, p. 1255; 3d Sess., Pt. I, Ad Hoc Political Committee, pp. 255-256; 3d Sess., Pt. II, Plenary Meetings, pp. 74-75.

⁵⁹ See Yuen-li Liang, loc. cit (note 1, supra), p. 359.

⁶⁰ In connection with the resolutions of the Security Council of June 25 and 27, 1950, on the Korean question, by the end of July, 1950, the following Member States had expressed their support or had taken action in pursuance thereof: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France,Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Liberia,Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua Norway, Pakistan, Panama,Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Syria, Thialand, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen. See excerpts from the replies of these Member States in United Nations Bulletin, Vol. IX, Nos. 2-3, July 15 and August 1, 1950.

Concerning the Security Council resolutions of June 25 and 27, and July 7, 1950, the Secretary General, on July 14, 1950, addressed communications to certain Member States requesting them to consider the possibility of giving to the Unified Command additional effective assistance, including combat forces, particularly ground forces. As of July 26, 1950, the following Member States replied: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Lebanon, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. See U.N. Docs. S/1608, S/1618, S/1620, S/1616, S/1617, S/1610, S/1611, S/1612, S/1609, S/1614, S/1613, S/1615, S/1625; reproduced also in New York Times, July 22 and 27, 1950.