1 Scholars are not agreed on either exactly what constitutes a ministate, or, therefore, exactly how many there are now or will be in the near future. Lists vary from fifty to one hundred. For some detailed attempts at a definition, see Taylor, Charles, Statistical Typology of Micro-States and Territories: Towards a Definition of a Micro-State, in J. Rapoport et al., Small States and Territories: Status and Problems 183–202 (1971)Google Scholar; Ehrhardt, Dieter, Der Begriff des Mikrostaats im Völkerrecht und in der Internationalen Ordnung 78–102 Google Scholar; Blair, P., The Ministate Dilemma 3, 27, 29–31 (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Occasional Paper No. 6, 1967)Google Scholar. For our purposes here the general definition which follows in the text will suffice.

2 Ehrhardt, Dieter, Mikrostaaten als UN-Mitglieder? Zum Strukturproblem der Weltorganisation, 18 Vereinte Nationen (No. 4) 111 (1970)Google Scholar.

3 See the Secretary-General’s concerns voiced on several different occasions: Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 20 GAOR Supp. 1A at 2, UN Doc. A/6001/Add. 1 (1965); 22 GAOR Supp. 1A at 20, UN Doc. 6701/Add. 1 (1967); 23 GAOR Supp. 1A at 19–20. UN Doc. A/7201/Add. 1 (1968); 24 GAOR Supp. 1A at 22, UN Doc. A/7601/Add. 1 (1969); 26 GAOR Supp. 1A at 13, UN Doc. 8401/Add. 1 (1971).

For further discussions of the ministate problem, in addition to those cited above, see Ehrhardt, Dieter, Das Problem der Mitgliedschaft der Mikrostaaten am Scheideweg, 19. Vereinte Nationen (No. 6) 161–65 (1971)Google Scholar; Gunter, M., The Problem of Ministate Membership in the United Nations, 12 Col. J. of Transnational L. (forthcoming)Google Scholar; Harris, William L., Microstates in the United Nations: A Broader Purpose, 9 Col. J. of Transnational L. 23–53 (1970)Google Scholar; de Smith, Stanley A., Microstates and Micronesia: Problems of America’s Pacific Islands and other Minute Territories (1970)Google Scholar; Starr, Robert et al, The Future Relationship Between Small States and the United Nations, 3 Int. Lawyer 58–74 (1968)Google Scholar; Van de Steen, Y., De Verenigde Naties en de Microstaten: Problemen Omtrent de Toetreding van Microstaten Tot de Verenigde Naties, 7 Rev. Belge de Droit Int. 578–618 (1971)Google Scholar; and a panel discussion on The Participation of Ministates in International Affairs [1968] Proc Amer. Soc of Int. Law 155–88.

4 Comparing the two, Stephen M. Schwebel recently commented: “Fifty years ago, the First Assembly of the League of Nations demonstrated a higher sense of responsibility than did the General Assembly of the United Nations.” Mini-States and a More Effective United Nations, 67 AJIL 106 (1973).

5 See League of Nations, Off. J., 264–66 (1920); and League of Nations, “The Position of Small States,” The Records of the Second Assembly: Plenary Meetings (Sept. 20, 1921), 685–86. Italy had previously opposed the admission of the Vatican. See Kunz, Josef L., The Status of the Holy See in International Law, 46 AJIL 312 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 League of Nations, The Records of the First Assembly: Plenary Meetings, Annex C, 667.

7 Ibid.

8 The Fifth Committee appears to have been in error on some of these points. When Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1918, Liechtenstein renounced their economic treaty. Switzerland handled the foreign affairs of the Principality by mutually revocable treaty arrangements after October 21, 1919. Only in 1921, after the League denied her request for membership, did Liechtenstein conclude a postal agreement with Switzerland. The customs union went into effect on January 1, 1924. See Kohn, Walter S. G., The Sovereignty of Liechtenstein, 61 AJIL 552–53 (1967)Google Scholar.

9 League of Nations, First Assembly—Plenary Meetings, Annex C, 667–68.

Rosalyn Higgins has written:

As for the diminutive states, to insist that they are sovereign, but so small that they have had to depute some of the attributes of sovereignty, is legal reasoning of the most unfruitful kind. It is more in conformity with the facts to come to the conclusion that sovereignty is a relative concept; and that while these states may possess its attributes for limited participation in world events, they do not possess it for comprehensive participation.

The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs or the United Nations 35 (1963).

10 League of Nations, First Assembly—Plenary Meetings, 563–64.

11 PCIJ Reports, Series A/B, No. 41.

12 According to Article 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, “any fully self-governing State, Dominion, or [even] Colony . . . may become a Member.” In light of this provision the rejection of Liechtenstein on the grounds it was made seems all the more willful.

13 League of Nations, First Assembly—Plenary Meetings, Annex C, p. 652.

14 Ibid. Here, of course, was recognition that smallness was the actual problem.

15 “The Position of Small States,” supra note 5, at 685–88.

16 Id., 686.

17 Ibid.

18 Id., 687.

19 Id., 687–88.

20 Id., 687.

21 Ibid.

22 d’Olivier Farran, C., The Position of Diminutive States in International Law, Internationalrechtliche und Staatsrechtliche Abhandlungen 147 (1960)Google Scholar.

23 See the discussions to this effect which occurred in the Security Council and its special committee established to study the ministate problem: UN Docs. S/PV. 1505, Aug. 27, 1969; S/PV. 1506, Aug. 29, 1969; S/9836, June 15, 1970; S/AC. 16/SR. 9, March 30, 1971; and S/AC. 16/SR. 10, May 8, 1971.

The special committee referred to here apparently held eleven closed meetings between 1969 and 1971, and restricted its summaries to only its members. Only one report (S/9836) was made public. This writer, however, was fortunate enough to be able to read parts of two of the restricted documents (S/AC. 16/SR. 9–10).

24 League of Nations, First Assembly—Plenary Meetings, 563–64.

25 To some extent, a minimal population for the purposes of membership in the United Nations has developed tacitly. The Maldives was admitted in 1965 with a population of approximately 100,000. No ministate whose population falls below this figure has ever applied for membership. Constantin A. Stavropoulos, the Legal Counselor of the United Nations, wrote that Secretary-General U Thant had in mind, as a minimal limit for United Nations membership, a population “somewhere in the neighbourhood of the existing smallest member.” Personal letter to this author dated January 28, 1972. On the other hand, Western Samoa has a population (130,000) exceeding this minimal figure, but has chosen not to apply for membership in the world organization.