¹ See Official Records of the second session of the General Assembly, Resolutions, page 105; also Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 42 (1948), p. 1.

² Items (2), (3) and (4) of the agenda.

³ The memoranda submitted by the Secretary-General were the following:

1. 1.

   1. Survey of International Law in relation to the Work of Codification of the International Law Commission (A/CN.4/1/Rev.1).

2. 2.

   2. Preparatory Study concerning a Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States (A/CN.4/2).

3. 3.

   3. The Charter and Judgment of the Nurnberg Tribunal: History and Analysis (A/CN.4/5).

4. 4.

   4. Ways and Means of making the Evidence of Customary International Law more readily available (A/CN.4/6).

5. 5.

   5. Historical Survey of the Question of International Criminal Jurisdiction (A/CN. 4/7).

6. 6.

   6. International and National Organizations concerned with Questions of International Law: tentative list (A/CN.4/8).

⁴ A/CN.4/1/Rev.1.

⁵ Mr. Vladimir M. Koretsky opposed this decision on the ground that the Commission, pursuant to articles 18 and 19 of its Statute, was empowered to address requests to Governments only after approval by the General Assembly of the Commission’s recommendations as to the topics selected.

⁶ A/CN.4/SR.16, page 15.

⁷ A/CN.4/SR.20, page 20.

⁸ A/CN.4/5.

⁹ A/CN.4/W.11.

¹⁰ A/CN.4/W.6.

¹¹ A/CN.4/W.12.

¹² With regard to this further draft, Mr. Georges Scelle declared that he was unable to associate himself with it.

¹³ A/CN.4/7.

¹⁴ A/CN.4/W.9.

¹⁵ A/CN.4/6.

¹⁶ A/CN.4/8 (International and National Organizations concerned with Questions of International Law: tentative list).

¹⁷ A/285.

¹⁸ Comments and observations on the Panamanian draft were made by the following Governments: Canada (12 May 1947, 19 July 1947 and 7 April 1948); Czechoslovakia (11 August 1947); Denmark (22 September 1947); Dominican Eepublic (4 June 1947); Ecuador (17 September 1947); El Salvador (28 April 1947); Greece (4 September 1947); India (26 September 1947 and 11 June 1948); Mexico (7 June 1947); Netherlands (23 June 1947); New Zealand (25 July 1947 and 9 April 1948); Philippines (19 December 1947 and 27 May 1948); Sweden (30 May 1947 and 26 April 1948); Turkey (14 August 1947); United Kingdom (1 May 1947 and 24 August 1948); United States of America (29 May 1947 and 11 March 1949); Venezuela (12 September 1947).

¹⁹ A/CN.4/2 (Preparatory Study concerning a Draft Declaration on the Eights and Duties of States).

²⁰ A/CN.4/SR.7 to A/CN.4/SR.16, A/CN.4/SR.19 to A/CN.4/SR.25, A/CN.4/SR.29 and A/CN.4/SR.30.

²¹ A/CN.4/SR.25. After the vote on the draft Declaration, Mr. Vladimir M. Koretsky and Mr. Manley O. Hudson, who voted against it, made statements in explanation of their votes. Mr. Koretsky declared that he voted against the draft declaration because of its many shortcomings including, in particular: (1) that it deviated from such fundamental principles of the United Nations as the sovereign equality of all the Members thereof and the right of self-determination of peoples; (2) that it did not protect the interests of States against interference by international organizations or groups of States in matters falling essentially within their domestic jurisdiction; (3) that it did not set out the most important duty of States to take measures for the maintenance of international peace and security, the prohibition of atomic weapons, and the general reduction of armaments and armed forces, and that, further, the draft Declaration did not proclaim the duty of States to abstain from participation in any aggressive blocs such as the North Atlantic Pact and the Western Union, which under the cloak of false phrases concerning peace and self-defence were actually aimed at preparing new wars; (4) that the draft Declaration ignored the most important duty of States to take measures for the eradication of the vestiges of fascism and against the danger of its recrudescence; (5) that the draft Declaration ignored the most important duty of States not to allow the establishment of any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of citizens or the establishment of direct or indirect privileges for citizens on account of their race or nationality, and not to allow any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or of hatred and contempt; (6) that the draft Declaration did not recite the most important duty of States to ensure the effectiveness of fundamental freedoms and human rights, notably the right to work and the right to be protected against unemployment, ensured on the part of the State and society by such measures as would provide wide possibilities for all to participate in useful work and as would prevent unemployment. Mr. Koretsky added that the draft Declaration, and especially article 14 thereof, went even further than the Panamanian draft in denying the sovereignty of States. In his view the doctrine of the “super-State” was being resorted to in this fashion by persons or peoples seeking to achieve, or to help others to achieve, world domination. Instead of reinforcing the principles of sovereignty, self-determination, sovereign equality of States, independence, and the freedom of States from dependence upon other States, the draft Declaration, he thought, derogated from the great movements to rid the peoples of the world of the scourges of exploitation and oppression (A/CN.4/SR.22, pages 13–14).

Mr. Hudson stated that he voted against the draft Declaration because the provisions of its article 6 went beyond the Charter of the United Nations, and beyond international law at its present stage of development (A/CN.4/SR.25, pages 3 and 6).

²² Report of Committee 1 to Commission I, Documents of the San Francisco Conference, VI, page 457.

²³ Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A/B, Judgments, Orders and Advisory Opinions, Fascicule No. 44, page 24.