Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:07:08.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Addition of Arabic as an Official and Working Language of the UN General Assembly and at Diplomatic Conferences*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Mala Tabory
Get access

Extract

The United Nations Conference on International Organization (San Francisco, 25 April to 26 June 1945) initiated an era of quinquilingualism in the conduct of international organizational affairs, with Chinese, Russian, Spanish, English and French serving as its official languages, and the latter two as its working languages. The text of the United Nations Charter, according to Article 111, is authentic in these five languages. The distinction between official and working languages introduced at San Francisco set the pattern for linguistic practices at the United Nations. Each organ of the United Nations has since adopted language procedures suitable to its requirements, with the practices of the General Assembly initially following the pattern of the same two working languages and five official languages established at San Francisco. According to the rules of procedure of the General Assembly as in force until 1 January 1974, working languages were those in which verbatim records and the Journal were issued and into which all speeches were translated; as for the official languages, all resolutions, important documents and summary records were made available in them, and verbatim records and documents only upon the request of a delegation.

Spanish was added to English and French as the third working language of the General Assembly on 7 December 1948. Two proposals for the inclusion of Russian and Chinese respectively among the working languages of the General Assembly were rejected in 1949. The General Assembly's rules of procedure were not further altered in this respect until 21 December 1968, when Russian was included among its working languages. An amendment submitted on that occasion by (Nationalist) China with a view to eliminating the distinction between official and working languages in the General Assembly and Security Council by granting Chinese the status of a working language was rejected. Chinese was included among the working languages of the General Assembly on 18 December 1973. At that point all five Charter languages acquired both official and working language status, and the distinction between the two classes of languages ceased to have practical relevance.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , July 1978 , pp. 391 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On multilingual practice and treaties, see inter alia, Hilf, Meinhard, Die Auslegung mehrsprachiger Verträge: eine Untersuchung zum Völkerrecht und zum Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Berlin, 1973) esp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Parts I, II and V; Haraszti, György, Some Fundamental Problems of the Law of Treaties, rev. trans. (Budapest, 1973) Chap. VIGoogle Scholar; Mössner, Jörg M., “Die Auslegung mehrsprachiger Staatsverträge…” (1972) 15 Archiv des Völkerrechts 273Google Scholar; Rudolf, Walter, Die Sprache in der Diplomatie und internationalen Verträgen (Frankfurt a.M., 1972) esp.Google Scholar Chap. III; Rosenne, Shabtai, “On Multi-lingual Interpretation” (1971) 6 Is. L.R. 360Google Scholar; Germer, Peter, “Interpretation of Plurilingual Treaties; A Study of Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties” (1970) 11 Harv. I.L.J. 400Google Scholar; Makarov, Alexander N., “Zur Auslegung mehrsprachiger Staatsverträge,” in Recueil… à Paul Guggenheim (Geneva, 1968) 403Google Scholar; Bernhardt, Rudolf, “Interpretation and Implied (Tacit) Modification of Treaties…” (1967) 27 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 491Google Scholar; Dölle, Hans, “Zur Problematik mehrsprachiger Gesetzes—und Vertragstexte” (1961) 26 Rabels Zeitschrift 4Google Scholar; Hardy, Jean, “The Interpretation of Plurilingual Treaties by International Courts and Tribunals” (1961) 37 B.Y.I.L. 72Google Scholar; Rosenne, Shabtai, “United Nations Treaty Practice” (1954–1911) 86 Hague Recueil 281 at 381Google Scholar; Leriche, Anthony, “Les Langues diplomatiques à l'Organisation des Nations Unies” (1953) 31 Rev. D.I. (Sottile) 45.Google Scholar

2 For the formulation of the General Assembly's rules of procedure regarding languages, see “Preparation of multilingual treaties; memorandum by the Secretariat” (doc. A/CN.4/187) (1966–11) I.L.C. Yearbook 104 at 106–107. The rules of procedure appeared between December 1947 and November 1973 as docs. A/520 (rules 44–52) through A/520/Rev. 11/Amend. 1. In their current form they appear in doc. A/520/Rev.12 (rules 51–57), embodying amendments and additions up to 31 December 1973. Rules cited hereafter refer to this document, unless otherwise indicated.

3 Res. 247 (III); the rules of procedure were amended accordingly by res. 262 (III), 11 December 1948.

4 G.A.O.R., 3rd sess., Part II, 5th Comm., 182nd mtg., 5 May 1949. See res. 286 (III) A and B, adopted ibid., 206th plen. mtg., 11 May 1949.

5 Res. 2479 (XXIII). Appropriate amendments were made in the rules of procedure by res. 2553 (XXIV), 12 December 1969.

6 Amendment A/C.5/L.973 to draft res. A/C.5/L.962/Rev.2 on the adoption of Russian …; G.A.O.R., 23rd sess., 5th Comm., 1289th mtg., 17 Dec. 1968, para. 54.

7 Res. 3189 (XXVIII); see G.A.O.R., 28th sess., Annexes, agenda item 100. In practical terms, the language provisions relating to interpretation from and into Chinese are problematic, since their implementation depends on whether the Chinese delegation is present at any given meeting or subsidiary organ.

8 In effect several aspects of the distinction between official and working languages of the General Assembly had been practically eliminated earlier with the introduction of the system of simultaneous interpretation; see Leriche, op. cit., supra n. 1, at 49. The terms “official” and “working” languages were nevertheless deliberately retained in the rules of procedure (rule 51) in order “to express … the continued existence of the two categories of languages of the General Assembly,… although…, as a result of the adoption of Chinese as a working language there was no distinction between official and working languages for all practical purposes”. (Doc. A/9452, 13 Dec. 1973, para. 4; in G.A.O.R., 28th sess., Annexes, agenda item 100). The language rules of procedure are different in the other principal organs of the U.N. In the Security Council, for example, the working languages were initially English and French, to which Russian and Spanish were added by res. 263(1969) of 24 Jan. 1969, and Chinese by Res. 345(1974) of 17 Jan. 1974. The provisional rules of procedure thus amended appear as doc. S/96/Rev. 6 (chap. VIII, rules 41–47 on languages.) Regarding subsidiary organs, according to rule 161 of the General Assembly's rules of procedure, the rules relating to the procedure of committees of the General Assembly apply to the procedure of any subsidiary organ unless the Assembly or subsidiary organ decides otherwise. Thus, for example, the working languages of the International Law Commission are English, French and Spanish: see doc. A/CN.4/187, op. cit., at paras. 14–15; also Rosenne, Shabtai, The Law of Treaties: A Guide to the Legislative History of the Vienna Convention, 1970Google Scholar (hereinafter The Law of Treaties) 70–71. Although the I.L.C. Drafting Committee is responsible only for the preparation of draft articles in these three languages, they appear in fact in all the languages of the General Assembly, since the Commission's report is included in the G.A.O.R. For the production of Russian texts of articles, see (1975–1) I.L.C. Yearbook 131.

9 Res. 878(IX), adopted 504th plen. mtg., 4 Dec. 1954. See “Translation of some official documents of the General Assembly into the Arabic language in accordance with rule 59 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly”, agenda item 55, Report of the Fifth Committee, 30 Nov. 1954 (doc. A/2815).

10 Res. 3355 (XXIX), adopted at 2324th plen. mtg., 18 Dec. 1974, in G.A.O.R., 29th sess., Suppl. No. 31 (doc. A/9631).

11 Doc. A/9193, G.A.O.R., 28th sess., Annexes, agenda item 104. This request was approved by the G.A. (2144th plen. mtg., 8 Oct. 1973) and assigned to the Fifth Committee.

12 Doc. A/C.5/1564, 29 Nov. 1973. At that time the Arabic language unit in the Secretariat consisted of a small translation section in the Department of Conference Services, charged with translating from English a maximum of 4,000 pages of documents annually under the terms of res. 878(IX).

13 Estimated staff costs, including documentation and interpretation, summary and verbatim records for the biennium 1974–75 (excluding staff assessment), as readjusted in doc. A/C.5/1564/Add. 1 (7 Dec. 1973), totalled $4,290,000.

14 “Administrative and financial implications of the inclusion of Arabic among the official and working languages of the General Assembly and its Main Committees”, doc. A/9008/Add.29, 13 Dec. 1973, G.A.O.R., 28th sess., Suppl. No. 8A.

15 Draft res. A/C.5/L.1156; sponsors and text in doc. A/9464, paras. 2 and 5.

16 G.A.O.R., 28th sess., 5th Comm., 1629th mtg.

17 Ibid., paras. 2–6.

18 Ibid., paras. 45–46.

19 Draft res. A/C.6/L.967. See doc. A/9452, Report of the Sixth Committee, 13 Dec. 1973, in G.A.O.R., 28th sess., Annexes, agenda item 100.

20 Draft res. A/C.6/L.977; sponsors and text in doc. A/9452/Add.l, paras. 4 and 6, Report of the Sixth Committee, 17 Dec. 1973, in ibid., agenda item 104. The text of para. 6 of doc. A/9452 was replaced by that of para. 6 of doc. 9452/Add. 1 to combine recommendations regarding both Chinese and Arabic, while paras. 1–5 of these docs, deal respectively with Chinese and Arabic.

21 G.A.O.R., 28th sess., 6th Comm., 1459th mtg., para. 3.

22 2206th plen. mtg.; in G.A.O.R., 28th sess., Resolutions, vol. I, Suppl. No. 30 (A/9030), at 123–24, 149.

23 These guidelines were suggested by Mr. Goyer (Canada) during the debate on the adoption of Russian as a working language; G.A.O.R., 23rd sess., 5th Comm., 1289th mtg., para. 13.

24 Doc. A/9008/Add.29, para. 6, and G.A.O.R., 28th sess., 5th Comm., 1629th mtg., 14 Dec. 1973, paras. 43, 44, 48.

25 Doc. A/C.5/1564, para. 1; see Table I.

26 Statement by Miss Witteveen (Netherlands), G.A.O.R., 3rd sess., part II, 5th Comm., 181st mtg., 3 May 1949, at 23.

27 Rule 53 (previously 54).

28 G.A.O.R., 7th sess., 401st plen. mtg., 5 Dec. 1962, para. 14. See also G.A.O.R., 7th sess., 5th Comm., 356th mtg., 7 Nov. 1952, para. 89. This point was also made by the U.S. representative during the debate on the adoption of Arabic, in G.A.O.R., 28th sess., Fifth Comm., 1629th mtg., 14 Dec. 1973, para. 34.

29 For example, doc. A/2815, op. cit., supra n. 9, at paras. 9, 12.

30 For example, Art. 108 of the Charter, O.A.S., in Annals of the O.A.S., publ. by the Dept. of Public Information, Pan American Union (Washington, D.C., 1949) I, 86Google Scholar; Art. 18 of the Regulations of the Meetings of Foreign Affairs, approved by the O.A.S. Council 1 March 1951, in O.A.S., Official Records, OEA/Ser. F.I.1; Arts. 19 and 61 of the Regulations, Tenth Inter-American Conference (Caracas, 1954), Handbook for Delegates, Doc. 3 (Engl) SG/3 (Washington, D.C., 1953).

31 Council Reg. 1 of 15 April 1958, J.O. 385/58; O.J. Sp. Ed. 1952–1958, p. 59; O.J. (No. L. 2/1) (1973).

32 WHO, res. EB17.R.10, Jan. 1957; and WHA 25.50, May 1972.

33 FAO, res. 16/71, amending rule XLI (then XXXVIII) of the GRO.

34 G.A.O.R., 7th sess., 5th Comm., 358th mtg., 10 Nov. 1952, paras. 2, 27.

35 Ostrower, Alexander, Language, Law, and Diplomacy: A Study of Linguistic Diversity in Official International Relations and International Law (Philadelphia, 1965) vol. I, p. 412.Google Scholar

36 G.A.O.R., 23rd sess., 5th comm., 1281st mtg., 11 Dec. 1968, para. 41; ibid., 1283rd mtg., 12 Dec. 1968, paras. 43, 52.

37 According to Michael Berlin, J., “Arabs Want Their Language at UN”, New York Post, 3 Oct. 1973Google Scholar, Libya's Col. Muammar Khadaffy “reportedly was ready to subsidize the UN out of his oil revenues for the entire costs of the project” since he “has long been annoyed by the absence of Arabic from among UN languages …” “Arab diplomats privately confirmed that the Arab League would be willing to pay the UN back for the bulk of the expense …”

38 The following is based on interviews with two members of the Israel delegation (N.Y., 27 Aug. 1976 and Jerusalem, 9 May 1977), both of whom personally favoured supporting the draft resolution on Arabic.

39 Almost one in every six Israelis is an Arab; G.A.O.R., 29th sess., Sp. Polit. Comm., 944th mtg., 4 Dec. 1974, para. 12. See Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstracts of Israel (1976) No. 27.

40 See statement by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in the Knesset on 2 July 1952, 12 Divrei HaKnesset 2521; also Rubinstein, Amnon, HaMishpat HaKonstitutsioni shel Medinat Yisrael (2nd ed., 1974), 69Google Scholar; Saltoun, A. “HaSafot HaRishmiyot BeYisrael” (1967) 23 HaPraklit 387, 391Google Scholar; Globus, Elazar L. “'Al Ma'amada shel HaLashon Ha'Aravit BiMedinat Yisrael” (1950) 7 HaPraklit 328.Google Scholar

41 For the extent to which the rules of multilingual treaty interpretation may be applied to interpret the different language versions of Security Council resolutions, see Rosenne, , “On Multilingual Interpretation” (1971) 6 Is.L.R. 360Google Scholar, at 361–62, citing the ICJ's interpretation of a linguistically divergent General Assembly resolution, at 365 and n. 10.

42 For an early incident illustrating the problems of multilingualism in the General Assembly, see Leriche, op. cit., at 63–64. The controversy over the interpretation of Security Council resolution 242(1967) continues both at the UN and in scholarly writings, most recently in Valdés, Toribio de, “The Authoritativeness of the English and French Texts of Security Council Resolution 242(1967) on the Situation in the Middle East” (1977) 71 Am.J.I.L. 311.Google Scholar

43 Doc. A/C.1/PV2016, p. 111, 3rd para. The undocumented part of the following account is from a written communication of 30 June 1977 by a member of the Israel delegation at that time.

44 G.A.O.R., 29th sess., Sp. Polit. Comm., 943rd mtg., paras., 24, 34.

45 Ibid., 947th mtg., paras. 4–7.

46 Ibid., paras. 53–67.

47 For language rules and practices of previous conferences, see doc. A/CN.4/187, op. cit., at 108–111, and Rosenne, , The Law of Treaties 36–37, 70–71.Google Scholar

48 Rule 56, doc. A/CONF.62/30/Rev.1. See Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, vol. I, 20th plen. mtg., para. 1.

49 Ibid., para 34. This is a curious statement since chronologically, according to res. 3191 (XXVIII), Arabic had already become an official and working language of the General Assembly as of 1 January 1974.

50 Ibid., vol. IV, 52nd plen. mtg., paras. 5–7. The amended rules of procedure appear as doc. A/CONF.62/30/Rev.2 (VIII. “Languages and Records” rules 56–58).

51 Rule 51 of the rules of procedure, doc. A/Conf.80/8, adopted at 1st plen. mtg., 4 April 1977; see also A/Conf.80/3, 14 March 1977.

52 Rule 51 of the rules of procedure. Amendment CDDH/232; see “Amendment to the Rules of Procedure”, Summary Records of the Thirty-Third (Closing) Plenary Meeting 11 June 1976 (CDDH/SR.33), at 24, paras. 58–59. The adoption of Arabic in mid-conference complicated the already difficult drafting procedure. “One of the principal difficulties encountered by the Committee was that most of the articles had been adopted by the [Drafting] Committee in three or four languages and that the terms used in each language frequently differed”.

International Committee of the Red Cross, “Diplomatic Conference…: Summary of the third session's work”, (1976) No. 186 International Review of the Red Cross 443, 466.Google Scholar

53 See supra n. 1.

54 “United Nations Treaty Practice”, op. cit., supra n. 1, at 382.

55 See for example, Rosenne, , “The Application of Extradition Treaties” (1972) 28 HaPraklit 140, at 143–44.Google Scholar

56 Rosenne, , The Law of Treaties 214–21.Google Scholar

57 “Draft articles on the law of treaties with Commentaries” in Report of the I.L.C. to the G.A. on the work of its 18th sess., in (1966–II) I.L.C. Yearbook 224–26, para. 6.

58 Art. 79(3) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties deals with the correction of errors in texts or in certified copies of treaties authenticated in two or more languages. See “Resolutions of the General Assembly Concerning the Law of Treaties: Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat”, 14 Feb. 1963 (doc. A/CN.4/154) (1963–11) I.L.C. Yearbook 1, Part VIII on “Correction of errors in the texts of Treaties for which a Depositary exists” 32–35. Also Leriche, op. cit., at 60–63.

59 On the universality of English as a non-native language, see Steiner, George, After Babel (Aspects of Language and Translation) (1975) 467–68.Google Scholar

60 For example, G.A.O.R., 7 th sess., 5th Comm., 356th mtg., 7 Nov. 1952, para. 89; also ibid., 401st plen. mtg., 5 Dec. 1952, paras. 15, 18; Rousseau, Charles, Droit international public (1970) vol. 1, p. 83.Google Scholar

61 See Rosenne, , The Law of Treaties at 36Google Scholar; also de Vries, Henry P., “Choice of Language in International Contracts” in Reese, Willis L.M., ed., International Contracts: Choice of Law and Language (1962) 14 at 22.Google Scholar

62 For example, Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Art. 4) Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1948, 57 at 62; Dissenting Opinion of Judge De Visscher, International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, 128 at 186; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koretsky, Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Art. 17, para. 2 of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1962, 151 at 274.

63 Hilf, op. cit., supra n. 1, at 33–34; Malintoppi, Antonio, “Mesures tendant à prévenir les divergences dans l'interprétation des règles du droit uniforme” in (1959) Unidroit, Annuaire 249 at 256.Google Scholar