¹ United Nations, Journal of the General Assembly, Second Session, No. 53, Nov. 15, 1947, p.

² Resolution 171 (II), adopted at 113th Plenary Meeting; United Nations documents A/459,Nov. 11, 1947, and A/459/Corr. 1, Need for Greater Use by the United Nations and Its Organs of the International Court of Justice, Report of the Sixth Committee. See discussion in Sixth Committee,in A/C.6/SR. 44, 45, 52, Oct. 8, 9 and 22, 1947; and in General Assembly in A/P.V. 113, Nov.14,1947, Verbatim Record of the 113th Plenary Meeting.

³ See United Nations Conference on International Organisation, Vol. XIII, pp. 653-654, Doc.873, Revised Summary Report of 14th Meeting of Committee IV/2, June 7,1945. Pertinent provisions of the Report of subcommittee IV/2/B, as adopted by Committee IV/2, read as follows (same,Vol. XIII, pp. 668-669 and 709-710): “ In the course of the operations from day to day of the various organs of the Organization, it is inevitable that each organ will interpret such parts of the Charter as are applicable to its particular functions. This process is inherent in the functioning of any body which operates under an instrument defining its functions and powers. It will be manifested in the functioning of such a body as the General Assembly, the Security Council, or the International Court of Justice. Accordingly, it is not necessary to include in the Charter a provision either authorizing or approving the normal operation of this principle. “Difficulties may conceivably arise in the event that there should be a difference of opinion among the organs of the Organization concerning the correct interpretation of a provision of the Charter. Thus, two organs may conceivably hold and may express or even act upon different views.Under unitary forms of national government the final determination of such a question may be vested in the highest court or in some other national authority. However, the nature of the Organization and of its operation would not seem to be such as to invite the inclusion in the Charter of any provision of this nature. If two member states are at variance concerning the correct interpretation of the Charter, they are of course free to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice as in the case of any other treaty. Similarly, it would always be open to the General Assembly or to the Security Council, in appropriate circumstances, to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion concerning the meaning of a provision of the Charter. Should the General Assembly or the Security Council prefer another course, an ad hoc committee of jurists might be set up to examine the question and report its views, or recourse might be had to a joint conference. In brief the members or the organs of the Organization might have recourse to various expedients in order to obtain an appropriate interpretation. It would appear neither necessary nor desirable to list or to describe in the Charter the various possible expedients. “ It is to be understood, of course, that if an interpretation made by any organ of the Organization or by a committee of jurists is not generally acceptable it will be without binding force. In such circumstances, or in cases where it is desired to establish an authoritative interpretation as a precedent for the future, it may be necessary to embody the interpretation in an amendment to the Charter. This may always be accomplished by recourse to the procedure provided for amendment.”

⁴ See also Pollux, “The Interpretation of the Charter” , British Year Book of International Law,1946, pp. 54, 57-62.

⁵ See Resolution 113 (II) adopted on Nov. 17, 1947, at the 118th Plenary Meeting, General Assembly; A/471, Nov. 12, 1947, Report of the First Committee on Admission of New Members. See discussion in First Committee, A/C.l/SR. 98-103, Nov. 7-10, 1947.

⁶ See S/42, April 18, 1946, and Journal of the Security Council, First Year, No. 30,36th Meeting of the Security Council, April 23, 1946.

⁷ See Journal of the Security Council, First Year, No. 9, Feb. 12, 1946, pp. 154-157; Pollux,cited, pp. 58-60.

⁸ See Official Records of the Second Part of the First Session of the General Assembly (1946)Verbatim Record of Plenary Meetings (cited here as A/P.V.), pp. 1006-1061; ibid., Summary Record of Meetings of General Committee (cited here as A/BUR/SR.), pp. 69-73; ibid., Summary Record of Meetings of Joint Committee of the First and Sixth Committees (cited here as A/C. 1 and 6/SR.), pp, 1-134.

⁹ A/C. 1 and 6/SR., pp. 52-53, Doc. A/149.

¹⁰ The texts of Articles 10 and 14 read as follows: , “Article 10. The General Assembly may discuss any qustions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.”“Article 14. Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.”

¹¹ A/C. 1 and 6/SR., pp. 53-81, Doc. A/68. Memoranda by the Government of the Union of South Africa (Docs. A/167 and A/167/Add. 1) are reproduced in ibid., pp. 81-131.

¹² A/C. 1and 6/SR., pp. 2,9.

¹³ Ibid., p. 9.

¹⁴ 1bid., pp. 10, 2, 52-53. For text of Cape Town Agreement, see ibid., pp. 66-67, 86 ff.See also A/C.l/SR. 108, Nov. 14, 1947, p. 6.

¹⁵ A/C. 1 and 6/SR., pp. 132, 2,10.

¹⁶ A/P.V. 50, Dec. 7, 1946, p. 1016. Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter reads as follows: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.”

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 1017.

²⁰ A/C. 1 and 6/SR., p. 3.

²¹ Ibid., p. 24.

²² A/P.V. 50, p. 1019.

²³ A/C. 1 and 6/SR., p. 44.

²⁴ A/P.V. 50, p. 1019.

²⁵ IUd., p. 1018.

²⁶ Ibid., p. 1016.

²⁷ A/C. 1 and 6/SR., pp. 10-11.

²⁸ Ibid., p. 48.

²⁹ Ibid., p. 132. The text of the resolution presented by the Government of India read as follows:“The General Assembly,“ Having taken note of the application made by the Government of India regarding the treatmentof Indians in the Union of South Africa and having considered the matter, is of the opinion that:“ (a) the Union Government's discriminatory treatment of Asiatics in general and Indians in particular on the grounds of their race constitutes a denial of human rights and fundamental freedom and is contrary to the Charter;“ (b) The Union Government's policy in general and the enactment of the Asiatic L and Tenure and Indian Representation Act of 1946, in particular, have impaired friendly relations between the two Member States, and unless a satisfactory settlement is arrived at immediately,these relations are likely to be further impaired.“ The General Assembly, therefore, considers that the Union Government should revise their general policy and their legislative and administrative measures affecting Asiatics in South Africa, so as to bring them into conformity with the principles and purposes of the Charter and requests the Union Government to report at the next session of the General Assembly the action taken by them in this, behalf. ”

³⁰ A/BUR/SR. 19, Oct. 24, 1946, p. 70. Statement of Field Marshal Smuts.

³¹ A/C. 1 and 6 / SR., p. 44.

³² A/BUR/SR. 19, p. 70.

³³ A/C. 1 and 6/SR., p. 3.

³⁴ Ibid., pp. 18-19, 66-67, 86-95.

³⁵ A/P.V. 50, p. 1009; A/C. 1 and 6/SR., p. 44.

³⁶ A/C. 1 and 6/SR., pp. 3-4, 20-21, 44. Compare Mrs. Pandit: “ There could be no question of ‘fundamental’ and ‘non-fundamental’ freedoms; freedom was indivisible, and should be enjoyed by all peoples, whatever their colour.” Ibid., p. 45.

³⁷ Ibid., pp. 44,90-91, 17-18.

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 4, 47.

³⁹ A/P.V. 50, p. 1009.

⁴⁰ “ The full text of the proposed South African amendment was as follows {ibid., pp. 10091010):“The General Assembly, having taken note of the application made by the Government of India regarding the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa and having considered the matter, is of the opinion that, since the jurisdiction of the General Assembly to deal with the matter is in doubt and since the questions involved are consequently of a legal as well as of a factual nature, a decision based on authoritatively declared juridical foundations is the one most likely to promote realization of those purposes of the Charter to the fulfilment of which all Members of the Organization are pledged as well as to secure a lasting and mutually acceptable solution of the complaints which have been made. “ The Assembly therefore resolves that,“ The International Court of Justice is requested to give an advisory opinion on the question whether the matters referred to in the Indian application are, under Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter, essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Union.” A/205/Add. 1.

⁴¹ A/P.V. 52, pp. 1042, 1043, 1045.

⁴² A/P.V. 50, pp. 1020, 1021.

⁴³ A/P.V. 51, p. 1034.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 1035.

⁴⁵ A /C . 1 and 6/SR., p. 36.

⁴⁶ A/P.V. 51, p. 1033

⁴⁷ A/C. 1 and 6/SR., p. 14.

⁴⁸ A/P.V. 51, pp. 1032-1033. The word judiciawement is mistranslated as “ legally” in the English version.

⁴⁹ A/P.V. 52, p. 1061.

⁵⁰ A/P.V. 50, p. 1007; A/64/Add. 1, Jan. 31, 1947, p. 69.

⁵¹ See A/C. 1/SR. 106, Nov. 12, 1947, pp. 2, 4.

⁵² Ibid., p. 2.

⁵³ A/387, Sept. 15,1947. The report of the Government of India is in A/373, Sept. 2, 1947.

⁵⁴ Journal of the General Assembly, Second Session, No. 58, Nov. 21, 1947, p. 7. The General Assembly discussed the question at its 119th and 120th Plenary Sessions on Nov. 20, 1947. For the draft resolutions see A/492 and A/496. For discussions in the First Committee,see A/C.1/SR. 106-112, Nov. 12-17, 1947.

⁵⁵ See U. N. Weekly Bulletin, Vol. III (1947), pp. 215-225, 277-281, 297-301. For a summary of the Security Council's action with reference to the Indonesian Question, see “Work of the UN Good Offices Committee in Indonesia” , Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XVIII, No. 454 (March14, 1948), pp. 323-336.

⁵⁶ See U. N. Weekly Bulletin, Vol. III (1947), pp. 239-244, 303-305, 319-323. For text of proposed Belgian amendment, ibid., p. 321.

⁵⁷ See U. N. Weekly Bulletin, Vol. III (1947), pp. 459, 517, 573, 619.

⁵⁸ See Journal of the General Assembly, Second Session, No. 62, Nov. 26, 1947, p. 3; A/AC.14/SR. 32, Nov. 25,1947; A/AC. 14/32, Nov. 11,1947, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question,Report of Sub-Committee 2, Draft Resolution No. I, pp. 57-58, and discussion of legal issues connected with the Palestine Problem, pp. 5-24.

⁵⁹ Official Records of the Security Council, Second Year, No. 34, pp. 726-727, 127th Meeting,April 9, 1947.

⁶⁰ Ibid., No. 29, p. 609, 122nd Meeting, March 25, 1947. The proposed resolution stated, in part, that the Security Council “ 1. Considers that the laying of mines in peace-time without notification is unjustified and an offence against humanity; 2. Finds that an unnotified mine field was laid in the immediate vicinity of the Albanian coast, resulting in serious injury to two of his Majesty's ships with loss of life and injury to their crews; that this mine field could not have been laid without the knowledge of the Albanian authorities” ; and recommended that the parties settle the dispute on the basis of the Council's finding in paragraph 2.

⁶¹ See A/P.V. 113, pp. 81-121.

⁶² See the records of the Committee on the Progressive Development of International Law and Its Codification, especially A/AC. 10/32, May 23, 1947, A/AC. 10/SR. 4/Add. 1, May 28,147, and A/AC. 10/SR. 16, June 3,1947.

⁶³ P . 164.

⁶⁴ A/P.V. 113, p. 57.

⁶⁵ Ibid., pp. 21,150.