Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
During the past decade, a number of scholarly analyses of the United Nations ministate problem have appeared. This concern is understandable because the dilemma of ministate representation goes to the heart of the malaise increasingly gripping the world organization: How to square formal voting power with the realities of international politics? Indeed, no less of an authority than the late Secretary-General U Thant, in his final Annual Report, warned his reluctant audience that the ministate problem “is likely to become more acute in the years to come.”
1 See, for example, the present author's The Problem of Ministate Membership in the United Nations System: Recent Attempts Towards a Solution, 12 Col. J. of Transnational L. 464-86 (1973), and Liechtenstein and the League of Nations: A Precedent for the United Nations Ministate Problem? 68 ajil 496-501 (1974), and the numerous citations therein. In addition, see Jean Chappez, Micro-états et les Nationt Unies, 17 ann. franqais de droit international 541-51 (1971); S. Jayakumar, Small Nations at the United Nations: The Experience of Singapore, 3 Denver J. OF int. L. and Policy 95-106 (1973); M. H. Mendelson, Diminutive States in the United Nations, 21 int. and Comp. L. Q. 609-31 (1972); and Henning von Wedel, Dei Sogenannte “Mikrostaat” im internationalen Verkehr, 5 verfassung und recht in Übersee 303-14 (1972). and for a more general analysis, see George L. Reid The Impact of Very Small Size on the International Behavior of Microstates, 2 sage professional papers IN international studies, NO. 02-027 (1974). For the purposes of this article, a ministate (or microstate) will in general be loosely defined as an independent state with a population of less than 1,000,000. In a few cases, however, a state may have a very small population, but possess an area so large as to make it ludicrous to refer to it as a “ministate.” Examples would include Botswana, Gabon, Guyana, Iceland, Oman, Surinam, the United Arab Emirates, and possibly even Guinea-Bissau. For a further elaboration, see the present author's discussion in The Problem of Ministate Membership, supra 464 n. Nauru (independent since 1968) remains, with the exception of the Vatican City (a special case), the smallest ministate. It has a population of only 6,500.
2 In 1974, the General Assembly established a 42-member committee (subsequently enlarged and its mandate broadened) to study ways of “enhancing the ability of the United Nations to achieve its purposes.” Theoretically, of course, this Committee could consider the ministate problem. In practice, however, it is understood that it will not. After its first, four-week session, the Committee reported “that there was a fundamental divergence of opinion on the necessity for carrying out a review of the Charter.” Committee Members Differ on Need to Review UN Charter, 12 UN Chronicle 21 (Aug.-Sept. 1975).
3 Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 26 UN GAOR, (No. 1A) 13, UN Doc. A/8401/Add.l (1971).
4 In addition, a further reservoir of potential ministates exists: secession from already existing states or territories. Anguilla remains perhaps the classic example of the possibilities here. Agitation for secession also has been manifested in such places as the Azores (Portugal), Bougainville (Papua New Guinea), and Mayotte (the Comoros), among others. (In the case of Mayotte, however, the inhabitants apparently desire to maintain their ties with France, rather than become a separate, independent state.)
5 If this should occur, some have facetiously suggested that Liechtenstein might then be able to handle Swiss affairs with the world organization.
6 See, Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 20 Un Gaor, Supp. (No. 1A) 2, UN Doc. A/6001/Add:l (1965).
7 See Status And Problems Of Very Small States And Territories (Unitar series, No. 3, 1969). In 1971, a slightly altered version of the study, which brought events up to the end of 1969, was issued as Small States And Territorres: Status and Problems (A Unitar Study by Jacques Rapoport et al.). The Carnegie Endowment also produced an able analysis during the same period. See P. Blair, the ministate dilemma, Occasional Paper No. 6 (1967).
8 Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 22 un gaor, Supp. (No. 1A) 20, UN Doc. A/6701/Add.l (1967).
9 See UN Docs. S/PV.L.1505-06 (1969).
10 The only exception was an interim report to the Security Council on its work as of June 1970, and issued as 25 UN SCOR, Supp. (Apr.-June 1970) 210, UN Doc. S/9836, Annexes 1-2 (1970). Outside of the proposals of the United States and the United Kingdom for some type of special membership status for ministates, however, this document contains almost nothing of a substantive nature.
11 See, however, the present author's partial analysis in The Problem of Ministate Membership, supra note 1, at 473-82.
12 UN Docs. S/AC.16/SR.1-11 (1969-1971).
13 U N Doc. S/AC.16/Conf. Room Paper 8 (1971). This document is specifically entitled “Memorandum by the Legal Counsel on the proposal of the United States of America (S/9836, Annex I) and the suggestion of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (S/9836, Annex II) regarding special membership for exceptionally small States in the United Nations,” and dated July 23, 1971. Information gathered from numerous personal interviews held at United Nations Headquarters in New York during the summer of 1975 will also be employed. In these instances, however, direct citations are not possible due to the wishes of those being interviewed to remain anonymous.
14 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.2, at 5 (1969).
15 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.9, at 7 (1971).
16 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.6, at 7 (1970).
17 Id., at 2 and 7.
18 Id., at 5.
19 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.11, at 7 (1971). Such a “subsequent meeting” never occurred.
20 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.6, at 9 (1970).
21 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.7, at 5 (1970).
22 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.9, passim (1971).
23 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.10, at 6 (1971).
24 2 5 UN SCOR, Supp. (Apr.-June 1970) 211, UN Doc. S/9836, Annex 1 (1970).
25 Id., Annex 2.
26 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.11, at 5 (1971).
27 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.5, at 4 (1970).
28 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.9, at 9 (1971).
29 Letter from John A. Armitage (Director of the Office of United Nations Political Affairs, United States Department of State) to the author, dated November 15, 1971.
30 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.7, at 3-4 (1970).
31 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.10, at 5 (1971).
32 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.6, at 3 (1970).
33 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.10, at 10-11 (1971).
34 Id., at 5. In retort the U.S. representative “pointed out that no provisions had been made in the Charter for observers; the practice of sending observers had developed with the evolution of the Organization.” UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.11, at 6 (1971).
35 U N Doc. S/AC.16/SR.11, at 8 (1971). For such a listing, see Rapopoht et al, supra note 7, at 36-38; and BLAIR, supra note 7, at 75-83.
36 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.11, at 2-3 (1971).
37 U N Doc. S/AC.16/SR.10, at 10 (1971). In the UNITAR study see, in particular, the contribution by Charles Taylor, Statistical Typology of Micro-States and Territories: Towards a Definition of a Micro-State. Taylor's piece also appears in 8 Social science information, 101-17 (1969). As the French delegate noted, Taylor's work makes it clear that any specific definition of a ministate must be, in the final analysis, arbitrary. Several other observers have come to a similar conclusion. See, for example, the present author's lengthy discussion in Ministates and the United Nations System, 73-145 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in the Kent State University Library, 1972).
38 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.10, at 10 (1971).
39 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.11, at 2-3 (1971).
40 Id., at 3. Article 4(1) declares that: Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
41 id., at 6.
42 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.6, at 7-8 (1970).
43 Id., at 6.
44 UN Doc. S/AC.16/SR.11, at 4 (1971).
45 Id., at 6. The United States delegate specifically cited Articles 17 and 19 of the Charter.
46 U N Docs. S/AC.16/SR.10, at 7(1971), and S/AC.16/Conf. Room Paper 8, at 1 (1971).
47 UN Doc. S/AC. 16/SR. 10, at 9 (1971).
48 Id.
49 UN Doc. S/AC.16/Con£. Room Paper 8, at 4 (1971).
50 Id., at 4-5.
51 Id., at 5.
52 Id., at 5-6.
53 Id., at 6.
54 Id., at 7.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Id., at 8. Article 17(2) provides that: “The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly.”
58 Id., at 10. In the Stanley Foundation's Conference on ministates and the United Nations at the Carnegie International Center in New York city September 9-10, 1974, the idea of “voluntary renunciation” was the “one to which the most attention was given.” STANLEY FOUNDATION, MINI-STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS, 17 (1974). On the other hand, the British suffered throughout from a partial conflict of interest, since they were committed, in one way or another, to support the membership applications of their former colonies.
59 UN Doc. S/AC.16/Conf. Room Paper 8, at 11 (1971).
60 Id at 13.
61 id., atll.
62 Id
63 Id., at 12.
64 Id.
65 Id., at 12-13.
66 Id., at 13.
67 Id., at 55.
68 Id., at 14-15.
69 Id., at 17.
70 Id., at 56.
71 Id. How nonmember states possessing an “associate status” might “participate in their [the principal deliberative organ's] proceedings,” given the criticism of the U.S. proposal, is not made clear, however.
72 Id., at 56-57.
73 Id., at 56n.
74 ld., at 57.
75 Id., at 57n.
76 Id., at 57.
77 25 UN SCOR, Supp. (Apr.-June 1970) 211, UN Doc. S/9836 (1970).
78 This conclusion is based on a number of personal interviews held at the Organization during the summer of 1975. For a recent empirical verification of it, see Joseph Harbert, R., The Behavior of the Ministates in the United Nations, 1971-1972, 30 INT. ORG. 109-27 (1976)Google Scholar. In addition, see the comments to this effect made at the Stanley Foundation Conference, supra note 52, at 12-13. On the other hand, one continues to wonder about the more latent effects ministate membership has on the willingness of larger states to entrust the United Nations with a more meaningful role.
79 For a general discussion of “the Pacific way,” see Boyce, Peter J. and Herr, Richard A., Microstate Diplomacy in the South Pacific, 28 Australian Outlook 24-35 (April 1974).Google Scholar
80 Council Recommends Three African States for United Nations Membership, 12 UN CHRONICLE 8 (Aug.-Sept. 1975).
81 See G.A. Res. 3285, 29 UN GAOR, Supp. (No. 31) 98, UN Doc. A/9631 (1974).
