Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
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: 20 April 2017
The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its third session at Geneva, Switzerland, from May 16 to July 27, 1951. In the course of fifty-three meetings, the Commission completed its work on the following items: (1) reservations to multilateral conventions; (2) question of defining aggression; and (3) preparation of a draft code of offenses against the peace and security of mankind. It also concluded the first phase of a review of its Statute. In the field of the codification of international law, the Commission undertook further consideration of the topics of (1) law of treaties and (2) regime of the high seas. It also decided to initiate work on the topics of “nationality, including statelessness” and “regime of territorial waters,” and appointed Judge Manley 0. Hudson and Professor J. P. A. Frangois special rapporteurs, respectively, for these topics. The actions (including some of an administrative character) taken by the Commission are set forth in a report to the General Assembly.
1 Two notes on the review by the General Assembly of the work of the first and second sessions of the International Law Commission have been published in this Journal, respectively, Vol. 44 (1950), pp. 527–542, and Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 509–525.
2 Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of Its Third Session, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858); this Journal, Supp., Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 103–147.
3 Consideration of the draft code of offenses against the peace and security of mankind, prepared by the Commission, was, according to a decision of the General Assembly, deferred to the seventh session.
4 In a statement before the Sixth Committee, the Assistant Secretary General in Charge of the Legal Department revealed that the Secretary General was the depositary of forty-three conventions concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations and ninety conventions concluded under the auspices of the United Nations. Seventeen reservations had been formulated and maintained. The only objections submitted had been to reservations to the Convention on Genocide. See General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 272nd meeting, pars. 12–13. See also report of the Secretary General submitted to the fifth session of the General Assembly, U. N. Doc. A/1372, pars. 1–3.
5 General Assembly, 5th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 20 (A/1775), pp. 74–75; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 13–14.
6 Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 15; this Journal, Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 579–590. This advisory opinion was given by 7 votes to 5. See also Hudson, “The Thirtieth Year of the World Court,” this Journal, Vol. 46 (1952), pp. 1–8.
7 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858), Ch. II; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 106–118.
8 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Eecords, 6th Committee, 264th meeting, par. 23.
9 Ibid., 272nd meeting, par. 17.
10 Among the delegations which expressed criticism of the criterion of compatibility were those of Brazil, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Eecords, 6th Committee, 271st meeting, pars. 51–52; China, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 28; Dominican Republic, ibid., 265th meeting, par. 20; France, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 5; Greece, ibid., 272nd meeting, par. 5; Israel, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 16; The Netherlands, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 2; U.S.S.R., ibid., 269th meeting, par. 31; Yugoslavia, ibid., 273rd meeting, pars. 41–42.
11 The comments of the International Law Commission on the Court’s advisory opinion are contained in pars. 17 and 23–24 of the former’s report.
12 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 266th meeting, par. 5.
13 Ibid., 273rd meeting, par. 42, and 266th meeting, par. 16, respectively.
14 Ibid., 271st meeting, par. 51.
15 Ibid., 272nd meeting, par. 5.
16 Ibid., 269th meeting, par. 31.
17 Ibid., 270th meeting, pars. 36–37.
18 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.188.
19 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.200. See General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 275th meeting, pars. 1, 3.
20 Ibid., 265th meeting, par. 8.
21 Ibid., 274th meeting, par. 36; the proposal was also contained in U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.197/Rev. 1.
22 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 277th meeting, par. 59.
23 These included the delegations of Argentina, ibid., 267th meeting, par. 44; Australia, ibid., 268th meeting, par. 40; Brazil, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 53; Canada, ibid., 270th meeting, par. 22; Ethiopia, ibid., 274th meeting, par. 24; India, ibid., 267th meeting, par. 33; Iran, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 37; Israel, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 18; The Netherlands, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 3. There was a draft resolution submitted by Indonesia, providing, inter alia, “that as to conventions concluded outside the framework of the United Nations: (a) the opinion of the International.Court of Justice be taken as guidance as far as applicable; (b) the procedural rules suggested by the International Law Commission likewise be adopted; …” U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.196. This, however, was later withdrawn.
24 Argentina, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 267th meeting, par. 44; Belgium, ibid., 272nd meeting, par. 17; Brazil, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 49; Canada, ibid., 270th meeting, par. 22; China, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 29; Iran, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 37; Israel, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 16; The Netherlands, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 1.
25 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.190, point 4.
26 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/193/Rev. 1.
27 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 267th meeting, par. 35.
28 Ibid., 273rd meeting, par. 39.
29 Ibid., 277th meeting, par. 33.
30 These included the following delegations: Australia, ibid., 268th meeting, par. 39; Brazil, Ibid., 267th meeting, pars. 2, 9; Canada, ibid., 270th meeting, par. 23; Chile, ibid., 270th meeting, par. 49; China, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 30; Ethiopia, ibid., 274th meeting, par. 22; France, ibid., 266th meeting, pars. 11–15; India, ibid., 267th meeting, pars. 29, 30; Indonesia, ibid., 271st meeting, pars. 25, 28–29; Pakistan, ibid., 267th meeting, par. 36; U. K., ibid., 264th meeting, par. 13; Yugoslavia, ibid., 273rd meeting, par. 43.
31 Ibid., 266th meeting, para. 11–15.
32 Ibid., 270th meeting, par. 49.
33 Ibid., 267th meeting, par. 29.
34 ibid., 274th meeting, par. 22.
35 Ibid., 267th meeting, pars. 16, 19.
36 These included the following: Argentina, ibid., 267th meeting, par. 42; Belgium, ibid., 272nd meeting, par. 18; Bolivia, ibid., 269th meeting, pars. 8–9; Czechoslovakia, ibid., 274th meeting, pars. 4, 14; Dominican Republic, ibid., 265th meeting, par. 19; Ecuador, ibid., 264th meeting, par. 19; Egypt, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 16; Iran, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 36; Israel, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 22; Lebanon, ibid., 264th meeting, pars. 34–35; Mexico, ibid., 270th meeting, pars. 8–10, 12–13; The Netherlands, ibid., 271st meeting, pars. 6–7; Uruguay, ibid., 268th meeting, pars. 30–32; U.S. A., ibid., 264th meeting, pars. 24–25, 28–32; 270th meeting, par. 33, the latter statement, by Mr. Maktos, sums up what he called the disadvantages of the unanimity rule: U.S.S.R., ibid., 269th meeting, pars. 21–26, 30, 35; Venezuela, ibid., 265th meeting, pars. 4, 6.
37 Ibid., 264th meeting, par. 28.
38 Ibid., 269th meeting, par. 8. For other remarks upholding the sovereignty of the reserving state, see also statements of representatives of Czechoslovakia, ibid., 274th meeting, par. 14; Ecuador, ibid., 264th meeting, par. 17; Syria, ibid., 270th meeting, par. 29; Uruguay, ibid., 268th meeting, par. 30; U.8.S.B., ibid., 269th meeting, pars. 19, 26–27; Venezuela, ibid., 265th meeting, par. 2.
39 Ibid., 264th meeting, par. 17.
40 Ibid., par. 24. Other representatives also relied on the argument of the veto: Bolivia, ibid., 269th meeting, par. 8; Venezuela, ibid., 265th meeting, par. 4.
41 Ibid., 264th meeting, pars. 29, 30, 32.
42 Ibid., 265th meeting, par. 3.
43 Ibid., 264th meeting, par. 31.
44 Ibid., 265th meeting, par. 4.
45 Ibid., 264th meeting, pars. 31–32.
46 Ibid., 269th meeting, pars. 24–25.
47 Ibid., 273rd meeting, pars. 34, 36.
48 Ibid., 266th meeting, par. 7.
49 Ibid., par. 9.
50 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.188.
51 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.190, point 4.
52 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 277th meeting, par. 33.
53 The representatives who alluded to the advantages of the Pan American practice included those of the following states: Argentina, ibid., 267th meeting, par. 45; Bolivia, ibid., 269th meeting, par. 16; Colombia, ibid., 270th meeting, pars. 55–62; Cuba, ibid., 268th meeting, pars. 44, 46, 48; Dominican Bepublic, ibid., 265th meeting, pars. 16–19; Ecuador, ibid., 264th meeting, par. 17; El Salvador, ibid., 266th meeting, par, 41; Guatemala, ibid., 274th meeting, par. 17. The representative of Belgium said that “the Pan-American system or some variant thereof might be better than the system proposed by the International Law Commission,” see ibid., 272nd meeting, par. 18; the records, however, do not show that he urged its adoption by the U. N. The representative of Egypt said he would support the amendment of eight Latin American States (A/C.6/L.191) which introduced the Pan American system, see ibid., 271st meeting, par. 17; the records, however, do not show that he referred to any advantage of that system.
54 These three rules were laid down in a resolution adopted on May 4, 1932, by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union. For a description of the Pan American practice, see Written Statement of the Pan American Union, submitted to the International Court of Justice in the case of Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, I.C.J. Document Dist. 51/10, pp. 11–16. See also Report of the International Law Commission, U. N. Doc. A/1858, par. 21. The Commission’s criticisms of this practice may be found in par. 22 of its report.
55 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 268th meeting, par. 2.
56 Ibid., 264th meeting, par. 17.
57 Ibid., 265th meeting, par. 5. The representative of Belgium, who did not urge the adoption of the system, also alluded to its flexibility and thought it was therefore better than the system proposed by the International Law Commission, ibid., 272nd meeting, par. 18.
58 Ibid., 267th meeting, par. 45.
59 Ibid., 270th meeting, par. 34.
60 Ibid., 268th meeting, par. 4.
61 Ibid., 265th meeting, par. 17.
62 Ibid., 270th meeting, par. 56.
63 Among these were the representatives of Australia, ibid., 268th meeting, par. 38; Brazil, ibid., 267th meeting, par. 3; Canada, ibid., 270th meeting, par. 23; Chile, ibid., 270th meeting, pars. 41–48; China, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 31; France, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 11; U. K., ibid., 267th meeting, par. 25; U.S.S.R., ibid., 269th meeting, par. 29, 276th meeting, par. 56; Yugoslavia, ibid., 273rd meeting, par. 29. The representative of Peru discussed the merits and demerits of the Pan American system and concluded that it was “not ideal,” ibid., 268th meeting, pars. 11–14.
64 Ibid., 266th meeting, par. 11.
65 Ibid., 267th meeting, pars. 4–5.
66 Ibid., 266th meeting, par. 31.
67 Ibid., 270th meeting, pars. 41–48.
68 Ibid., 267th meeting, par. 25.
69 Ibid., 269th meeting, par. 29.
70 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.191. The U. S. draft resolution is contained in A/C.6/L.188.
71 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Becords, 6th Committee, 275th meeting, pars. 1–3. The Arab amendment is contained in Doc. A/C.6/L.200. The addition became the last part of subpar. 2(b) of the U. S. revised draft resolution, A/C.6/L.188/Rev. 1, on which the vote was taken.
72 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 277th meeting, par. 75. The vote was by roll call with the following results: In favor: Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen. Against: Australia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Chile, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., U. K., Yugoslavia. Abstentions: Afghanistan, Greece, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, U. S. A.
73 Ibid., 267th meeting, par. 24.
74 Australia, ibid., 268th meeting, par. 35; Canada, ibid., 270th meeting, par. 23; Chile, ibid., par. 52; Indonesia, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 26; Iran, ibid., par. 35; The Netherlands, ibid., par. 7.
75 Belgium, ibid., 272nd meeting, par. 31; Egypt, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 17; U.S.A., ibid., pars. 43–44.
76 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.196.
77 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 277th meeting, par. 2.
78 Ibid., 269th meeting, pars. 19, 26–27, 29, 35.
79 Ibid., 274th meeting, par. 8.
80 Ibid., 272nd meeting, par. 22.
81 See par. 27 of the report of the Commission.
82 These included the representatives of Belgium, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 272nd meeting, par. 33; Bolivia, ibid., 269th meeting, par. 16; Canada, ibid., 270th meeting, par. 21; Cuba, ibid., 268th meeting, par. 45; Ecuador, ibid., 264th meeting, par. 20; Indonesia, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 26; Iraq, ibid., 268th meeting, par. 19; Israel, ibid., 266th meeting, par. 22; Lebanon, ibid., 264th meeting, par. 36; The Netherlands, ibid., 271st meeting, par. 5; U. S. A., ibid., 264th meeting, par. 26; Yugoslavia, ibid., 273rd meeting, par. 43.
83 These included the following draft resolutions: U. S. A., U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.188; Sweden, A/C.6/L.192; Israel, A/C.6/L.194; Indonesia, A/C.6/L.196; Denmark, India, Iran, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, A/C.6/L.198; U.K. amendment to U. S. draft resolution, A/C.6/L.190; U. S. revised draft resolution, A/C.6/L.188/Rev. 1. Also amendments to U. S. revised draft resolution: Argentina, Belgium, Egypt, A/C.6/L.202; Iran, A/C.6/L.203.
84 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 269th meeting, par. 37, and 274th meeting, par. 12, respectively.
85 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.190, point 3. For proceedings, see General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 277th meeting, pars. 28–33.
86 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.198. In favor of this proposal, the Delegation of Sweden withdrew its draft resolution, U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.192, which would postpone action by the General Assembly.
87 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 274th meeting, pars. 38–48.
88 See par. 34 of the report of the Commission.
89 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.188, par. 4. For remarks of U. S. representative, see General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 264th meeting, par. 33.
90 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 266th meeting, par. 10.
91 The joint amendment was contained in U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.200, point 3. To this amendment was added a verbal amendment, reported in the records of the 275th meeting, par. 1. The resulting text became par. 2 in the U. S. revised draft resolution, U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.188/Rev.1.
92 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 272nd meeting, par. 19. The amendment was U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.202, point 2.
93 General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 277th meeting, par. 74. The result of the votes is as follows: The introductory phrase “in respect of future conventions,” etc. was adopted as a whole by 33 votes to none, with 17 abstentions. Subparagraph (i) was adopted by 30 votes to 16, with 2 abstentions. Subparagraph (ii) was adopted by 28 votes to 17, with 3 abstentions. The result of the vote, which was by roll call, on the U. S. revised draft resolution as a whole and as amended was as follows: In favor: Afghanistan, Belgium, Byelorussian S.S.R., Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon, Mexico, Nicaragua, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., U. S. A., Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen. Against: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, India, Indonesia, Israel, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Sweden, U. K., Yugoslavia. Abstentions: Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Iran, Liberia, Pakistan, Philippines. Ibid., pars. 93–94.
94 Ibid., 277th meeting, pars. 11–23.
95 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.205, also Doc. A/2047.
96 U.N. Doc. A/2055.
97 For discussion in plenary meeting, see General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 360th plenary meeting, pars. 132–346. The resolution, as adopted, became resolution 598(VI), General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 20 (A/2119), p. 84; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 46 (1952), p. 66. For an appraisal of this resolution, see editorial comment by Fenwick, “When is a Treaty not a Treaty?”, this Journal, Vol. 46 (1952), pp. 296–298.
