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: 22 May 2009
While analysis of any institution of such recent origin as the Interim Committee of the General Assembly can be only tentative in nature and must be subject to reservation at many points, it is possible at this time to identify certain trends in the development of the Interim Committee and its work. The broad questions to which an answer will be sought in the course of this inquiry are these: Why did a 1945 Netherlands' proposal for a standing committee on peace and security of the General Assembly meet with little response in the Preparatory Commission, while two years later a similar proposal by the United States was accepted by an overwhelming majority? For what purposes was the Interim Committee established, and, how successfully has it accomplished these purposes? Has the Interim Committee been organized in the best possible fashion for performance of its assigned functions? What, at this time, seems to be the future role of the Interim Committee in the United Nations system?
1 For text of the Netherlands proposal and the justifications advanced for it, see Preparatory Commission Document PC/GA/11, December 4, 1945.
2 Ibid., p. 1.
3 Document PC/EX/A/40, 5 October 1945.
4 See Report by the Executive Committee to the Preparatory Commission (London: 11, 1945), footnote p. 36Google Scholar.
5 Preparatory Commission, Verbatim Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of Committee I, 12 7, 1945Google Scholar. For the summary record of this meeting, see Journal of the Preparatory Commission, No. 14, 12 10, 1945Google Scholar: Committee I (Document PC/GA/22).
6 Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Plenary Meetings: Verbatim Record, p. 25 (82nd Meeting, September 17, 1947).
7 Andrei Vyshinsky on September 18, 1947 in the General Assembly. Official Records of the Second Session, ibid., p. 91.
8 Articles 11, 35, 13, and 14 are the ones cited in the preamble of resolution 111(11) establishing the Interim Committee. For text of this resolution, see Official Records of the Second Session: Resolutions, p. 15–16. For debates on the legality of the Interim Committee, see especially Official Records of the Second Session: First Committee, Summary Record of Meetings, p. 307–336 (94th–97th meetings, November 5–6, 1947).
9 Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Plenary Meetings: Verbatim Record, p. 26 (82nd Meeting, September 17, 1947).
10 Document A/C.1/196, paragraph 2(c).
11 For a useful tabular presentation of amendments proposed to the U. S. draft resolution, see Wainhouse, David C., “The Interim Committee of the General Assembly: A Legislative History,” Department of State Publication 3204: International Organization and Conference Series III 9Google Scholar (reprinted from Documents and State Papers, June 1948), Annex 2, p. 27. It is apparent from this table that the chief changes in language resuited from amendments proposed by the United Kingdom.
12 It is worth noting that this entanglement seems to have troubled the Netherlands representative in 1947. In the opening round of discussion in the First Committee he remarked that the United States draft resolution “required careful consideration in view of the changed political situation,” and he raised questions about the scope and functions of the proposed Interim Committee. See Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly: First Committee, Summary Record of Meetings, p. 152.
13 The Interim Committee's terms of reference pertinent to this function as defined in resoluticm 111 (II) are as follows:
“2(b). To consider and report, with its conclusions, to the General Assembly on any dispute or any situation which, in virtue of Articles 11(2), 14, or 35 of the Charter, has been proposed for inclusion in the agenda of the General Assembly by any Member of the United Nations or brought before the General Asembly by the Security Council, provided the Committee previously determines the matter to be both important and requiring preliminary study. Such determination shall be made by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting, unless the matter is one referred by the Security Council under Article 11(2), in which case a simple majority will suffice.
“2(e). To conduct investigations and appoint commissions of enquiry within the scope of its duties, as it may deem useful and necessary, provided that decisions to conduct such investigations or enquiries shall be made by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. An investigation or enquiry elsewhere than at the headquarters of the United Nations shall not be conducted without the consent of the State or States in whose territory it is to take place.”
14 Cordier, Andrew, Executive Assistant to the Secretary-General, on 08 5, 1948Google Scholar. See document A/AC.18/SR.25.
15 For text of this resolution and the debate, see document A/PV.219, May 18, 1949.
16 The heart of this Committee's terms of reference, which can be interpreted as falling within those of the Interim Committee, are “to consider methods and procedures which would enable the General Assembly and its committees to discharge their functions more effectively and expeditiously.” Document A/839, 04 20, 1949Google Scholar. See also United Nations Bulletin, VI, p. 528.
17 The pertinent portions of resolution 111 (II) in this connection are:
“2(a). To consider and report, with conclusions, to the General Assembly on such matters as have been referred to it by the General Assembly;
“2(e). To conduct investigations and appoint commissions of enquiry within the scope of its duties, as it may deem useful and necessary, provided that decisions to conduct such investigations or enquiries shall be made by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. An investigation or enquiry elsewhere than at the headquarters of the United Nations shall not be conducted without the consent of the State or States in whose territory it is to take place;”
18 The pertinent portions of the Interim Committee's terms of reference in this regard are:
“2(a). To consider and report, with conclusions, to the General Assembly on such matters as have been referred to it by the General Assembly;
“2(d). To consider in connexion with any matter under discussion by the Interim Committee, whether occasion may require the summoning of a special session of the General Assembly and, if it deems that such session is required, so to advise the Secretary-General in order that he may obtain the views of the Members of the United Nations thereon;”
19 For text of resolution 112 (II) see Official Records of the Second Session: Resolutions, p. 16–18. For report of the Interim Committee on its consultation with the Temporary Commission on Korea see Document A/583 (included in Reports of the Interim Committee of the General Assembly, Official Records of the Third Session: Supplement 10).
20 Reports of the Interim Committee, op. cit., p. 21.
21 Ibid., p. 20.
22 By resolution 193 (III), November 27, 1948. For text see Official Records of the Third Session, Part I: Resolutions, p. 20.
23 An example of the potential usefulness of this function was the proposal in the unsuccessful draft resolution on the Italian Colonies question at the last session to have the Interim Committee, along with the Trusteeship Council, “represent the General Assembly in working out arrangements.” For full text, see document A/873, May 14, 1949, p. 10–11.
24 The original terms of reference as defined in Resolution 111 (II) were:
“2(c). To consider, as it deems useful and advisable, and report with its conclusions to the General Assembly on methods to be adopted to give effect to that part of Artide 11(1), which deals with general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, and to that part of Article 13(1a), which deals with the promotion of international cooperation in political field;”
25 The revised terms of reference as defined in Resolution 196 (III) of December 3, 1948 are:
“2(c). To consider systematically, using as a starting point the recommendations and studies of the Interim Committee conrained in document A/605, the further implementation of that part of Article 11(1), relating to the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, and of that part of Article 13(1a), which deals with the promotion of international cooperation in the political field, and to report with its conclusions to the General Assembly;”
26 For convenient summaries of Subcommittee 3's work, see United Nations Department of Public Information, Background Paper 43, “The Interim Committee of the General Assembly,” p. 13–17Google Scholar and International Organization, II, p. 291–4 and 481–4; III, p. 60–3.
27 For excerpts from the Committee's report, see International Organization, III, p. 190.
28 For full text of the resolution, see document A/837, April 15, 1949.
29 For convenient summaries of Subcommittee 2's work, see Background Paper 43, op. cit., p. 11–13 and International Organization, op. cit. An excellently documented and detailed study has been done by Hyde, James N. in “Peaceful Settlement, A Survey of Studies in the Interim Committee of the General Assembly,” Intenational Counciliation, No. 444 (10 1948)Google Scholar.
30 See document A/PV.199, April 28, 1949, p. 97–110.
31 For details of this study program, see the Report of Subcommittee 6 on implementation of paragraph 2(c) of the Interim Committee's terms of reference, Document A/AC.18/91, March 28, 1949.
32 Eagleton, Clyde, “The Work of the UN Interim Committee,’ American Journal of International Law, XXXXII, p. 627Google Scholar.
33 For the Committee's report on this function, see Reports of the Interim Committee, op. cit., p. 37–47.
34 This view was supported strongly by the Secretary-General and the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. For a summary of their testimony before the Interim Committee, see Reports, op. cit., p. 48–9.
35 Pertinent in this connection is a statement of June 17, 1948, by Joseph E. Johnson, Deputy U.S. Representative on the Interim Committee, in which he gave the following explanation of the U.S. position: “My Government feels that the sound development of a committee of the General Assembly functioning between sessions will evolve from the confident belief by the members that it will not encroach upon the functions of the principal organs or other agencies of the United Nations. One of the outstanding facts about the Interim Committee thus far is that it has not so encroached. I suggest that such confidence will continue to evolve from use of the Committee along the lines already developed rather than from substantial alteration of its terms of reference. It is because of this conviction that the United States has not itself, in the working group in which it has participated, suggested any considerable changes in the terms of reference of a future committee. We feel that its orderly development will result from continuing substantially those powers which it now has; and from actual use of these powers including the development of its potentiality for both prepartory work and implementation.” Department of State, Bulletin, XVIII, p. 824Google Scholar.
