« ÎnapoiContinuați »
a result of the Second World War”. Pursuant to this provision, the United States proposed at the sessions of the Council of Foreign Ministers that the Italian colonies in Africa be placed under trusteeship and be administered directly by the United Nations through a “neutral” chief administrator appointed by the Trusteeship Council. According to this proposal Libya and Eritrea would receive their independence in 10 years.
The Council of Foreign Ministers, however, could not agree on this problem and therefore decided on July 3, 1946 that the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France would, within one year of the coming into force of the peace treaty with Italy, jointly determine the final disposition of Italy's territorial possessions in Africa, to which by said treaty Italy will renounce all rights and titles. The Council of Foreign Ministers subsequently decided that the final disposition of the territories will be made in the light of the wishes and welfare of the inhabitants and the interests of peace and security, taking into consideration the views of other interested governments. It was further agreed that, in the event of the four powers' being unable to agree to a solution, the matter would be referred to the General Assembly for a recommendation and that the four powers would then put that recommendation into effect.
At the Cairo conference in December 1943 it was determined that "in due course Korea shall become free and independent". With a view to furthering this objective, the Council of Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Moscow in December 1945 discussed arrangements for Korea. It was agreed that a Joint Commission of the United States and Soviet commands in Korea, after consulting with Korean democratic parties and organizations and with the participation of a provisional Korean democratic government which was to be set up, should submit proposals for the joint consideration of the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China for the working out of an agreement concerning a four-power trusteeship of Korea for a period of up to five years. The Joint Commission met in Seoul, Korea, on March 20, 1946 but could not agree upon what Korean parties were to be included in consultations with it. Meetings of the Joint Commission were adjourned sine die in May 1946 without agreement. The United States, however, still stands ready to carry out the Moscow agreement, including the continuation at any time of the work of the Joint Commission.
Trusteeship of Former Japanese Controlled Islands
The President on November 6, 1946 announced that "the United States is prepared to place under trusteeship, with the United States as administering authority, the Japanese mandated islands and any Japanese islands for which it assumes responsibility as a result of the Second World War". Copies of a draft trusteeship agreement* for the former Japanese mandated islands, which consist of the mandated Marianas, Caroline, and Marshall Islands located in the Pacific north of the Equator, were transmitted for information to the other Members of the Security Council and to New Zealand and the Philippines, and were later made available to the public. The President stated that “at an early date we plan to submit this draft agreement formally to the Security Council for approval”.
This draft trusteeship agreement is to be submitted for approval by the Security Council, rather than by the General Assembly, because under its terms the territory shall be designated as strategic. This is in accordance with article 82 of the Charter which provides that “There may be designated, in any trusteeship agreement, a strategic area or areas which may include part or all of the trust territory
.", and article 83 which states that “All functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements ... shall be exercised by the Security Council".
This draft agreement is the result of long and diligent consideration by the State, War, and Navy Departments. Its terms, while fully protecting the security interests of the United States, pledge at the same time the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the territory and otherwise fulfil the international responsibilities of an administering authority of a trust territory as contemplated by the Charter of the United Nations.
The security interests of the United States are protected through designation of the territory as strategic and through specific authorization for the United States to maintain military installations and troops in the territory. The functions of the General Assembly and Trusteeship Council set forth in articles 87 and 88 of the Charter (as to annual reports, questionnaires, petitions, and periodic visits) would, according to the draft terms, be applicable to the trust territory, except that the United States would be authorized to determine the extent of their applicability to any areas which may from time to time be specified by the United States as closed for security reasons. Also of significance is the fact that the agreement, once approved by
* The draft trusteeship agreement is contained in the supplement.
the Security Council and by this Government, cannot be altered, amended, or terminated without the approval of the United States.
These and other security measures do not detract from the detailed provisions in the draft agreement for the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants, and for equal economic treatment to be accorded all other Members of the United Nations in the territory. These provisions not only contain all of the pertinent guaranties to the inhabitants contained in the most comprehensive of the trusteeship agreements submitted by the mandatory powers to the General Assembly but also specify that, without qualification, this Government shall “protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of all elements of the population without discrimination"; that it shall insure to the inhabitants “freedom of migration and movement”; that it shall “provide the status of citizenship of the trust territory for the inhabitants"; and that it shall “enact such legislation as may be necessary to place the provisions of this agreement in effect in the trust territory”.
The Security Council, in approving the terms of trusteeship, will require an affirmative vote of seven of its members including the concurring votes of the permanent members. When approved by the Security Council, the agreement, before entering into force, requires approval by the United States in accordance with its constitutional processes.
VI. International Court of Justice
$ Organization of the Court N FEBRUARY 6, 1946, the General Assembly and Security Council
elected the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice, including a judge of American nationality, the Honorable Green H. Hackworth, a former Legal Adviser of the Department of State. On February 10, 1946, the General Assembly adopted a resolution directing that a first meeting of the Court be summoned as soon as possible. Pursuant to this resolution, a temporary staff for the Court was appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and agreements for the use of the Peace Palace at The Hague were negotiated with the Carnegie Foundation by the United Nations Negotiating Committee. These agreements were approved by the General Assembly at the Second Part of its First Session.
The organization of the International Court of Justice was completed during an inaugural session held at The Hague from April 3 to May 6, 1946. At a formal inaugural sitting on April 18, 1946 the judges made in open Court solemn declarations, as required by article 20 of the Statute of the Court, that they would exercise their powers impartially and conscientiously.
During this session the Court elected Judge J. G. Guerrero (El Salvador) as President and Judge J. Basdevant (France) as Vice President. Mr. E. Hambro (Norway) was appointed Registrar and M. J. Garnier-Coignet (France), Deputy Registrar.
During its first session the Court also adopted the Rules of Court, formulated recommendations concerning the privileges and immunities of Court personnel, and dealt with other administrative matters. No question of interpretation by an organ of the United Nations nor a dispute between states was before the Court at that time.
The full list of judges is contained in appendix 2. A discussion of their election is contained in the Report of the Secretary of State on the First Part of the First Session of the General Assembly, submitted to the President of the United States Mar. 1, 1946, transmitted to Congress Mar. 19, 1946.
United States Acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the
Court A Declaration signed by the President of the United States on August 14, 1946, accepting on behalf of this country the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on August 26, 1946, pursuant to Senate Resolution 196 of the 79th Congress, Second Session. As a result of this action the United States acquires the reciprocal right and obligation as respects other states accepting the same obligation, to proceed legally, or be proceeded against, without special agreement, in disputes of a legal character of specified categories.
The United States Declaration sets forth the limitations on the acceptance of jurisdiction contained in the Senate resolution, most of which are contained in the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the Court. In addition, the Declaration incorporates two further limitations added by the Senate. These are, first, that the United States shall have the right to determine whether any case falls within its domestic jurisdiction, and second, that the Declaration shall not apply to disputes involving multilateral treaties unless all the parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court, or the United States specially agrees to jurisdiction. Subject to these conditions, the United States has now accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes falling within the categories set forth in article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. These are:
(a) the interpretation of a treaty; (6) any question of international law; (c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute
a breach of an international obligation; (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach
of an international obligation. In the absence of the acceptance of such general jurisdiction, the possibility of referring any case to the Court would depend upon the willingness of the parties to a dispute to conclude a special agreement in each case, or upon provisions in treaties or conventions in force. By refusing to enter into such an agreement, in cases where there was no applicable treaty provision, a state could, in effect, remain the judge of the law in its own case.
The United States, by accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in specified categories of legal cases, has terminated this situation so far