in the settlement of these charges through peaceful, orderly procedures.

In the recent peace treaties Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania undertook to secure the enjoyment of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms to all persons under their jurisdiction and to submit disputes arising under the treaties to settlement through specified procedures, including arbitration by treaty commissions, which would lead to "definitive and binding" decisions. In April 1949 Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States charged these Governments with systematic violations of the humanrights provision of the peace treaties and pressed for settlement of these charges through the peace-treaty procedures. The three Governments, supported by the Soviet Government, refused to cooperate, claiming that the charges involved matters within their domestic jurisdiction not susceptible to settlement through the treaty procedures.

In both its third and fourth sessions the Assembly expressed its concern over the state of human rights in the three countries and urged settlement through the peace-treaty procedures. With the objective of such settlement in mind, the Assembly in October 1949 submitted to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion certain questions relating to legal aspects of the peace-treaty procedures, in the light of the objections raised by the three states.1

In the first of two opinions rendered, the International Court of Justice held that the three Governments are obligated to submit to the treaty procedures and to appoint their representatives on the treaty arbitration commissions. However, the three Governments denied the Court's jurisdiction in this question and persisted in their refusal to cooperate in establishing the commissions. This refusal necessitated consideration by the Court of the remaining questions referred to it, and in this instance the Court held that since the treaties themselves do not provide for the contingency of such refusal the efforts to apply the treaty procedures cannot be carried any further. Thus a dead end was reached in the 18-months effort to induce the three Governments to honor their obligations for the settlement of disputes arising under the peace treaties.

In subsequent debate at the fifth session of the General Assembly, the United States Delegate pointed out that the systematic denial of human rights in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania has continued. with no sign of a change for the better and that the three Governments themselves have directed and carried out the campaign which has deprived their citizens of elementary civil and religious freedoms

'For a more detailed consideration of the advisory opinions rendered by the International Court of Justice in response to these questions, see pp. 242–244.

941458-51-7

79

in flagrant contravention of their solemn undertakings in the peace treaties. He expressed particular concern at the steady deterioration of the administration of justice in these countries, under which the law and the courts have been made instruments of power and oppres sion, noting that the roster of the victims subjected to the so-called trials now includes not only the names of noted opponents of oppres sion such as Cardinal Mindszenty but even those of Rajk, Kostov, and other prominent Communists who had only recently held high governmental positions. Asserting that the Assembly cannot cease to concern itself with this question merely because the accused parties have been able by their willful default to frustrate the arbitration procedures, the United States Delegate urged the Assembly to condemn in no uncertain terms the conduct of the three Governments, to expose their bad faith before world public opinion, and to provide a means whereby facts regarding the substance of the charges could be made known to the world. The United States, he continued, was ready to submit to any appropriate body named by the Assembly or to the members of the United Nations the copious documentary material in its possession.

The majority of the speakers in the Assembly joined in condemning the three Governments for their disregard of the treaty obligations, confirmed by the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice.

In the course of the debate some delegations, including those of Canada and the United States, pointed out that under the second opinion of the International Court a state party to an arbitration treaty may frustrate the arbitration by willfully refusing to appoint its representative to the arbitration commission, and the other party. in the absence of a specific treaty clause providing for such contingency, is left without any recourse under the treaty. The United States Delegate, while indicating that the United States will respect the opinion of the Court, expressed the hope that the dissenting opinion, which would permit arbitration of disputes in the event of a willful absence of one of the members of the arbitration commission, will eventually become international law.

The conclusions of the large majority of delegations were embodied in the resolution proposed by Australia and considerably strengthened at the initiative of the delegations of Bolivia and Cuba. In its final form the resolution (a) condemned the willful refusal of the three Governments to fulfill their obligations under the provisions of the peace treaties requiring them to appoint their representatives to the treaty commissions; (b) expressed the opinion that the conduct of the three Governments is such as to indicate that they are aware of the

violations of the peace-treaty articles obligating them to secure the enjoyment of human rights in their countries and that they are callously indifferent to the sentiments of the world community; (c) noted that serious accusations against the three Governments remain unrefuted; and (d) invited the members of the United Nations to submit to the Secretary-General all evidence in their possession on the question of the violation of human rights in the three countries. The Secretary-General was asked to submit this evidence to all members and to notify the members of any additional information he may receive on this matter.

The delegations of the Soviet group opposed the resolution and repeated their arguments denying the jurisdiction of the United Nations in this matter and alleging full compliance with the peace treaties by the three accused Governments.

In the final vote the resolution was adopted in the Assembly by 40 votes, against the 5 votes of the Soviet group, with 13 members abstaining. Although it does not provide for a decision on the merits of the charges of violation of the human-rights provisions of the peace treaties, this resolution does provide an opportunity to place before the United Nations the record of such abuse of human rights in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania.

4. The Former Italian Colonies

Under the treaty of peace with Italy the disposition of her former African Colonies-Libya (consisting of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and the Fezzan), Eritrea, and Italian Somaliland-was to be determined by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the U.S.S.R. within one year from the coming into force of the Italian treaty on September 15, 1947. If they could not agree within the prescribed period, the treaty provided that the matter was to be referred to the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Four Powers agreed in advance to accept and carry out the Assembly's recommendation. When, by September 1948, the Four Powers had been unable to reach an agreed settlement, the question was submitted to the General Assembly, which first considered the problem at the second part of its third session in New York in the spring of 1949. At that time the problem was fully discussed, but no decision was reached when a plan which had the majority approval of the Political Committee failed to receive the necessary two-thirds support in the plenary session.

At the fourth regular session, after further consideration of the problem, the General Assembly adopted a resolution embodying the following provisions:

(a) Libya, comprising Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and the Fezzan would be constituted an "independent and sovereign state," with independence to become effective not later than January 1, 1952. A constitution, including the form of government, would be worked out by representatives of the three parts of Libya, meeting in a National Assembly. There would be a United Nations commissioner for Libya, assisted by an advisory council consisting of representatives of Egypt, France, Italy, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and four representatives of the people of Libya, including minorities, to assist the people of Libya "in the formulation of the constitution and the establishment of an independent government." The administering powers, Britain and France, in cooperation with the commissioner, would initiate immediately steps for the transfer of power to a duly constituted independent government and coordinate their activities so as to develop necessary governmental institutions and to promote the attainment of Libyan unity and independence. When established as an independent state, Libya would be admitted to the United Nations.

(b) Italian Somaliland would become independent after a period of 10 years of Italian trusteeship under the United Nations. As the administering authority, Italy would be assisted by an advisory council composed of representatives of Colombia, Egypt, and the Philippines. The U.N. Trusteeship Council would negotiate a trusteeship agreement with Italy, after which that country might arrange with the United Kingdom to take over provisional administration of the territory pending approval of the trusteeship agreement by the General Assembly.

(c) The problem of Eritrea would undergo further study and investigation by a United Nations commission consisting of representatives of Burma, Guatemala, Norway, Pakistan, and the Union of South Africa. The commission would take into account particularly the wishes and welfare of the local inhabitants, the interests of peace and security in East Africa, and Ethiopia's geographical, historical, ethnic, and economic rights and claims as well as her need for adequate access to the sea. The commission would prepare its. report, together with such proposals as it wished to make, for consideration at the fifth regular session of the General Assembly. Prior to the convening of the next Assembly the Interim Committee would consider the commission's report and submit its own conclusions to the Assembly.

In addition the General Assembly charged the Interim Committee with studying the question of methods of delimiting the boundaries of the former colonies insofar as they were not already fixed by international agreement. The Assembly also selected Adrian Pelt, formerly an Assistant Secretary-General, as United Nations commissioner in Libya.

WORK OF THE COMMISSIONER

AND THE COUNCIL

The commissioner, Mr. Pelt, established his headquarters at Tripoli early in 1950 and proceeded to consult political groups in the three parts of Libya with respect to the four individuals to be appointed to represent Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, the Fezzan, and the minorities on the Council for Libya. By April 25 the four Libyans had been named and the Council began to function. Ambassador Lewis Clark is United States representative on the Council..

During the spring and summer the commissioner, after consultation with the Council, the British and French administrations, and political leaders of the various parts of Libya, prepared a plan for the constitutional development of Libya. This resulted in the creation of a preparatory committee (Committee of 21), with seven members each from Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and the Fezzan, to draw up plans for the Libyan National Assembly. The commissioner's plan also envisaged a schedule according to which the National Assembly would be convened by late November 1950 and a provisional government for Libya would be established early in 1951, with subsequent adoption of the constitution and the proclamation of Libyan independence before January 1, 1952.

In his report to the General Assembly dated September 4, 1950, the commissioner outlined additional steps he had taken to assist in developing plans for the educational advancement and the economic development of Libya, including substantial technical and financial assistance from the United Nations. He also suggested that the form of government for Libya, while solely a matter for the Libyans themselves to decide, would perhaps represent a compromise between the idea of a unitary state and the idea of loose federation. Calling attention to the problem of the foreign minorities in Libya, he indicated his belief that appropriate means should be found to insure their equitable treatment without, however, involving them unduly in political activity during the constitution-making period. The Commissioner's report, which was prepared in consultation with the Council, also pointed to the need for progressively fuller coordination of the activities of the administering powers (United Kingdom and France) in the interests of Libyan unity. Mr. Pelt affirmed his belief that the United Nations has a special responsibility to assist the Libyans in building a stable foundation, both economic and political, for national existence.