Imagini ale paginilor

consultation the Trusteeship Council would be unwisely assuming an administrative rather than a supervisory role. Representatives of China, Mexico, the Philippines, and the Soviet Union, however, argued that any measures changing, or likely to change, the status of a trust territory must be submitted by the administering authority to the Council before being put into effect.

Spokesmen for the remaining two administering authorities, New Zealand and the United States, expressed the opinion that prior consultation, though not required, was desirable. The United States Representative expressed the view that “it would not only be a courtesy but also would facilitate the practical work of the Council if an administering authority should inform the Trusteeship Council before implementing any plan it has formed for establishing such a union or federation." He declared that the United States for its part would “notify in advance the appropriate organ of the United Nations in the event of any proposed changes which might affect the separate administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, such as an administrative union or federation between the trust territory and the territory under United States sovereignty or control.”

The Council finally voted to note that the interterritorial organization was put into effect without prior consultation with the Trusteeship Council and to express the hope that “the administering authority would consult the Trusteeship Council before undertaking any extension or modification of the present arrangement which might affect the status of Tanganyika.”

The Council also gave attention to ways and means of promoting the social and economic advancement of the three areas under discussion. In the economic field, emphasis was placed upon the importance of safeguarding the interests of indigenous land owners, while in the social field the need for a greater number of qualified medical practitioners was stressed.


The Trusteeship Council, in contrast to the Permanent Mandates Commission, is empowered to send missions to visit areas under its supervision. Although a special mission investigated a specific problem in Western Samoa in 1947, the year 1948 marked the dispatch of the first regular visiting mission. Departing from Lake Success on July 15, this mission traveled through the East African trust territories of Ruanda-Urundi and Tanganyika. Made up of four representatives appointed by the Council, and assisted by six members of the United Nations Secretariat, the mission studied conditions in the two areas and gave a number of oral hearings to petitioners.

A visit to the four West African trust territories is scheduled for 1949, while the four Pacific trust territories will presumably be visited a year later.

The Council decided to appoint nationals of Australia, China, Costa Rica, and France to the East African mission. H. Laurentie of France was named chairman, despite Soviet objections that a former colonial administrator could not be expected to be impartial. The Soviet Delegate also objected to appointments of individuals, arguing that countries and not persons were members of the Trusteeship Council and must therefore be members of the mission. A majority of the Council, however, including the United States, maintained that members of visiting missions, although nominated by governments, are appointed by the Council as individuals and are responsible only to the Council.

Another controversy concerned the directions given the mission by the Trusteeship Council. While the nonadministering authorities proposed detailed items for the mission to investigate, the administering authorities sought to instruct the visiting mission in very general terms. The Soviet Representative phrased his suggestions of topics for investigation in such a way as to condemn the administering authorities, a procedure which was naturally objectionable to the latter. The decision on the proposal to list specific details marked the first instance in the Council's history when a vote on an important item was evenly divided between the administering and nonadministering members. In accordance with the Council's rules of procedure, a second vote was then taken. Since the result was again a tie, the proposal was lost.


Another important function of the Trusteeship Council is the examination of petitions from inhabitants of trust territories or other interested parties. Two of the thirteen petitions examined at the Third Session provoked a controversy over matters of principle. The first petition, from an American citizen who had lived many years in Tanganyika, made a number of allegations regarding conditions in that territory and requested an investigation on the spot. On the question of granting the petitioner the opportunity of an oral hearing to present his views, the opinion of the Council was divided. The Soviet Representative contended that any petitioner had the right to make an oral presentation, while other representatives argued that only a resident of the trust territory could appear in person. The United States considered that the place of residence of a petitioner was irrelevant. The United States Representative took the position that petitioners could not appear before the Council as of right, but that an oral hearing was a privilege to be accorded or refused by the Council in each instance. In the case of the petition in question, the United States felt that an oral presentation was unnecessary, since the Council had already agreed to the sending of a visiting mission to Tanganyika, which was the burden of the petition. The Council decided to reject the petitioner's request for a hearing but voted to inform him that the issues raised in his petition would be investigated by the visiting mission.

A second important principle arose from a petition containing a protest against the interterritorial organization in East Africa. The United Kingdom Representative objected that the petition did not concern a trust territory alone. After prolonged debate, however, the Council decided to discuss the petition as far as it related to the trust territory of Tanganyika but to reject that part of it concerning Kenya and Uganda, which are not trust territories.


CITY OF JERUSALEM Two questions relating to areas which are not trust territoriesSouth West Africa and the City of Jerusalem—had been specially referred to the Trusteeship Council by the General Assembly.

In 1947 the Union of South Africa submitted to the United Nations a report on the administration of the mandated territory of South West Africa and in 1948 provided additional information in answer to a series of questions from the Trusteeship Council. On the basis of this information, the Council felt that there were certain deficiencies in the administration of South West Africa. These observations were subsequently discussed by the General Assembly as reported later in this chapter.

The second special question pertained to the City of Jerusalem. As part of its plan for the partition of Palestine, the General Assembly, on November 29, 1947, directed the Trusteeship Council to prepare within five months a statute for the City of Jerusalem under which the Council would administer the city on behalf of the United Nations. A 6-member Working Committee spent 25 meetings preparing a draft statute, which was revised and prepared in final form by the Council.

However, in a resolution adopted on April 21, 1948, the Council decided to postpone formal approval of the draft statute. The completed statute was transmitted to the General Assembly, then meeting in special session on the Palestine question, for further instructions. The Assembly gave no such instructions to the Council but, in view of the disorder then prevailing in Jerusalem, asked the Council to submit proposals for the protection of the city and its inhabitants.

The Council was unable to devise measures, in which the parties concerned would mutually acquiesce, which would provide adequately for the protection of Jerusalem. A United States suggestion that Jerusalem be placed under temporary trusteeship was rejected after objections from both the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency for Palestine. In its report to the General Assembly the Council noted that the interested parties had agreed to a cease-fire in the Walled City of Jerusalem. The Council also recommended Assembly endorsement of a United Kingdom suggestion for the appointment by the mandatory power of a neutral person, acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, as special Municipal Commissioner for Jerusalem. The General Assembly adopted this recommendation. However, shortly thereafter organized armed conflict broke out in Jerusalem, and the new Commissioner never functioned effectively. At its Third Session the Trusteeship Council decided over Soviet objection to adjourn consideration of the statute for Jerusalem indefinitely


The trusteeship agreement between the Security Council and the United States for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands entered into force on July 18, 1947. This agreement establishes a "strategic area," for which the Charter provides that the Security Council, rather than the Trusteeship Council, shall exercise all United Nations functions. The Charter further provides, however, that the Security Council shall, subject to the provisions of the trusteeship agreements and without prejudice to security considerations, avail itself of the assistance of the Trusteeship Council to perform those functions under the trusteeship system relating to political, economic, social, and educational matters in strategic areas.

The question of the extent to which the Security Council might avail itself of the assistance of the Trusteeship Council was raised by article 13 of the trusteeship agreement for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. In proposing the terms of this article the United States went beyond the trust requirements of the Charter by agreeing that articles 87 and 88, which are applicable to nonstrategic areas, would be applicable to this territory provided that the administering authority may determine the extent of their application to any areas

which may from time to time be specified by it as closed for security


As a result, the Security Council and the Trusteeship Council have been confronted throughout the past year with the problem of devising a suitable procedure for the application to the trust territory of the trusteeship functions of the United Nations.

The Security Council on November 15, 1947, referred the matter of its functions in relation to strategic areas to its Committee of Experts, where unexpected complications were encountered. After devoting seven meetings to the matter, the majority of the Committee recommended the adoption of a resolution requesting the Trusteeship Council to perform, on behalf of the Security Council and subject to the latter's decisions concerning security matters, the functions specified in articles 87 and 88 of the Charter relating to reports, visits, and petitions. The resolution proposed by the majority also would request the Trusteeship Council to take steps to keep the Security Council informed concerning reports, petitions, and the questionnaire relating to the territory. A minority of the Committee of Experts opposed the recommendation principally because in their opinion this would give the Trusteeship Council full power to formulate the questionnaire contrary to the Charter's provisions regarding strategic


In its efforts to cooperate with other United Nations organs, the Trusteeship Council at its Third Session also agreed to cooperate in carrying out a resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Council. This resolution called upon the Secretary-General to initiate studies and to collect and disseminate information and reports concerning social-welfare administration, social services in rural communities, child welfare, and training of social-welfare personnel in underdeveloped regions.



The conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Trusteeship Council during its Second and Third Sessions were embodied in a report submitted to the Third Session of the General Assembly. This report was examined over a period of several weeks by the Assembly's Fourth Committee, where all Members of the United Nations, whether or not represented on the Trusteeship Council, had an opportunity to express their views. Many comments and suggestions were made, sometimes highly critical, but for the most part constructive. As in the past, administering authorities were sharply

« ÎnapoiContinuați »