1 U.N. Doc. A/64, p. 10.

2 The committee created as a temporary body by Council resolution 4(I) of Feb. 16, 1946, was subsequently established as a standing committee by Council resolution 3(II) of June 21, 1946.

3 See especially the first report of the committee which was approved by the Council on June 21, 1946. Economic and Social Council, Official Records, First Year, 2nd Sess., pp. 360–365.

4 Economic and Social Council, Official Records, Fifth Year, 10th Sess., Supp. No. 1, pp. 24–33.

5 General Assembly resolution 169(II).

6 For texts of Headquarters Agreement (T.I.A.S., No. 1676), Joint Resolution of Congress (P.L. 357, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.), and exchange of notes bringing the Agreement into force, see this Journal, Supp., Vol. 43 (1949), pp. 8–23.

7 U.N. Doc. A/626, Sept. 7, 1948, p. 3; see also U.N. Doc. E/C.2/INF/2, July 6, 1951.

8 U.N. Docs. E/1862 and E/1863.

9 General Assembly, Official Records, 5th Sess., Second Committee, 118th meeting (Oct. 2, 1950), pp. 4–5.

10 Ibid., Third Committee, 273rd meeting (Sept. 28, 1950), p. 9.

11 Economic and Social Council, Official Records, Resumed 11th Sess., 416th and 417th meetings, pp. 369 and 374.

12 U.N. Doc. E/1863.

13 U.N. Doc. E/L.123, p. 2; Economic and Social Council, Official Records, Resumed 11th Sess., 421st meeting, p. 387.

14 U.N. Doc. E/L.118.

15 Resolution 340 A (XI), Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 5th Year, 11th Sess. (resumed), Supp. No. 1, p. 98.

16 U.N. Doc. E/L.123.

17 Ibid., par. 10.

18 Ibid., pars. 6 to 9 inclusive. The U.S. representatives had also made statements to the effect that the right of NGO representatives to attend Council sessions was unquestionable. See Economic and Social Council, Official Records, Resumed 11th Sess., 435th meeting, p. 463; 13th Sess., 561st meeting, p. 771; General Assembly, Official Records, 6th Sess., Sixth Committee, 302nd meeting, p. 308.

19 Resolution 340B(XI), Economic and Social Council, Official Records, Fifth Year, 11th Sess. (resumed), Supp. No. 1, p. 98.

20 U.N. Doc. E/1921, Feb. 17, 1951.

21 The report explained that since the Charter has assigned to the Council the responsibility for making suitable consultative arrangements, and since the intent of the Council in presenting in its resolution 288(X) what arrangements should be deemed suitable had been a factor in the interpretation of Sec. 11(4) of the Headquarters Agreement, the Council might now wish to consider the manner in which this problem could be clarified. Ibid., p. 10.

22 The Council, at its twelfth session, decided to defer the consideration of the item until its thirteenth session. See Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 12th Sess., 476th meeting, pp. 313–314.

23 U.N. Doc. E/L.282.

24 Resolution 413C(XIII) of Sept. 20, 1951. Economic and Social Council, Official Records, Sixth Year, 13th Sess., Supp. No. 1, pp. 75–76.

25 On Nov. 13, 1951, the General Assembly decided to include the item “Application of the Headquarters Agreement to representatives of non-governmental organizations” in the agenda of its sixth session and referred it to the Sixth Committee for consideration and report. The Sixth Committee discussed the matter at its 301st to 303rd meetings on January 28 and 29, 1952.

26 See U.N. Docs. E/L.123, pp. 4–5, and E/1921, pp. 2–5.

27 The representatives of the Secretary General also drew attention to the discriminatory consequences which could result from the U. S. interpretation. “It was clear that those non-governmental organizations which had headquarters in the United States, or which could afford to maintain resident representatives in the United States, would not only enjoy at their pleasure the benefits of all the other facilities specified by the Council under the general heading of ‘consultation with the Secretariat’ but in particular would be in a position to attend General Assembly meetings whenever they choose. Representatives from outside the United States, on the other hand, might be able to inform their organizations at first hand of the General Assembly’s conduct of the subjects of concern to them only if the Council chanced to be in session concurrently with the Assembly.” U.N. Doc. E/1921, p. 4.

28 Ibid., pp. 5–9.

29 Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 13th Sess., 561st meeting, pp. 769–770.

30 General Assembly, Official Records, 6th Sess., Sixth Committee, 301st meeting, pp. 300–301. The representatives of the U.S.S.R., Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia all alleged that the action taken by the United States in the case of the representative of WFTU violated the Headquarters Agreement.

31 Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 13th Sess., 561st meeting, p. 769. He also said that “the reason why the French delegation considered that the Council was not entitled to take a decision on the interpretation of the Headquarters Agreement in Council resolution 288 (X) was that it regarded the problem as coming within the province of the General Assembly, which was the only body qualified to resolve it.” Ibid., p. 772.

32 Ibid.

33 Sec. 11(5) of the Headquarters Agreement provides that the Federal, State or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of “other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations … on official business.”

34 U.N. Doc. E/1921, pp. 5 and 9. See also statement by the U. S. representative in the Sixth Committee, General Assembly, Official Records, 6th Sess., Sixth Committee, 301st meeting, p. 301.

35 U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.227, Jan. 26, 1952.

36 General Assembly, Official Records, 6th Sess., Sixth Committee, pp. 300, 304 and 308.

37 Ibid., p. 304 (Ukrainian S.S.R.); p. 305 (Czechoslovakia, Poland); p. 307 (U.S.S.R.). The representative of Yugoslavia stated that since there was a list of non-governmental organizations with consultative status and the General Assembly’s agenda was known in advance, it could be ascertained from those two documents what non-governmental organizations with consultative status were entitled to send representatives to the General Assembly, and it was therefore unnecessary to take a decision in each case. Ibid., p. 308.

38 General Assembly resolution 606 (VI), Feb. 1, 1952. See also report of the Sixth Committee, U.N. Doc. A/2093.

39 During the discussions in the Sixth Committee, the representative of Chile wondered whether the NGO Committee had the power to request the Secretary General to make arrangements to enable the representatives of non-governmental organizations to attend public meetings of the General Assembly. The representative of Iran admitted that there was no theoretical basis for the argument that the NGO Committee was competent to make such a request. He thought, however, that the Economic and Social Council was not in session all the year round and no doubt it could easily in practice delegate its powers to the committee. See General Assembly, Official Records, 6th Sess., Sixth Committee, pp. 306, 308.

40 U.N. Doc. E/L.317, May 21, 1952. Another draft resolution submitted by Poland (U.N. Doc. E/L.372, June 19, 1952), which would request the General Assembly to reconsider its resolution 606 (VI), was rejected by the Council. See Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 14th Sess., 619th meeting, p. 390.

41 Council Resolution 455 (XIV), June 25, 1952.

42 U.N. Doc. E/2386, March 30, 1953. See also U.N. Doc. E/CN.6/SR.140, March 27, 1953, p. 4.

43 See Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 15th Sess., 674th to 676th meetings.

44 Sec. 6 reads: “Nothing in the agreement shall be construed as in any way diminishing, abridging, or weakening the right of the United States to safeguard its own security and completely to control the entrance of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the headquarters district and its immediate vicinity, as to be defined and fixed in a supplementary agreement between the Government of the United States and the United Nations in pursuance of section 13(3) (e) of the agreement, and such areas as it is reasonably necessary to traverse in transit between the same and foreign countries. Moreover, nothing in section 14 of the agreement with respect to facilitating entrance into the United States by persons who wish to visit the headquarters district and do not enjoy the right of entry provided in section 11 of the agreement shall be construed to amend or suspend in any way the immigration laws of the United States or to commit the United States in any way to effect any amendment or suspension of such laws.”

45 Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 15th Sess., 679th meeting, p. 37.

46 U.N. Doc. E/2397, April 10, 1953.

47 The U. S. note stated: “Pursuant to instructions from my Government, I have the honor to inform you that the Government of the United States of America is prepared to apply the above-mentioned Headquarters Agreement subject to the provisions of Public Law 357.”

48 See Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 16th Sess., 743rd and 745th meetings.

49 U. S. House of Representatives, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Report No. 1093 (July 25, 1947), pp. 10–11.

50 U. S. Senate, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Report No. 559 (July 15, 1947), pp. 5–6.

51 The Secretary General stated that the ratification of the Headquarters Agreement by the United States was given with a rider in Sec. 6 of Public Law 357. “This rider,” he said, “could not be disregarded but, if accepted, it might leave it entirely open whether the United States could not, in the interests of its own security, go against the very principles of the Headquarters Agreement. These considerations led me to the conviction that the first and foremost object of the discussion with the United States should be to transcend the ambiguity just indicated and re-establish a firm basis of understanding concerning the rights and duties of both sides under the Headquarters Agreement, in such a way delimiting the possible field of disagreement indicated by the United States rider to well defined and mutually recognized cases.” U.N. Doc. E/2501, Aug. 1, 1953, p. 1.

52 This authority was exercised by the United States when it issued a restricted visa to Mrs. Dora W. Grace, a representative designated by WIDF to attend the eighth session of the Commission on the Status of Women, limiting her movements to an area “running from the upper Twenties to Ninety-sixth Street on the east side (of Manhattan) and extending westward to Eighth and Ninth Avenues. The northern marginal line bisects Central Park.” New York Times, March 27, 1954, p. 1; for protest against the restricted visa, see U.N. Doc. E/CN.6/SR.159, March 29, 1954. The visa policy of the United States was defended by its representative in the Economic and Social Council when he asserted that his Government had granted all visas requested by representatives of the WIDF, the WFDY and the WFTU, with the exception of a visa requested for Mr. Eskandary, a representative of WFTU, who had been sentenced to death in Iran for participation in a plot against the Shah and had been expelled from France. See U.N. Doc. E/SR.755, April 2, 1954, p. 12.

53 U.N. Doc. E/2492, July 27, 1953, pp. 1–2.

54 Ibid., pp. 2–3.

55 Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 16th Sess., 473rd meeting, p. 251 (Poland), p. 253 (India), p. 254 (Yugoslavia); 476th meeting, p. 268 (U.S.S.R.).

56 U.N. Doc. E/2501, Aug. 1, 1953, pp. 3–4.

57 A draft resolution (U.N. Doc. E/L.493/Rev.1) submitted by Poland which would fix a time limit for negotiations was not adopted by the Council.

58 U.N. Doc. E/2501, Aug. 1, 1953, p. 3.

59 U.N. Doc. E/L.560, July 31, 1953. See also U.N. Doc. E/L.561, July 31, 1953 (draft resolution submitted by India).

60 Council Resolution 509 (XVI), Aug. 1, 1953.