No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Security Council
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
Extract
Under Article 23 of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council was to be composed of representatives of five permanent Members — China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union — plus six non-permanent Members elected by the General Assembly. The election at the First Part of the First Session of the General Assembly of Egypt, Mexico, and the Netherlands for one year terms, and Australia, Brazil, and Poland for two year terms, enabled the Security Council to convene for its first meeting on January 18, 1946, at Church House, Dean's Yard, Westminster, in London. The first 23 meetings were held in London, and the balance of 87 for the period under review either at Hunter College in New York or at Lake Success on Long Island. The first President of the Council was Mr. N. J. 0. Makin (Australia) who held office for one month, and was followed for similar periods by the representatives of the other states members in alphabetical order of the names of their countries in English.
- Type
- International Organizations: Summary of Activities I. The United Nations
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The IO Foundation 1947
References
1 Journal of the Security Council, No. 2, p. 13. Hereinafter cited as S.C. Journal.
2 Document S/3, p. 6.
3 Document S/3, passim.
4 S. C. Journal, No. 3, p. 18.
5 S. C. Journal, No. 4, p. 24–25.
6 S. C. Journal, No. 5, p. 56 ff.
7 S. C. Journal, No. 6, p. 82.
8 S. C. Journal, No. 19, p. 367.
9 Ibid., p. 376.
10 S. C. Journal, No. 20, p. 385.
11 Document S/16.
12 S. C. Journal, No. 20, p. 385.
13 Ibid., No. 21, p. 418.
14 Ibid., p. 423.
15 S. C. Journal, No. 22, p. 443.
16 Ibid., No. 24, p. 458–59.
17 Ibid., No. 26, p. 498.
18 Ibid., No. 27, p. 522.
19 S. C. Journal, No. 27, p. 524.
20 Statement of Mr Stettinius, April 16, 1946, Ibid., p.525.
21 Statement of Mr. Van Kleffens, Ibid., p. 526.
22 S. C. Journal, No. 30, p. 558 et. passim.
23 Ibid., No. 30, p. 597.
24 Ibid., No. 43, p. 712.
25 Ibid., No. 36, p. 711.
26 S. C. Journal, No. 2, p. 15.
27 Ibid., No. 10, p. 183.
28 S. C. Journal, No. 10, p. 185.
29 S. C. Journal, No. 10, p. 189.
30 Ibid., p. 198.
31 S. C. Journal, No. 11, p. 208.
32 Ibid., p. 219.
33 S. C. Journal, No. 14, p. 252.
34 S. C. Journal, No. 13, p. 245.
35 S. C. Journal, No. 14, p. 256.
36 S. C. Journal, No. 8, p. 139.
37 Ibid.
38 See ante, p. 78.
39 S. C. Journal, No. 15, p. 266.
40 Ibid., p. 268.
41 It should be noted that this frontal attack on the San Francisco “Statement by the Delegations of the Four Sponsoring Governments on Voting Procedure in the Security Council” almost went unnoticed. Mr. Vishinsky, for example, in a summary of various arguments, stated that “I agree also with the statement of the Egyptian delegate who insists that a decision should be taken now by the Council on this subject” and concluded his remarks by saying “I therefore support the proposal of the delegate for Egypt.…” It was only after Mr. Riaz specifically repeated his position that Mr. Vishinsky quoted the Four Power Declaration and withdrew his support. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom delegate spoke to this resolution, and Mr. Koo, for China, merely suggested that this was a “procedural question” which should be referred to the Committee of Experts. Ibid., pp. 271 ff.
42 S. C. Journal, No. 15, p. 280.
43 S. C. Journal, No. 15, p. 283 ff.
44 Ibid.
45 S. C. Journal, No. 16, p. 305.
46 Ibid., p. 306.
47 Ibid., p. 310.
48 Ibid., p. 317–18.
49 Ibid., p. 347.
50 Document S/52.
51 Document S/52.
52 Document S/64.
53 Document S/34.
54 The Spanish Government and the Axis: Official German Documents. March, 1946, Department of State Publication 2483. 39p.
55 S. C. Journal, No. 28, p. 541.
56 Ibid., p. 549.
57 S. C. Journal, No. 29, p. 581.
58 S. C. Journal, No. 31, p. 603.
59 Ibid., p. 613.
60 Ibid., p. 623.
61 S. C. Journal, No. 32, p. 638.
62 The Department of the State Bulletin, XIV (March 17, 1946), p. 412.
63 Document S/75.
64 S. C. Journal, No. 38, p. 742–43.
65 S. C. Journal, No. 40, p. 794.
66 Ibid., p. 795.
67 S. C. Journal, No. 41, p. 803.
68 Ibid., p. 804.
69 Ibid., p. 809.
70 S. C. Journal, No. 42, p. 822.
71 Ibid., p. 834.
72 S. C. Journal, No. 42, p. 841.
73 Both the Netherlands and Australian representatives questioned the binding authority of the Four Power Declaration on voting procedure issued at San Francisco, invoked by Mr. Gromyko and accepted as final by the President. Mr. Evatt said “that ruling was not accepted by any authority at San Francisco, not accepted by any committee, not accepted by any commission, and not accepted by the conference in open session, and protests against its accuracy were made.” Ibid., p. 844.
74 Ibid., p. 859.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid., p. 862.
77 Ibid., p. 864.
78 The Soviet reversed its position in the Steering Committee of the 2nd Part of the First Session of the General Assembly.
79 Document S/P.V/79, Passim.
80 S. C. Journal, No. 2, p. 14.
81 S. C. Journal, No. 7, p. 91.
82 Ibid., p. 93.
83 Ibid., p. 99.
84 Ibid., p. 100.
85 S. C. Journal, No. 10, p. 177.
86 Document S/137.
87 Ibid.
88 Document S/P.V./58. References to all Security Council meetings after the 54th are to mimeographed provisional records in their uncorrected form. These are distributed to a few libraries and are known as PVs, but will be superceded by the Official Records, First Year, Second Series. The particular meeting of the Security Council appears as the final two digits in the symbol. No direct quotations will be given from these documents in the summaries, but reference to the Official Records, when available, should not be difficult.
89 Document S/P.V./59.
90 Document S/P.V./64.
91 Document S/P.V./60.
92 Document S/P.V./64.
93 Document S/P.V./67.
94 Ibid.
95 Document S/P.V./170.
96 See Report of the Allied Mission to Observe the Greek Elections, Department of State Publication 2522, Washington, D. C., 1946, 36 p.
97 Document S/P.V./70.
98 Ibid.
99 All these votes took place during the 70th Meeting of the Security Council on September 20, 1946. Mr. Parodi stated that the French abstention in this vote arose because he believed the appointment of an investigating committee came under Article 29 and was procedural in character. When both Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Johnson took issue with him he did not press the point.
100 Editor's note: The summary above is compressed to the point where no effort has been made to present the various pieces of evidence produced by the various parties to prove their respective points. It should be noted, however, that the debate ranged over a wide number of topics and was by far the most vituperative, particularly in the impugning of motives to both sides, of any of the discussions previously before the Council. In this respect it exceeded some of the exchanges on the Iranian case reported elsewhere in this issue.
100a Document S/203.
100b Document S/P.V./82.
100c Document S/P.V./84.
100d Document S/P.V./85.
100e Document S/P.V./87.
101 Document S/177, p. 1.
102 See Post, p. 207f.
103 S. C. Journal, No. 35, p. 683 ff.
104 Australian opposition arose “from a real difference in viewpoint regarding the structure of the whold Organization and a difference in viewpoint regarding the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly.” (Ibid., p. 653). Mr. Hasluck took the position that the Assembly was the only body which could make a final decision on admissions, that the Security Council had no general powers in connection with admission of new members outside its powers in regard to the security sections of the Charter and that the Assembly was not bound by Article 4 to accept or reject new members in accordance with the recommendation of the Security Council. When an Australian amendment to defer action of this Chapter of the Provisional Rules pending its examination by the General Assembly was lost by a 10 to 1 vote (Ibid., p. 681), the Australian delegate continued to discuss problems of the admission of new members but abstained from voting in every instance. The Australian position is stated in Annex No. 1 to the Report of the Committee on the Admission of New Members, Document S/133.
105 Document S/133.
106 Ibid., Document S/177, p. 7.
107 S. C. Journal, No. 5, p. 43.
108 Document S/133, p. 45.
109 Ibid., p. 46.
110 Document S/177, p. 26. It should be noted that the motion to postpone is procedural and requires the support of seven members only. If either Mexico or Australia had voted for the American resolution, it would have passed. The action of these two representatives therefore, constituted what amounts in effect to a “small power veto,” for abstention reduced the affirmative votes to a figure below the requisite seven. Acceptance of this tactic by other non–permanent members of the Security Council could, obviously, have important consequences.
111 Document S/177, p. 26.
112 Document S/133, p. 18.
113 Ibid., p. 23.
114 Ibid.
115 Document S/177.
116 Ibid., p. 26.
117 Document S/116.
118 Document S/177, pp. 15 and 26.
119 Document S/119.
120 Tripartite Conference at Berlin, July 17 August 2, 1945, Article X. Department of State, Bulletin, XIII, p. 153.
121 Document S/177, p. 18.
122 Ibid., p.26.
123 Ibid.
124 Document S/133, p. 30–31.
125 Document S/139.
126 Document S/199.
127 Document S/201.
128 Assembly Journal, No. 29, p. 275.
129 Document S/ 197.
130 Document S/196. For a report of the Assembly discussion, see this issue, p. 51f.
131 Document S/202.
132 Document S/99.
133 S/P.V./76.
134 See this issue, p. 111.
135 Document S/191.
136 United Nations Weekly Bulletin, I, No. 17, p. 11.
137 Document S/P.V./57.
138 Document S/P.V./71.
139 For further discussion of troop dispositions see the summary on the work of the General Assembly, this issue, p. 53 f.
140 Security Council Journal, No. 9, passim. Both the United States and the United Kingdom requested the Secretary–General on July 31 and August 20 respectively to include on the agenda for the Second Part of the First Session of the General Assembly an item requesting the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the meaning of the word “meeting” in Articles 11 and 12 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Documents A/99 and A/100. At the 49th Plenary Meeting on November 19, the Assembly resolved to adopt provisionally, and subject to the concurrence of the Security Council, a definition which stated that any meeting held for the purpose of electing members to the Court “shall continue until as many candidates as are required for all the seats to be filled have been obtained in one or more ballots by an absolute majority of votes.” U. N. Journal No. 38/A, p. 327.
141 Document A/65, p. 9.
142 Ibid.
143 S. C. Journal, No. 1, p. 9.
144 See post, p. 200f.
145 S. C. Journal, No. 34 and 35, passim.
146 See section on Admission of New Members, particularly p. 90, fn. 104, for statement of Australian position.
147 Document S/99.
148 See this issue p. 94.
149 S/P.V./78.
150 Document S/191. For action in the Security Council see p. 95.