gen,eral assembly
...
UNITED NATIONS
/
Distr. GENERiJ.
GEN,ERAL ASSEMBLY
AIAC .125/SR. 57
29 Nw ,J;:,lbel~ 1967
,Original:
ENGLISH
1967 SPECIlti.. CONHITTEE ON PR.INCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL Lair! CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS il1llD C()-OPEH..ATION l.JlONG STATES SUNHllRY RECORD OF THE FIFTY-SEVENTH l'IEETING
held ut the Pnlais des Nntions, Genevn, on Wednesday, 19 'July 1967, n'c 3.5 p.m.
C:·nsidGre.ti "':In, ~)ursuunt t) GGnGral ASSO,'lb1y ros)1u(,i'Jn 2181 (XXI) )f 12 D8C8nbGr 1966, 8f ~)rinci~)13S -)f intBrnc.tirmDl 12.W c-::.ncGrning friund1y relc:Gi ,ns c.na cO-);Jarc:tLm anmg Statos in aCCJrck..n ce wl'ch ':~h0 'Jharc0r)f the Uni tGc.1 NEt'dons (ag8nt~o. i tGt,: .6) A.
G·;nslci.Jl~eti)n, in tho light ·)f tho d8bat3 \-lhich b)k Ij1o,cG in -C~10 Sixth (>mr.dtt':;3 c.~uring 'ch...:: sGv0n-c-3ontl1,
oightoonth, GH\.mtiGth unJ tw::mty··:f.irst sessi')nsif the GO;.18ral .t'...ssonb1y ['.nd in tho 1964 and 1966 Spccid CX:.;-.i~tG0S, ·)f t.h.: f.)ur )rinciiJlos lis'cod bob\-! ~.fith a Vi0\l t) ClL:i:i10'Ging thsir f J:t',lula-ci ,n:
Th;;; (~uty :)f S'cu'cos, tJ c')-',)~)Gl'at() \.fith .)n8 ,:mth0r'in acc')rc1C]1CO "rith th!F.Ulm Mr. HAPPY-TCHANKOU Hr. HILJ"ER Mr. V/lIDAS Mr. PECHOTA
Hr. F.ENOUARD Mr. ':an LARE Mr. DUPONT-WILLEMIN Hr. KJUSliNA RAO Mr. ARAHGIO-RUIZ l·u- • J:MAU Hr. OHm:r.r; Hr. 1lli""DRIAl1ISEZE , : Hr. GCHF..ftLEZ GALVEZ 'Ml~.
RIPEAGZ~f
Mr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr.
SHITl'A-BF'l JlLR.OS zt:iC GLASER E~~Y.
NACHABE 1".1' • II.YIN !VI7.' • SlECI,AIR
Secretariat:
Mr. REIS Mr. STAVROPOULOS N7.'. HOVCHAN
(Caneroon) Yugoslavia Algeria Argentin.a Australia Burma Cameroon Canada Chile Czechoslovakia France Gha'1a Guatenala India Italy Japan Kenya Hadagasca~
Mexico netherlands Nigeria Poland P.omania S\lcden Syria Union of Soviet Socialist Republics United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States of America Legal Counsel Secratary of the Committee
1l/AG .125/SR. 57 'page 3
CONSIDERATION, PURSUANr TO GENERAL, ASSl'}ffiLY RESOLUTION 2181 (XXI) 'of, 12 'DECEl.fi3ER 1966, OR PRINCIPLES OF INI'ERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION Al-10NG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS (agenda i tern 6) A. CONSIDERATION,' IN 'THE LIGHT OF THE DEBATE WHICH TOOK PLACE. IN' THE SIXTH COMMrrTEE DURING THE SEVENI'EENl'H, EIGHTEENl'H, TWENI'mH AND TWENl'Y-FIRST SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND IN THE 1964 AND 1966 SPECIAL COMMITTEES, OF THE FOUR PRINCIPLES LISTED BELOW WITH A VIElo1 TO COMPLEI'ING THEIR FORMULATION:
...
(b) THE DUTY OF STATES TO CO-OPERATE WITH ONE, ANOTHER IN' ACCORDANCE WITH. THE CHARl'ER (A/AC.125/L./JJ and Corr.l, A/AC.125/L.M.) (continued) Mr. SHITTA-BEY (Nigeria) o~served that the alia of international
co-operation in econonic and social matters should be to create the conditions of stability and well-being essential to peaceful political collaboration among nations. It was noteworthy that, although international co-operation had a long history, the United Nations Charter had laid unprecedented obligations'on nations in the ~tter of co-operation in the economic and social fields. Unfortunately, some states were cautious in committing themselves in that respect, although in the past decade efforts had been undertaken to promote the economic and social well-being of the .. developing countries. It should also be noted that the United Nations and the specialized agencies were generally and readily being accepted as the most effective channels for dealing with such matters as the traffic in narcotic drugs, control of coOI:lUnicable diseases, telephone, telegraph and radio services and· civil aviation. With the world-wide expansion of science· and technology, increasing attention was being paid to a global approach to those subjects, and 'co-operation i,n matters of common concern at the regional level was being rapidl~ intensif1oc1~ Thus, where African co-operation was concerned, the Organization,oLMrican Unity had set up a scientific and technical research commission and, in 1964, the States bordering Lake Chad had embarked on a co-operative effort to .regulate the resources of the Chad Basin. The Nigerian delegation considered that one of the most urgent problems, of the moderniolOrld was to nake the wealtly developed countries aware of conditions in the developing countries; the gap between the resources of those two. groups of States should not be allowed to widen, and technical assistance ,programmes., without the political conditions often attached to them, Dust be expanded. A preliminary perusal of. the United Kingdom draft declaration (A/AC.125/1.M.) shOwed .that nearly all its provisions were acceptable~ Nevertheless,··the Nigerian delegation regretted that a veryinportant aspect of the duty of States to co-operate
'-
AIAC.125/sR. 57 page 4
with onc another had been omitted froB paragraph 2(b) of part V.
The 1966 Special
CoDnittee had agreed that a clause discrediting discrinination should be an essential part of that paragraph, and h~ hoped ~hat, if the United Kingdofl text was referred to tho Drafting Committee, a referenGe io-non-discrimination would be retained. Mr. SINCLAIR (United Kingdora) said- he wished to present the broad frronework
of his delegation's propos81, reserving the right to comment in detail on the content of the draft declaration in relation to each of the various principles.
The proposal
had been deliberately prepared in the form of an integrated draft declaration, covering all the seven principles, and set out proposals which seemed to comaand general agrecraent. Moreover, the draft had been prepared in pursuance of operative paragraph 8 of General Assenbly resolution 2181 (XXI). - In that connexion, he wished to draw special attention to the preaoble and part VIII of the draft, headed "General". The preamble had been so constructed as.to present, in an objective nanner, the history of the iten and the considerations w~ch had motivated the Special Comnittee of the Genercl Assetlbly to adopt a draft declaration. The source of each of the first nine preambular paragraphs was to be found in the index of sources on page ll, whereas the tenth preambular paragraph should be read in conjunction With paragraph 2 of part VIII of the draft declaration. The question of saving clauses safeguarding the provisions of the Charter and the rights and duties of member States under the Charter had hitherto been considered in relation to each principle, but in the context of an integrated draft declaration, it night be possible to dispense with most of the indi'Jidual saving clauses, if agreement could be reached on a general operative saving clause, foreshadowed in the preanblo. It might still however be necessary to retain certain individual clauses not wholly c_overed by the general formula. To stress the inter-relat~onship between the various principles, to which attention had been drawn at earlier sessions, his delegation had included as paragraph 1 of part VIII of its draft a general clause to the effect that the seven. principles were inter-related and that each principle should be construed in the context of the others. That provision might sitlplify the Conmittee's task, by mitigating the doubts of those delegations which considered that a given provision should be included under one principle rather than another. Turning to the principle of non-intervention, he reiterated his delegation's view, in connexion with the thesis that General Asserably resolution 2131 (XX) was a sacrosanct text to which only additions could be made, that the 1966 Special Committee had been ill-advised to tie its hands.by a procedural decision ~fore considering the
A/AC .125/SR. 57 page 5
substance of the al,ternative proposals .before it. In fact, the:r:c \.faS little difforence ,of opinion about the substance 'of the principle, and the argur.lOnts ha.d relatiJd largely to questions of form.
me
Tho United Kingdom delegation had deliberately abstained from
vote on res8lution 2131 (XX), in the belief that the manner in which the
resolution had been adopted was inappropriate for the adoption of a declaration with such fa.r-~eaching implic ations. On the other hand, the fundanontal propositions sot out in the resolution accorded closely withtho United Kingdon's views, and thoy were expressed in his delegation's draft in a nanner which conforDed \vi th the General Assembly's decision, but in a form which should be acceptablet8 all jurists. The mfficulties involved in the elaboration of that logal principle, which were largely of a fomal nature, should not stand in the way of an earnest attempt to reach general agreement. Operative paragraph 2 of General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX) referrod to interference in civil strife ,in another State. That concept was reflected in the United Kingdom draft in the statonent that "SUCh acts as ••• encouragoment of civil war are •• • illegal ". His Govormlcnt believed that to be a clearer statement of the actual intention, nanely that if a country was unfortunate enough to fall into a situation in which control of the country ~as divided between warring factions and if no outside interference had taken place, then any fo~ of interference or any encour~geDent given to any party was prohibited by intornational law. Nevertheloss, the United Kingdom did not consider that that rule in any way prejudiced the right of a legally constituted and internationally recognized GovermJent to S0e and receive from a friendly State assistance in preserving or restoring internal law and order. Of course, any GovernQent which responded to such a request for assistanco would havo to satisfy itself that the response was propGr, and it would have to expect its actions to come under the closest scrutiny of the international COru:lUni ty. His Governnent believed, however, that it would be wrong to suggest by an unduly broad definition of "ciVil strife" that there were no circUIJ.stances in which a Governnent in tcmparary ~fficulties could seek and receive assistance froD a friendly State which it trusted to render aid with full respect for the territorial integrity and-political independence of the recipient State. Part VI of the United Kingdom draft constituted an earnest attempt to moot both the widely held views on the contont of thGprinciple of equal rights an~ selfdetermination of peoples, and the difficulties facing any jurist who tried to formulate the principle of self-deteI'I:li.nation in terns af a right. His Governnont had long hold
11/AC .125/SR. 57 . page 6
'the vit:3w that, in so far as self-deterr.ri.nation was a legal and not merely a polltical concept, it was properly expressed as a principle, not as a right.
Even the most
ardent'advocates of the "right" of self-deterninatian could not ignore the difficulties Hhich arose when their views were stated in juridical terns.
"
.
Although his Government
continued to have serious doubts concerning the possibility of finding a satisfactory solution of the probleD, it considered it its duty under the Charter to join in an ,attenpt to fomulatc·the principle in terns of a right, as part of a.serious endeavour to reconcile the views of DaDbers on that conplex question.
His delegations'
intention in devising tho fornulation in part VI of the draft declaration was the / threefold one of.'bringin~ out the close connexion between the two elenents of the principle and the universal and pernanent character of their application, defining the "right" of self-deternination so as to avoid pitfalls in the concept of, the juridical personality of peoples and fully respecting the relevant provisions of the Charter. In his delegation's opinion, there was no essential difference between the Jbllgations which States would be bound tQ discharge on the basis of tl18 draft declaration and the obligations laid down in the Charter, where the "right" to selfdoterninatian was not ffienti:mcd.
.AI though thG word "right" had been used in the
draft in deference totho view that such a right existed, his Governnents still naintained that in
Into[
the ?bllgations)f States in the Datter were exclusively those
arising froD the Charter, and that assertions to the contrary constituted an attenpt to aIJend the Charter by iridirect Deans. In so far as the legal principle required the pursuit of certain mrns of bGhaviour, the Cormi tteo Dust be· guided by tho relevant articles of the Charter and the practice of States;. paragraphs 2(d), 3 aIm 4 of the draft cODplied \a th that precept. 'vlhether regarded as a right or as a principle, self-deterrunation Dust be applied universally to all peoples in all places; that was the reason for the reference to the spirit of the Universal Declaration of . Human Rights in paragraph 2(b). Many delegations, attached special inportance to the terns of General Assenbly resolution 1514 (XV). Although the United KingdoD had not voted for that resolution and had strong rcservati~ns about SODe of its terns, it had felt obliged to include in its draft some of the considerations ~n whicL that resolution was based. Thus, paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Declaration in that resolution had boen incorporated practically without alteration, and other elGDents had been enbodied in paragraph 2(b). That attempt to give legal effect to the provisions of the resolution which dealt with
A/AC .125/SR. 57 page 7 self-determination might not bo tmiversally regarded as successful, but night avoid some of the controversy which surrounded it nnd '\-rould enable the Cor:u:rl. ttee to conce.ntrate on the considerable CIJr:u:lon ground which existed. The parts of the draft which related to the principles of the peaceful settle~ent of disputes and to the sovereign equality ;)f States had been drafted b"th in pursuance,
vf operative paragraph 7 of General Assembly.resolution 2181 (XXI) and as additional proposals ·wi th a vievl to widening the areas of agreement, in ten!lS of the formulation of the 1966 Special Connittee.
In part 11, on the peaceful settlement of disputes,
fuose additional proposals were to be found in paragraphs 6 to,9 and were nostly derived from proposals subni tted during the 1966 sessicm.
Paragraphs 1 to 5
i~orporatod the corresponding paragraphs of the 1966 Special Comnittee's formulation,'
but the inclusion of the phrase t:wi th rGspe~t to existing or future disputes", in paragraph 5, took into account the stater;Kmt Dade by the Chairnan of the Drafting CoUDittee 'at-the 1966 session.,
Part IV, on the sovereign eqUality of States,
reproduced the text agreed on by the 1966 Special
Co~ttee,
with the addition of a new
sub-paragraph (g)" t8 take into account the discussions at that session on the question of p'3manent sovereignty over -national resources. Finally, with regaL'd to the duty of States to
co-~perate
with one another, the
Comnittee would note that part V of the United Kingdon draft reproduced the text of the compronise proposal on Vlhich agreement had nearly been reached at the 1966 session, ~-th one significant onission, relating to the concluding phrase of paragraph 2(b).
rhat phrase had led to the failure of negotiations in 1966, and after Dature reflection,
his Government had decided that the most prudent course would be siDply to omit 'the phrase which had caused sa mmh difficulty.
The United Kingd::m roalized, however,
that ~omc, delegations attached great iDpartance to the concept of non-discrimination i.n internatLmal co-operation and was prepared to participate "'i thin the Drafting ::oIiltlittee in: the search for a fornula that would help to solve the probleD.'
Neverthe-,
less, it was convinced that the Drafting Committee should seek ~ ne~ approach to the fOrtlulation, b€:Jaring in T..und the distinction between legal and economic principles ~ ~rying
to avoid differences which could be regarded as semantic.
Mr. JAROSZEK (Poland) said that the Conni ttee had done well in starting its llscussion with the principle relating to the duty of States to co-operate with one ~other, which was the most general and conprehensive of all the principles.
It per-
ttined to nany spheres of international life, such'as the political, econonic, social, ~ultural~ undsciontific spheres. 1
. In the sphere of political relations, there existed
recognized obligation for States to co-operate with other States irrespective of
A!AC.125/SR.57 page 8
differences in political systens and social structures.
The desire for peace and the
developnent of friendly relations anong States with different political and social systens on the basis of sovereign equality and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States constituted the very foundation of the Charter.
The principle of co-
operation involved not only the right but also the duty of States to co-operate with one'another. That corresponded to the present stage of development of the internatioruU cono~ty
and was an indispensab~e condition for maintaining world peace and security. If international co-operation was to be fully effective, there Dust be no discrimination against any State or group of States because of their political, social. or economic systems. The rule that there should be no discrimination gave all States the right to participate on a basis of equality in the activities of international organizations, particularly those which wore universal in, scope, like the United Nations. Any attenpt at discri~nation in that area was incompatible with the very concept of co-operation, and could only be prejudicial to the United Nations and its authority. His delegation therefore saw a close and logical connexion between the principle of co-operation and the principle of universality expressed in the United Nations Charter. ' International co-operation could be effective only if it embraced all States and, all political and social systens, covering the broadest possible range of relations and also proD0ting progress throughout the world, especially in the developing countries. Fro~
that point of view, the fomulation of the different elements of that principle in the Czechoslovak draft resolution (A/AC.125!L.16) , und the suggestions made by the Chairnan of the 1966 Special Commi,tteo ~ght provide a satisfactory basis on which the Drafting ,Connittoe could work out a final text. The United Kingdom draft resolution on the other hand, while incorporating some of the elements contained in the two principles he had nentioned, oDitted one element of fundamental importance, namely, non· discrinination against States because of their political, social and econo~c systems. He would like to suggest that the Drafting Connitteo should start its work with . 'the ain of arriving at a universal wording of the different proposals so that the draft declaration it evolved would be a statement of the principles of international law binding on all.States, both Members and non-menbers of the United Nations. Mr. NACHABE (Syria) expressed the hope that as the principle of co-operation was being discussed for the second time, the S~ecial Comoittee would reach the agreement that had so narrowly been ruissed at the 1966 session. He would not repeat what had been said in the joint proposal (A/AC.125!L.29) sponsored by Syria and nine other delegations at that session, but he wished to ,draw attention to two matters ,
AIAC .125/SR. 57 page 9 which he considered essential tb the new attempt at agreenent.
First, c~-opGration,
which was the. fundanental principlo of peaceful co-existence between States Dust be universal.
That was clear fron Articles 1, 11 and 13 and Chapter IX ~f the Charter
and also froD the whole spirit of the Charter.
In an era of increasing relations
between States it was essential that all States should c0-operate in order to find effective solutions for. the great political, econoDic, social and cultural problens of international life.
Secondly, there nust be no discriDination, against any States
oh the basis of differences in their p~litical, econonic and social. systens~ -
.
In the
light of those two considerati~ns - universality and non-discrimination - all States should be invited to participate in international conferences and organizations and thus help to solve the problens which beset the internatbnal cormunity.
No State
should be denied the right t~ become a party to any multilateral treaty, for instance. Lastly, co-operation should apply to all spheres of international life.
In
the econorJic sphere it should aio at the developnent of the developing coun~ries, for as long as the gap between rich and the poor countries c,)ntinued t:) Hiden, world, peace would always be in danger.
It was therefore in the interests of bbth the rich
and the poor countries to narrow that gap.
It was logical that the rich countries
should contribute nost to the econjmc revival of the countries 'vhich they had exploited and which had been very l~rgely the source of their wealth.
Their duty was
to co-operate with those countries instead Jf seeking indirect Deans to continue their exploitation.
Mr. KRISHNA RAO (India) thanked the United Kingdon representative for having .--'-
presented his very
cOLJ.~rehensive
proposal so early in the
debate~.
index of sources attached to the draft but he failed t~ sce
why
He welcomed the
any refcrence to non-
discrimination, which had been accepted at the 1966 sossion, had been 0Lutted.
Mr. SINCLAIR (United Kingdon) said that he had sought to onit controversial natter froil his text so as not to prejudge the issue. He had been awaro that the question of n0n-discriDinatiJn would be raised and he had wished tJ leave the v~tter to the Drafting Connitteo, where he would dQ his utnost to help achieve an agreed solution. Mr. KRISHNA RAO (India) welcomed the statoment of the United KingdoB representative. The neeting rose at 4.10 p.n.
UNITED NATIONS
/
Distr. GENERiJ.
GEN,ERAL ASSEMBLY
AIAC .125/SR. 57
29 Nw ,J;:,lbel~ 1967
,Original:
ENGLISH
1967 SPECIlti.. CONHITTEE ON PR.INCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL Lair! CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS il1llD C()-OPEH..ATION l.JlONG STATES SUNHllRY RECORD OF THE FIFTY-SEVENTH l'IEETING
held ut the Pnlais des Nntions, Genevn, on Wednesday, 19 'July 1967, n'c 3.5 p.m.
C:·nsidGre.ti "':In, ~)ursuunt t) GGnGral ASSO,'lb1y ros)1u(,i'Jn 2181 (XXI) )f 12 D8C8nbGr 1966, 8f ~)rinci~)13S -)f intBrnc.tirmDl 12.W c-::.ncGrning friund1y relc:Gi ,ns c.na cO-);Jarc:tLm anmg Statos in aCCJrck..n ce wl'ch ':~h0 'Jharc0r)f the Uni tGc.1 NEt'dons (ag8nt~o. i tGt,: .6) A.
G·;nslci.Jl~eti)n, in tho light ·)f tho d8bat3 \-lhich b)k Ij1o,cG in -C~10 Sixth (>mr.dtt':;3 c.~uring 'ch...:: sGv0n-c-3ontl1,
oightoonth, GH\.mtiGth unJ tw::mty··:f.irst sessi')nsif the GO;.18ral .t'...ssonb1y ['.nd in tho 1964 and 1966 Spccid CX:.;-.i~tG0S, ·)f t.h.: f.)ur )rinciiJlos lis'cod bob\-! ~.fith a Vi0\l t) ClL:i:i10'Ging thsir f J:t',lula-ci ,n:
Th;;; (~uty :)f S'cu'cos, tJ c')-',)~)Gl'at() \.fith .)n8 ,:mth0r'in acc')rc1C]1CO "rith th!F.Ulm Mr. HAPPY-TCHANKOU Hr. HILJ"ER Mr. V/lIDAS Mr. PECHOTA
Hr. F.ENOUARD Mr. ':an LARE Mr. DUPONT-WILLEMIN Hr. KJUSliNA RAO Mr. ARAHGIO-RUIZ l·u- • J:MAU Hr. OHm:r.r; Hr. 1lli""DRIAl1ISEZE , : Hr. GCHF..ftLEZ GALVEZ 'Ml~.
RIPEAGZ~f
Mr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr.
SHITl'A-BF'l JlLR.OS zt:iC GLASER E~~Y.
NACHABE 1".1' • II.YIN !VI7.' • SlECI,AIR
Secretariat:
Mr. REIS Mr. STAVROPOULOS N7.'. HOVCHAN
(Caneroon) Yugoslavia Algeria Argentin.a Australia Burma Cameroon Canada Chile Czechoslovakia France Gha'1a Guatenala India Italy Japan Kenya Hadagasca~
Mexico netherlands Nigeria Poland P.omania S\lcden Syria Union of Soviet Socialist Republics United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States of America Legal Counsel Secratary of the Committee
1l/AG .125/SR. 57 'page 3
CONSIDERATION, PURSUANr TO GENERAL, ASSl'}ffiLY RESOLUTION 2181 (XXI) 'of, 12 'DECEl.fi3ER 1966, OR PRINCIPLES OF INI'ERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION Al-10NG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS (agenda i tern 6) A. CONSIDERATION,' IN 'THE LIGHT OF THE DEBATE WHICH TOOK PLACE. IN' THE SIXTH COMMrrTEE DURING THE SEVENI'EENl'H, EIGHTEENl'H, TWENI'mH AND TWENl'Y-FIRST SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND IN THE 1964 AND 1966 SPECIAL COMMITTEES, OF THE FOUR PRINCIPLES LISTED BELOW WITH A VIElo1 TO COMPLEI'ING THEIR FORMULATION:
...
(b) THE DUTY OF STATES TO CO-OPERATE WITH ONE, ANOTHER IN' ACCORDANCE WITH. THE CHARl'ER (A/AC.125/L./JJ and Corr.l, A/AC.125/L.M.) (continued) Mr. SHITTA-BEY (Nigeria) o~served that the alia of international
co-operation in econonic and social matters should be to create the conditions of stability and well-being essential to peaceful political collaboration among nations. It was noteworthy that, although international co-operation had a long history, the United Nations Charter had laid unprecedented obligations'on nations in the ~tter of co-operation in the economic and social fields. Unfortunately, some states were cautious in committing themselves in that respect, although in the past decade efforts had been undertaken to promote the economic and social well-being of the .. developing countries. It should also be noted that the United Nations and the specialized agencies were generally and readily being accepted as the most effective channels for dealing with such matters as the traffic in narcotic drugs, control of coOI:lUnicable diseases, telephone, telegraph and radio services and· civil aviation. With the world-wide expansion of science· and technology, increasing attention was being paid to a global approach to those subjects, and 'co-operation i,n matters of common concern at the regional level was being rapidl~ intensif1oc1~ Thus, where African co-operation was concerned, the Organization,oLMrican Unity had set up a scientific and technical research commission and, in 1964, the States bordering Lake Chad had embarked on a co-operative effort to .regulate the resources of the Chad Basin. The Nigerian delegation considered that one of the most urgent problems, of the moderniolOrld was to nake the wealtly developed countries aware of conditions in the developing countries; the gap between the resources of those two. groups of States should not be allowed to widen, and technical assistance ,programmes., without the political conditions often attached to them, Dust be expanded. A preliminary perusal of. the United Kingdom draft declaration (A/AC.125/1.M.) shOwed .that nearly all its provisions were acceptable~ Nevertheless,··the Nigerian delegation regretted that a veryinportant aspect of the duty of States to co-operate
'-
AIAC.125/sR. 57 page 4
with onc another had been omitted froB paragraph 2(b) of part V.
The 1966 Special
CoDnittee had agreed that a clause discrediting discrinination should be an essential part of that paragraph, and h~ hoped ~hat, if the United Kingdofl text was referred to tho Drafting Committee, a referenGe io-non-discrimination would be retained. Mr. SINCLAIR (United Kingdora) said- he wished to present the broad frronework
of his delegation's propos81, reserving the right to comment in detail on the content of the draft declaration in relation to each of the various principles.
The proposal
had been deliberately prepared in the form of an integrated draft declaration, covering all the seven principles, and set out proposals which seemed to comaand general agrecraent. Moreover, the draft had been prepared in pursuance of operative paragraph 8 of General Assenbly resolution 2181 (XXI). - In that connexion, he wished to draw special attention to the preaoble and part VIII of the draft, headed "General". The preamble had been so constructed as.to present, in an objective nanner, the history of the iten and the considerations w~ch had motivated the Special Comnittee of the Genercl Assetlbly to adopt a draft declaration. The source of each of the first nine preambular paragraphs was to be found in the index of sources on page ll, whereas the tenth preambular paragraph should be read in conjunction With paragraph 2 of part VIII of the draft declaration. The question of saving clauses safeguarding the provisions of the Charter and the rights and duties of member States under the Charter had hitherto been considered in relation to each principle, but in the context of an integrated draft declaration, it night be possible to dispense with most of the indi'Jidual saving clauses, if agreement could be reached on a general operative saving clause, foreshadowed in the preanblo. It might still however be necessary to retain certain individual clauses not wholly c_overed by the general formula. To stress the inter-relat~onship between the various principles, to which attention had been drawn at earlier sessions, his delegation had included as paragraph 1 of part VIII of its draft a general clause to the effect that the seven. principles were inter-related and that each principle should be construed in the context of the others. That provision might sitlplify the Conmittee's task, by mitigating the doubts of those delegations which considered that a given provision should be included under one principle rather than another. Turning to the principle of non-intervention, he reiterated his delegation's view, in connexion with the thesis that General Asserably resolution 2131 (XX) was a sacrosanct text to which only additions could be made, that the 1966 Special Committee had been ill-advised to tie its hands.by a procedural decision ~fore considering the
A/AC .125/SR. 57 page 5
substance of the al,ternative proposals .before it. In fact, the:r:c \.faS little difforence ,of opinion about the substance 'of the principle, and the argur.lOnts ha.d relatiJd largely to questions of form.
me
Tho United Kingdom delegation had deliberately abstained from
vote on res8lution 2131 (XX), in the belief that the manner in which the
resolution had been adopted was inappropriate for the adoption of a declaration with such fa.r-~eaching implic ations. On the other hand, the fundanontal propositions sot out in the resolution accorded closely withtho United Kingdon's views, and thoy were expressed in his delegation's draft in a nanner which conforDed \vi th the General Assembly's decision, but in a form which should be acceptablet8 all jurists. The mfficulties involved in the elaboration of that logal principle, which were largely of a fomal nature, should not stand in the way of an earnest attempt to reach general agreement. Operative paragraph 2 of General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX) referrod to interference in civil strife ,in another State. That concept was reflected in the United Kingdom draft in the statonent that "SUCh acts as ••• encouragoment of civil war are •• • illegal ". His Govormlcnt believed that to be a clearer statement of the actual intention, nanely that if a country was unfortunate enough to fall into a situation in which control of the country ~as divided between warring factions and if no outside interference had taken place, then any fo~ of interference or any encour~geDent given to any party was prohibited by intornational law. Nevertheloss, the United Kingdom did not consider that that rule in any way prejudiced the right of a legally constituted and internationally recognized GovermJent to S0e and receive from a friendly State assistance in preserving or restoring internal law and order. Of course, any GovernQent which responded to such a request for assistanco would havo to satisfy itself that the response was propGr, and it would have to expect its actions to come under the closest scrutiny of the international COru:lUni ty. His Governnent believed, however, that it would be wrong to suggest by an unduly broad definition of "ciVil strife" that there were no circUIJ.stances in which a Governnent in tcmparary ~fficulties could seek and receive assistance froD a friendly State which it trusted to render aid with full respect for the territorial integrity and-political independence of the recipient State. Part VI of the United Kingdom draft constituted an earnest attempt to moot both the widely held views on the contont of thGprinciple of equal rights an~ selfdetermination of peoples, and the difficulties facing any jurist who tried to formulate the principle of self-deteI'I:li.nation in terns af a right. His Governnont had long hold
11/AC .125/SR. 57 . page 6
'the vit:3w that, in so far as self-deterr.ri.nation was a legal and not merely a polltical concept, it was properly expressed as a principle, not as a right.
Even the most
ardent'advocates of the "right" of self-deterninatian could not ignore the difficulties Hhich arose when their views were stated in juridical terns.
"
.
Although his Government
continued to have serious doubts concerning the possibility of finding a satisfactory solution of the probleD, it considered it its duty under the Charter to join in an ,attenpt to fomulatc·the principle in terns of a right, as part of a.serious endeavour to reconcile the views of DaDbers on that conplex question.
His delegations'
intention in devising tho fornulation in part VI of the draft declaration was the / threefold one of.'bringin~ out the close connexion between the two elenents of the principle and the universal and pernanent character of their application, defining the "right" of self-deternination so as to avoid pitfalls in the concept of, the juridical personality of peoples and fully respecting the relevant provisions of the Charter. In his delegation's opinion, there was no essential difference between the Jbllgations which States would be bound tQ discharge on the basis of tl18 draft declaration and the obligations laid down in the Charter, where the "right" to selfdoterninatian was not ffienti:mcd.
.AI though thG word "right" had been used in the
draft in deference totho view that such a right existed, his Governnents still naintained that in
Into[
the ?bllgations)f States in the Datter were exclusively those
arising froD the Charter, and that assertions to the contrary constituted an attenpt to aIJend the Charter by iridirect Deans. In so far as the legal principle required the pursuit of certain mrns of bGhaviour, the Cormi tteo Dust be· guided by tho relevant articles of the Charter and the practice of States;. paragraphs 2(d), 3 aIm 4 of the draft cODplied \a th that precept. 'vlhether regarded as a right or as a principle, self-deterrunation Dust be applied universally to all peoples in all places; that was the reason for the reference to the spirit of the Universal Declaration of . Human Rights in paragraph 2(b). Many delegations, attached special inportance to the terns of General Assenbly resolution 1514 (XV). Although the United KingdoD had not voted for that resolution and had strong rcservati~ns about SODe of its terns, it had felt obliged to include in its draft some of the considerations ~n whicL that resolution was based. Thus, paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Declaration in that resolution had boen incorporated practically without alteration, and other elGDents had been enbodied in paragraph 2(b). That attempt to give legal effect to the provisions of the resolution which dealt with
A/AC .125/SR. 57 page 7 self-determination might not bo tmiversally regarded as successful, but night avoid some of the controversy which surrounded it nnd '\-rould enable the Cor:u:rl. ttee to conce.ntrate on the considerable CIJr:u:lon ground which existed. The parts of the draft which related to the principles of the peaceful settle~ent of disputes and to the sovereign equality ;)f States had been drafted b"th in pursuance,
vf operative paragraph 7 of General Assembly.resolution 2181 (XXI) and as additional proposals ·wi th a vievl to widening the areas of agreement, in ten!lS of the formulation of the 1966 Special Connittee.
In part 11, on the peaceful settlement of disputes,
fuose additional proposals were to be found in paragraphs 6 to,9 and were nostly derived from proposals subni tted during the 1966 sessicm.
Paragraphs 1 to 5
i~orporatod the corresponding paragraphs of the 1966 Special Comnittee's formulation,'
but the inclusion of the phrase t:wi th rGspe~t to existing or future disputes", in paragraph 5, took into account the stater;Kmt Dade by the Chairnan of the Drafting CoUDittee 'at-the 1966 session.,
Part IV, on the sovereign eqUality of States,
reproduced the text agreed on by the 1966 Special
Co~ttee,
with the addition of a new
sub-paragraph (g)" t8 take into account the discussions at that session on the question of p'3manent sovereignty over -national resources. Finally, with regaL'd to the duty of States to
co-~perate
with one another, the
Comnittee would note that part V of the United Kingdon draft reproduced the text of the compronise proposal on Vlhich agreement had nearly been reached at the 1966 session, ~-th one significant onission, relating to the concluding phrase of paragraph 2(b).
rhat phrase had led to the failure of negotiations in 1966, and after Dature reflection,
his Government had decided that the most prudent course would be siDply to omit 'the phrase which had caused sa mmh difficulty.
The United Kingd::m roalized, however,
that ~omc, delegations attached great iDpartance to the concept of non-discrimination i.n internatLmal co-operation and was prepared to participate "'i thin the Drafting ::oIiltlittee in: the search for a fornula that would help to solve the probleD.'
Neverthe-,
less, it was convinced that the Drafting Committee should seek ~ ne~ approach to the fOrtlulation, b€:Jaring in T..und the distinction between legal and economic principles ~ ~rying
to avoid differences which could be regarded as semantic.
Mr. JAROSZEK (Poland) said that the Conni ttee had done well in starting its llscussion with the principle relating to the duty of States to co-operate with one ~other, which was the most general and conprehensive of all the principles.
It per-
ttined to nany spheres of international life, such'as the political, econonic, social, ~ultural~ undsciontific spheres. 1
. In the sphere of political relations, there existed
recognized obligation for States to co-operate with other States irrespective of
A!AC.125/SR.57 page 8
differences in political systens and social structures.
The desire for peace and the
developnent of friendly relations anong States with different political and social systens on the basis of sovereign equality and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States constituted the very foundation of the Charter.
The principle of co-
operation involved not only the right but also the duty of States to co-operate with one'another. That corresponded to the present stage of development of the internatioruU cono~ty
and was an indispensab~e condition for maintaining world peace and security. If international co-operation was to be fully effective, there Dust be no discrimination against any State or group of States because of their political, social. or economic systems. The rule that there should be no discrimination gave all States the right to participate on a basis of equality in the activities of international organizations, particularly those which wore universal in, scope, like the United Nations. Any attenpt at discri~nation in that area was incompatible with the very concept of co-operation, and could only be prejudicial to the United Nations and its authority. His delegation therefore saw a close and logical connexion between the principle of co-operation and the principle of universality expressed in the United Nations Charter. ' International co-operation could be effective only if it embraced all States and, all political and social systens, covering the broadest possible range of relations and also proD0ting progress throughout the world, especially in the developing countries. Fro~
that point of view, the fomulation of the different elements of that principle in the Czechoslovak draft resolution (A/AC.125!L.16) , und the suggestions made by the Chairnan of the 1966 Special Commi,tteo ~ght provide a satisfactory basis on which the Drafting ,Connittoe could work out a final text. The United Kingdom draft resolution on the other hand, while incorporating some of the elements contained in the two principles he had nentioned, oDitted one element of fundamental importance, namely, non· discrinination against States because of their political, social and econo~c systems. He would like to suggest that the Drafting Connitteo should start its work with . 'the ain of arriving at a universal wording of the different proposals so that the draft declaration it evolved would be a statement of the principles of international law binding on all.States, both Members and non-menbers of the United Nations. Mr. NACHABE (Syria) expressed the hope that as the principle of co-operation was being discussed for the second time, the S~ecial Comoittee would reach the agreement that had so narrowly been ruissed at the 1966 session. He would not repeat what had been said in the joint proposal (A/AC.125!L.29) sponsored by Syria and nine other delegations at that session, but he wished to ,draw attention to two matters ,
AIAC .125/SR. 57 page 9 which he considered essential tb the new attempt at agreenent.
First, c~-opGration,
which was the. fundanental principlo of peaceful co-existence between States Dust be universal.
That was clear fron Articles 1, 11 and 13 and Chapter IX ~f the Charter
and also froD the whole spirit of the Charter.
In an era of increasing relations
between States it was essential that all States should c0-operate in order to find effective solutions for. the great political, econoDic, social and cultural problens of international life.
Secondly, there nust be no discriDination, against any States
oh the basis of differences in their p~litical, econonic and social. systens~ -
.
In the
light of those two considerati~ns - universality and non-discrimination - all States should be invited to participate in international conferences and organizations and thus help to solve the problens which beset the internatbnal cormunity.
No State
should be denied the right t~ become a party to any multilateral treaty, for instance. Lastly, co-operation should apply to all spheres of international life.
In
the econorJic sphere it should aio at the developnent of the developing coun~ries, for as long as the gap between rich and the poor countries c,)ntinued t:) Hiden, world, peace would always be in danger.
It was therefore in the interests of bbth the rich
and the poor countries to narrow that gap.
It was logical that the rich countries
should contribute nost to the econjmc revival of the countries 'vhich they had exploited and which had been very l~rgely the source of their wealth.
Their duty was
to co-operate with those countries instead Jf seeking indirect Deans to continue their exploitation.
Mr. KRISHNA RAO (India) thanked the United Kingdon representative for having .--'-
presented his very
cOLJ.~rehensive
proposal so early in the
debate~.
index of sources attached to the draft but he failed t~ sce
why
He welcomed the
any refcrence to non-
discrimination, which had been accepted at the 1966 sossion, had been 0Lutted.
Mr. SINCLAIR (United Kingdon) said that he had sought to onit controversial natter froil his text so as not to prejudge the issue. He had been awaro that the question of n0n-discriDinatiJn would be raised and he had wished tJ leave the v~tter to the Drafting Connitteo, where he would dQ his utnost to help achieve an agreed solution. Mr. KRISHNA RAO (India) welcomed the statoment of the United KingdoB representative. The neeting rose at 4.10 p.n.
