S/PV.339 Security Council

Are therè any comments on the agenda which the members of the Council have before them? Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): In connexion with item 2, which is indicated , simply as "the Palestine question", with your pennission, J should like in the course of the discussion· to raise a particular point concerning the kidnappirig of five British subjects in Jerus~em, which is aIready, before the Council. J think that the latest document on the subject is document S/905,which is a communication from the Truce Commission to the Security Council. . T~e PRESIDENT (translated from Russian): J. think that, during the discussion of the Palestinequestion, the United Kingdom representa- 180. Continuation of the discussion on the Palestine question

We stin have ta discuss and deèide on the Syrian proposaI [8/894] ta refer the Palestine question to th.e International Court of Justice for its opinion. We shall probably begin by disc·..,;sing that proposal, unless the United Kingdom representative wishes to make a statement first on the question he has raised. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : 1 should like the point which 1 have just mentioned ta be dealt with in the course of. today's meeting, if pC3Sible, but 1 recognize that the Syrian proposaI has pTecedence over mine and 1 am quite agreeable, therefore, that the Security Council should now address itself to the Syrian proposal. -Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): At the last meeting of the Security Council [338th. meeting], certain contentions were raised by sorne members criticizing the legality and usefulness of the Syrian proposal [8/894]. To oppose it they quoted certain paragraphs of the Charter and other documents. 1 mentioned at our last meeting, in this respect, that it is necessary for me to defend . my proposaI and to clarify certain points which were doubtful to sorne representatives. ln the first place, it was said that this question is political and not legal. 1 do not deny that there is a political aspect to the Palestine question, but the existence of a political aspect does not eliminate the legal aspect. There are two aspects, one political and the other legal. It is well known that, in the General Assembly, in the ad hoc committees and in the Security Council, many points of a legal nature were raised. Certain doubts and hesitations were expressed by ma..llY of the members concerning the legal aspect of the question. The Security Council and aU the organs of the United Nations are required and expected to respect the Charter and to direct their efforts and actions in accordance. with the Charter. When they are concerned with solving the political aspect of a question, they should not neglect its legal side; the legal' side should be known before the political question is decided. Paragraph 1 of the first Article of the Charter states: We are now dealing with a question in which it is considered, rightly or wrongly-that now is not the time, even for the Security Council, ta decide this aspect-that there is a threat ta the peace. Yet the resolution of the Security Council of 15 July 1948 [8/902] states clearly that a threat to the peace exists, and there are references to other Articles oÏ Cha:pter VII. Well, then, this question ought to be settled. In what way should it be settled? It should be settled in conformity with the principles of justice and international law. If the Security Council should ask the International Court of Justice to chrify the matter and to enlighten us in regard to certain points whk..h are rather vague or ambiguous, is this ta be considered wrong, or asking for the impossible? . At its last session, the General Assembly recommended that all organs of the United Nations, and especially the Security Council and the General Assembly, should rnake greater use of the International Court of Justice for obtaining advisory and legal opinions on questions which are before them for solution, even if they are political. 1 Having a political aspect does not totally eliminate the legal character of anything. If we are to solve a political question, we have to solve it on a legal basis, on a basis of justice and of international law. Not only my delegation, but rnany delegations in the Security Council and , in the General Assembly, and in aU the organs of the United Nations, have been contending that it is necessary to c!arify the legal side of a question before' proceeding to the political side. Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Charter states: tine "AlI Members shall settle t..heÎr international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner t?at international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." Justice and international law should be ree spected not only by solving questions on a political basis. If such were the case, we would be endangering justice and the principles of law. "Ye have many doubts concerning the legality of tne action taken by the Security Council to apply Chapter VII to the Palestine question, , What is the international status of Palestine arising from the termination of the Mandate? de page We should know what the international status of that territory is mnce the termination of the Mandate, in order ta be able to make decisions on this subject. Is Palestine now consiJered as an entity, as one territory, as a single State, or is it ta be considered, in the present circumstanceS and pursuant ~o the resolutions' adopted by the General AssemBly on 29 November 1947 and 14 May 1948, as being divided into two States? Are these things which are being done by one of the communities oi Palestine legal? Are they rightful? Are the communities acting in conformity with their rightful position and qualifications? Are they entided to take the steps that they have taken? 1 do not refer to the Jews orny; 1 reft.:! ta bath Arabs and Jews. Both of them are ta be subjected to certain limitations within the framework of justice, international law and legality. The legal aspect of the question should be understood. For instance, the pnmigration into Palestine of foreign elements is taking place nt the present time. Is that legal? Does that conform with international law and the international status oi' Palestine? If that country is ta be considered as an entity, then immigrants can come into Palestine, not into a special, separate State of Palestine in which certain tommunities are considered as exercising authority. It will be immigration into Palestine as a whole. Perhaps the other party in Pâlestine, the other communities, may· be in the Ininority, and they would certainly have the right, if that were the pcsition, to oppose such immigration before the formation of a legal government in Palestine which would legislate on immigration and make it subject to such legislation. Is. the arbitrary proclamation of one separate State by one party in a certain portion of Palet:- tine tobe considered, under international law, as correct and rightful? This matter ought to be studied. As the Security Council does not now wish ta broach, discuss, and solve this question, 1 propose that it be referred ta the International Court of Justice. We have created that organ as one of the principal Ol'gans of the United Nations. We should use the knowledge of its jùdges; we should use their integrity, their justice, and their knowledge of law in arder ta help us in the solution of our problen.s. Wc are dealing with a difficult problem. We should refer it ta the International Court of Justice for its advice and its legal opiniC'n. 1 do not say that the Court will give a judgment on this subject. We refer the mattèr ta it; if the Court considers that it ie; competent ta make a decision, it will do sa. If the Court decides that this is a political question and that tl Court should have nothing ta do with it, it may say 50 and return the question ta us as not within the competence of th~ Court; or it may make a reply which it thinks legal and right. l do not see how, when one party asks for justice and submission of the question ta the International Court of Justice, its request can be refused or opposed. On what basis is this done? We are not asking recourse ta arbiters who are partial or biased in favour of one side. We wish ta go ta the International Court of Justice ,;vhich can give an opinion on a certain subject for the whole world without prejudice ta the present situation in the Security Council or even in Palestine. We have a Mediator in Palestine. He has es. tablished a tnlce there, and he is trying ta l!egotiate Ùl a peaceful way in arder ta finel the proper adjustment for the future situation of Palestine, as he has been charged by the General Aroembly and the Security Council. We do not oppose that. He iscarrying on, but if, at the same time, the Security Council were ta take a stand on the subject and were ta take responsibiIity for applying Chapter VII of the Charter and if it provided measûres for enforcing it. that would..b~ .a great responsibility. It is a great responslbility ta take steps against Member Stat;es, to make charges and enforce sanctions agamst Member States. The Security Council should be. given a chance ta study the correctness and legality of its position and ta flnd a solution f?r the problem based on justice and· internationallaw., . At the last meeting sorne representatives raised certain objections with regard to the application of Article 36 of the Charter, but our present position is quite different. Paragraph 3 of Article 36 says: "In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should a1s0 take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court." ) This is an altogether different matter. It refers to a dispute or situation which cornes before the Security Council involving the interpretation of any international instrument, treaty, or any other matter which would not lead ta a breach of the peace or anyt~ing of L~at kind. No fightmg is involved; the Security Council finds that the matter is entirely a legal :Jne; it is referred ta the International Court of Justice. We are, however, not asking for this step under Article 36. We are asking for it under Article 96 of the Charter, which states that: "... the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an ad· visory opinion on any legal question"" This means any legal aspect of any question that cornes before the Security Council at any time. This is a point which should nnt be neglected or overlooked. If· we were ta continue dealing with this matter without clarifying the legal aspect, we should be wa1kingin the dark; we should be taking action which would be objected ta. An opinion of the International Court of Justice has weight. It is known, for instance, that the Arabs are opposing the recommenôations of the Security Council. They say that those recommendations are illegal, that the Security Couneil has ,no' right ta take such steps against them, because they cannat be considered as aggressors. They say that the aggressors .are those who invaded the country from outside ta establish for themselves a dynaSty and sovereignty there: those If the Security Oouncil continues to act in the manner in which it has acted, thete will be no satisfaction among the Arabs r~.garding the position taken by the Council. The Arabs consider that the Council is he1ping the aggressors and oppressing the people who ,Te defending their rights. How is it possible to bring sati'lfaction to and convmce the 40 million Arabs in the Near East that you are doing justice and that 'yçmr actions are correct, when they believe the contrary? If they hear an opinion Îrom the International Court of Justice, it will help greatly to smooth out these difficulties and eliminate the opposition of the Arabs. As things now stand, if it is said to the Jews: "You had no right ta proclaim your State or ta do what you are doing, as if, ipso facto, you are independent because of a. one·,sided resolJtion or determination made by yourse1ves"~ they reply: "Yes, we have the right." If the International Court of Justice gave an opinion ta that effect, aU the opposing a.nd conflicting parties would submit and yield ta that decision. When one party asks you to put such a question before the International Court of Justice, you oppose it. That means that yuu do not wîsh to have justice prevail in your world. You do not wish international law ta be respected. You ! do not wish the conditions envisaged in the Charter itself to be established. You would like to work in the dark and continue oppressing anà molesting nations and peoples-even Member States. The Arabs ask you ta give them justice. You do not do it because you consideror at least the majority, or the minority. of members of the Security Council considersth.at justice is being done. But others say: no. We have to get an advisory legal opinion from a competent body which has been constituted for that purpose. That is its functipn. If we do not use the International Court of Justice in such a case, when is it expected that the advice of the Court will be requested? For what case? It has been sitting for two or three years, doing ncthing. You have not given it any work. You have never put any question before it, because the Council i'S doing things absolute1y f?r itse1f, by dictatorship, by adoptîng resolutels internationale avis? et faire. et nous-mêmes, adoptons la choquer particulier publique, laquelle accuse aujourd'hui l'Organisation tlO~ which are not based on justice and legality, ",!hich continue to offend the nations-especially the small nations-the Member States and pu~lic opinion, which is now accusing the Ulllted Nations of being unjust, of following power politics, of dividing the world into zones Snch accusations are general. Do not he sur" prised if 1 pronounce them hore, openly and frnnkly. Go into the streets, ta the clubs, ta the quiet meetings of people in their homes, ta the ordinary mun in the street, and you will heur thase accusrttions directed against the United Nations, and espccially against the great Pawers -accusations that they are not acting justly, that they are not respecting law, justice, and the principles of the Charter which were laid down in San Francisco. When wc were in San Francisco, the peoples cf the world were full of hope that this Organization would he lawful, loyal ta noble, sublime principles. 1 do not wish now ta nan'ate all the incidents which are taking place in the world, against which no one is raising a voice, a11 the atre ~i,ûes which are committed, the threats ta and breaches of international peace and security. The large States are now consolidating themselves and preparing for war and announcing that war is approaching, that war is at hand, that war !s going ta be . dec1ared. Sometimes they say that it is a matter of days or weeks-and they are preparing for that. 113 that not a threat ta international peace and security? Is that not a breach of the peace? But nothing 1S brought before the Security Council, and the Security Council never thinks ta take sanctions against the States which are giving birth ta such threats ta the peace and breaches of the peace. The Security Couneil does nothing in those cases; it simply threatens the hab States, which are defending their interests and their right'3. Why? Because the Arab States are not armed, are not prepared ta fight. They are not ready to oppose unjust resolutions and decisions. But if the Security Council meets a strong State wruch is ready to fight, everybody trembles and relinquishes thE situation. That is a thing which is deplorable and regrettable. If this matter were not ta be sent to the International Court of Justice for a clarification of the position, it would be a source of despair; a sm:e which would hold certain pain for the future. The matter would forever remain illegal, irregular, immoral, unjust and contrary ta the Charter of the United Nations. If the Arabs were to yield now, they would be submitting ta force, ta the threats of the Seeurity Council. They do not wish to oppose this international Organization which is supposed ta establish peace and to serve human rights and the principle of selfdetermination for aIl peoples. This is a case which ought ta be carefully considered by the representatives on the Sccurity Council. They must not try to evade or escape from the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice. That opinion should be obtaincd before the Sccurity Council proceeds with any other measures. 1 have said that the Mediator will continue his efforts and activities towards bringing about a peaceful solution of the prob. lem of the future of Palestine. But there are dangers that the matter might take another forro; that the Security Council might retum to its resolution and try to use Chapter VII of the Charter. The application of sanctions under Chapter VII must be based on legality. . The International Court of Justice would not give its opinion in a very short time. Perhaps it would take a considerable period of time. In any case, we would have something for wruch we have been waiting: advice whïch could be applied in the future when it becomes necessary to use it. The Arabs have been contesting for a long time) and they still contest) the capacity and the competence of the Security Council and the General Assembly in the question of the intemational status of Palestine. Therefore) we shall have to settIe the question so as to convince the Arabs that they are wrong and that those who oppose my proposai are right. Refer this question to the International Court of Justice. That Court determines its own competence; it will be able to decide whether it is competent to deal with it, and its judges will do so. Otherwise, they will say: "No, we do not accept this." That will he their action.. For this reason, 1 hope that my proposaI will be put to the vote and 1 hope that it will be .. adoptp ' unanimously and not by the usual majority, because it will reflect great honour on the Security Council when its impartiality is seen, and when it is demonstrated that the Council 1 is anxious ta find justice and to have the legal aspect solved belore it proceeds further. It would be to the great honour and enhance the prestige of the United Nations if this procedure were adopted. 1 am sorry to say that its rejection would not enhance the prestige of the Security Council or of the United Nations. Mr. Urdaneta ARBELAEZ (Colombia) (translated tram Spanish): At a previous meeting [336th meeting] the de1egation of Colombia indicated its agreement with the favourable view expresscd by the representative of Belgium in respect to the possible LTltervention of the Inter· Colombia was one of the first countl'Îes ta accept the optîonal clause. Later nt the preparatory conference on the Statute of the Court in Washington and also at the San FrancL'lco Conference) Colombia voted wholeheartedly for compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Colombia has always believed that for the solution of legal problems) the jurisdiction of the Court is the method which is most satisfactory and most consistent with the interests of justice and therefore of peace. Accordingly, from the beginning Colombia expressed approval-in agreement with the statement of the representative of Belgium-of the possible intervention of the International Court Df Justice in the Palestine question. Dn the other hand, however, the delegation 1 of Colombia is of the opiniol\ that the principal obligation of aU Member St~\tes of the Unit.ed Nations 1S to seek peaceful settlement of aIl mtemational disputes; that is the raison d'être of the Organization and is precisely the spiri~ embodied in the Charter. The Charter env1Sa~es various pacifie means for the settlement of mternational disputes j among them naturally the jurisdiction of the Court) mediation) arbitration, etc.-a list which does not exclude other meth- 0(1.$: The parties m.ay also use any other means WhlCh they can deVISe for the peaceful settlement of theudisputes. In the case before us) one of the means of achieving peaceful settlement .of international disputes has been acceptedj med1ation was recognized by the parties and also by the Security Council as the meaus which should ~e used in solving the ~alestine pro'blem. Mediatlon has been progressmg favour.ably, to such a degree that it was possible to achœve a cease-fi~e and a trucej'nd it appears th~t the truce ~ becoming more and more effectlVe, so that 1t does not seem appropriate to. allow an~ther met1,lo~ of pacifie se~tl~ment o~ d1S:putes to mte.rfere wlth the mediat10n which 1S already m progress. In the course of the mediation, one of the parties suggests that an advisory opinion be requested from the International Court of Justice. The delegation of Colombia would not like to deny the party which is proposing that procedure access ta an advisory opinion if such a procedure seemed advisable, but it feels that, granting that request, and accepting the idea suggested by the representative of Syria should in no way mterfere with, .impede or block mediation. Specifically, the de1egation of Colombia would like ta propose an amendment ta the proposal of the representative of Syria, to the effect that the request be mad~ on the condition that it does not obstruct, impede or delay the progress of the mediation. That is, add the following sentence to the end of the Syrian proposal: "This request should be made provided it will not delay or impair.the normal process of mediation." [Sj921] We believe that in this way and with this amendment the door remains open for the request of an advisory opinion and that the request can be made at any time when there is no objection to doing so, or better still, whenever it seems advisable, possibly by the Mediator himself. It may weIl be that in the course of mediation, in the course of conversations, questions of a juclicial nature may arise which it would he difficult for the Mediator himself ta settle, and that mediation might be aided and facilitated by consulting the International Court of Justice. In my opinion the person in the best position to indicate the proper moment fcr requesting an advisory opinion from the Court would be the Mediator himself. To this eno, the delegation of Colombia submits the above amendment for consideration by the Council. General MaNAuGHTON (Canada): The Canadian delegation is unable ta support the prQposaI submitted by the representative of Syna [8/894J that the International Court should be asked "... ta give an advisory legal opinion as to the international status of Palestine after the termin~tion of the Mandate". As we know, events both political and military have followed upon the termination of the Mandate. The General Assembly, at its second special session, decided ta seek a solution to the Palestine problem by meansof a peaceful adjustment of the situation by negotiation and, for that purpose, appointed a Mediator. The Security Council, likewise, has F-Jceeded on the basis of endeavouring to reach a solution through negotiation, and, for that reason, has persevered in its efforts to establish and maintain a truce in Palestine în the hope that thereby it would enable negotiations between the parties to continue, with the assistance of the Mediator who On the other hand, during the course of the present negotiations between the parties, it may we11 happen that sorne specific questions of law may arise in regard ta which the assistance of the Court would be appropriate and desirable and on which its opinion would be helpful. In that event, in my view, it wou!d be appropriate for the Security Council, at the request of the Mediator, or even upon its own initiativè, to submit such a question, in its specific context, ta the International Court. In view of the remarks 1 have made, and aIso having in mind sorne of the considerations which other members of the Council have advanced in expressing doubt as ta the wisdom of asking the International Court for a legal cpinion at the. present time, the Canadian de1egation will not be able ta support the proposal of the Syrian representative. As regards the amendment which has been proposed by the representative of Colombia, as 1 have said, it is our view that the reference of a general question to the International Court at this time would inevitably both de1ay and impair the process of mediation on which we have placed our hopes. Therefore, we cannot give our support to the amendment either. Ml'. MUNoz (Argentine) (translated trom Spanish): The Argentine delegation supports the proposal of the representative of Syria [8/894] to ask the International Court of Justice for a legal opinion on the understanding that such procedure will not be a means for de1aying the conclusion of a peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. For similar reasons, the amendment [8/921] proposed at today's meeting by the representative of Colombia seems highly reasonable and appropriate as it clearly expresses the firm intention of the Security Council not to permit any interference with the normal progress of the work of conciliation in which it has been engaged for sorne time. We think that the Security Council will exercise the power granted it under Article 96 of the Charter only when it is convinced that there is a legal aspect whic~ requires clarification. But this does not It is clear, moreover, that such n·ivisory opinions and the decisions taken by United Na.. tions bodies can in no way affect the rights of national sovereignty which have not been relinquished by Member States and which existed before the Charter itself. Nor can they settle questions coming under the domestic jurisdic.. tion of Member States, as defined in Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter. For these reasons, my de1egation will vote in favour of the proposai made by the representative of Syria and the Colombian amendment to that proposal. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): Representatives on the Security Council may recall that in an earlier intervention [296th. meeting] 1 myself called attention to doubts. which might arise concerning the juridical international position of Palestine on the termination of the Mandate. It may be well that these doubts should be resolved. We now have a proposal by the delegation of Syria for reference to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the point, and 1 shall vote in favour of that proposaI. At the same time, 1 wish to make it quite clear that in advocating this procedure it is :r;ny understanding that it shall not in any way hinder or iinpede any settlement which the United Nations Mediator, or the parties with bis assistance, may succeed mdevising. 1 think the representative of Syria has aIready made it plain that that is his understanding, too. The representative of Canada expressed the view this morning that it was inevitable that thiS procedure would affect, and eut across, the process of mediation on which the Security Couneil has embarked, but 1 take leave to doubt whether this is necessa.rily so, and the representative of Colombia, in presenting the amendment which he has submitted to us this morning, appeared to agree also with rv opinion that it is possible to avoid such an L ~t. It would, 1 think, be of value to have a ruling' or an opinion on this question, but such a ruling or opinion should, of course, neither impose nor impede a settlement of the' Palestine question, nor do 1 think that it need do so. Mr. TSIANG (China): In his statement at the beginning of the meeting, t.he representative of Syria made it dear to us that in his mind there were two aspects of the Palestine ln that spirit, the draft reso1ution which he has presented to us is not intended, and cannot be construed, as a substitute for the resolution of the Secmlty Council of 15 Ju1y [8/902]. It is a supplement to that resolution. It is my understanding that such an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is not binding on the Security Council. When such an opinion is delivered, we ,shall of course give it due consideration, but at the same time we shall keep in mind that the Palestine question has importa..'Ilt political aspects. 1 cannot conceive that this recourse to the International Court of Justice would delay or impair the normal process of mediation. It was Ilot the intention of the mover of the draft resolution that such l'Ccourse should delay our procedure. The amendment moved by the representative of Colombia makes explicit what was implicit in the intention of the representative of Syria. When, on 15 July [338th meetingl we came to our great decision on the Palestine question, my delegation made it clear that we, in co-operation with other delegations, were ready to impose peace on Palestine. We were not ready ta impose a solution upon Palestine. For that reason we introduced an amendment [8/897]. We feel today that, if it were sought through peace and mediation and the due processes of law, the eventual solution of the Palestine question would be a better and more enduring one. It is on that broad ground of the final benefit which we might derive from recourse ta the International Court of Justice, that my delegation will support the resolution and the amendment. Ml'. JESSUP (United States of America): The position of the United States concerning the proposal of the representative of Syria can be stated very briefly since the representative of Canada expressed effectively a few moments ago many of the points which we have in mind. 1 should aIso like to refer to sorne of the very pertinent comments which were made by the representative of France at our meeting of 14 1 July [336th meeting]. 1 should merely like to êmphasize our belief that the procedure suggested by the Syrian draft resolution follows a line difIerent from that which the Security Council and the General Assembly are pursuing in regard to the Palestine 'question. It may be that a proposaI made at the special session of the General Assembly to submit this whole question to the International The function of the Security Council, in my opinior., is primarily one of seeing that peace is maintained, and to that end, of assisting in the general programme laid down by the General Asse.mbly through the aid which we are cur~ rentIy giving to the United Nations Mediator. , For these reasons the de1egation of the United States is not prepared to support the draft reso~ lution introduc~d by the representative of Syria. Mr. MALIK (Union of ~oviet Socialist Re~ publics (translated trom Russian): The USSR de1egation regards the proposal by the representative of Syria as unacceptable because of the following considerations: The Syrian draft resoln.tion is a delayed and badly camouflaged attempt to take the whole Palestine question back to its starting point. We realize perfectIy why the Syrian delegation is submitting that proposaI. We know too that some great Powers, not satisfied with the General Assembly decision on Palestine of 29 November, 1947: are also interested in that proposai. They are seeking ways to circumvent or shelve the decision so as te retain their former position in Palestine, impede a peaceful settIement and maintain there a state of instability and uncer~ tainty which is disastrous for both the Arab and the JeW.ish population. There is~ therefore~ no reason to assume that it was the duty of the United Kingdom to create sorne governmental organ in Palestine. The Syrian draft resolution Clrequests the Intemational Court of Justice~ pursuant to Article 96 of the Charter~ to give an advisory legal opinion as to the international status of Palestine after the termination of the Mandate)). It is strange that the Syrian representative should deem it necessary to approach the International Court of Justice on a matter already examined and settled by the General Assembly. No less strange is his proposaI that the Security Council should request the International Court of Justice for its opinion on a question already settled by the General Assembly. ' The General Assembly gave thorough and detailed consideration to the Palestine -question and took a decision on the future organization of the country. Its decision represents both a political and a juridical decision -on the Palestine question. There is consequently no need for any kind of additional advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. We are asked to return to a question which has already been exhaustive1y examined and settled. More than that~ we cannot fail to regard such a proposal as an attempt not only to alter the above-mentioned decision of the General Assembly, but also to confer functions of arbitration on the International Court of Justice for questions that have already been settled by the highest organ of the United Nations, namely., the General Assembly. Article 96 of the Charter provirles that "The General Assembly . . _may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal' question." But it goes without saying that such a request should be made beforè and not after a decision is taken. Once a decision has been taken, as is the case with Palestine; there is no sense in asking for the opinion of the Court. In view of these considerations~ the USSR delegation cannot agree that the Security Council should -approach the International Court of Justice on the Palestine que;,-tion, in respect of which there already e.'Cists a decision of the General Assembly. Those who-are dissatisfied with that decision have already attempted to wreck it in the past, and have failed. Subsequent resolutions on that question have not aItered that decision. The argument that an appeal to the International Court of Justice would not hinder a peaceful settlement cannot bear examination. Such contentions and assertions are devoid of all foundation, for an appeal to the International Court of Justice would only serve ta prolong a state of instability and uncertainty in Palestine and would delay a peaceful settlement there. In view of these considerations, the USSR delegation finds it impossible to support the draft resolution proposed by the Syrian representative.

1 still have a number of speakers on my list, and it would seem that this discussion is going ta develop further. It is now time for recess. But as the agenda for our next meeting includes the Indonesian question, <lnd as the relevant documents were distributed only yesterday and it is doubtful whether members of the Council have been able to acquaint themselves with the rather VC'luminous documentation this morning, 1 think they should be given an opportunity to doso, in order to enable us to prcceed with the Indonesian question immediately after the end of our discussion. 1 propose therefore that we meet again on Thursday at Il a. m. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Up,ited Kingdom): It will be remembered that at the beginning of this meeting the President asked me whether 1 wanted the point that 1 have mentioned taken first, or whether 1 would allow priority for the Syrian draft resolution. I replied that I recognized that the Syrian proposal had priority, but that, at the same time, 1 did want to deal with my point, if possible, today. May I take it that the Council will finish this particular discussion this afternoon, so that 1 could then raise my point, leaving Indonesia tobe considered on Thursday?

1 did not expect the question raised by the Syrian representativc to take up so much time. I expected we would settle it very quickly. The Syrian representative has now asked to speak and he will probably make a detailed speech in defence of his position. 1 do not know, therefore, whether there is any purpose in having another meeting today. However, if members of the Security Council press that suggestion, 1 shall not particularly object. Mr. EL-KHot'RI (Syria): When 1 asked 'for permission to speak 1 intended only to say that l accepted the Colombian amendment for inclusion in my resolution, the two to be voted upon as a whole. 1 request that the President put the whùle resoludon.to the vote now so as to settle this matter definitely, either negatively or positively. The' PRESIDENT (translated trom Russian): The suggestion made by the Syrian representative is sa nnusual that 1 welcome it. It would seem that the majority are in favour of having another meeting this afternoon. 1 suggest, therefore, that we meet again at 3.30 p.m. The meeting rose at 1.25'p.m. THREE HUNDRED AND fORTIETH MEETING Held at Lake Success, New York, on Tuesday, 27 July 1948, at 3.30 p. m. President: Mr. D. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist RepuQlic) . Present: The representatives of the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Syria, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America.

As the representative of Syria waived bis right to speak after saying a few words this morning and as there are no mC'e speakers on my list, 1 propose we proceed to the vo~e. Mahmoud Bey FAWZI (Egypt): The draft resolution submitted by the representative of Syria [S/ 894] has my full support. 1 shall confine my remar~s to the discussion of it, and in