S/PV.472 Security Council

Before we proceed to the discussion of the agenda, l should like to say a few words about my predecessor. l am sure l am expressing the feelings of the Council as a whole wh~n l convey to the representative of Egypt our appreciation of the spirit in which he has presided over the Council. In this difficult period, we must be more watchful than ever to neglect no opportunity of affirming our faithful adherence to the principles of the Charter and to the Organization which aims ta put those principles into effect. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt) : l am most grateful to the President, for the remarks he has been good enough to make in connexion with my tenure of office as President of this Council during the month of April. 1trust that the Council will have a successful month under his guidance. At the same time l unhesitatingly and fully endorse what he has said regarding our duty, as a Security Council, in regard to questions affecting the peace of the world. l'anglais) paroles fonctions Conseil propre pendant pas un a du relatives 1fr. VrTERI LAFRONTE (Ecuador) (tra'llslated ft'om Spanislt) : I deeply appreciate the kind statement made by the President on his O'vvn behalf and on behalf of the members of the Secnrity Council. Among my memories of diplomatic life I shaH always cherish the fact that I was able to take part for several years in the activities of the United Nations and that I had the honour of serving on the Security Council. The members of the Council are weIl aware that it the normal practice in diplomatic life to move from one point or position to another. We aIl hope that there will be occasions when we can meet again and work together in ensuring and fortifying wodd peace, 3. Adoption of the agenda 4. Question of theappointment of rapporteur or conciliator for a situation or dispute hrought to the attention of the Security Conncil

To cIarify the debate on item 2 of the agenda, I think it mightbe useful to remind the Council of the background of General Assembly resolutiuI1 268 B (III) communicated to us by the Secretary-General in letter dated 13 May 1949 [S/1323] , Sub-paragraph 2 Cc) of General Assérnbly resolution 111 (II) dated 13 November 1947, which provided for the establishment of the Interim Committee of the General Assembly, charged that Committee "to consider ... methods ta be adopted to give effect Article 11 (paragraph 1)" of the Charter "and ta that part of Article 13 (paragraph la) whieh deals with the promotion of international co-operation in the politieal field", On 2 March 1948, the Interim Committee appointed a Sub-Committf'e for the purpose of studying aIl the proposaIs submitted to the Committee. Among the proposaIs studied by the Sub-Committee was a draft submitted on 9 March 1948 by the United' Kingdom delegation,l providing for recourse to a procedure for conciliation in disputes and situations brought to the attention of the General Assembly or the Security Council. The ciraft merely provided for the automatic adoption of a procedure whenever a dispute 0::- a situation On reading the General Assembly's resolution, 1 do not think there can 'be any doubt as to 11s purpose. Tt is not a question of maldng a general rule of a practice ta which the Council had recourse in the case of Palestine by calling upon the services of the late Count Folke Bernadotte or, more recent1y, in the case of Kashmir when it asked Sir Owen Dixon ta promote agreement between the parties on the spot. Neither is it a question of establishing a procedure outside the pl1rview of the Council, wbich woulel remove the subject from the C011ncil's agenda and would precede or follow the discussions in theCounci1. According ta the tenus of the resolution itself, it is simply that "after a situation or dispute has been brought ta the attention of the representatives on the Security Council in accordance with mIe 6 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council and ... immediately after the opening statements on behalf of the parties ..." the appoil1tment of a rapporteur shall be sought in order to make our action of conciliation more effective. During the discussions of the cirait resolution in the General Assembly, the authors of the text took care ta show that they wished ta avoid any conflict or over~ lapping with the existing procedure, and that they did not wish ta establish any rigicft rules. For the rest, the President has already exercised his powers of conciliation several times, either on his own initiative, 8S in the case of Berlin, or at the request of the Counci1. Snch requests were made several times in the case of Kashmir. Experience has shawn, however, that it sometimes takes longer than a President's tenu of office ta· settle a dispute or to c1arify a situation. Consequently, the continuity of the conciliation is affected. Moreover, the President may be prevented générale, préoccupation avec s'enfermer l'action ses comme du du nécessaire fication présidence. est Ta sum up, the Assembly's resolution means that the President will be asked to encourage the parties to agree upon the appointment of a member of the Council, who may be the President himself or auy other member. As soon as the member is appointed, he shall carry out his work independently of his office, if he is President, and, if one judges by the discussions which took place here last Dece!nber on the terms of reference to be given to General MeNaughton, even independently of his membership in the Council. That seems to me to be the meaning of the resolution which the Assembly has recommended the Security Council to study. Does anyone wish to speak on this subject? Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): My delegation hopes. that the Security Council will, in general, accept this recommendation of the General Assembly which is submitted to it. As the President recalled, that resolution grew out of an original proposaI or suggestion made by the United Kingdom de1egation, and that, in turn, was based on the past experience, not only of this Organization but of a preceding organiza- tion, where this practice had been generally employed and proved to be of great use. 1 am sure that the general application of this practice would conduce to the 'good conduct of the proceedings of the Security Council, and would contribute to the solution of difficulties. As has been said, in examining a proposaI of this kind we must be careful, we must beware of instituting any practice or procedure that would conflict with existing practice. 1 do not think this proposaI does that in any way. It has been employed, as has already been pointed out, in various cases. 1 think it has been employed with good effect, and it certainly does not conflict with any existing practice. On the other hand, 1 think that we must also beware of laying down any too rigid 01' inflexible rule. There might be cases where it might 'he unnecessary, or it might even be undesirable; to resort to this particular procedure. Moreover, if we were to look at the General Assembly resolution and if wc were to take it quite literally, there might be one undesirable feature in that apparently it would enjoin on the Security Council, as a first step, appoint- ing a rapporteur, whereas in a dangerous emergency, in a case of hostilities that have broken out or hostilities that threatened, it might be that the Council must first immediate1y demand a cease-fire or withdrawal of troops or something of that kind. Therefore, we must bewareof any absolute priority to be given to any procedure of the Council in cases of such disputes. l think the answer to that is quitè plain-and l think it is quite a good answer: that it would be useinl if the Security Council could accept this practice as the normal procedure that might perpetuate and normalize this particular form of procedure which would not be departed from except for good reason. I think that there would be a benefit in that. For those reasons, l hope that the Security Council may find some means of expressing its general acceptance of this recommendation on the part of the General Assembly, whilst rpaking it quite c1ear that it will do its oost to avoid any possible pitfalls such as those to which l have alluded. Mr. GROSS (United States of America): The proposaI contained in the General Assembly resolution before us today, as has been pointed out by the representative of the United Kingdom, arose from a study of the experience of the League of Nations. l'anglais): du lution aujourd'hui la Commission de tional. origine de trompe, de Conseil rapporteur liateur privés cristallisent cristallisation publiquement Commission sécurité genre Société par de lement parties, leurs et générale montré de soumises pourrait qu'ils l'affaire que The Interim Committee, under the General Assem- bly's instructions, has been engaged in a study of international political co-operation. This particular recommendation originated in proposaIs made by the United Kingdom-and, l believe, Iran-during the course of that study. The study of League of Nations experience showed that the practice of the League Council in using a rapporteur who had the function of a conciliator allowed for private conversations among parties, and hence avoided the crystallization of views at an early stage of the dispute, which often results from the taking of public positions. The General Assembly and the Interim Committee fe1t that similar advantages could be gained by the Security Council in li>uilding on this particular League experience. Indeed, experience by governmental bodies in the handling of controversies such as labour disputes has also taught the wisdom of affording parties an oppor- tunity for discussion and negotiation of this sort before putting on the public record statements of their respective positions. The discussion in the General Assembly and in the Interim Committee also disc10sed the feeling that such a practice might result in the better preparation of cases brought before the Security Council, bp.cause the rapporteur would normally bring to thr;ecurity Council an analysis of the facts as presented ~f an the parties. He would follow the case in a more special and detailed wav than his colleagues are able to do in the normal coui'se, and he would study the documents This practice has developed in the Security Council, as it did in the Couneil of the League of Nations, quite ïnforma1ly. l believe that its usefulness depends to considerable extent on that facto l think that its use- fulness aIso depends on the great flexibility of this device, as has been so c1early pointed out by the representative of the United Kingdom. This resolution, as we understand it, involves no new procedure or new machinery for the Security Couneil. Under the existing rules of the Couneil, there is a provision for the appoinbnent of a rapporteur contained in rule 28. My' Government has consistently supported the prineiple which is contained in this proposaI, both in our conduct in the Security Couneil and in the consideration of this particular proposaI as it has developed in the Interim Committee and in the General Assembly. The General Assembly has asked the Security Couneil to examine the utility and the desirability of this practice. It seems to my Government that the most useful course the Security Couneil can follow would be to accept the principle as one useful procedure for the peaceful adjustment of disputes. It is reasonable to expect that this practice in the Sécurity Couneil will develop through the creative use of the precedents which we have established in the past and by our sympathetic application of the prineiple of this reso- lution. l therefore assoeiate myself with the remarks made by the President and the representative of the United Kingdom. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt) : l have listened with attention and appreciation to the résumé which the President has just given to the Couneil and to the statements made by the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States relating to the subject now under discussion, namely, the recommendation of the General Assembly with regard to the appointment of a rapporteur or conciliator for a situation or dispute brought to the attention of the Security Couneil. The General Assembly, in its resolution of 28 April 1949relating to this subject, particularly recommends that the Security Couneil examine the utility and desira,bility of adopting certain practices indicated the resolution itself, with a view to improving the means The idea of conciliation is one of which Egypt has constantly been in favour, both in practice and in the debates in the United Nations. l have already given expressibn to this on various occasions, including the [471st] meeting of the Security Council held on 12 April of this year. Looking, however, to the resolution of the General Assembly with which we are now dealing, and going from the general consideration of its objective to an examination of its concrete stipulations, l feel impelled to say that, while the sllbject as a whole needs the most careful consideration. ils Details equally require our maximum attention and care, lest we fall into an attitude or take an action which might make our work less instead of more efficient, or which might go counter to the letter or to the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. l therefore submit that more time should .be allowed to review this matter in the light of the statements made today, or which might be made later on. In this connexion, l respectfully. note sorne discre- pancies in the terms and expressiofis. of the resolution of the General Assembly, with \\r'lt1ch we are now dealing, as compared to the valuabl~'and enlightening certaines l'Assemblée commentaire sentant les elle-même. montré éviter propose des délégation résolution aussi, toute résolution pose Conseil déclarations seront co~ment made today by the representative of the Umted Kingdom. l must confess~'that l like his comment much more than the terms and expressions of the resolution itself. He has put his finger on sorne pitfalls which might beset our road to the objective aimed at by the resolution of the General Assembly. 1 was also glad to hear the representative' of the United States state, in a careful way, that his delegation sllpported the prindples contained in the General Assemb:j resolution. My delegation, too, supports the principles of this resolution, but l, frankly, am not happy about some of the terms employed in it. l therefore submit once more that the Council should be given a litt1e more time in which to review the matter in the light of statements already made, or which will be made today. Meanwhile, l should like to point out, first, that of course it is weIl understood that the Security Council qu'il Mr. TSIANG (China): It appears ta me ta be very useful and wise for the Security Council to pause from time to time to study its methods of work. While we do not have an exact science of peace-making, and probably never will. there is nevertheless a conside,able body of experience which we could weIl use: the experience of the League of Natians and our own experience here in the last four years, as weIl as the experience of international arbitration. mediation and conciliation conferences which took place before the League of Nations came into being. For this reason, my delegation is very grateful the Interim Committee for having initiated the present proposaI, and grateful to the President for placing this matter before the Council today. The advantages of the proposaI are obvious. They are stated in the resolution of the General Assembly itse1f. As a matter of principle, my de1egation subscribes to this proposaI heartily. We should like to see this principle followed by the Security Council as frequently as possible. Nevertheless. it appears to my delegation to be dangerous to formalize this matter too much at this stage. The disputes with which we have to deal are invariably unique; we have no two disputes that are exactly alike. It is questionable whether the methods suitable for one dispute would be entirely suitable for another. The representative of the United Kingdom has already pointed out certain possible exceptions to the procedure recommended in this resolution. There- fore, my delegation's attitude is that the Council might weIl accept in principle the recommendation of the General Assembly, without, however, formalizing and drawing up detailed regulations in regard to this practice. The Security Council should always remain its own master in regard to procedure when a: dispute is brought before it. Mr. VITERI LAFRoNTE (Ecuador) (translated from Spa.nish) : It seems to me that the item on our agenda should not be considered as a separate, independent and single item. The General Assembly resolution wiII he more readily understood if we remember that it formed part of a group of proposaIs which were considered and discussed more or less at the same time and were aIl based on the same basic criterion. In the first stage of its work, the Interim Committee attempted .ta fulfil one of the many tasks entrusted to it by the General Assembly: preparing a report on the methods to be adopted in order to give effect to During the first stage of its work, the Interim Coromittee concerned itself with the very interesting question of the peaceful settlement of disputes and, in that connexion, gave particular attention to drafts submitted by Lebanon, providing for the establishment of a permanent conciliation commission; by Belgium, designed to restore the original effectiveness of the General Act of 1928; by China and the United States, with respect to the preparation of a list of persons who could 'be called upon to take part in investigation and conciliation commissions; by the United Kingdom, on which is directly based the item on our agenda concerning the preliminary conciliation functions of the President of the Security Council or a member of the Couneil; by Belgium, with regard to the possibility of requesting advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice; and by Ecuador, whereby it would be possible to request the advisory opinion of the Inter- national Court of Justice where one of the parties to a dispute invoked Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter, c1aiming that the subject of the dispute was a matter which was essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of that State. Looked at in that way, it is easier to appreciate the true significance of the General Assembly resolution \Vith which we are dealing, and to see its purport within t:le general system established under the Charter. l say "within the general system established under the Charter" because, when the subject was being discussed in the Assembly's Ad Hoc Political Committee, there \Vere various ,delegations which opposed the draft resolution, alleging that the United Kingdom draft was beyond the scope of the Charter or contrary to its provisions, and that it had been submitted in order to eliminate or, at least, to diminish and weaken the functions, powers and activities of the Security Council. ~Ve do not consider that argument to be justified, since 1t appears finally that the resolution before us neither comprises any innovation of substance nor imposes any new obligations on the Members of the United Nations. It simply recommends that some preliminary procedure should be used which would facilitate the IVork of the Council itself. Indeed, Article 2, paragraph 3of the Charter states that the Members of the United Nations shaH try to settle their disputes by peaceful means. The most important of those peaceful means are set forth in Article 33: negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional Those words are of great importance, since they show recognition of the fact that the basic requirement in the settlement of international disputes is the good will and agreenlent of the parties. When a dispute a situation such as those contemplated in the Charter arises, the parties are free to seek pacifie settlement, initially either by a direct method or by having recourse to the means enumerated in Article 33 and calling upon the services of the Security Council or of' the General Assembly. When the subject has come before the Security Cotmcil, then the resolution we are studying can apply. It is common knowledge that the subject can come before the Council either as a result action taken by the parties, or through the' initiative the Council itself, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, It is when the situation dispute has come before the Council, thaï: this method of procedure recommended in the resolution on our agenda can be put to use. With respect to the points of view expressed here today, we have listened to clarifications such as those just made. Important statements have been made first, by the representative of France, who gave us the general outlines of the question, and then by the representatives of the United Kingdom and of the United States. The representative of Egypt, with characteristic mental ability, immediately stressed those points which might serve to clarify the situation. We have not, in fact, as yet reached the point where we can discuss the text of the resolution of which the substance and form were first submittted ta the Interim Committee, then to the Ad Hoc Political Committee, and finally to the General Asseinbly:' Moreover, we have not yet reached the point where we can discuss the terms of the resolution which was adopted by the General Assembly and sent on ta us for implementatioll. The statements we have just heard, however, are most interesting in that they will provide the necessary background for the adoption of the recommended procedure, and for the interpretation of the scope and meaning of the resolution adopted by the General Assembly. We have already heard that it is not absolutely necessary to resort to that measure for every situation hrought ta the attention of the Security Council. goes without saying that recourse to the proposed measure will be governed by the nature of the situation resulting from the dispute, and by the circumstances in which the dispute arase. Only then could a decision he taken as to whether recourse ta the proposed measure was opportune, proper, necessary or useless. For that reason, we did not think that the recommenda- tian must he inc1uded in the mIes of procedure of the Security Council, to the effect thL:t the first step must ,~ewS. For instance, it states that the parties shall be invited to meet and that the meeting must take place \Vith the President oi the Security Counci1. Woulà it not be possible for the parties concerned, or one of them, to request the intervention of the President as a person entrusted with the functions of a conciliator? Under the terms of the resolution, it would appear !hat the parties can only he invited, and cannot request any such intervention. 1 do not at all helieve that we must strictly adhere to the interpretation that the parties concerned cannot request the President of the Security COllncil to act as conciliator. In general, the lack of clarity in the text was not due to the fact that the difficulties were not taken into consideration at the lime of drafting. In an attempt to conciliate the different points of view, certain points were left unc1ear in order to allow for e1asticity in the application of the measures provided. . Tt is my firm conviction that wherever the Security Council, taking into consideration the circumstances and nature of a dispute hrought to its attention, permit:: recourse to that measure, it will be in the form provided for in the resolution. It does not seem to us that suct, recourse should he cqmpulsor~lnd that the first step must be the pre1iminary action of the President of tlie Council or of a member appointed by the President. We do believe, however, that a restrained use of that meaSUre will prove a most effective means of action hy the Security Counci1. First of all, it is, in fact a question of resorting to the conciliatory functions of the Security Council and we realize more and more how effective conciliation can be as a means of settling intemational disputes. Moreover, if conciliation can be effectively carried out by the President or a membèr of the Council, it must be remembered that every member of the Council, under the Charter, acts not ouly as a representative of his country, hut as a representative of all States Members of the United Nations. That particular responsibillty is assumed hy ail members of the Council. \iVhen it is vested in the qui pour mesure; du dans pas ait l'employer nous du désigné discret les d'abord, Conseil même que D'autre exercée un termes Conseil représentants représentants des incombe qui, autorité liation Les ~ember, the representative of which serves as President, Il makes it possible for him to act as a conciliator with agreater sense of effectiveness. Therefore, the conver- sations which will be held will not be official, will not he the results of statements made in public for inclusion in reports and official records, and will leave room for flexibility in making concessions, which is not possible when positions have been publicly defined and taken. The conversations to be undertaken under the guidance That is why 1 think that the method which was proposed by the United Kingdom delegation could quite well be tried in the cases when it is considered appropriate. 1 had hoped that the USSR delegation would here when we discussed this resolution because, during the discussion in the Ad Hoc Political Committee and in the General Assembly, the representative of Soviet Union objected that all the measures were vitiated from the outset since they had 'been recom- mended by the Interim Committee, an organ which the Soviet Union considers to be illega1. The USSR representative also thought that the purpose of proposal was to diminish the functions, powers and responsibilities of the Security Council. The question of the legality of the Interim Committee has been discussed sa often that it is not worth while for to recall it, but, on this occasion when we are once more approving another measure recommended by Interim Committee, 1 would have been pleased to have been able ta say before the USSR delegation that thtre is '.<> question of diminishing the functions, or evading the action, of the f ~urity Counci1. It is preliminary rr'l"asure which w.... hope will actually help and prepare the way for the work of the Council itself. It is cIear that the absence of the USSR representa- tive has not been felt only with regard to the question before us. It is a matter of concern ta all the members of the Council that we are not working with the full membership provided under the Charter at the time when it was drafted. This is not the occasion for ta discuss whether the writers of the Charter were right or wrong in providing that there should be five permanent Members of the Security Counci1. That provision is, however, contained in the Charter, and we find that there is some irregularity in our activity when one of the permanent members does not parti- cipate and when the question of the representation one of the other permanent members is so controversial that it cannat perhaps be said that we have the full hundred per cent representation which we would Iike ta have. For aIl those reasons it would be advisable, accordance with the provisions of the Charter, if those measures which we are now considering on the eîIectiveness of the Council's action, could come into force when we again see the Council with the full representation provided for by the Charter adopted San Francisco. Mr. BEBLER CYugoslavia) (translated trom French) : May l recall a point which has already been raised today, namely that the General Assembly resolution which we are discussing was not adopted unanimously by the General Assembly. Quite apart from the dele- galion of the Soviet Union, certain othel'S, including the delegation of Yugoslavia, raised a whole series of objections when this resolution was discussed in the General Assembly. Those objections were pditical and iegal in nature. M. peler blée fait rale. soviétique, Yougoslavie tbns l'Assemblée d'ordre Our main objection, if l rnay recall it, was that, under the General Assembly :['esolution, the Security Council would be obliged to renounce some of its prerogatives in favour of the representative of a single country, not as an exceptional procedure or a measure decided upon in a particular case, but as a normal procedure which the Conncil would have to follow before having exanained· the substance of the question and the nature of the dispute brought before it. Notre le rappeler semblée à renoncer, à certaines que déterminé, s'imposerait fond spécifique roday, we still believe that the basic idea of this resolution is not a happy one. We believe, therefore, tllat the Council should not subscribe to it, and above al! that it should not do so lightly. Consequently, l agree with the view expressed by the representative of Egypt that the Council should devote some time to the study and, if necessary, the discussion of the issue raised hy resolution 268 B CnI) of the General Assembly. l suggest, therefore, that the question should Dereferred to the Committee of Experts of the,Security Council, or that a similar method should be applied. Aujourd'hui mentale croyons, la faire point de un cussion 263 conséquent, d'experts similaire Peut-être, pourrions-nous semblée formelle sans comment l'Assemblée nous Conseil notre imprévues May l also suggest that we might take note of the General Assembly resolution without taking a formaI decision'on this delicate matter, that is, without taking aposition on the question when, howand in which cases we shaH follow the Gen.eral Assembly's recom- lIleridation, and when we shall· feel we cannot follow it. Snch an attitude on the part of the Council would, in Illy humble opinion, correspond to the nature of our work, which consists in dealing with unforeseen and unforeseeable situations. ::~",,:.,,,..er5'''"5·;· _::·f·:ë"·~""~,,",~~_"''''~.Jl_ th~ needs and requi~'ements of its unique function. In this connexion, we are deeply indebted to Interim Committee for the valuable report which formed the basis of the General Assembly resolution now before us. We all know that the Council of the League Nations was faced, to a very great extent, with procedural problems identical with or similar to ones with whicn we are often struggling in this body. It therefore added very greatly to the value of Interim Committee's report that it was' based not only on the rather short experience of this Council, also on the more extensive practïce of the League Nations. In regard to the specific recommendation of General Assembly concerning the appointment rapporteurs or conciliators, it would seem unnecessary to adduce any further arguments in its favour. stated in the resolution.. this procedure has alreâcly many times been adopted by this Coundl, and for own part l would like to stress particularly how useful this expedient was found to be during our recent consideration of the Kashmir case. l am therefore favour of the general adherence to the recommended procedure. Ml'. MENON CIndia): The resolution of the General Assembly only endorses and recommends the procedure which has 'been successfully employed by the Security CoundI. In the belief that these proposaIs would promote the general aim and purposes of the Charter of the' United Nations, the Indian delegation voted for this resolution in the General Assembly. My Government will continue to support every effort to improve the method and procedure of pacific settlement of disputes. Conciliation and mediation all possible methods are the chief aims of our foreign and domestic policy. The father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, lived and died for this great principle in national as weIl as internationl a:ffa~I's. My Govern- ment will, therefore.. give its contmued support to the principles embodied in the recommendation of the General Assembly in this regard.

l ~ave no further speakers on my Est. If no one wishes au. j'hésiterais résolution une tous situation avant teur ces rente sans l'Egypte Those observations are entire1y tmderstandable. Speaking for the French delegation, l must confess that l myself would hesitate to subscribe to the terms ai the Assembly resolution, which would establish a general mIe applicable a~,ltomatically in aU cases when the Council is called upon to deal with a situation or dispute, and making compulsory in an c::!ses, before any other measure is taken, the appointment of a rapporteur or mediator. If it was a case of subscribing to those lerms or of replacing them by a different text which \Vould be better suited to our purpose, l would no doubt associate myself with the wish expressed by the representative of Egypt, and l would ask for time for iurther thought. . le part, nous sions d'entre It seems to me, however, that the Council is in no \Vay obliged to go into such detail; and if we tried la amend the Assembly's text, we would l'un the risk of entering inta those details and of defining these new rules, which sorne of us wouH. prefer to e1iminate. constance procédure seulement à effets l believe that our objective in the matter should not he ta make automatic, or even to generalize, any specific procedure, but mere1y to make normal a practice which \Vas current in Geneva but which has so far proved to be an exception here, a practice which has had ~Uccess­ fui results in the pasto sans dans semblerait plu sa à What we should do is to reserve the possibility, without extensive debate, of resorting to that practice' wherever it would appear useful and timely to do 50. We must ensure greater freedom for ourse1ves in the selection of the rapporteur or conciliator and in setting aterm of office for his task. It is understood of course Ihat only the Council would be entitled, where necessary, to decide whether such recourse was suitable or timely. . l do not think that it would be difficult to achieve that objective. l have therefore, prepared a draft resolution [S/1486] which is ~ry ~ lOrt and which l shaH now read: "Having considered the communication from the Secretary-General of the United Nations dated 13 May 1949, rrTakes note of resolution 268 B CIII) of the General A~sembly dated 28 April 1949, and "Decides, should an appropriate occasion arise, to nage its action upon the principles contained therein." That is the spirit in which 1 am submitting my draft resolution to the Council. 1 should like to hear the views of the members of the Council with respect ta that draft resolution. Mahnloud FAWZI Bey (Egypt) = In the light of the statement the President has just made, and recalling what he said in that statement, that his delegation would hesitate to subscribe to the express terms of the General Assembly resolution as they are and that he would be willing to agree that the Security Council take more time for the consideration of this matter if it decided to enter into detail and try to reach sorne formulation of a new resolution similar to that of the General Assembly resolution, 1 find my delegation in favour, in principle, of the proposaI he has submitted to the Council for approval. 1 listened also to what our colleague from Yugoslavia said when he suggested that he might refer the matter ta the Committee of Experts. This might be a proper and wise thing to do, were we to enter into details and to formulate a proposaI or: a resolution of the Security Council similar to that adopted by the General Assembly; but that is not the case. We are now simply trying to adopt, or accept or subscribe to the principles embodied in the General Assembly's resolution, and to make use of those principles if the occasion arises, whenever this is required. AlI this is in line and in harmony \Vith what has becn stated by several speakers this afternoon ta the effect that we should not unduly tie our hands as to our procedure in the future. Therefore, 1 am hopeful that the representative of Yugoslavia will join what seems to be, otherwise, the unanimity of the Security Council in supporting the idea which the President has proposed to us now.

If there are no more speakers, 1 shall put this draft resolution to the vote. It is set forth in document S/1486, which has been distributed to members of the Council. There is a change in the last linc of the English text which should rcad: "Decides, should an appropriate occasion arise, ta base ..." A vote 'Zoos taken by show of hands. . In favour: China, Cuba, Ecuador.. Egypt, France, -India, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Absent: Union of Soviet Sodalist Republics. The draft resolution 'ZOOS adopted unanimously, one member of the Council being absent.