S/PV.996 Security Council

ln accordance with the decision previouslyadoptedbythe Council, and if there are no objections, 1 shaH invite the representative of Cuba to participate, without the right to vote, in the debate on the item on the agenda, At the invltation of the President. Mr. MarioGarcla Inchâastegu.i (Cuba) took a place at the Council table. Conseil sentant l!. 1 1 2, Mr. HA8EGANU (Romania) (translated from French): The Revolutionary Government of Cuba, in a lette.r dated 8 March 196218(5086]. requested thatthe Security Council should be convened so that under the terms of Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, it might request the Court to give an advisory opinion on the legality of the decisions reachedby the Organi- zation of American 8tates at Punta deI Este.Y 2. volutionnaire 8 sécurité nationale du américains 3. It also requested that the 8ecurity Council, under the terms of Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations, should invite the Council ofOASandthe other organs of the inter-American system to suspend as a provisional measure the agreements adopted at Punta deI Este and the measures ordered in pursuance of those agreements, because the adoption and execution of the agreements constitute illegal acts and because they involve a threat ta international peaoe and seourity. 3. conformément Unies, du mesure Este dits et internationales. 4. Cuba toute 4. The request of tbe Revolutionary Government of Cuba thus has two quite distinct aspects. têrleures 22 Ji EIghtll Meeting of Consultation of MinJster~ of Foreign Affain of the American States, lIe1d et Punta dei Este, Uruguay, trom 22 to 31 January 1962. 6. The second is the general politienl aspect and i5 concerned \Vith an analysls of the effects whlch those decisions, taken ln defiance of the Security Couneil resolution ofl9July 1960,11 are proctucillg on the inter- national plane, uamely, the aggravation of the already serious tension in the Caribbean area and the threat to the sovereigllty and independence of a small State which is n Membl"r of the United Nations and ta international peace and security. 7. It is appropriate to recall on tllis occasion thnt at the Punta deI Este conference seven of the most repre- sentative members of OAS, representingnearly three- quarters of the population of Latin America, refused to support one of the main l'esolutions, excluding Cuba from OAS, on the grounds that it was illegal. 8. Let us briefly analyse the situation. As is well known, the Organization of American States is a regional agency set up in accordance with the provi- sions of Article 52 of the United Nations Charter. Its legal statu~ is clearly defined in the Chart.'~r of the Organization of American States, which was signed at Bogotâ in April 1948,1/ and which states in article 1 th3.t:" ... Within the UnitedNations, the Organization of American States is a regional agency." 9. The United Nations Charter, in recognizing the right of Member States to set up regional agendes "for dealing \Vith such matters relating to the main- tenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action", clearly specifies the nature of the activities of such an agency. Thus, Article 52 provides that such agendes may be established on condition that their activities are "consistent \Vith the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations". 10. The Charter of the Organization of American States recognizes the same principle and states in article 102 that: "None of the provisions ofthis charter shaH be construed as impairing the rights and obliga- tions of the Member States under the Charter of the United Nations.", Article 10 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, signed at Rio de Janeiro in 1947,.Y was drawn up in same spirit. 11. The United Nations Charter is very specifie as regards both the rights and the obligations of Mem- bers. In order to avoid any confusionordoubt, Article 103 lays down that: "In the event of a connict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations 13. Wllile Members are required to make every effort on the international and regional plane to settle conflicts peacefully, the United Nations, and in par- ticular the Security Council, does not empower Mem- ber states to apply sanctions for that purpose. As a body bearing' "primary responsibility for the main- tenance of international peace and security", thtl Security Counci! reserves to Hself the prerogatives which are absoll:~ely necessary if it is to fulfil Us fUllctions. Thus, Article 53 of the United Nations Charter provides that "no enforcement action shaH be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agendes without the authorization of the Security Council". That clause is of particular importance in analysîng the question which is now before the Counei!. 14, The Romanian delegation eonsidered it necessary briefly to recall these fundamental principles of the Charter which establish the relationship between the regional agencies and the United Nations, in order to dispel the confusion which the United States repre- sentative has endeavoured to introduce in our debate. In our opinion what we are at present witnessing is a process by which the ûrganization of AmericanStates is being transformed into a political and military bloc at the disposai of the United States fn diametrical opposition to the fUndamental principles of the United Nations. This is the conclusion reached by analysing the resolutions [see 8/5075] adopted by the Meeting of Consultation at Punta dei Este. 15. In this connexion my delegation wishes first to dr.aw the Secllrity Council's attention to resolutionVI, in which the meeting of Consultation declared that Cuba should be excluded from participation in the inter-American system on the grounds that the Govern- ment of Cuba had adopted a different political and social system. In our (lpinion this resolution con- stitutes a flagrant violation of the spirit and the letter of the United Nations Charterj everyone knows that the charter contains no provision to the effect that Member States must adopt a certain social system or a certain form of government. On the contrary, our Organization is based on the principle of the co- operation of aU Member states, withoutany distinction based on thei'r social orpo!itical systems, for the pur- pose of settling aIl disputes and al! international political, economic and social questions by peaceful meanS. 1 1 16. The object of the United Nations is "tobe a centre for barmonizing the actions" of aIl States in order to fulm the purposes and principles of the Charter. Moreover, the States Members of the United Nations 17. From that point of view. l'esolution VI ie entirely foreign to the fundamental conception of the United Nations. It introduces factors iota international rela- tions whîch would make co-operation between States, and particularly between States which have different social systems, utterly impossible. 18. The acceptance on the international plane of the theory of incompatibility proclaimed at Punta deI Este, and of the specifie steps taken by virtue of that theory, would create absolute chaos in international relations. What would happen if certain States or certain groups of States announcedthat the UnitedNations, its special- ized agencies, the regional agencies or international conferences were incompatible with one system or another? That would lead to serious danger not only for the future of the UnIted Nations but also for inter- national peace and security, because in the present circumstances there are only two alternatives: peace- fuI coexistence between aU States without distinction as to social or political systems, or a devastating war. 19. Moreover, resolution VI adopted by a regional agency of the United Nations flagrantly violates the provisions of Articles 2 and 53 of the United Nations Charter. The practical consequences of such a vio- lation are extremely important. The exclusion of Cuba from the Organization of American States in fact con- stitutes a political sanction against a Member State decided upon without the previ.ous authorization of the Security Council. 20. The Romanian delegation thinks that this resolu- tion, which was adopted after the United States had brought pressure to bear, ig an integral part of the United ~tates' plan to isolate Cuba and to prepare for further aggression against that country. A regional organization was used for this purpose in order to facilitate the new variant of the UnitedStates1 plan for Cuba-the plan to carry out an ostensibly collective act of intervention to destroy tbe Revolutionary Government of Cuba. 21. The second resolution to which my delegation wishes to draw attention is resolution VIII, entitled "Economic Relations". 22. Altbough Articles 5, 6 and41 of the United Nations Charter provide that only the Security Council may decide that economic enforcement action shall be taken against a State, and although Article 53 ofthe Charter explicitly forbids regional agendes to take such action, the Organization of American States has, without any legal justification, usurped the right to take enforce- ment action against Cuba, in disregard of the Security Council and in open violation of the United Nations Charter. 23. Resolution VIn involves enforcement action de- signed to undermine the economy of Cuba and to force 24. As we know, the United States Government has already taken unilateral action against Cuba under this illegal resolution of the conference of Punta deI Este. The official announcement published on 3 February 1962 by the White House makes it clear that ~the em- bargo was being if.llposed in accordance with the de- cisions of the recent meeting of Foreign Ministers of tlle inter-American system at Punta deI Este" . 1 1 j, 1 25. Of course, the United States no longer needE',d any formaI resolution approving a policy which ithadcon- slstentJ.y followed since the first haIf of 1960. In fact the United States wished only to eover its unilateral action with a collective lnask and then to force other States, both inside and outside the OAS, to apply similar sanctions against Cuba. 26. Many facts mentioned in our debate prove clearly that the United States is putting pressure on countries belonging to the NATO military bloc and on other friendly countries ta join the United States in the economic blockade of Cuba. Thus we are witnessing a large-scale action in which the United States is using the illegal resolutions ofa regional agency ofthe United Nations ta persuade a growing number of Members of the United Nations to take action in violation of the spirit of the Charter. mique illégales employées un dans 27. In his speech on 15 March [993rd meeting] the United States representative avoided these questions. Nor could he give us any valid arguments to prove that the action of the United States !l.gainst Cuba was compatible with the principles of the Charter. 27. le ces aucun actions concordance 28. Since the representative ofthe United States never misses an opportunity to refer tothe need to strengthen the United Nations and its ability to maintain inter- national peace and security, we shouldhave preferred- and so would sorne others-to hear him say how the resolutions adopted at Punta dei Este can he recon- ciled with the principles set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter and with the explicît provisions of Article 2, paragraph 7, and Articles 41, 52, 53 and 103 of the Charter. We maintain that they cannat he reconciled and are indeed mutuallyexclusive. The provisions of resolutions VI and VIII adopted at PUnta dei Este violate the principles and provisions of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the OAS and the principles of internationallaw. 28. aucune forcer cité nous pas des pondent de expresses Articles mons qu'elles résolutions violent des principes , 29. We are not the only ones who say this: it was said very clearly at Punta deI Este, by six Ministers 29. mais 31. It is significant that the United States representa- tive, in his speech on 15 March-as in aIl his previous speeches-left no illusions aboutthe chances ofsolving the conflict between the United States andCubapeace- fully and in the spirit of the Charter. It is therefol'e quite obvious that the illegal resolutions adopted at Punta deI Este are part of a complex of measures by means of which the United States is preparing new acts of aggression against Cuba. 32. The dangers ofihis poUcy forinternationalpeace and security cannot be disguised, and my delegation thinks that it is the Security Council's dutyto bear its full responsibility in mind when consiciering this question. 33. Since international peace and security are being threatened in the name of a regional agency and behind a screen of decisions taken by that agency in violation of the United Nations Charter, the Romaniandelegation considers the Cuban Government's request to he entirely justified and gives it full support. 34. In conclusion, the Romanian delegation \Vould like to make sorne general remarks which in our opinion are directly related to the question now before the Security Council. 35. Both the work of the United Nations and the whole complex of contemporary international relations are based on the principle of the peaceful coexistence of States, irrespective of their social or political sys- tems. During the past few years this principle has been unanimously recognized andproclaimed at many inter- national conferences held in Asia, Africa and Europe, and has become the foundation-stone of the foreign policy of most countries in the world. 36. The Romanian Government, which is guidedby the principles of peaceful coexistence, mutual respectfor sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other States, has on several occasions made its own COntribution to improving relations between States with different social systems, and it continues ta do so. 37. We are bound to express our concern that, in one important part of the world, the principle of peaceful coexistence is Dot accepted, and economic, political and military action is being taken against aState Member of the United Nations because ithas adopted a different social and political system. We entirely agreewith the representative of Brazil who said in the First Com- Let us hOpe 1,hat sllch realistic voices will eventually be heard even in the United States and that a palicy of peaceful coexistence will replace the present course of events, which can Jead ooly 1,0 disaster. 38. Today peaee i8 indivisible, and any action which endangers peaee anywhere in the world i8 a danger 1,0 international peaee and security.

Mr. President, my delegatioD has a special reason 1,0 associate itself with the welcome that bothyouand the representative of the UnitedKingdom, atthe lastmeeting, extended to the Under-Secretary for Political and Security Council Affairs. Mr. Kiselev has worked for many years in our country, during important times, and we have heen able ta appreciatehisfriendship and to know his abilities. We welcome himtothis Couneil. 40. When on 27 February [991stmeeting] theSecurity Council discussed the adoption of its provisional agenda, we voted for its adoption. We felt then, as we feel now, that no State, especiaÜy a sman Member State, should be deprived of the opportunity of bringing its case ta this Couneil for a full and fair consideration. Now we are, of course, sat:"lfiedtosee the agenda .adopted. We are especiaUy pleaBed ta see that the representative of Cuba has beeu able ta state his country' s views so comprehensively and so lueidly. But we note thatthe majority of the members of the Couneil saw fit ta hear the Cuban complaint mainly because, and here I am quoting Mr. Stevenson, nthis Council should dispassionately examine any request for an opinion by the International Court of Justicen [993rd meeting, para. 73]. 41. The representative of Cuba has indeed advanced a remarkable juridical analysis of bis case. The representatives who addressed this Council after him have aU, in· a very able manner, contributed similar analyses. They discussed the relation betweenaState, a regional body and the United Nations, and the graduaI and continuous evolution of our international conscience. It is evident that internationalism is a utopia yet to he achieved. Both the State and the regional agency are jealous about their present jurisdictions. The graduaI, patient evolution of the world's political thinking may remedy this in time, buttheState and the regional agency and obviously anxious and determined ta preserve their independent jurisdiction. TheSecurity Cr-olloil a~so seems ta he inclined to deal itself with iL questions that are brought ta its attention. préserver bien :v This statement was made at the 1234th meeting of the Firsr Committee. the official record of which is pubHshed in summary form. Commisaion)dont 1 J 1] ] l1 1: 43. The important and carefulstatementsmadebythe representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republies, Mr. IVlorozov, and the discussion thàt followed the statement of the representative of Cuba have revealed the fears and apprehensions feIt by Cuba, the legitimate desire on its part tofindshelterfrom these fears in the United Nations and its organs. ) 44. This is why my delegation wishes now to dwell shortly on the political aspect of the Cuban complaint. On 14 March, the representative of Cuba, referringto the resolutions adopted at Punta dei Este by the Organization of American States, told us that they were nthe first steps towards the armed interventions which at this moment are being discussed in high Government cireles in the United Statesn; and he added "they coincide with the movement of military and naval forces towards the vicinity of Cuba; they coincide with the plans of the United States Government to form new military blocs in Central America" [992nd meeting, paras. 112 and 121]. 1,,, 45. Two days later, on 16 .March, the representative of the United States said in replytothe representative of the Soviet Union: nI want to comfort him by the reassurance once again-I think, for the eleventh timethat the United States is not planning any armed attack on Cuba." [994th meeting, pa:ra. 22.] 46. The representative of Chile expressed his conviction that: nOne day, which we hope will be soon, Cuba will once more become a part of the inter- American system, to the establishment and developmant of which it has made such a great contribution." [Ibid., para. 53.] Inareallysignificantreferenceto the expected economic and social reforms in the region, he said: "If reforms hac! been carried out years ago, we would not perhaps he examining the Cuban question today." [Ibid., para. 76.] 47. Mr. Stevenson asserted that "the Cuban Government's self-exclusion from the Organization ofAmeric.an States was Dot based on its 'social system' "-1 repeat, "was not based on its 'social system'" [993rd meeting, para. 103]. 48. We willingly risk the accusation of being nalve, but we like to see in these statements, made before this CouDcil after it has seized itself of the Cuban complaint, sorne positive results which should gratify the representative of Cuba. Again, at the risk of being 49. l riud it more useful for Cuba and, indeed, for all American States, to stress, rather than dismiss, the assertion of the representative of the United States, that Cuba was not excludedfrom the OAS because of its social system. To my mind, this, and only this, will open the door to the kind of competitive existence to which the representative of Romania bas just alluded, because, if we expect or accept the inevitability of a clash between Cuba and its neighbours, we would most certainly be mistaken to think only in a regional oontext. If the measures taken at Punta del Este were proved not to be the end, but the beginning of a clash, this clash would Dot stay inter-American. Ir these measures were not measures ofcontainment, but steps toward the kind of attack Cuba says it fears, then we must not forget the statements made before this Council which show the nature of the international forces involved. On these pragmatic grounds-not to speak of the moral-sllch a clash would, most certainly, engage the responsibility of the Security Council. 50. The representative of Cuba can be sure that the human family will not tolerate the kind of aggression that he told us we should expect, andwhich the representative of the United States told us we should not fear. Such an aggression will certainlybe resentedand opposed by aIl nations desirous to live, and let live, in peace. 51. We have before us a draft resolution from the representative of Cuba [8/5095]. Under article 38 of our provisional rules of procedure, this draft resolution "may be put to a vote only at the request of a representative on the Security Council". 52. If Cuba so desires, 1 hope such a request will be made. Indeed, we will be ready to make it if this will satisfy the representative of Cuba and make him feel that this Council did not frustrate any ofhis requests. My delegation wishes, however, to state thatfor several reasons it cannot accept the theory that a regional agency should be a Itmicroc01'1m" ofthe UnitedNations, reflecting its composition. My delegation can neither accept the opinion that the United Nations General Assembly is the only or.gan with rights to exclude any member of a regional agency. If the Cuban draft resolution is pressed to a vote, these considerations will certainly be reflected in our voUng.

There are a few aSiJects of the question before the Council upon which my dele- , 1j 1l Î 11 55. The principle of regional organization has also been adoptedbythe States ofthe Arabworld as a means of strengthening their relations, co-ordinating their policies and promoting closer co-operation between them in a variety ofdifferentfields; and it seems to us a fair assumption that, as time goes on, the States of the Africau continent are likely to find the method of regional organization a more and more advantageous and effective means of coping with the political, economic, territorial and other problems whichtheyhave inherited from the pasto In fact, it seems to us not an unreasonable conjecture that, as the membership of the United Nations becomes more numerous and more diversified, the method of regional organization-as a means of seeking the solution of the problems of particular areas, in the first instance at least, in the light of the !irst-hand knowledge of the States most closely coneerned and the historieal, geographical and other affinities existing between them-is likely to become not less, but even more important, in ·the future than it is today. It should be the aim of this Council, it seems ta us, ta avoid placing unnecessary barriers in the way of this development and to prevent the United Nations from becoming akindofupas-tree in the shade of which no more limited form of international cooperation can exist or thri-."e. 1, 56. As the framers of the United Nations Charter clearly realized, of course, the l'ole of regional organizations must always be essentially a subordinate one. Their actîvities cannot be allowed to weaken the position or usurp the authority of the world Organization. This is the purpose of the requirement in Article 52 of the Charter that the activities of regional arrangements and agencies must he consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter. and also ofthe stipulation in Article 53 of the Charter that no enforcement action can be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council. These, of course, are the principal provisions of the Charter dealing with the mutual relations of the United Nations on the one hand and regional organizations on the other, and they are thus the key provisions of the Charter in the present context. In our view, however, these provisions must he given a l'ealistic and carefully balanced interpretation, an interpretation which, on the one hand, will fully safei 1i i 57. The questions upan which the representative of Cuba requests that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice should he 80ught seern to us to faH essentially iuto two categories. On the one hand, there are a number of questions as to the legality, in the light of the Charter·ofthe Organization of American States and the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro, of certain resolutions adopted at Punta deI Este by the Eiglith Meeting of Consultation ofMinisters of ForeignAffairs of American States. In the second category are a number of questions relating to the conformity of certain decisions reached at the Punta deI Este Meeting with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. i 1 j -1 58. 1 listened with close attention to the arguments which the representative of Cuba advanced, in the course of his statement on 14 March 1992nd meeting}, to show that the Punta deI Este Meeting was not propel'Iy convened and thatthe resolutions which it adopted were not in accordance with the Charter ofthe Drganization of American States. 1 listenedwithinterestalso to the excerpts which Ml'. Garera Inchâustegui quoted from speeches made at the Punta deI Este Meeting indicating that the ForeignMinisters of Sorne important American States had serious doubts in their own minds as to the right of the OAS under its Charter to exclude the present Government of Cuba from participation in the inter-American system. 1 1 \ 1 i 55. Those who expressed this JXlint ofview,however, did not vote against the resolutions finally adopted. Moreover, they represented a minority of the States represented at the Meeting. The majority ofthe members of the DAS took the other view and the decîsions finally reached at Puuta deI Este were adopted by the two-thirds majority required under the Charter ofthe DAS. In this way they became the decisions of the Drganization of American States itself. The question which now presents itself ta the Council, it seems ta us, is whether, in the light of what it has heard, the Security Council would be justified in goir:g over the .heads of the OAS and seeking an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justiçeastothelegality of a decision taken by the OAS, by the constitutional majority prescribed in its own Charter. 1, 1 60. 1 am afraid my delegation is unable to lend its support to any such proposaI. That differences of opinion should exist between members of regional orga\1izations is only normal and to be expeéted. In our view, however, where such differences arise, they are best dealt with and settled on a regional basis. We consider, therefore, tbat the questions which have been raised as te the conformity of the decisions of the Punta deI Este Meeting with the Charter of the OAS, and the other basic constitutional instruments of that body, are essentially questionS for determination by the members of the OAS itself. In 0'11' opinion, this Council would be unwarrant&.bly invadingthe autonomy which the Organization ofAmerican States is justifiably entitled to enjoy if it were to constitute itself a court of review in respect of the Organization's interpretai, , , 61. There remains the question of the conformity of the decisions of the Punta deI Este Meeting with the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter, and_ in particular Articles 41, 52 and 53.lthas been argued in the course of this debate that it is a violation of Article 52 of the Charter for a regional organization to exclude aState from its membership, more particularly when it does so because of the social system which the State coucerned has adopted. My delegation finds it difficult to accept that proposition. The most elemeutary right of auy regional organization must be the right to determiue what states shouldconstitute its membership. To challenge that right is to challenge the principle of regional organization itself. 62. To be effective, regional organizationsmusthave common aims. They must have a minimal degree of internaI cohesion, a basic sense of common purpose. To deny regional organizations the freedomtoexclude from the privilege of membership Governments or States which, for one reason or another, seem to the other members to have ceased to subscribe tothe aims and ideals shared by the membership as a whole would be to deprive regional organizations of the sense of community of !nterest and purpose which is the main reason for their existence, and by so doiug, to reduce the whole concept of regional organization to a nullity. 63. It has also been argued in the course of this debate that the resolutions adopted at the Punta deI Este Meeting amount ta enforcement action within the meaning of Article 53 of the Charter and that, for that reason, they require the authorization of the Security Council. 64. This is not the first time, of course, that the question of the interpretation of this particular provision of Article 53 of the Charter has arisen. As other members of the Council have already recalled, the question arose in a somewhat different form in September 1960, and on that occasion, ten ofthe members of the Security Council were in agreement in interpreting the phrase "enforcement action" ina sense different than that which the representative of Cuba would wish to have placed on it today. 65. For reasons which have already been advanced and which it is unnecessary for me,perhaps,torepeat, we do not happen to accept the interpretaUon which the representative of Cuba seeks ta attach to this phrase. In our vie\\', the wards "enforcement action" in Article 53 are intended to denote the taking of armed action, that is ta say, measures of a military or similar nature. 66. Moreover, in sa far as there may bea difference of opinion regarding the interpretation ofArticle 53 or about the other matters raised by the Cuban delegatian, we believe that thisdifference cannotbe regarded as a purely juridical one, but that it is essentially a comlict of views of a political nature. It îs, in fact, a basic conflict of political opinion as to the scope of the l'ole which the Security Council-and the veto power of its permanent members-iS entitled to play in relation fi, 67. 1 need ouly add, in conclusion, that mydelegation will he guided by the foregoing considerations in auy vote which the Couneil may decide to take on the question beiore us. 1! 1i 1

Sinee 14 March 1962, the Security Couneil has beenholdingaseries of meetings to consider theletter addressed to the President of the Couneil on 8 March bythe representative of Cuba. It is indeed a matterofgratlficationto my delegation tbat the rigbt of Cuba, under Article 35 of the Charter, to bring tbis matter before the Couneil has been upheld by members and thatthe representative of cuba has been able to put bis case fully and squarely before the Couneil• .1 69. The position of rny Go"ernment as regards the events and the situation whieh have led to the submission of this matter to the Couneil is well known. It was most reeently restated at sorne length in my dele- .gation's statement on 13 February to tbe First Committee f1238th meeting), and 1 shaH not burden members of the Council by reiterating it. 70. The Government of Ghana has always been in favour of regional groupings, especially where, in the case of Africa, such a grouping of States could lead eventually to a political unityunder whose direction cooperation in the fields of eeonomic development and social and cultural reconstruction wouldhe more effective and meaningful. My Government believes that the international community is an integral unit and thatany kind of compartmentalization on a mutally exclusive pattern is unhealthy. That is why we believe in the principle of universality. This principle, however, cannot be extended to preclude the desirability of regional groupings based on genuine affinities, ofwhich the Organization of American States is a commendable example-the longest established example-in which the Governments in the American hemisphere have, with great effort, built up procedures and institutions to enable them to settle their own problems through regional processes and ta contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security. 71. That the value of such arrangements is accepted by the international community itself is reflected in the inclusion in the Charter of the United Nations of relevant Articles dealing with regional organizations, whose existence as separate entities is also acimowledged in the Charter. They are not and cann, he apjJendages or extensions of the United Nations, and they are distinct from the States of which they consist. Thus, regional organizations possess certain rights in the regulation of relations between their members, and they have a certain authority with reference to problems which do not transcend the regiônal scope-provided, of course, that their activitiesare in conformity \Vith the provisions of the Charter. par être nisation pas les qui leurs autorité cadre activités Charte. 73. In the letter which is the subject ofour deliberations, the representative of Cuba has made an appeal to the COlUlCU to refer seven questions ta the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. In the view of my delegation, the formulation of these questions could have been improved to make it possible for the Council to tackle the mainjuridicalissueinvolved. For, as mydelegation sees it, the keyquestion, deserving of special consideration, in the request contained in the Cuban letter is whether or not the resolutions adopted at Punta deI Este by the Eighth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs constitute "enforcement action" within the meaningofArticle53. As far as my delegation is concerned, the legalîty or illegalîty ofa decision taken at Punta deI Este, in terms of the Charter of the Organization ofAmerican States , is not the question at issue in this Couneil at present; and as my delegation pointed out during the debate on the Cuban complaint in the First Committee, no useful purpose would be servl;ld by attempting to pontificate on it. 74. If Article 53 of the Charter is examined in the light of the other provisions and of the spirit of the Charter, it will be found wanting in c1arity as to the meaning of "enforcement action". Nor can the scope and content of the term be established with certainty from the practice and jurisprudence ofthis Organization or from the records of the San Francisco Conference. 75. No clear guidance is available on the question of whether or not Security Councilauthorization is necessary only for actions involving armed force, as laid down in Article 42; nor is it dear whether such authorization is necessary only for action which would normally be in contravention of internationallaw but not [or such actions as ar.e within the competence of a State. 76. Unfortunately, the few specialists in international law who have pronouncedon these questions aredivided in theil' opinions. Some of them are ofthe opinion that "enforcement action" includes aU the measures en~ visaged in Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter on the ground that they are coercive in nature, and the conclusion is, therefore, drawn that such actions are subject to the prior authorization of the Council, \Vith the exception, of course, of measures against an t1enemy State Il and the implîed exception also of measures taken under Article 51 of the Charter inexercise of the right of self-defence. Thus, Hans Kelsen in his book The '1 i1! 77. Other authorities, on theotherhand,maintainthat the concept of enforcement action includes only the measures covered by Article 42 ofthe Charter, and that the measures described inArticle41, since they do not involve the use of armed force, are not coercive and that they do not therefore l'equire the authorization of the Security Council. This view was expressed, for instance, in 1947 by Ml'. Alberto Lieras Camargo of Colombia, the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, who had also officiated as Chairman of Committee III/4 atthe San Francisco Conference which deait with regional arrang'ements. With your permission, sir,'l shaH quote his analysis: nln the Charter of the United NationS there are two types of measures, closely co-ardinated with the procedure ta be followed in the Security Counci! when faced with threats of aggression, with the refusaI of the States to cor::ply with the recommendations of the Council. or w'ith a breach of thepeace. The first type is that of Article 41, according to which the Security Council is empowered ta decide what measures not involving the use ofarmedforce are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it is empowered ta call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. But if these measures are 01' have proved to be inadequate, ooercive measures will next be applied, with the use of air, sea, or land forces. There lsaclear distinction for the reader of the Charter between the measures of Article 41 which are not coercive, in the sense that they lack the element of physical violence that is closely identified with military action, and those of Article 42. Enforcementaction, with the use ofphysical force, is obviouslythe prerogative ofthe SeclU'ity Council, with a single exception: individualor collective self-defence. But the other measures, those of Article 41, are not; it may even be said that it is \...ithin the power of any State, without necessarily violating the pm'poses, principles or provisions of the Charter, ta break diplomatic, consular, and 8COnomic relations or ta interrupt its communications with another State. n , 1 i ]y Hans Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations (New York. Frederick A. Praeger Inc.• 1950). p. 724. A. "••• nine members of the Council supported a resolution sponsored by Argentina, Ecuador and the United States, the purpose of which was explicitly ta limit Security Council action to 'ooting', not authorizing or approving or disapproving. the OAS action.••" [993rd meeting, para. 120]. He added: "That decision was that measures even more far reaching than those now before us do not involve 'enforcement action' within the meaning of Article 53." And he concluded: " ..• the milder PWlta del Este resolutions DOW before us involve no such 'enforcement action' and require no Security Council authorization" [ibid., para. 121J. 79. It is important ta refer to statements made during the deliberations of the Security Council in the case of the Dominican Republic [893rd ta 895th meetings] in order to establish whether opinions, then expressed, will assist in assessing the weight oftheir outcome as a precedent. 80. In introducing on 8 September 1960 the draft resolutioll on the Dominican Republic issue, the representative of Argentina said as follows, in relation to the question of the interpretation of Article 53 of the Charter in connexion with steps taken by regional agencies: "My delegation does not thinkthis is the jWlcture at which ta take a final decision on this question. AlI that we can say for the present is that we have great doubts as towhether the SovietUnion's interpretation 18 the r1ght one ••• In any case. the matter seems open ta discussion. "However, we thinkthatthis is notthe best occasion for a thorough examination of the legalquestion. For one thing, the sudden calling of this meeting-which we must admit has taken us by surprise-has not allowed us sufficient time for the scrupulous investigation which the matter requires. For another, we do not think that the present international situationis the one most indicated for a discussion of questions of principle. Existing political tensions are sucb that it would be dilficult ta conceive of statements not decisively influenced by the c·onflicting positions and passions characteristic of the world atthisperiodof uncertainty." [893rd meeting, paras. 32 and 33.] He added, in reference to the draft resolution: " ••• Dur text shows the Security Council's interest and :'.>ncern in matters affecting peace and security, and l.,.aves the door wide open for a constructive 81. The second sponsor of the drait resolution, the representative of Ecuador, also said the following, after expressing doubt as ta the precise meaning of Article 53: 1: Il li "The records of the Security Counci! will undoubtedly constitute, in themselves, an expression of approval for the way in which the Organization of American States has defended the independence of a member State and the principle of non-intervention. However, 1 would again say that, in order not to create an unnecessary precedent which would not, in our view, be fully in line with the Charter as a whole, the Council shoul(,i simply take note of the report it has received." [Ibid., para. 68.1 ,~i 11 i l i, 82. 1 should also perhaps mention thatthe representative of France, who also voted for the draft resolution, said as follows during his intervention: " ••• We cannat, therefore, decide in favour of an exclusive regIonal competence, nor can we say that the United Nations is necessarily competent in aH cases. In my delegation's view, the Council must decide in each particular case as to whether its intervention can in any way promote the purposes and prinCÎples of the charter." [Ibid., para. 87.J 83. At the next meeting, the representative ofCeylon expressed the following view: "It would appear to benecessarytosaythat, in DU!' opinion, Article 53 when it refers to enforcement action, whether taken by the Security Council through the utilization of the regional organization, or by the regional agency with the authority of the Security Council, refers to both kinds of action contemplated in Articles 41 and 42." [894th meeting, para. 14.] -i "i,,, J1 '1 He went on to say: "This matter •.• is of such importance as to receive fuller consideration on another occasion." [Ibid., para. 17.) 84. Furthermore, the representative of ltaly said as follows, also after expressing doubt as to theapplicahility of Article 53: "We do not think that this is the proper occasion ta enter into a discussion related to mattersofgeneral principle and interpretation of specifie provisions of the Charter,especially Article 53.0f course, the idea of iguoring this important problem could not be further removed from our minds; but we [eel that such a discussion should have a wider scopethan the present one and should take iuto consideration various other important elements." {Ibid., para. 45.1 i 1 1 j 1 85. Finally, reference should also be made ta the views expressed by the representative of the United States on that occasion. In recording his country's position in relation to the interpretation given by the He concluded by saying: liAs to the principle of the matter being 1eft open for future consideration bythe Counoi!, my delegation considers this particular item completed, and in the future we shaH judge proposaIs on their merits." [Ibid•• para. 32.] 86. 1 apologize for burdeningthe Couneil with so many quotations, but it would appear from the foregoing extracts that there wasacertainreluctance, invarying degrees, on the part of several members who voted in favour of the draft resolution ta regard their vote as reflecting a definitive position on the question of whether or not decisions of the kind taken at San José constituted enforcement action., in termsofArticle 53. 87. Indeed, in response to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' contention that the San José decisions did constitute enforcement action, sorne ofthese members confined themselves merely to expressingdoubt, rather than rejection, and it would appear there was a consensus that there was room for a thorough examination of the legal question: what constitutes an enforcement action? 88. It, therefore, seems to my delegation that there still remain grounds for reasonable doubt as ta the meaning of "enforcement action" under Article 53,and ex hypothesi as to the consisteney of sorne of the deeisions taken at Punta dei Este with the provisions of the Charter. In the view'of my delegation, it is these doubts whieh constitute the strongest argument in favour of the Cuban request. For, ifjuridicalproprieties were to be abandoned inthe formulation and exeeution of sueh important political decisions as those complained of, the very prineiples ofinternationallaw and the basis of the Charter wouldbe undermined; and those who would suffer most from sueh a development would be the small, weak States, whose only recourse is the rule of internationallaw. 89 .... ln thus indicating our support, in principle, for the idea of recourse to the International Court of Justice, under Article 96, my delegation attachesgreat weight to resolution 171 (11) adopted by the General Assembly on 14 November 1947, whieh recommended greater reference to the Court by organs of the United Nations for advisory opinions on points of law relating to the interpretation of the Charter. 90. We are, of course, not unaware of the political nature of the background to the Cuban request; but as we have shown, there are identifiable points oflaw, the determination of whieh will assist in upholding the principles and purposes of the Charter. We would, therefore, urge all members to eschew all politieal argument on this occasion and consider the advisability of the Council requesting an opinion on the term "enforcement action" within the meaning of the Charter. Of course, we have notfailedtotake into consideration the admonition of Ml'. Stevenson, in which we fully 91. These are the general considerations whichform the framework of my delegation's approach to the matter hefore the Council. Cuba, as an aggrieved party, has come before the Security Council with a specifie legal request which, though bedevilled with political arguments, should b,e considered by the Council. My delegation is of the opinion that the least the Council should do is to seek an opinion from the Court as to what constitutes an enforcement action, bearing in mind Articles 41, 42 and 530f the Charter. 1 1 92. In determining my delegation's attitude to the draft.resolution sponsored by Cuba, we shaU take into consideration the appropriateness of the questions posed, in form as weU as substance, in relation to the Security Couneil's competence in fuis case. The meeting rose at 1.25 p.m. BElGIUM/BElGIQUE: ET MESSAGERIES OE 14.22, rue du Persil, CZECHOSlOVAKIA/TCHÉCOSlOVAQUIE: CESKOSLOVENSKY CAMEROUN: LIBRAIRIE DU PEUPLE AFRICAIN La Gérante, 8. P. 1197, Yaoundê. ETHIOPIA/ÉTHIOPIE: INTERNATIONAL PRESS AGENCY. P. O. Box 120, Addls Ababa. GHANA: UNIVERSITY 800KSHOP Uni...erslty College of Ghana, Legon, Accra. MOROCCO/MAROC, CENTRE DE DIFFUSION DOCUMF.NTAlRE OU B.E.P.I.. 8, rue Michaux.Bellaire, Rabat. N~rodni Tricia 9, P,".,a DENMARK/DANEMA~K: EJNAR MUNKSGA.e.";), N~rregade 6, K~benha FINLAND/FINLANDE: A!\ATEEMINEN KIRJAKI\UPPA 2 Kes~us~atu, Helsin~L FRANCE: ÉDiTiONS 13> rue Soufflot, Paris SOUTH AFRICA/AFRIQUE DU SUD: VAN SCHAIK'S BOOK STORE (PTy.), LTD. Church Street, Box 724, Pretoria. ~~~~A::N~~~f~~;L~~~~B;~~f:l(E R. EISENSCHMIDT Schwanthaler Str. 59, ELWERT UND MEURER Hauptstrasse 101. Berlfn·Schëineberg. ALEXANDER HORN Spiegelgasse 9, Wiesbaden. W. E. SAARBACH UNITED ARAB REPUBlIC/ RÉPUBLIQUE ARABE UNIE: LIBRAiRIE "LA RENAISSANCE O'ËGYPTE" 9 Sh, Adly Pasha, Cairo. ASIA/ASIE Gertruci~nstrasse3D, GREECE/GRê:CE: LIBRAIRIE KAUFFMANN 28. me du Stade, Athènes. ICELANO/ISLANDE: SOKAVERZLUN SIGFÛSAR E':'MUNDSSONAR H. BURMAfBIRMANIE, CURATOR, GOVT. BOOK DEPOT. Rangoon. CAMBOOIA/CAMBCDGE: ENTREPRISE KHMÈRE DE LIBRAIRIE Imprimerie & Papeterie, S. ~ R. L" Phnom·Penh. CEYLON/CEYlAN: LAKE HOUSE BOOKSHOP Assoc. Newspapers 01 Ceylon, P. O. Box 244, Colombo. CHINA/CHINE: THE WORLD BOOK COMPANY, LTc;. 99 Chung King Road, 1st Section, Taipeh, Taiwan. THE COMMERCIAL PRESS. LTD. 211 Honan Road, Shanghai. Austurstra~ti 18, Rey~ia IRELAND/IRlANDE: Dublin. ITALY/ITALIE, LIBRERIA COMMISSIONARIA Via Gino Capponi 26, & Via O. A. Azun115/A, LUXEMBOURG: LIBRAiRIE SCHUMMER Place du Thêâtre, Luxembourg. NETHERLAN DS/PAYS.BAS: N_ V. MARTIN US NIJHOFF Lange Voorhout 9. 's.Gra NORWAY/NORVÈGE, JOHAN GRUNOT TANUM Kari Johansgate. 41, PORTUGAL: LiVRARIA 186 Rua Aurea. Lisboa. SPAIN/ESPAGNE, lIBRERIA BOSCH II Roncia Universidad, lIBRERIA MUNOI_PRENS.e. Castello 37, Madrid, SWEDEN/SUÈDE: C. KUNGL. HOVBOKHANDEL Fredsgatan 2, Stoe~holm. SWITZ ERLAN D/SU ISSE: LIBRAIRIE PAYOT, S. Lausanne, Genève. HANS RAUNHARDT Kirchgasse 17, Zürich TURKEY/TURQUIE: LIBRAIRIE HACHETTE 459 Isti~ial Caddesi. UNION OF SOYIET UNlO!l DES REPUBLIQUES SOVIETIQUES, MEZHDUNARODNAYA KNYIGA. Smolens~aya UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME.UNI, H. M. STATIONERY P. O. Box 569. London, (and HMSO branches Bristol. Cardiff, Edinburgh. YUGOSLAVIA/YOUGOSlAVI CANKARJEVA ZALOZBA ljubliana. Siavenla. ORZAVNO PREDUZECE JuîlOsloVMska Knjiga, 8eograd, PROSVJETA S, Trg 8ratstva i Jedlnst PROSVETA PUBLISHING Import·Export Division. Terazije 16/1. Beograd. HONG KONG/HONG_KONG: THE SWINDON BOOK COMPANY 25 Nathan Road, Kowloon. INOlA/INDE: ORIENT LONGMANS Bombay, Calcutta. Hyderabad, Madras & New Delhi. OXFORD BOOK & STATIONERY COMPANY Calcutta & New Delhi. P. VARADACHARY & COMPANY Madr6s. INDONESIA/INDONÉSIE, PEMBANGUNAN. LTD. Gunung SaMar, 64, Dia~arta. JAPAN/JAPON, MARUZEN COMPANY, LTD. 6 Tori_Nichome. Nihonbashi, To~y". KOREA (REP. OFl!CORÉE (RÉP. DE): EUL-YOO PUBLISHING CO" LTD. 5. 2·KA. Chongno, Seou!. PAKISTAN, THE PAKISTAN CO·OPERATIVE BOOK SOCIETY Dacca. East Pa~lstan. PUBLlSHERS UNITED. LTD. Lahore. THOMAS & THOMAS Karachi. PHILIPPINES: ALEMAR'S BOOK STORE 759 Rizal Av~nue. Manila. SINGAPORE/SINGAPOUR: THE CITY BOO~ STORE, LTD,. Collyer Quay. THAILAND/THAllANDE: PRAMUAN MIT, LTD. 55 Cha~rawat Road. Wat Tu~, 8ang~ok, VIET_NAM (REP, OF/RÉP, DU): LIBRAIRIE-PAPETERIE XUÂN THU 185, rue Tu·do. 8. P. 283. Saigon. EUROPE AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE: GEROLD 1< COMPANY Graben 31, Wien. 1. B. WÜLLERSTORFF Markus Sitti~usstrasse 10. Salzburg. Orders and inquirias trom countries where sales agencies hava not yet bee" or to Sales Section, United Nations. Les commandes e' demandes de renseignements émanant de pays où il n'existe ONU, New York (I::,·U,). oU à la Section des ventes, Price: $U.S. 0.35 (or equivalent Litho in V.N.