No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
* Charles, H. Stockton Professor of International Law, Naval War College, Newport, R. I. (1970-71)Google Scholar; Director, International Legal Studies Program, Syracuse University College of Law. This comment was written under a research grant from Resources for the Future, Inc.
1 Article 19: “A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.”
2 15th meeting of Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, U.N. Doc.A/AC.121/SR.15/Corr. 1. U. S./U.N. Press Release No. 4615, Aug. 16, 1965; excerpt in 60 A.J.I.L. 104 (1966). The portion of the statement which raised most of the questions was as follows:
“Therefore, without prejudice to the position that Article 19 is applicable, the United States recognizes, as it simply must, that the General Assembly is not prepared to apply Article 19 in the present situation and that the consensus of the membership is that the Assembly should proceed normally. We will not seek to frustrate that consensus, since it is not in the world interest to have the work of the General Assembly immobilized in these troubled days. At the same time, we must make it crystal clear that if any member can insist on making an exception to the principle of collective financial responsibility with respect to certain activities of the Organization, the United States reserves the same option to make exceptions if, in our view, strong and compelling reasons exist for doing so. There can be no double standard among the members of the Organization.”
3 The sorry state of the finances of the League of Nations by the mid-1930’s supports a most pessimistic view of the consequences of such a doctrine.
4 Letters dated April 21 and 26, 1967, from the Secretary General to the President of the General Assembly. U.N. Docs. A/6643 and A/6647. As of the date of the earlier letter, five states were in arrears. Three paid by April 26. Haiti paid by May 5 (U.N. Doc. A/6647/Add. 1) and the Dominican Republic by June 20 (U.N. Doc. A/6724).
5 “You will recall that, by letters of 24 and 29 April and 3 and 6 May 1968 (A/ 7086 and Add. 1-3), I reported to the General Assembly, at its resumed twenty-second session, on those States which were ‘in arrears in the payment of their contributions to the United Nations regular budget within the terms of Article 19 of the Charter’. My reports were not contested at any time during the resumed twenty-second session the Member States mentioned therein nor, in fact, by any other Member State.” See Letter dated July 30 from the Secretary General addressed to the Permanent Representative of Haiti to the United Nations, U.N. Doc. A/7167.
6 By letters of April 24 and 29 and May 3 and 6, 1968 (U.N. Doc. A/7086 and Add. 1-3), the Secretary General reported to the General Assembly that these states were “in arrears in the payment of their contributions to the United Nations regular budget within the terms of Article 19 of the Charter.”
7 U.N. Doc. A/PV.1582.
8 U.N. General Assembly, 22nd Resumed Sess., Official Records, 1671st and 1672nd Plenary Meetings.
9 U.N. Docs. A/7167 and A/7146.
10 A/7148, Annex, Opinion of the Legal Counsel. For the entire opinion, see 7 Int. Legal Materials 1189 (1968).
11 Letter dated September 24, 1968, from the Secretary General to the President of the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/7328. The Dominican Republic made a sufficient payment to satisfy the requirements of Art. 19 at the 11th hour.
12 U.N. Doc. A/7237.
13 U.N. Doc. A/PV.1674, 1674th Plenary Meeting, Sept. 24, 1968.
14 The extent to which the Assembly was acting in conformity with Art. 19 of the Charter, which makes no provision for exculpation while the matter is studied or in conformity with Rule 161, which is mandatory in character, is perhaps questionable. This possible slippage may be argued to be de minimis in this case, if undesirable as a possible precedent, in light of the course followed by the Committee on Contributions. The justification, if any, for the practice followed would have to be the short time between the receipt of the Haitian letter and the vote and the desire to avoid embarrassment.
15 Third Report of the Committee on Contributions, U.N. Doc. A/7210/Add.2, Nov. 20, 1968, par. 6, footnotes omitted.
16 Ibid., par. 9.
17 Letter dated November 20, 1968, from the Secretary General addressed to the President of the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/7238/Add.1.
18 Letter dated September 16, 1969, from the Secretary General to the President of the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/7672.
19 Mr. Fuentes Mohr presided in place of Mr. Emilio Arenales, the President of the 23rd Session, who had died earlier in the year. Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, Rule 30.
20 The record of the 1753rd meeting indicates that only 125 ballot papers were distributed. There are 126 Members of the United Nations. U.N. Doc. A/PV.1753. Furthermore, as in the case of the other meetings, the tapes indicate the name of Haiti was not called.
21 Letter dated September 15, 1969, addressed to the President of the General Assembly by the Permanent Representative of Haiti to the United Nations, U.N. Doc. A/7671.
22 Letter dated September 17 from the Secretary General to the President of the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/7672/Add. 1.
23 Although the logic of the situation would seem to imply the extension of this rule to all committees and subcommittees, there is no precedent, as neither Haiti nor the Dominican Republic were on any subcommittees at which votes were taken during the period in question.