Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T12:36:48.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multiple Representation in International Assemblies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Louis B. Sohn
Louis B. Sohn*
Affiliation:
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the representatives of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States met at Yalta in February, 1945, the Soviet delegation raised the question of giving separate representation in the Assembly of the United Nations to the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The United States delegation agreed to support this claim at San Francisco, but reserved the right of the United States to put in a similar claim for three votes for itself and its possessions. The Soviet delegation raised no objection to the latter claim and the British delegation agreed to support both claims. No agreement was reached at the time with respect to the question of the participation of the two Soviet Republics at the San Francisco Conference itself. When the Yalta agreement was disclosed at the end of March objections were raised in different quarters against the principle of plural votes itself and very vehemently against the secrecy attached to the agreement. In order to pour some oil on the troubled waters the Government of the United States announced that the United States would not request for itself additional votes in the General Assembly. The United States delegation was directed, however, to cast the vote of the United States in favor of the admission of the Byelorussian and Ukrainian Republics and on April 27, 1945, the San Francisco Conference unanimously invited these Republics to become initial members of the United Nations. On April 30, 1945, it permitted them to take seats at the Conference immediately. The delegates of these republics at the Conference generally voted with the Soviet delegation but in a few instances their votes diverged. One might recall in that connection that while in the early days of the League of Nations the British Dominions followed quite closely the lead of the British delegation, twenty-five years later, at San Francisco, the British delegation found the Dominions sometimes among its most bitter opponents. It is quite possible that the position of the Soviet Republics might evolve along similar lines, though it might take some time.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 1946 , pp. 71 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 United States, Department of State, Bulletin, Vol. XII (1945), p. 530.

2 Same, pp. 500–503.

3 Same, pp. 802, 806. See also The United Nations Conference on International Organization, Journal, No. 4, p. 12; No. 6, p. 20.

4 This Journal, Vol. 14 (1920), p. 201.

5 Dawson, R. M., The Development of Dominion Status, 1900–1986, London, 1937, pp. 3031 Google Scholar, 178–180.

6 United States, Department of State, Foreign Relations, 1919, Paris Peace Conference,Vol. I, pp. 386, 393.

7 Same, Vol. III, pp. 482–486, 600–503.

8 Same, pp. 531–533, 538–540. Through the medium of the British panel, Newfoundland was, for instance, represented at the session of the Preliminary Peace Conference of January 18, 1919: p. 157.

9 Pp. 546–548, 567–568. The final text of Article II of the Rules of Conference ran as follows (pp. 172–173):

The Powers shall be represented by Plenipotentiary Delegates to the number of:

Five for the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan;

Three for Belgium, Brazil, Serbia;

Two for China, Greece, the Hedjaz, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Siam, the CzechoSlovak Republic;

One for Cuba, Guatemala, Hayti, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama;

One for Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay.

The British Dominions and India shall be represented as follows:—

Two delegates each for Canada, Australia, South Africa, India (including the native States);

One Delegate for New Zealand.

Each Delegation shall be entitled to set up a panel, but the number of Plenipotentiaries shall not exceed the figures given above.

The representatives of the Dominions (including Newfoundland) and of India can, moreover, be included in the representation of the British Empire by means of the panel system.

Montenegro shall be represented by one Delegate, but the manner of his appointment shall not be decided until the present political situation of that country becomes clear.

The conditions governing the representation of Russia shall be settled by the Conference when Russian affairs come up for discussion.

10 Miller, D. H., The Drafting of the Covenant, New York, 1928, Vol. II, p. 109 Google Scholar. See also same, p. 121.

11 Miller, , Vol. I, pp. 53–54 Google Scholar, 57; Vol. II, p. 98.

12 Same, Vol. I, pp. 58, 61; Vol. II, pp. 131, 134.

13 Same, Vol. II, p. 232.

14 Same, Vol. I, p. 150; Vol. II, p. 257.

15 Same, Vol. I, pp. 157–158, 164r–165, 227; Vol. II, pp. 260–261, 303. See Seymour, C., The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, Boston, 1928, Vol. IV, p. 311 Google Scholar.

16 Miller, , Vol. I, p. 307 Google Scholar; Vol. II, p. 625.

17 Same, Vol. I, p. 477.

18 As Miller states, “the legal difference between the Dominions and India and the states which are Members of the League is thus symbolically indicated by a quarter of an inch of difference in type alignment.” Same, Vol. I, p. 493. With respect to the eligibility of the Dominions for a seat on the Council, see same, Vol. I, p. 489. Canada sat on the Council from 1928 to 1930, Ireland from 1931 to 1933, Australia from 1934 to 1936, New Zealand from 1937 to 1939, and South Africa from 1940 to 1942, all dates inclusive.

19 Records of the Fourth Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 24.

20 Op. cit., p. 166.

21 Shotwell, J. T., Editor, The Origins of the International Labor Organization, New York, 1934, Vol. II, p. 121 Google Scholar.

22 Same, Vol. II, p. 140.

23 Same, Vol. I, p. 410.

24 Same, Vol. I, pp. 171, 410.

25 The original Belgian proposal did in fact envisage the competence of the “Council,” but the discussion centered around giving that power to the “Conference” itself.

26 Shotwell, Vol. I, pp. 171–172; Vol. II, pp. 194–196.

27 Shotwell, Vol. I, pp. 173–174; Vol. II, pp. 198–201. See also Vol. II, p. 207.

28 Same, Vol. I, pp. 411–413.

29 Same, Vol. II, p. 376.

30 Same, Vol. I, pp. 204, 210–211, 218–220; Vol. II, pp. 406–409.

31 With respect to the simultaneous struggle of the Dominions for eligibility to the Governing Body of the International Labor Office, see same, Vol. I, pp; 183–184, 210–211, 218–220, 419; Vol. II, pp. 207–208. Both Canada and India obtained permanent seats on the Governing Body in 1922; the Dominions were also continuously represented in the employers’ and workers’ groups of the Governing Body.

32 British & Foreign State Papers, Vol. 65, p. 13; Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités, Se série, Vol. I, p. 651. Austria-Hungary, Netherlands-Luxemburg, and Sweden- Norway, though they constituted at the time unions of states, did not sign the treaty as single entities; Austria, Hungary, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden all signed the treaty separately. One could claim that these unions of states were given two votes each, but see Akzin, B., “Membership in the Universal Postal Union,” this Journal , Vol. 27 (1933), p. 651 Google Scholar, at p. 652. Denmark and Iceland were in the same position after 1919.

33 British & Foreign State Papers, Vol. 67, p. 549.

34 See Akzin, pp. 654–659; Buehler, , Der Weltpostverein, Berlin, 1930, pp. 27–30 Google Scholar, 78–79.

35 Documents du Congrès Postal de Paris, 1878, pp. 6, 18, 50, 76–79, 240, 250–1, 397–8, 508–9, 636.

36 Documents du Congrès Postal de Lisbonne, 1885, Vol. I, p. 68; Vol. II, pp. 59–60, 63–6, 68, 71–3, 95–9, 377.

37 Documents du Congrès Postal de Vienne, 1891, pp. 381–3, 419, 471, 643–9, 715.

38 Documents du Congrès Postal de Washington, 1897, pp. 62–3, 385, 435–437, 486, 681, 715, 741, 745.

39 Rapport de gestion du Bureau de I'Union postale universelle, 1900, p. 12; same, 1901, p. 10.

40 Documents du Congrès Postal de Rome, 1906, Vol. I, pp. 113–115; Vol. II, pp. 76,197–203, 252, 319–321, 561–564, 589–595, 634–635.

41 Documents du Congrhs Postal de Madrid, 1920, Vol. I, pp. 65–66, 68; Vol. II, pp. 43, 84, 89, 119, 123, 131, 216, 217–221, 437–438, 440, 786–790.

42 Same, p. 747; see also same, p. 789. Iceland’s right to a separate delegation and vote in the 1920 Congress does not seem to have been questioned by anybody, though it was represented by a Danish official and has not taken part in previous congresses. See footnote 1, above.

43 Translation from United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 42, Part 2, pp. 2000–2001.

44 These articles relate, respectively, to the Bureau of the Union and its expenses, to congresses and voting therein, and to voting on proposals made between congresses.

45 According to Article V of the Final Protocol to the Convention, “Note is taken of the declaration made by the British delegation in the name of their Government to the effect that it has assigned to New Zealand, with the Cook Islands and other island dependencies, the vote which article 29, par. 6, of the Convention attributes to the other dominions and the whole of the British colonies and protectorates”: same, p. 2006.

46 Documenta du Congrès Postal de Stockholm, 1924, Vol. I, pp. 4–5,407,464–465,476; Vol. II, pp. 36, 119, 124, 128, 149, 204–218, 270, 387–388, 705–707, 846.

47 Documents du Congrès Postal de Londres, 1929, Vol. I, pp. 20–30, 1372–1380.

48 Same, Vol. II, pp. 136–140, 149–154, 565–566, 651.

49 Hudson, , International Legislation, Vol. VI, p. 647 Google Scholar.

50 Documents du Congrès Postal de Caire, 1934, Vol. II, pp. 192–213, 544, 596.

51 Documents du Congrès Postal de Buenos Aires, 1939, Vol. II, pp. 52–53, 521.

52 League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 202, p. 171.

53 Documents du Congrès Postal de Londres, 1929, Vol. II, pp. 150–153. See also the statement by the Swiss delegate, Documents du Congrès Postal de Stockholm, 1924, Vol. II, p. 209.

54 For text of the Paris Convention of May 17, 1865, see British & Foreign Stale Papers, Vol. 56, p. 295; De Clercq, Recueil des Traités de la France, Vol. 9, p. 254.

55 De Clercq, p. 273.

56 Documenta de la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Rome, 1872, pp. 223–225,263, 307, 330.

57 Translation from League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 57, p. 217.

58 Britiah & Foreign State Papers, Vol. 70, p. 62.

59 Documents de la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Berlin, 1885, pp. 89–92, 271–276, 282, 303, 355, 520.

60 Documents de la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Paris, 1890, pp. 102–106, 297–302, 557.

61 Documents de la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Budapest, 1896, pp. 109–115, 473–478.

62 Documents de la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Londres, 1903, pp. 112–117, 507–512, 627.

63 Documents de la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Lisbonne, 1908, pp. 124–130, 477–483.

64 Documents de la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Paris, 1925, Vol. II, pp. 27–28.

65 Same, pp. 3–10, 156.

66 Documents de la Conférence Télégraphique Internationale de Bruxelles (1928), pp. 39–44.

67 Documents de la Conférence Radiotélégraphique Internationale de Berlin, 1906, pp. 9, 66–72, 78–83, 102–105, 143–146, 155–6, 162, 164, 198–199, 309–310, 347, 352–353.

68 Translation from this Journal, Vol. 3 (1909), Supplement, p. 335. For the French text, see same.

69 Same, p. 343.

70 Documents de la Conférence Radiotélégraphique Internationale de Londres, 1912, pp. 12, 115–121, 430–433, 437, 439–441, 445, 488, 492, 505, 510, 555, 567. See also Myers, D. P., “Non-Sovereign Representation in Public International Organs,” Actes du Congrès Mondial des Associations Internationales, pp. 753–802 Google Scholar; same, “Representation in Public International Organs,” this Journal,Vol. 8 (1914), pp. 81, 97–102.

71 Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1920, Vol. I, p. 156.

72 Documents de la Conférence Radiotélêgraphique Internationale de Washington, 1927, Vol. I, pp. 40–42, 51. See also same, pp. 727, 745–746.

73 Same, Vol. II, pp. 142–149, 151–152, 650, 732, 801–802, 815, 915–916.

74 Documents de la Conférence Radiotélégraphique Internationale de Madrid, 1932, Vol. I, pp. 8, 96–97, 621, 794–795, 826–838, 840–841, 848–849, 850–851, 852–854, 858, 862, 867, 870–871, 872–873, 882, 896–897, 902–903, 905, 908–909; Vol. II, pp. 32, 39–43, 433–470, 479–508.

75 Translation from French; for French text see same, Vol. II, p. 53.

76 In French alphabetical order.

77 Same, Vol. II, pp. 504–505.

78 Same, Vol. II, pp. 49–54,112; see also pp. 95–96,113, 233–234. See LaPradelle, P. de, “lie Droit de vote aux Conférences des télécommunications,” in Revue juridique internationale de la radioélectricité, Vol. 9 (1933), pp. 398–424 Google Scholar.

79 Translation from International Telecommunications Conferences, Cairo 1938, Report to the Secretary of State by the Chairman of the American Delegation (Department of State Publication 1286, Conference Series 39), p. 101. See also de Wolf, F. C., “The Cairo Telecommunication Conferences,” in this Journal , Vol. 32 (1938), pp. 562 Google Scholar, 566–567; X.X.X., “La Syrie et le Liban, et le droit de vote aux Conférences de télécommunications du Caire,” in Revue internationale de la radioélectricité, Vol. 14 (1938), pp. 5–25.

80 Documenta de la Conference Télégraphique et Téléphonique Internationale du Caire, 1938, Vol II, pp. 417–433, 473–474, 590. See also same, Vol. I, pp. 494–495; Vol. II, pp. 24–27, 66–69, 166–172, 174–176, 260–262, 614–615.

81 See Riches, C. A., Majority Ride in International Organization, Baltimore, 1940, pp. 260–267 Google Scholar.

82 See the author’s article on ”Weighting of Votes in an International Assembly,” in American Political Science Review, Vol. 38 (1944), pp. 1192–1203; Clark, G., in American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 30 (1944), p. 671 Google Scholar; Rudd, H. F., A Method of Balanced Representation, Durham, N. H., 1944, 23 Google Scholar pp.