Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T10:58:14.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Security Council

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Get access

Extract

During the period under review, the India-Pakistan question was before the Security Council during six sessions. On May 5 and 6, 1948, India and Pakistan respectively replied to the Security Council resolution of April 21, 1948. Mr. Nehru, Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs, stated that the Government of India regretted that it was “not possible for them to implement those parts of the Resolution against which their objections were clearly stated by their delegation” but that if the Council should still decide to send out the Commission, the Indian Government “would be glad to confer with it.” Sir Mohamed Zafrullah Khan, for Pakistan, pointing out the differences between the resolution of April 21 and Pakistan's original proposals, stated that the Security Council action was “not acceptable,” but “under protest and without prejudice” designated Argentina as Pakistan's nominee for the Commission.

Type
International Organizations: Summary of Activities I. United Nations
Information
International Organization , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 1948 , pp. 488 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1948

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 For previous summaries of Security Council discussions of this question, see International Organization, II, p. 299–306.

2 Document S/734/Corr.l.

3 Document S/735.

4 Document S/756.

5 Documents S/P.V.289, S/P.V.300, S/P.V.304 and S/P.V.305.

6 Document S/P.V.312.

7 Documents/825.

8 Document S/P.V.315.

9 For previous summaries, see International Organization, II, p. 311–314.

10 Document S/P.V.288.

11 Document S/P.V.300.

12 Documents S/P.V.288, S/P.V.300 and S/ P.V.303.

13 Document S/P.V.300.

14 Document S/P.V.303.

15 Editor's note: Although the Chinese representative (Hsiu) explained that he voted against the President's ruling because he regarded it as incorrect, not because he did not consider China bound by the Four Power Statement, Mr. Gromyko charged that the Chinese vote was contrary to the obligations assumed by China as a signatory of the Statement on Voting Procedure.

16 Document S/P.V.303.

17 For previous summary of Security Council discussion of this question, see International Organization, II, p. 306–311Google Scholar. For consideration of the question by the General Assembly and by the Arab League, see this issue, p. 478 and 543.

18 Document S/P.V.283.

19 Document S/P.V.287.

20 Document S/P.V.293. For text of the questionnaire see document S/753.

21 Document S/P.V.292. Statement by Isa Nackleh of the Arab Higher Committee.

22 Ibid.Statement by Faris el-Khouri of Syria.

23 Ibid.

24 Documents S/P.V.295 and 296.

25 Documents S/P.V.296 and 297.

26 Document S/753.

27 See documents S/760, S/767, S/768, S/769, S/770, S/772, S/774 and S/775.

28 Document S/776.

29 Documents S/761 to S/765.

30 Documents S/771 and S/771/Add.l.

31 Document S/P.V.299. See also this issue p. 481.

32 Documents S/P.V.298 and S/P.V.299.

33 Document S/P.V.297 and 301.

34 Ibid.

35 Document S/773.

36 Document S/P.V.306.

37 Document S/P.V.310.

38 This paragraph was adopted after a number of other formulae had been suggested. The Arab League representatives insisted that continued Jewish immigration would react to the advantage of Israel during the truce; Jewish representatives insisted that immigration was entirely a matter within the domestic jurisdiction of Israel.

39 Document S/P.V.310.

40 Documents S/P.V.313 and S/P.V.314; document S/830.

41 Document S/P.V.314.

42 Document S/P.V.320. In the course of the debate, Mr. Gromyko had indicated that the Soviet Union had in mind to name five or six out of the proposed thirty to fifty military observers.

43 Document S/863.

44 Document S/878.

45 Document S/880.

46 Document S/888.

47 Document S/P.V.333.

48 Documents S/P.V.334 and S/P.V.335.

49 Documents S/P.V.336 and S/P.V.337.

50 Document S/338.

51 Security Council use of the designation ”Provisional Government of Israel” required three separate votes. The United States representative (Jessup) insisted that designation of Jewish authorities as the Provisional Government of Israel did not constitute a recognition of the new state by the United Nations, citing similar action by the Council in referring to the “Republic of Indonesia.” A Syrian amendment to base action upon the report of the Mediator was defeated when supported only by Syria, Belgium, Argentina and China. A United Kingdom amendment to use the phrase “other party” in place of the Provisional Government of Israel was defeated when supported only by Belgium and Colombia with the other members abstaining. Document S/P.V.338.

52 Reference to Article 40 in this section of the resolution failed of adoption when, on an Argentine motion, Syria voted in the negative, and the Ukraine and the Soviet Union joined Argentina and China in abstaining.

53 A Soviet amendment proposing that both sides withdraw from Jerusalem and the Special Statute approved by the General Assembly be put into effect failed of passage when supported by the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR with Syria opposed and the other members abstaining.

54 Document S/P.V.338.

55 Document S/894.

56 For previous summaries of the Indonesian question, see International Organization, I, p. 77–8; II, p. 80–5, 297–9.

Editor's Note: Mr. Van Kleffens has brought to the Editor's attention the fact that an earlier summary of the Indonesian question (Vol. II, p. 80, note 3) implied that the Netherlands Government had officially registered the Linggadjati Agreement under Article 102 of the Charter. The entry referred to quoted a statement by Faris el-Khouri (Syria) which was later denied by Mr. Van Kleffens who asserted that the Agreement had been sent to the Security Council “not for registration, but for information only.”

57 Document S/787.

58 Document S/786.

59 Document S/842.

60 Document S/P.V.316.

61 Ibid.

62 Documents S/P.V.322, 323 and 326.

63 Document S/P.V.328.

64 Document S/848.

64a Document S/P.V.327.

65 Document S/642.

66 Document S/P.V.324.

67 Document S/820.

68 Document S/C.2/SR.25.

69 Document S/859.

70 Document S/C.2/SR.26.

71 For previous summaries of the work of the Atomic Energy Commission, see International Organization, I, P. 99–102, 324–326; II, p. 96–8, 315–16.

72 Document AEC/31. For experts see this issue, p. 564.

73 Document S/P.V.321.

74 Document S/P.V.325.