Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:22:02.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Multi-lingual Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Shabtai Rosenne
Get access

Extract

      Security Council resolution 242 (1967), adopted on November 22, 1967, contains the following phrase:
      “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
      In the other languages used by the Security Council (except Chinese), that phrase is framed as follows:
      “Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit.”
      “Vyvod izrailskikh voruzhennykh sil s territorii, okkupirovannykh vo vremya n’edavn’ego konflikta.”
      “Retiro de las fuerzas armadas israelís de los territorios que ocuparon durante el reciente conflicto.”

That phrase has produced considerable controversy inside Israel, but within that controversy a secondary issue has arisen, of some juridical interest, since some of the protagonists of one point of view or another have purported to see a fundamental difference between one or other of these language versions of this phrase. We have no intention of taking sides in that particular controversy. The aim of this note is more limited, namely, to indicate certain factors relevant to the interpretation of a multi-lingual resolution of an organ of the United Nations.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1971 , pp. 360 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1971

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 The change in the Spanish text was probably the result of renewed scrutiny following the intervention of the only Spanish-speaking member of the Security Council at that time, the representative of Argentina. S/PV. 1382 at 78 (Provisional English version).

2 Document S/96/Rev. 4. Following Security Council resolution 263, adopted on January 24, 1969, Russian and Spanish now have the status of working languages, consequential amendments being made in the Rules of Procedure in force since then, doc. S/96/Rev. 5.

3 The Law of Treaties: A Guide to the Legislative History oj the Vienna Convention, by the present writer (1970). For the draft articles on the law of treaties submitted by the International Law Commission, see Reports of the International Law Commission on the work of the second part of its seventeenth session and on its eighteenth session, in U.N. Official Records of the General Assembly, twenty-first session, supplement No. 9 (A/6309/Rev. 1), Part II, Chapter II. Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966), vol. II at 173.

4 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixteenth session, footnote 170. Official Records of the General Assembly, nineteenth session, supplement No. 9 (A/5809), Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1964), vol. II at 206. See also the discussion at the 767th meeting of the Commission, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1964), vol. I at 298. For the memorandum of the Secretariat (in the preparation of which the present writer assisted), see document A/CN.4/187, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966), vol. II at 104.

5 Rostow, Eugene, “The United Nations and Legal Aspects of the Search for Peace in the Middle East” (1970), Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 69.Google Scholar In 1967, Dean Rostow occupied a responsible position in the State Department during the administration of President Johnson, and his remarks were made with personal knowledge and authority.

6 Stone, Julius, “The ‘November Resolution’ and Middle East Peace: Pitfall or Guidance” in A Collection of Essays in honor of Josef L. Kunz (reprinted from (1970) Toledo Law Review)Google Scholar, footnote 7.

7 S/PV.1382 at 58 (Provisional English version). Note also the remark of the representative of France at the 1895th plenary meeting of the General Assembly on November 3, 1970, insisting “in order to avoid reviving an old quarrel” that this part of resolution 242 (1967) must be quoted in exactly the same terms as those that were adopted, the English text in the original English, the French text in the original French version, the Russian text in the original Russian version, and so on. A/PV.1895 at 53 (Provisional English version). This is probably the most authoritative confirmation one could have that the French text was intended to convey exactly the same meaning as the English, and not vice versa.

8 S/PV.1382 at 96 (Provisional English version). Note also on this point Mr. Eban's Press Conference of March 7, 1971.

9 Arthur Lall, The U.N. and the Middle East Crisis (1968) at 253–4. Ambassador Lall had earlier been Deputy Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, and although in 1967 he held a teaching post at Columbia University, in the City of New York, he is widely regarded as reflecting the views of the Indian delegation, which at that time was a member of the Security Council.

10 I.C.J. Reports, 1955, 67 at 72.

11 See, for instance, document S/8235, circulating as a Security Council document the text of a draft resolution (which was not adopted) submitted by a group of delegations at the emergency meetings of the General Assembly. That circulation was undertaken at the request of India, made at the 1373rd meeting of the Council on November 9, 1967.

12 Maimonides to Shmuel ibn Tibbon in 1199. Translation from Schwarz, Leo W., Memoirs of My People (1943) at xGoogle Scholar.