




















Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The complex and evolving definition of 'states' in the context of the United Nations Charter. The author discusses how the traditional definition of states as entities with a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states has been expanded and nuanced through various criteria and circumstances. The text also touches upon the role of international law, the United Nations, and the admission of new member states in shaping the concept of statehood.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 28
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Frederick Tse-shyang Chen*
"Statehood" is an element of membership in the United Nations. The two provisions of the Charter on membership are quite clear on this requirement:
Article 3. The original Members of the United (^) Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of January 1, 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article 110.'
Article (^) 4. (1.) Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the (^) present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.^2
However, the Charter does not define the term "states" nor do the two advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice concerning membership of the United Nations.^3 In practice, the decision-makers seem to have followed a number of criteria and have given a wide variety (^) of meanings to the term. First, they have (^) applied a traditional definition of states in international law which regards an entity as a (^) state if it possesses "(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states." 4 The entities found to fit this definition, however, have
***** Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University, Connecticut, U.S.A; formerly Dean and Professor, School of Law, Soochow University, Taipei, Taiwan, (^) R.O.C. This article is adapted from a lecture (^) the author gave at the Institute of Comparative Law in Japan at Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan on March 17, 2001 and is scheduled to be published by the Institute during the 2001-02 academic year. The author wishes to thank his colleague, Alan Karabus, for his connents.
1. U.N. CHARTER art. 3 (emphasis added).
IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.
displayed great variances among them in the degree of conformity to the four qualifications. Secondly, the decision-makers have (^) on occasion ignored the traditional (^) definition and followed other criteria of decision. This practice has occurred mainly in two situations. (^) In founding the United Nations, the participants (^) at the San Francisco Conference rightfully exercised the prerogatives afforded founders of international (^) organizations and decided to define states as entities (^) that did not possess all of the commonly understood requirements of statehood and enshrined their decision in Article 3 of the Charter. The decision-makers also ignored the traditional definition when they acted on the applications for admission of entities newly (^) independent from colonial or other forms of non-self-governing (^) rule, some of whom were not really independent or self-governing.^5 Thirdly, in cases involving the so-called "divided-states," the decision-makers have restricted the operation of the traditional definition by attaching an extrinsic condition to further a policy (^) of favoring the reunification (^) of these states. The condition imposed was an agreement between the two entities on unification or separation. Until there was an agreement, each entity's statehood (^) would be questioned regardless of its actual qualifications as a state under the traditional definition. The result is that the term states (^) in the above Charter provisions has not been given one uniform meaning but instead a number of plainly discordant meanings. An entity may appear to fall short of (^) statehood in one or another important respect yet be held (^) a state eligible for membership. Conversely, an entity may appear to be well-qualified as a state yet be refused (^) the status of statehood remaining ineligible for membership. Under this practice, states can mean a full-fledged independent sovereign entity, a political subdivision, (^) an overseas possession of a state, a mandated territory, an entity with (^) a dubious degree of independence, an entity with a government controlled in varying degrees by another government, an entity without a government, an entity (^) with a disputed territory, and so on. The term seems to (^) possess "metaphysical attributes." Are all these meanings of state "lawful?" The answer seems to depend on the conception of law (^) influencing the person giving it. If "law" is regarded as (^) a body of absolute and autonomous rules that have fixed or plain and ordinary meanings, and if the process of application is no more than
OF THE UNITED STATES ยง201 (1987). See generally JAMES CRAWFORD, THE (^) CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL (^) LAW (1979).
[Vol. 12:
IND. INT'L & COMP. (^) L. REv.
In connexion with the statehood of the applicant, reference has been made to such matters as the following: (^) The possession or lack of settled frontiers; the mode of the establishment of the State; the bearing of a General Assembly decision;... relations with a former sovereign;... the necessity of ratification of peace (^) treaties with ex-enemy applicants; disabilities resulting from the Second World War; the legitimacy of statehood obtained through aggression (^) and conquest; defence arrangements with other powers; the de jure or de facto status of (^) the applicant and its Government; recognition of the applicant by Members of the United Nations; the maintenance of diplomatic relations with other States.!
However, (^) if one were to believe that the traditional definition had given the term states in the Charter a set of uniform and consistent meanings, (^) that belief would be belied (^) by the facts. Such a belief rests on an unwarranted assumption that the technical concepts of law (^) comprising the definition have a fixed and plain meaning. (^) People may think that the United Kingdom is a state under the traditional definition. But do they think that the United Kingdom is a state because it meets (^) the definition of state or that the United Kingdom meets (^) the definition of state because they think it is a state? The record indicates, first, that the decision-makers (^) within the United Nations have applied the definition differently from those outside the United Nations. Secondly, within the United Nations, applications (^) of the definition have been flexible showing the exercise of substantial discretion. The result is that the term has acquired a set of (^) flexible meanings displaying inconsistencies. As early (^) as 1948, a respected authority on international law and then Deputy Representative of the United States (^) to the Security Council, Philip Jessup, made the following observation on uniformity:
It is common knowledge that, while there are traditional definitions of a State in international law, the term has been used in many (^) different ways. We are all aware that, under the traditional (^) definition of a State in international law, all the great writers have pointed to four qualifications: first, there must be a people; second, there must be a territory; (^) third, there must be a government; and, fourth, there must be capacity to enter into relations with (^) other States of the world. ... [But] the term 'State', (^) as used and applied in Article 4 of
8. U.N. Dep't of Pol. & Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, 1946-1951, 272-73 (1954) (hereinafter "RPSC").
[Vol. 12:
2001] THE MEANING OF "STATES" IN THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER 29
the Charter (^) of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the (^) term 'State' as it is used and defined in classic textbooks (^) of international law.^9
The point of flexible applications and meanings within the United Nations (^) has been admirably (^) discussed.'^0 Following are the more glaring illustrations found in connection with the application of the criteria of government and the capacity to enter into foreign relations.
(1) A Permanent Population:
Applications for admission have rarely been challenged for lack of a permanent population. However, (^) the "makeup" of an applicant's population has been raised to challenge its statehood, (^) but the challenges did not seem to get anywhere. The question of makeup was probably raised on the (^) thinking that foreigners residing (^) in a claimant state, being there on sufferance, were not part of its permanent population. The decision implied that as long as an applicant had a permanent population, whether it constituted (^) a minority or a majority of all those living in its territory, it satisfied (^) the requirement of statehood. An illustration is the application of Kuwait. When Kuwait applied in 1961, the representative of Iraq discussed the issue of the constitution of the applicant's population in the Security Council as follows:
The whole territory has a population (^) of approximately 250,000 inhabitants, of whom more than 60 percent live in the town of Kuwait (^) itself. The population outside the town is composed mainly of nomads who habitually roam the extensive deserts stretching from the southernmost reaches (^) of Iraq to the heart of the Arabian (^) peninsula. In the town of Kuwait itself, which (^) is the only center of population in the territory controlled by the Sheikh, the majority of the inhabitants are considered by the Sheikh himself to (^) be foreigners, and are (^) therefore denied the rights and privileges normally accorded to citizens."
The Soviet Union vetoed Kuwait's application on the ground of the latter's failure to meet the requirement of statehood. Kuwait reapplied two years later, and this time the Security Council (^) voted unanimously to recommend admission. Since there was no indication in the record that the makeup of
2001] THE MEANING OF "STATES" IN THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER 31
State of Israel was proclaimed. Later in the same year Israel applied for admission. While the General Assembly's First Committee was discussing the future of Palestine, the Security Council acted on Israel's application. Questions were raised regarding Israel's territory. The representative of the United States characterized the issue as one of "undefined frontiers" only, which would not violate the requirement (^) of a defined territory, and not one of "undefined territory", (^) which would (^) violate it, and (^) explained:
One does not find in the general classic treatment of this subject any insistence that the territory of a State must be exactly fixed by definite frontiers.... The formulae in the classic treaties somewhat vary, one from the other, but both reason and history demonstrate that the concept of territory does not necessarily include (^) precise delimitation of the boundaries of that territory. The reason for the rule that one of the necessary attributes of a State is that it shall possess territory is that one cannot contemplate a State as a kind of disembodied spirit. Historically, the concept is one of insistence that there must be some portion of the earth's surface which its people inhabit and over which its Government exercises authority. No one can deny that the State of Israel responds to this requirement. 4
The representative of the Soviet Union argued that it was incorrect to question Israel's territory as undefined, since "[i]ts territory is clearly defined by an international decision of the United Nations, namely by the resolution adopted on 29 November 1947 by the General Assembly."' 5 On the other hand, the representative of the United Kingdom, the former mandatory of Palestine, clearly felt that Israel's situation raised an issue of undefined territory, stating: "The ultimate fate or at least the ultimate shape of the State of Israel remains yet to be determined and is not yet known."' 6 The representative of Syria felt the same way, stating: "The State of Israel has no territory which is not contested. The Arab States and all the neighbouring States of the Near East contest the existence of that State; it is not only its frontiers that they contest, but the existence of the State itself."' 7 In any event, Israel was admitted into the United Nations the following year, 1949, after it had declared its readiness to comply with a General Assembly resolution on the internationalization of Jerusalem and on Arab refugees resulting^ from^ a^ war^ between^ Israel^ and^ five^ Arab^ states^ in^ 1948.
IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.
A remark that the criterion of defined territory "has never been interpreted very strictly"'^9 certainly is apposite if the specter^ of^ "a^ defined^ territory" is^ no more than a spirit, even an embodied one, inhabiting some^ portion^ of^ the earth's surface. In sum, a defined territory seems to mean an arguably undefined territory.
(3) Government
Similarly, the criterion^ of^ "government"^ has^ not been^ interpreted^ very strictly. An^ interesting^ illustration^ is^ the^ case^ of^ the^ application^ of^ the Principality of Monaco. The principality's territory^ totals^ 1.95^ square kilometers. Of an estimated total population of 31,693, as of July, 2000,^ the ethnic composition was 40 percent French, 16 percent^ Monegasque,^16 percent Italian, and 21 percent other. Under a treaty with France in 1918,20^ Monaco, in exchange for France's protection, undertook to^ limit^ both^ the^ constitution and the operation of its government. Monaco's measures concerning the exercise of a regency or succession to the^ throne^ are^ always^ the^ subject^ of prior consultation with^ France, and^ the^ throne^ can^ only^ pass^ to^ a^ person^ of^ French or Monegasque nationality. While the^ Prince^ is^ the Head^ of^ State,^ the^ head^ of government is the Minister of State, who is appointed by^ the^ Prince^ from^ a^ list of three French^ nationals^ selected^ by^ the^ French^ government.^ Among^ the^ three Councilors of Government, the Councilor of the Interior is^ required^ to^ be^ a French national. Regarding^ the^ operation^ of^ the^ government, Monaco^ is required to exercise its sovereignty in^ complete^ conformity^ with^ the^ political, military, naval and^ economic^ interests^ of^ France.^ Monaco's^ measures concerning its international relations^ are^ always^ the^ subject^ of^ prior consultation with^ the French^ government.^ The^ French^ government^ may,^ on^ its own motion, send military or^ naval^ forces^ into^ the^ territory^ of^ Monaco^ for^ the maintenance of the security of the two countries. Under the treaty regime, Monaco's government and^ governance^ are clearly subject to substantial control by France. Thus, the^ principality^ seems to enjoy a dubious degree of statehood." Yet,^ in^ 1993,^ while^ the^^1918 treaty
19. HIGGINs, supra note^ 10,^ at^ 20.^ The^ learned^ author discussed^ other^ cases^ in^ id.^ at^ 18-
[Vol. 12:
IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.
linked them closely if not inextricably to a larger state. Many had defense arrangements with larger states which were extremely one-sided. Many had virtually no foreign policy apparatus. Almost none^ of^ these^ points^ was^ raised^ in^ debate.
2 7
The states Professor Reisman referred (^) to were basically newly independent states admitted during the period of acceleration of the decolonization movement. Both the original members the representative of the United States had in mind in 1948 and the subsequent members Professor Reisman talked about come more appropriately in the category of admission decisions that were made without regard (^) to, rather than in the flexible application of, the traditional definition. (^) Nevertheless, these cases reveal the meager role the criterion "capacity to enter into relations with other states" has played in the membership practice of the United Nations. For an illustration of the flexible application of this criterion to an applicant that is neither an original member nor a newly independent state, we may conveniently (^) revert to the above-discussed case of Monaco. Under the same treaty regime established in 1918, it is plain that Monaco does not enjoy sovereign rights in both the making and the implementation of its foreign policies. This prompted an observation that if Monaco were to have applied for admission in 1961 its application would have (^) failed on the ground of lack of statehood.^2 " However, Monaco was admitted without debate in 1993, although little had changed by way of Monaco's capacity to conduct its foreign affairs between 1961 and 1993. In sum, capacity to enter into relations with other (^) states seems to mean capacity, more or less limited, to enter into such relations.
IL. TRADITIONAL (^) DEFINITION SIDELINED: STATEHOOD OF ORIGINAL MEMBERS
Article 3 of the Charter provides:
The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated (^) in the United Nations
[Vol. 12:
2001] THE MEANING OF "STATES" IN THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER 35
Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed (^) the Declaration by United Nations of January 1, 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article (^) 110.
But not all participants in the San Francisco Conference or signatories (^) to the Declaration by United Nations were states under the traditional definition. Some of them were not states even at the time (^) the Charter came into force. The (^) Declaration by United Nations2 9^ was a document signed by the U.S.A., the U.K., the U.S.S.R., and China as well as a number of other nations that were at war with the Axis (^) powers, among them India. By its own terms the Declaration was open for adherence by "other nations which are, or which may be, rendering material assistance (^) and contributions in the struggle for victory over (^) Hitlerism."^3 It was adhered to by, among others, the Philippines, Syria (^) and Lebanon. The Declaration formed a "wartime coalition" by these United Nations.^3 On October 30, 1943, the governments (^) of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China issued a Declaration of Four Nations on General Security in Moscow. 32 In this document, (^) the four nations recognized "the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open (^) to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance (^) of international peace and security."^33 After they laid down the major contours of the international (^) organization they had in mind in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals,'M^ the four governments, acting as "sponsoring powers," (^) invited the entire wartime coalition" to the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, as referred to in Article 3, for the purpose of completing the drafting of the Charter of (^) the United Nations. During the conference, four additional participants, including the Byelorussian S.S.R. and the Ukrainian S.S.R., (^) were invited on account of their contribution (^) to the war effort.^36 The sponsoring powers had always
2001] THE MEANING (^) OF "STATES" INTHE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER 37
the fears of certain nations participating in our deliberations which, properly speaking, are not States and which for this reason might be denied the right of membership in the Organization."'" (^) The record is, therefore, clear that the traditional definition was deliberately sidelined at San Francisco. When the Charter came into effect on October 24, 1945, (^) India was still a non-self- governing entity under the rule of the United Kingdom, 42 the Philippines was an overseas possession of the United States, 43 Lebanon and Syria were mandated territories under the administering authority of France," and Byelorussia and Ukraine were constituent republics of the Soviet Union.^45 In sum, under Article 3, "states" seems to mean not only states under the traditional definition but also territorial (^) bodies politic that failed to comply with this definition.
I. TRADITIONAL DEFINITION SIDELINED: STATEHOOD AND DECOLONIZATION
The impact of decolonization on membership practice has been succinctly summarized:
The 'radicalization' of the principle of self-determination of peoples ... in favor of a speeding up of decolonization... led to a broadening of the spectrum of statehood and to new types of states, inducing a new practice and adaptation of the application of Art. (^) 4. Leaving aside exceptional cases... the admission of states which had gained their independence in the course of decolonization as a rule took place without even mentioning the criteria referred to in Art. 4(1). The admission of new member states thus became a mere procedural formality, (^) permitting the automatic admission of even micro-states .... The UN having thus reached its status
IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV.
of quasi-universality, the practical relevance of Art. 4 of the Charter has become more or less reduced to solving special cases and problems.'
Thus, in the admissions of newly independent states, the traditional definition was not merely subjected to flexible applications but given short shrift or sidelined. Indeed, when an application was from an entity newly emerged independent from colonial or other forms of non-self-governing rule, (^) the "deliberations" in the Security Council were uniformly (^) ceremonial. The members would take (^) turns to speak, and the former metropolitan power, if not a member, would be invited to speak first. The speeches fell into a pattern and would typically include: orations of satisfaction on the successful worldwide movement of self-determination and at the peaceful achievement of independence by the applicant; expressions of warm welcome to an applicant willing and well-qualified (^) to shoulder the heavy responsibilities of membership in light of its history, human and natural resources; expressions of best wishes for a prosperous (^) and successful future; tributes, usually by Western representatives and their friends, to the former metropolitan power for a job well done in guiding the applicant to independence; (^) and sympathies, usually from the representatives of Soviet Union and Eastern-bloc states, for the lengthy subjugation and the difficult road to independence endured (^) by the applicant. The question of the (^) statehood of the applicant, when mentioned occasionally, was usually subsumed in a cursory and perfunctory statement that the speaker's government considered (^) the applicant qualified under Article 4(1) of the Charter. No representative seemed to seriously care about the traditional definition at all. The Committee on Admissions became (^) virtually irrelevant. The General Assembly was no less, if not more, welcoming. Hence, it did not matter if the applicant relied heavily on the former metropolitan power for finance, defense and security, continued to have troops from the latter stationed on its territory, was politically and structurally integrated with it, or, in a glaring case summarized below, did not even have a government.^47
[Vol. 12:
IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv.
delegation took its place in the Assembly hall. The remarks of the President of the General Assembly, which turned the case from one of "lack of government" into one of mere "proper credentials," were most revealing:
As Members of the Assembly are aware, the situation in the Congo has been the subject of much discussion (^) in the United Nations within recent weeks and even within the past few days, and the constitutional and political position in that country still (^) remains, unhappily, far from clear. In these circumstances, we are faced with a difficulty as regards the implementation of the resolution we have just adopted. The difficulty is one for the Assembly itself, and I would suggest to the Assembly that the best solution of this would be to refer it to the Credentials Committee. As I hear no objection to this proposal, it will be considered as adopted.^53
Even though the Security Council had recommended admission just before the government in the Congo collapsed, (^) the General Assembly was entitled and obligated to exercise its own judgment." The General Assembly plainly ignored the criterion of "government" in the traditional (^) definition. In sum, "states" seems to mean a territorial body politic newly freed from colonial or other non-self-governing rule and more or less independent.
IV. STATEHOOD AND THE "DIVIDED STATES"
In the context of the United Nations, (^) the term "divided states" has been used to describe the division of Germany, Korea and Vietnam after World War II as a part of the larger East-West conflict.^5 It has not been used to refer to the situation that (^) has been prevailing in China since 1949, which has been rightly or wrongly but at any rate officially treated as a case involving the question of representation only. 6 With (^) respect to the divided states, it would seem that each in every pair was clearly qualified as a state under the traditional definition, at least in comparison with some of the members of the
[Vol. 12:
2001] THE MEANING OF "STATES" IN THE^ UNITED^ NATIONS^ CHARTER^41
United Nations. But, for each, compliance with^ the^ traditional^ definition^ of statehood was not enough for it to qualify as a state for the purpose of membership, and the status of statehood^ of^ each,^ to^ be^ acceptable, was^ made conditional upon^ an^ agreement with^ the^ other^ entity^ of^ the^ same^ pair.^ The^ two might agree either to separate or^ to^ reunify,^ and their^ agreement would^ be respected. But,^ until^ agreement,^ an^ application^ for^ admission^ by^ either was certain to be blocked by the cold-war allies or friends^ of^ the^ other^ by^ a^ control over the number of votes or by a veto. The blocking was usually justified in part by the assertion that the applicant was not^ a^ state^ but^ a^ mere^ "zone^ of occupation," "puppet regime,"^ and^ the^ like.^ A^ unilateral^ move^ to^ apply without the needed agreement, even^ accompanied^ by^ a^ proposal^ that^ the^ other in the pair be simultaneously admitted, would still be doomed to failure. Thus, as aptly summarized, "Divided^ states^ were^ in^ fact^ admitted^ to^ the UN^ only after the conflicting claims of the two sides had been formally adjusted, either in favour of division.., or in favour of reunification."" This extrinsic requirement of agreement led to a stalemate, which^ could not be broken until^ an^ agreement^ was^ reached.^ For^ a^ long^ time, none^ of^ the parts of divided^ states was^ able to secure^ admission.^ An^ agreement^ was^ first reached between the two Germanys in favor of division. This was made possible during^ a^ period^ of^ detente^ by^ the success^ of^ Chancellor^ Brandt's Ostpolitik which brought about a Basic^ Treaty^ between the "two^ German^ states in one German nation" in 1972.8 The treaty paved the way for admission of both Germanys in^ 1973.^59 In^ 1991,^ the^ two Koreas^ were^ admitted^ after^ a "South-North Basic Agreement" had defined the two sides as forming a "temporary special relationship" toward eventual reunification. In the case of Vietnam, the unification of^ the^ whole nation^ by^ the^ Socialist^ Republic^ of^ Viet Nam rendered the divided-state issue moot, and the Socialist Republic was admitted in 1977. In sum, "states"^ did not^ mean^ an^ entity^ in^ a^ divided^ state,^ no^ matter^ how qualified it might be as a state in comparison with some^ members, until^ the other entity in the pair consented to its statehood.
V. LEGALITY^ OF^ ALL^ MEANINGS
The proliferation of meanings, reviewed^ above,^ may^ have^ given the impression that decisions on statehood are an^ unprincipled^ and^ promiscuous affair, and that it is all a matter of power politics. Professor Reisman once observed:
2001] THE MEANING OF "STATES" IN THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER 43
1. OriginalMembers As States
Decision-Makers
The founders of the United (^) Nations were the decision-makers on who should constitute the original members (^) of the organization, and they made themselves the original members. Each of them became an original member upon its ratification of the Charter. Under Article 3, the ratification must be in accordance with Article 110, which requires a deposit of ratification, but this latter provision is ministerial and does not prescribe substantive qualifications for original membership.^6 ' Of course, a ratification made before the Charter comes into force cannot operate to make (^) the ratifying state an original member until the Charter comes into force and the organization comes into existence. A ratification made after the Charter is in (^) force operates to make the ratifying state an original member upon deposit of the ratification.^62 The Charter entered (^) into force on October 24, 1945, upon the deposit of ratifications by, among others, Byelorussia and Ukraine. Before that date arrived, the Philippines, Lebanon, and Syria had already deposited their ratifications. Thus, for these five entities, original membership status commenced on October 24, 1945. As already mentioned, on that date, Byelorussia (^) and Ukraine were constituent units of the U.S.S.R., the Philippines were still an overseas possession of the U.S.A., and Lebanon and Syria were under the mandate of France. (^) India deposited its ratification and became an original member on October 30, 1945, when it was under the British raj. Therefore, none of these six original members on (^) the relevant date fit the traditional definition of statehood known to international law, and yet the founders, including the six themselves, decided to call themselves officially "states."
Criteria of Decision
International law defers to the judgment of founders of international organizations on who should be their members. It is the founders that set the purpose of an organization and are uniquely interested in ensuring its effective functioning. Therefore, where (^) the founders have explicitly specified the conditions for membership in the constitutive document, their specifications are respected and unalterable.^63 Where a question pertaining (^) to eligibility for
61. See THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, supra note 35, at 1191-95. The suggestion that Article 110(4) is a substantive (^) provision on the criteria of original membership is a doubtful one. See id. at 1194. Article 3 deals with "membership," and Article 110(4), only with "signing and ratification." Id.
IND. (^) INT'L & COMP. L. REV.
membership (^) is not explicitly covered in the constitutive document, it is (^) likely to be resolved in the interest of the effective functioning of the organization, by considering the ability of a candidate to comply (^) with the obligation of membership or to participate (^) in the normal activities of the organization." The founders of the United Nations, including the above-mentioned six (^) in question, either formed a (^) part of the wartime coalition or contributed significantly to the war (^) effort and the final, complete victory. They were united in (^) common purposes and enterprises. (^) It was their shared conviction that the maintenance of public order in the world community (^) after the war would require an international organization (^) as they envisioned. At the time of the founding of the United Nations, they held the effective power in the world community. In undertaking (^) the responsibility of founding the United Nations, they echoed the general expectations then prevailing in the world community relative to the securing of international peace, security and abundance after the (^) war. 65 Their actions (^) indicated support of effective control and formal authority. In (^) Article 3, they (^) concluded that the original members of the United Nations (^) should include all (^) of the founders, including the six in question. To borrow from the International Court of Justice, (^) "[Flifty States, representing the vast majority of the members of the international community, had the power, (^) in conformity with international law, 66 to decide (^) who should be its original members.
[Vol. 12: