501.BC/6–1246: Telegram
The Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
urgent
[via Courier]
308 …
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lawford (UK) indicated on June 11 to J. Johnson (US) that he would probably introduce the U.K. proposal relating to the definition of a dispute into the Committee of Experts in about a week. He hoped that it might be possible to obtain agreement in the Committee of Experts without getting into the whole question of voting in the Security Council.
Lawford hinted, however, that if further discussions make it appear that it would be impossible to obtain early agreement on the definition of disputes, he might tell his Government of the difficulties and ask permission to drop the matter for the time being.
Lawford read a Foreign Office report which made the following points:
- 1.
- That the U. S. would be well-advised to drop its proposal relating to abstention of parties to a dispute. For one thing this would create two new concepts unknown to the Charter, (a) a party to a situation, (b) an issue. Secondly, it was illogical to attempt to disqualify a State from voting on the ground that it is a party to a dispute before determination has been made that a dispute exists.
- 2.
- The Foreign Office would like to support the U.S. concept of extending the scope of procedural decisions by the adoption of a list of matters which would be deemed procedural, or by a similar device.
- 3.
- In answer to Lawford’s earlier query as to whether the definition should not be extended to cover cases in which a state does not contest the facts or inferences but, nevertheless, is actually involved in a dispute with another State, the Foreign Office thought this would be a most unlikely situation. It was, however, willing to insert in Paragraph A (2), following the word “contest”, the words “or do not admit”.
- 4.
- In connection with point (3) the Foreign Office made it clear that its proposed definition was not meant to be all inclusive, but was merely designed to narrow the area of uncertainty as to what constitutes a dispute.
- 5.
- Commenting on Lawford’s report that U.S. representatives had pointed out that Paragraph A (2) of the U.K. proposal appeared to limit the definition of disputes to those which endanger or are likely to endanger the international peace and security, London said that this [Page 280] was intentional. The Foreign Office added that in its view the Security Council could not, under the Charter, deal with disputes of any other character.
- 6.
- The Foreign Office failed to comment on the U.S. suggestion that Paragraph A (3) of the proposal related to a definition of a party to a dispute rather than to that of a dispute. It did say however, in response to a specific query, that all three of the states referred to in this paragraph would in its opinion be parties to a dispute.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .