Editorial Note
The Committee on South West Africa, established by the General Assembly on November 28, 1953 (resolution 749 (VIII)), issued its report to the General Assembly on June 25, 1954. The report recommended the adoption of two draft resolutions (A and B). Resolution A contained proposed General Assembly procedures for examining reports and petitions on South West Africa and for voting on South West African matters in the Assembly. Specifically, in regard to voting, the Committee recommended that “decisions of the General Assembly on questions relating to reports and petitions concerning the Territory of South West Africa shall be regarded as important questions within the meaning of Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations” and thereby require a two-thirds majority of the Assembly. The adoption of this provision, in effect, would alleviate the need to conform literally to the voting procedures of the League of Nations, which required a unanimous vote of all present on all matters pertinent to South West Africa except procedural questions. As the Union of South Africa was “the State most directly concerned”, the Committee further recommended that the Assembly should adopt the revised voting procedures “subject to the concurring vote of the Union of South Africa.” Under Resolution B, if the Union Government failed to support the revisions, which were approved by [Page 1049] a majority, then the Committee proposed that the General Assembly should ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on whether, in adopting this rule, the General Assembly was correctly interpreting that part of the Court’s opinion of July 1950 concerning Assembly procedure; and, if it did not, what voting procedure should be applied. (Report of Committee on South West Africa, UN document A/2666 and Corr. 1)
The Department of State position paper on the Question of South West Africa, dated September 10, 1954, described the United States position on the Committee’s report as follows: The report represented a conscientious and thorough effort on the part of the Committee to fulfill its assigned tasks. Although the report did not require Assembly action per se, the Delegation might support a general resolution, if one were introduced, provided that it was consistent with the 1950 opinion of the International Court of Justice and with the United States position on other matters. As for the recommended resolutions, the Delegation should vote in favor of the proposed Assembly procedures for examining reports and petitions on South West Africa and the proposed voting procedure. If a majority, but not South Africa, accepted the revision in voting procedure, then the Delegation should support the referral to the International Court of Justice. (IO files, lot 71 D 440, SD/A/C.4/131)
On October 4 and 7, 1954, the Fourth Committee considered the Committee’s report and recommendations. On the latter date, the Fourth Committee adopted several amendments which clarified the wording of the recommendation concerning General Assembly procedures for examining reports and petitions on South West Africa and for voting on South West African matters in the General Assembly and one which inserted the words “subject to acceptance by the Union of South Africa” in conjunction with the change in voting procedure. The Fourth Committee then adopted the draft resolution as amended and a separate draft resolution, put forward by India, Mexico, Norway, Syria, and the United States, which stipulated that, if a majority but not South Africa accepted the change in voting procedure, the Assembly should pose to the International Court of Justice the questions mentioned in the Committee’s report. (Report of the Fourth Committee (Part I), UN document A/2747)
When the General Assembly considered these two draft resolutions on October 11, however, the part of the first resolution which stipulated that the revised voting procedure was “subject to acceptance by the Union of South Africa” failed to obtain a two-thirds majority, and the first draft resolution was adopted without the qualifier. The Assembly also decided that, since the phrase had been deleted, it was unnecessary to put to a vote the second resolution, which sought a [Page 1050] referral to the International Court of Justice. (UN document A/PV.494, October 11, 1954)
On October 12, the Fourth Committee began a debate on the general conditions in South West Africa. Following conclusion of the debate on October 19, the Representatives of Norway, Thailand, and the United States announced that, in the absence of a request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, they would not participate in the consideration of resolutions emanating from the report of the Committee on South West Africa. In separate actions, Thailand relinquished its membership on the Committee on South West Africa, and Norway announced that its delegation could no longer be associated with the future work of the Committee on South West Africa. Subsequently, the Fourth Committee established a Subcommittee, consisting of Representatives of Brazil, Denmark, Iraq, Pakistan, and the United States, whose task was to “review the whole situation and report back to the Committee on what to do.” On November 8, the Fourth Committee considered the Subcommittee’s report (UN document A/C.4/274) and rejected a recommendation, by the Subcommittee, that the Fourth Committee should recommend to the General Assembly that it reopen the matter of requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. (Report of the Fourth Committee (Part II), UN document A/2747/Add.1)