28011948  Text of the Speech made by Mr. Austin (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 236 held on 28 January, 1948

  Text of the Speech made by Mr. Austin (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting No. 236 held on 28 January, 1948

I do not intend by this intervention to try to put off or shorten the discussion by the representatives of the two parties. That is not the purpose of my asking for the ruling of the President at this point. I ask this question in order to keep the record straight.

I realise that in past times the position of the Security Council has been awkward because the parliamentary procedure was not definitely understood in the beginning. My question is: What is the parliamentary situation? Have the parties ended their negotiation under the guidance of the President of the Security Council? Have the parties reached that stage of their negotiations, where they have decided further negotiation would be futile? If that is not the case, then is the Security Council now engaged in encouraging the parties to proceed further with their negotiation, and attempting to guide them by our discussion? If this were the parliamentary situation then it would be perfectly clear that a long debate would be profitable, as it would lead to further negotiations, and possibly to a desirable agreement between the parties.

On the other hand, if the parliamentary situation is one in which the Security Council is bound to act under Chapter VI of the Chapter because of the failure of the negotiation, and to make a recommendation, perhaps under Article 37, then it seems to me that the business before the Security Council is question of the manner in which we are to proceed in order to determine our recommendation.

Of course we want the ideas of the two parties, but it seems to me they should be kept to this main point. The two parties have no real privilege under the Charter to discuss the procedure of the Security Council.

In one respect this a peculiar case, which is the reason I ask my question. In the complaint submitted by India, document S/628, India alleges that the situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. In the complaint submitted by Pakistan, in document S/646; Pakistan alleges that these disputes are "likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security". There is no room of dispute on this point. In bringing this case to the Security Council both parties allege that this is a case which falls within the condition set forth in Article 37, paragraph 2, which states: "If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate."

Therefore, is the Security Council at work on the phase of the matter? Have we arrived at that parliamentary stage in this question where the parties are unable to do anything under Article 33? They had the recommendation of the Security Council that they should proceed by that method of negotiation; they have negotiated, and they have arrived at a partial agreement. The Security Council is bound by the Chapter to consider that partial agreement if it proceeds under Article 37, because Article 36, paragraph 2, commands the Security Council to "take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties."

Of course, we want to remain within the scope of Chapter VI. It seems to me it would be good thing, in the interest of peace and security in the word, if this matter could be kept within the Chapter dealing with pacific settlements. But I think we should be very careful to keep our record straight and to know exactly where we are. Therefore, on the basis of the President's report, I ask whether we are now proceeding on the theory that the two parties have failed to reach agreement and that there is no hope of further negotiations, and therefore that it is our duty to recommend such terms of settlement as we may consider appropriate.