|
The Search for World Peace |
United Nations Agenda item 49
General Annexes
Assembly Sixth Session
Official Records Palais de Chaillot, Paris, 1951-1952
Agenda item 49 : Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its third session, including : (a) Reservations to multilateral conventions ; (b) Question of defining aggression ; (c) Review of the Statute of the International Law Commission with the object of recommending revisions thereof to the General Assembly
Contents
Document No. Title (a) Reservations to multilateral conventions |*| Sixth Committee: A/C.6/L.188 United States of America: draft resolution A/C.6/L.188/Rev.1 United States of America revised draft resolution A/C.6/L.190 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: amendment to the draft resolution submitted by the United States of America (A/C.6/L.188) A/C.6/L.191 Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador and Honduras: joint amendment to the draft resolution submitted by the United States of America (A/C.6/L.188) A/C.6/L.192 Sweden: draft resolution A/C.6/L.193 Israel: draft resolution (item 50) A/C.6/L.194 Israel: draft resolution (item 49 (a)) A/C.6/L.196 Indonesia: draft resolution A/C.6/L.198 Denmark, India, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru and Sweden: joint draft resolution A/C.6/L.199 Iraq: draft resolution A/C.6/L.201 Memorandum submitted by the delegation of Canada A/C.6/L.202 Argentina, Belgium and Egypt: joint amendment to the revised draft resolution submitted by the United States of America (A/C.6/L.188/Rev.1) A/C.6/L.203 Iran: amendment to the revised draft resolution submitted by the United States of America (A/C.6/L.188/Rev.1) Plenary meeting (final phase) A/2047 Report of the Sixth Committee A/2055 Netherlands: amendment to the draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Committee (A /2047) Action taken by the General Assembly (b) Question of defining aggression Sixth Committee: A/C.6/L.206 Greece: draft resolution A/C.6/L.208 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: draft resolution A/C.6/L.209 France, Iran and Venezuela: joint draft resolution
(b) Question of defining aggression [Original text: French]
[4 January 1952]The General Assembly,
Considering resolution 378 B (V) in which it referred the proposal of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the definition of aggression to the International Law Commission so that the question raised by the proposal might be examined in conjunction with other matters under consideration by the Commission, and requested the Commission to formulate its conclusions thereon,
Having examined the report submitted by the Commission,
Considering the apparent impossibility of defining aggression in a formula covering all possible cases of aggression,
Considering that the formulation of a definition of aggression which did not attempt to cover all possible cases of aggression, although theoretically possible, might encourage a possible aggressor to evade such a definition, and that, if the General Assembly or the Security Council were called upon in the future to determine an aggressor, the existence of such a definition might easily create doubt and confusion and delay the taking of a decision by those organs, to the advantage of any such aggressor,
Considering that it was because of these dangers that the San Francisco Conference decided not to include in the Charter a clause defining aggression, giving the Security Council full discretion to decide what constitutes an act of aggression,
Considering further that a definition of aggression drafted by the Assembly would not be binding on the Security Council and therefore cannot restrict the Council's freedom to decide at its discretion what constitutes aggression,
Considering that for all these reasons it appears to be inappropriate to attempt to define aggression,
Decides to take no action on the proposal of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the definition of aggression and to leave it to the competent organs of the United Nations to determine at their discretion what constitutes aggression.
DOCUMENT A/C.6/L.208
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: draft resolution[Original text : Russian]
[5 January 1952]The General Assembly,
Considering it necessary to formulate directives for such international organs as may be called upon to determine which party is guilty of aggression,
Declares :
1. That in an international conflict that State shall be declared the attacker which first commits one of the following acts :
(a) Declaration of war against another State;
(b) Invasion by its armed forces, even without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State;
(c) Bombardment by its land, sea or air forces of the territory of another State or the carrying out of a deliberate attack on the ships or aircraft of the latter;
(d) The landing or leading of its land, sea or air forces inside the boundaries of another State without the permission of the government of the latter, or the violation of the conditions of such permission, particularly as regards the length of their stay or the extent of the area in which they may stay;
(e) Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State;
(f) Support of armed bands organized in its own territory which invade the territory of another State, or refusal, on being requested by the invaded State, to take in its own territory any action within its power to deny such bands any aid or protection;2. Attacks such as those referred to in paragraph 1 may not be justified by any arguments of a political, strategic or economic nature, or by the desire to exploit natural riches in the territory of the State attacked or to derive any other kind of advantages or privileges, or by reference to the amount of capital invested in the State attacked or to any other particular interests in its territory, or by the affirmation that the State attacked lacks the distinguishing marks of statehood:
In particular, the following may not be used as justifications for attack:
A. The internal position of any State, as, for example:
(a) The backwardness of any nation politically, economically or culturally;
(b) Alleged shortcomings of its administration;
(c) Any danger which may threaten the life or property of aliens;
(d) Any revolutionary or counter-revolutionary movement, civil war, disorders or strikes;
(e) The establishment or maintenance in any State of any political, economic or social system;B. Any acts, legislation or orders of any State, as for example:
(a) The violation of international treaties;
(b) The violation of rights and interests in the sphere of trade, concessions or any other kind of economic activity acquired by another State or its citizens;
(c) The rupture of diplomatic or economic relations;
(d) Measures in connexion with an economic or financial boycott;
(e) Repudiation of debts;
(f) Prohibition or restriction of immigration or modification of the status of foreigners;
(g) The violation of privileges granted to the official representatives of another State;
(h) Refusal to allow the passage of armed forces proceeding to the territory of a third State;
(i) Measures of a religious or anti-religious nature;
(j) Frontier incidents.3. In the event of the mobilization or concentration by another State of considerable armed forces near its frontier, the State which is threatened by such action shall have the right of recourse to diplomatic or other means of securing a peaceful settlement of international disputes. It may also in the meantime adopt requisite measures of a military nature similar to those described above, without, however, crossing the frontier.
DOCUMENT A/C.6/L.209
France, Iran and Venezuela : joint draft resolution[Original text : French-Spanish]
[10 January 1952]The General Assembly,
Considering that under resolution 378 B (V) of 17 November 1950 it referred the question of defining aggression, raised in the draft resolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (A/C.1/608), to the International Law Commission for examination in conjunction with matters under consideration by that Commission;
Considering that the International Law Commission did not in its report furnish an express definition of aggression but merely included aggression among the offences defined in its draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind;
Considering the importance of the problem of defining aggression to the development of international criminal law;
Considering that the General Assembly has decided not to examine the draft Code at its sixth session and has included it in the provisional agenda of its seventh session;
Considering that the problem of defining aggression has important political aspects;
1. Decides to study the question of defining aggression when it examines the draft Code;
2. Requests States Members, when transmitting their observations on the draft Code to the Secretary-General, to give in particular their views on the problem of defning aggression.
DOCUMENT A/C.6/L.210
Colombia : amendment to the draft resolution submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (A/C.6/L.208)[Original text : Spanish]
[11 January 1952]1. Insert the following text after the word "Declares" :
"That aggression is an offence against the peace and security of mankind. This offence consists in any resort to force contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations for the purpose of modifying the state of positive international law in force or resulting in the disturbance of public order;"
2. Replace the first sentence of operative paragraph 1 of the resolution by the following text:
"1. That accordingly, apart from action which may be defined as aggression by the competent organs of the United Nations, in an international conflict that State shall be declared the attacker which, if not acting in pursuance of instructions by the United Nations, first commits one of the following acts:"
3. Replace the last sentence of operative paragraph 3 by the following text:
"It may also in the meantime adopt requisite measures of a military nature similar to those described above, without, however, crossing the frontier unless it is acting in self-defence or on the authority of the United Nations."
DOCUMENT A/C.6/L.211
Bolivia: draft resolution[Original text: Spanish]
[11 January 1952]The General Assembly,
Considering that it is necessary to describe a number of acts of aggression in order duly to preserve international peace and security in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
Resolves
1. Apart from the determination of acts of aggression by the competent international organs of the United Nations, an act of aggression shall in all cases be considered to have been committed when any State invades the territory of another State, crossing the frontiers established by treaty or by judicial or arbitral decisions and demarcated in accordance therewith, or when, in the absence of frontiers thus demarcated, the invasion affects the territories under the effective jurisdiction of a State.
2. Also to be described as acts of aggression shall be declarations of war, armed attacks by land, sea or air forces against the territory, ships or aircraft of other States and support given to armed bands for the purposes of invasion, as well as action taken by a State, overtly or covertly, to incite the people of another State to rebellion with the object of changing the political structure for the benefit of a foreign Power.
3. Also to be considered as an act of aggression shall be any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or any threat or use of force which is in any other way incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations, including unilateral action to deprive a State of the economic resources derived from the fair practice of international trade, or to endanger its basic economy, thus jeopardizing the security of that State or rendering it incapable of acting in its own defence and co-operating in the collective defence of peace.
4. Apart from the cases described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, which shall justify the automatic exercise of the right of collective self-defence, other acts of aggression shall be described as they occur by the competent organs established under the Charter of the United Nations in accordance with its provisions.
DOCUMENT A/C.6/L.213
(incorporating A/C.6/L.213/Corr.1)
Egypt : amendment to the draft resolution submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (A/C.6/L.208)[Original text : French]
[17 January 1952]I. Replace the preamble by the following
"The General Assembly,
"Recalling its resolution 378 B (V), and having considered the report of the International Law Commission on the question of defining aggression,
"Considering that aggression is a crime against the peace and security of mankind,
"Considering that, although the notion of aggression may be inferred from the circumstances peculiar to each particular case, it is nevertheless desirable to define aggression by reference to the elements which constitute it,
"Considering that it would be of definite advantage if directives were formulated for the future guidance of such international bodies as may be called upon to determine which party is guilty of aggression,
"Declares:
"That any act whereby a State infringes the territorial integrity or political independence of another State constitutes aggression."
II. Replace the first two lines of paragraph 1 of the operative part by the following:
"That in any international dispute, situation or conflict that State shall be declared the attacker which first commits, inter alia, one of the following acts:"
III. At the end of the operative part add a paragraph 4 reading as follows:
"4. The exercise of the right of self-defence referred to in Article 51 of the Charter shall not be deemed to be an act of aggression."
DOCUMENT A/C.6/L.214/Rev.1
Colombia : revised amendment to the joint draft resolution submitted by France, Iran and Venezuela (A/C.6/L.209)[Original text: Spanish]
[21 January 1952]I. Substitute the following paragraph for operative paragraph 1:
"1. Decides to include in the agenda of its seventh session the question of defining aggression;"
II. At the end, add the following two new paragraphs:
"3. Appoints a Special Committee of fifteen members, consisting of ...., to meet at the Headquarters of the United Nations;
"4. Requests the said Special Committee to consider the records of the debates in the First and Sixth Committees on the question of defining aggression and the draft resolutions, amendments and other documents relating to this question, to study the problem further, and to submit a draft definition of aggression together with a report to the seventh session of the General Assembly."
DOCUMENT A/C.6/L.215
Syria : amendment to the joint draft resolution submitted by France, Iran and Venezuela (A/C.6/L.209)[Original text : French]
[18 January 1952]I. Replace the third paragraph of the preamble by the following:
"Considering that, although the notion of aggression may be inferred from the circumstances peculiar to each particular case, it is nevertheless desirable, for the development of international criminal law, to define aggression by reference to the elements which constitute it;".
II. Delete the fourth paragraph of the preamble.
III. Replace the fifth paragraph of the preamble by the following:
"Considering that it would be of definite advantage if directives were formulated for the future guidance of such international bodies as may be called upon to determine the aggressor;".
IV. Add the following to paragraph 1 of the operative part:
"... and instructs the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its seventh session a report in which the question of defining aggression shall be thoroughly discussed in the light of the views expressed in the Sixth Committee at the sixth session of the General Assembly and which shall duly take into account the draft resolutions and amendments submitted concerning this question;".
V. Amend paragraph 2 of the operative part as follows:
"2. Requests States Members to communicate to the Secretary-General, if they consider it advisable, their observations or views on the question of defining aggression."
DOCUMENT A/2087
Report of the Sixth Committee[Original text : English]
[29 January 1952]1. The General Assembly, on 17 November 1950, adopted resolution 378 B (V), by which it decided to refer a proposal of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the definition of "the concept of aggression" (A/C.1/608), and all the records of the First Committee dealing with this question, to the International Law Commission, so that the latter might take them into consideration and formulate its conclusions as soon as possible.
2. The International Law Commission studied the matter during its third session, and devoted chapter III of its report covering the work of that session to the question of defining aggression.
3. On 13 November 1951, the General Assembly, at its 341st plenary meeting, decided to include the International Law Commission's report in the agenda of its sixth session. At its 342nd plenary meeting on the same date, the item was referred to the Sixth Committee for consideration and report.
4. The Committee discussed the question of defining aggression at its 278th to 295th meetings from 5 to 22 January 1952.
5. During the discussion the Committee had before it a draft resolution submitted by Greece (A/C.6/L.206); a draft resolution submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (A/C.6/L.208), with amendments thereto by Colombia (A/C.6/L.210) and by Egypt (A/C.6/L.213 and Corr.1); a joint draft resolution submitted by France, Iran and Venezuela (A/C.6/L.209), with amendments thereto by India (A/C.6/L.212), Colombia (A/C.6/L.214/Rev.1) and Syria (A/C.6/L.215); and a draft resolution submitted by Bolivia (A/C.6/L.211). At a later stage in the discussion Mexico submitted a sub-amendment (A/C.6/L.216) to the Syrian amendment to the joint draft resolution, and oral amendments to this sub-amendment were proposed by Belgium and Lebanon jointly and by Egypt.
[Note : Paragraphs 6 through 14 and paragraph 18 of this document as originally issued summarized the substance of the draft resolutions and amendments mentioned above, the text of which appears elsewhere in this fascicule or in the summary records of Sixth Committee meetings. |4|
Consequently for each original paragraph there is here substituted a reference to the document discussed therein and, in parentheses, the number of the page of the appropriate Sixth Committee meeting.]
6. [See document A/C.6/L.206.]
7. [See document A/C.6/L.208.]
8. [See document A/C.6/L.210.]
9. [See document A/C.6/L.213 and Corr.1.]
10. [See document A/C.6/L.209.]
11. [See document A/C.6/L.212 (294th meeting).]
12. [See document A/C.6/L.214/Rev.1.]
13. [See document A/C.6/L.215.]
14. [See document A/C.6/L.216 (294th meeting).]
15. The representatives of Belgium and Lebanon orally proposed to substitute the word "crime" for the word "offence" in the Mexican sub-amendment.
16. The representative of Egypt orally proposed to insert the words "with a view to ensuring international peace and security and" after the words "possible and desirable" in the Mexican sub-amendment.
17. Mexico accepted the oral amendments of Belgium and Lebanon and of Egypt, and the Mexican amendment as thus modified was accepted by Syria.
18. [See document A/C.6/L.211.]
19. The debates of the Committee were largely devoted to the preliminary questions of the possibility and desirability of a definition of aggression.
20. Some delegations were of the opinion that the General Assembly should abandon the attempt to formulate a definition of aggression, as no satisfactory one could be found. A definition attempting to enumerate all possible acts of aggression, they argued, would necessarily leave out some acts which ought to be included and would thus be positively dangerous ; an abstract and general formula, on the other hand, would use terms which themselves required definition and would be too wide and vague to be useful. To combine both the enumerative and abstract methods would only cumulate their disadvantages. In their view, it was desirable and in accordance with the Charter that the United Nations organs called on to determine the aggressor in case of international conflict should have full discretion to consider all the circumstances of each case. The political situation of the world, some added, made it at any rate inopportune to undertake the task of defining aggression at the present time.
21. Others, while not opposing the continuance of efforts to draft a definition, nevertheless were sceptical about its value.
22. On the other hand, a number of delegations strongly supported the view that a definition was possible, and was necessary or highly desirable from the legal and political standpoints. In their opinion, a definition would be a great step forward in international law, would assist in the avoidance of arbitrary decisions on the part of organs called upon to determine whether aggression had been committed, and, even more important, would have a deterrent effect upon potential aggressors. They considered that it would be a useful supplement to the system of collective security established by the Charter and would be a logical completion of the Charter's provisions. Even an imperfect definition, it was argued, was better than none, and any imperfections would be remedied as they were discovered ; proper drafting would avoid the dangers feared by the opponents of a definition.
23. Some were of the opinion that a definition should be formulated with a view to furnishing guidance to the Security Council and the General Assembly in their task of maintaining international peace and security ; others thought that the primary purpose to be envisaged was inclusion in a code of offences against the peace and security of mankind, which would be applied by an international criminal tribunal if one were created in the future. Many delegations desired that neither purpose should be emphasized at the expense of the other.
24. As to the kind of definition to be sought for, some thought it desirable to enumerate all the objective acts which constituted aggression, to specify the circumstances which could not be used to justify attacks, and to list the measures which might be taken by a State threatened with an attack. A satisfactory definition of this kind, they contended, could be worked out by the combined efforts of the Committee, and would have great advantages of clarity and ease of application.
25. Some delegations approved especially the proposal that a list of circumstances not justifying attacks should be included. Varying views were expressed, however, on whether particular circumstances gave rise to a right to use force in self-defence.
26. Another group of delegations feared that some objective acts constituting aggression might be overlooked in an attempt at exhaustive enumeration, and wished to include a provision either that additional acts might be qualified as aggressive by the competent organs of the United Nations or that acts of a similar nature to those enumerated would be considered aggressive.
27. In the opinion of a number of delegations the danger of omissions could best be remedied by the inclusion in the definition of a general formula in addition to a list of examples of acts of aggression. The general formula, it was argued, would serve as a safeguard, as new cases falling within the general principles enunciated could always be determined by the organs called upon to apply the definition. Some thought that any act included in the list of examples should always be deemed aggressive, while others thought the list should be merely indicative, and preferred to reserve for the organ applying the definition the discretion to decide that a particular case covered by an example did not constitute aggression.
28. Other delegations thought it impossible to define aggression solely by describing objective acts, and favoured the inclusion of a provision concerning the intent with which the acts were committed.
29. It was further suggested that the rejection by one of the parties to a conflict of measures recommended by an international organ to put an end to hostilities was an important circumstance which that organ should consider in determining the aggressor.
30. Some delegations thought that a definition should include indirect aggression by such means as subversion and economic pressure, as well as the illegal use of armed force. Others, however, opposed this view as, in their opinion, indirect aggression was a fictitious concept which found no support in the letter or the spirit of the Charter.
31. As to the practical course by which a definition could be formulated, some delegations preferred that the General Assembly should adopt one at its current session. Towards the end of the debate, however, most delegations wished the attempt to formulate a definition to be continued. There was, however, a general feeling that so much time had been devoted to preliminary questions that it had been impossible to devote sufficient study to the various draft definitions presented. A few favoured referring the question back to the International Law Commission ; others advocated the appointment of a special committee to study the problem carefully and report to the General Assembly at its next session. Many preferred to obtain the considered opinions in writing of the governments of Member States, and to take the question up again at the next session. They thought that a report by the Secretary-General, in which the question would be discussed in the light of the Sixth Committee's debates and the drafts submitted, would be useful in the Assembly's future work.
32. The Committee decided to vote first on the joint draft resolution of France, Iran andVenezuela (A/C.6/L.209), with the amendments thereto. The first amendment to be voted on was that of Colombia (A/C.6/L.214Rev.1).
The first paragraph of the Colombian amendment was adopted by 28 votes to 14, with 6 abstentions.
The second paragraph, proposing to add two new paragraphs to the operative part, was rejected by 33 votes to 5, with 10 abstentions.
33. The Committee then voted on the amendment of Syria (A/C.6/L.215), as modified by the acceptance of the amendment of Mexico (A/C.6/L.216), which in turn was modified by the oral amendments of Belgium and Lebanon and of Egypt, which were accepted by Mexico and Syria.
The first paragraph of the Syrian amendment, as modified, was adopted by 25 votes to 24, with one abstention.
The second paragraph was rejected by 22 votes to 20, with 8 abstentions.
The third paragraph was adopted by 25 votes to 23, with 3 abstentions.
The fourth paragraph was adopted by 25 votes to 21, with 4 abstentions.
The fifth paragraph was rejected by 22 votes to 20, with 8 abstentions.
34. In view of the adoption of the first paragraph of the Syrian amendment, the amendment of India A/C.6/L.212) was not put to the vote.
35. The amended joint draft resolution of France, Iran and Venezuela as a whole was adopted by 28 votes to 12, with 7 abstentions.
36. The Committee then decided, under rule 130 of the rules of procedure, not to vote on the remaining draft resolutions and amendments.
37. The Sixth Committee therefore recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following resolution:
Question of defining aggression The General Assembly,
Considering that, under resolution 378 B (V) of 17 November 1950, it referred the question of defining aggression, raised in the draft resolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (A/C.1/608), to the International Law Commission for examination in conjunction with matters which were under consideration by that Commission,
Considering that the International Law Commission did not in its report furnish an express definition of aggression but merely included aggression among the offences defined in its draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind,
Considering that the General Assembly on 13 November 1951 decided not to examine the draft Code at its sixth session and to include it in the provisional agenda of its seventh session,
Considering that although the existence of the crime of aggression may be inferred from the circumstances peculiar to each particular case, it is nevertheless possible and desirable, with a view to ensuring international peace and security and for the development of international criminal law, to define aggression by reference to the elements which constitute it,
Considering further that it would be of definite advantage if directives were formulated for the future guidance of such international bodies as may be called upon to determine the aggressor,
1. Decides to include in the agenda of its seventh session the question of defining aggression;
2. Instructs the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its seventh session a report in which the question of defining aggression shall be thoroughly discussed in the light of the views expressed in the Sixth Committee at the sixth session of the General Assembly and which shall duly take into account the draft resolutions and amendments submitted concerning this question;
3. Requests States Members, when transmitting their observations on the draft Code to the Secretary-General, to give in particular their views on the problem of defining aggression.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY At its 368th plenary meeting, on 31 January 1952, the General Assembly adopted the above draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Committee. For the final text, see resolution 599 (VI).
Notes *. Since this question was discussed together with item 50, the present fascicule also contains documents relating to that item. [Back]
4. See Official cords of the General Assembly, Sixth Session, Sixth Committee. [Back]
Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixth Session, Annexes, Agenda Item 49, Report of the Sixth Committee, Doc. A/2087, Jan. 29, 1952, pp. 12-17.
Editorial Note: This is a true copy of an extract (pp. 12-17) of "Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixth Session, Annexes, Agenda Item 49, Report of the Sixth Committee, Doc. A/2087, Jan. 29, 1952." This document is reproduced in Benjamin B. Ferencz's work "Defining International Aggression - The Search for World Peace", Vol. 2, as Document No. 4.
The digital publication and distribution of this work by Equipo Nizkor has been authorised by the author on a not-for-profit basis. This is a free distribution electronic edition prepared by Equipo Nizkor.
This electronic edition may not be copied or reproduced in any format or by any means without the express consent of Equipo Nizkor.
© 2013 Equipo Nizkor