|
The Search for World Peace |
United Nations Agenda item 88
GeneralAnnexes
AssemblyTwenty-Fourth Session
Official RecordsNew York, 1969
Agenda item 88: |*| Report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression |**|
CONTENTS
Document No. Title Fifth Committee: Administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Committee in document A/7853 A/C.5/1278 Note by the Secretary-General A/7838 Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions Plenary Meetings: A/7853 Report of the Sixth Committee A/7861 Administrative and financial inplications of the draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Committee in document A/7853: report of the Fifth Committee Action taken by the General Assembly Cheek list of documents
DOCUMENT A/C.5/1278
Administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Committee in document A/7853Note by the Secretary-General [Original text: English]
[5 December 1969]1. At its 1169th meeting, on 3 December 1969, the Sixth Committee adopted a draft resolution (A/7853, para. 25). Under the terms of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would: (a) decide that the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression shall resume its work in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2330 (XXII), in Geneva, in the second half of 1970; (b) request the Secretary-General to provide the Special Committee with the necessary facilities and services; and (c) decide to include in the provisional agenda of its twenty-fifth session an item entitled "Report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression".
2. In estimating the cost of this proposal, the Secretary-General has assumed that the Special Committee would meet for a period of five weeks, from 13 July to 14 August 1970, on the assumption that the meetings could be integrated into the calendar of meetings drawn up by the Committee of Conferences. On this basis, it has been estimated that an additional appropriation of $103,200 would be required in the budget estimates for the financial year 1970. This estimate is based on the assumption that the Special Committee would hold two meetings a day for which interpretation and summary records in English, French, Russian and Spanish would be provided, and that the in-session documentation other than the summary records would not exceed 120 pages. The provision of these services would make it necessary to recruit 8 interpreters, 22 translator/précis-writers, 8 revisers, 22 stenographer/typists, 1 secretary, 1 meetings-service officer and 3 technicians. In addition, 7 substantive staff members would have to be sent from New York to service the meetings. Accordingly, the total cost of convening the 1970 session of the Special Committee at Geneva would therefore be as follows:
United States dollars (a) Staff to be recruited at Geneva 90,500 (b) In-session documentation and provisional
and final summary records8,000 (c) Travel and subsistence for substantive
staff to be sent from New York4,700 TOTAL
103,200 3. Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt the draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Committee, an additional appropriation of $103,200 would be required under section 2 (Special meetings and conferences) of the budget estimates for the financial year 1970. The final arrangements with respect to the session would be subject to the recommendations of the Committee on Conferences.
DOCUMENT A/7838
Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions[Original text: English]
[8 December 1969]1. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions has considered the note by the Secretary-General (A/C.5/1278) on the administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Committee (A/7853, para. 25). Under the terms of this draft resolution the General Assembly would decide that the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression should resume its work, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2330 (XXII), in Geneva, in the second half of 1970, and request the Secretary-General to provide it with the necessary facilities and services. An item on the report of the Special Committee would be inscribed in the provisional agenda of the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth session.
2. In estimating the administrative and financial implications of this draft resolution, the Secretary-General has assumed that the Special Committee would meet from 13 July to 14 August 1970, a period of five weeks, provided that its meetings could be integrated into the calender of meetings drawn up by the Committee on Conferences. On this basis he estimates that an additional appropriation of $103,200 would be needed under section 2 (Special meetings and conferences) of the budget estimates for the financial year 1970, as follows:
[Table identical with that appearing in document A/C.5/1278, paragraph 2, above.]
3. In its consideration of the above estimate of financial implications, the Advisory Committee noted that the dates provisionally selected for the session of the Special Committee overlap to a considerable degree the period during which the Economic and Social Council is scheduled to hold its forty-ninth session in Geneva, and that this could have a significant impact on the number of staff that the Secretary-General would need to recruit locally. The Advisory Committee was informed that the proposed timing reflected a desire that the session of the Special Committee should follow the session of the International Law Commission, scheduled for the period from 4 May to 10 July 1970, also in Geneva.
4. Moreover, the Advisory Committee understands that basically the same substantive staff from Headquarters would service the meetings of the International Law Commission and of the Special Committee, as well as those of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, which have been scheduled for the period from 31 March to 1 May 1970. |1| The Secretary-General's estimate of requirements referred to in item (c) of the table appearing in paragraph 2 above reflects these arrangements.
5. On this basis, and subject to any recommendations by the Committee on Conferences as to arrangements for the proposed session, the Advisory Committee concurs in the Secretary-General's estimate of overall financial implications of the draft resolution of the Sixth Committee. The Fifth Committee may therefore wish to inform the General Assembly, that, if it adopts the draft resolution, an additional appropriation of $103,200 will be required under section 2 of the budget estimates for 1970.
6. In connexion with the points raised in paragraph 4 above, the Advisory Committee would point out that provision for travel for substantive staff from New York to Geneva for the session of the International Law Commission has been made under section 5, chapter I (Travel of staff to meetings) of the budget estimates for 1970; |2| furthermore, provision for similar travel was included in the estimate of requirements arising from a session of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. |1| Should the latter session be held at Geneva, the Advisory Committee would therefore believe that some savings could automatically be expected under section 5, chapter I, item (vi) (International Law Commission), of the budget for 1970.
DOCUMENT A/7853
Report of the Sixth Committee[Original text: French]
[10 December 1969]CONTENTS
Paragraphs I. INTRODUCTION 1-5 II. DRAFT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED TO THE SIXTH COMMITTEE 6 III. DEBATE 7-23
7-19
20-23IV. VOTING 24 RECOMMENDATION OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE 25
I. INTRODUCTION 1. During its twenty-second session, on 18 December 1967, the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, |3| adopted resolution 2330 (XXII), establishing a Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression and defining its composition and terms of reference.
2. The Special Committee established pursuant to that resolution met at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 4 June to 6 July 1968, and prepared a report |4| which the General Assembly, on 27 September 1968, included in the agenda for the twenty-third session, allocating it to the Sixth Committee for consideration. On 18 December 1968, the Assembly, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, |5| adopted resolution 2420 (XXIII), in which it decided that the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression should resume its work, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2330 (XXII), as early as possible in 1969.
3. In accordance with that resolution, the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression reconvened at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 24 February to 3 April 1969, and prepared a report (A/7620) containing a summary of the views expressed in the Special Committee on certain general aspects of the question of defining aggression, and on the various draft proposals submitted to it at its 1968 and 1969 sessions. The report also contained the text of a resolution adopted by the Special Committee, in which it noted that there was not enough time in which to complete its task and recommended to the General Assembly, at its twenty-fourth session, that the Special Committee be asked to resume its work as early as possible in 1970.
4. At its 1758th plenary meeting, on 20 September 1969, the General Assembly decided to include in the agenda for its twenty-fourth session the item entitled "Report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression", and allocated it to the Sixth Committee, which considered it at its 1164th to 1170th meetings, held from 1 to 4 December 1969.
5. At its 1169th meeting, on 3 December, the Sixth Committee decided that its report on that agenda item should contain a summary of the general juridical views expressed during the debate, the financial implications of such a summary having previously been brought to its attention in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2292 (XXII).
II. DRAFT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED TO THE SIXTH COMMITTEE 6. The draft resolution submitted by Algeria, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chad, Cyprus, Dahomey, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Sierra Leone, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania and Yugoslavia (A/C.6/L.785) was introduced at the 1168th meeting by the representative of Ghana on behalf of the sponsors.
[For the text of the draft resolution, see para. 25 below.]
III. DEBATE A. Views expressed on certain general aspects of the question of defining aggression 7. Most of the representatives who spoke said it was both possible and desirable to define the concept of aggression, as the General Assembly had affirmed as early as its sixth session in resolution 599 (VI) of 31 January 1952. In that connexion, reference was also made to the progress achieved by the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression and to the fact that one of the draft definitions submitted to that Committee had been co-sponsored by countries which had often expressed misgivings about the possibility and desirability of defining aggression. It was also observed that a definition of aggression was particularly important in view of the current international situation and the arms race, which was endangering world peace and security. The formulation of a satisfactory definition of aggression could only further the cause of peace. The Security Council would find such a definition very useful in exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations. It would constitute an important step forward in the codification and progressive development of international law. It was pointed out that, until a definition of aggression was formulated, several international instruments, such as the draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind and the question of international criminal jurisdiction, would remain in abeyance. Furthermore, a definition adopted by the General Assembly would facilitate international efforts to safeguard the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of States in the cases of threat or use of force which now occurred, particularly against small countries. Such a definition would not, of course, completely discourage a potential aggressor, but it would at least help the United Nations to expose the aggressor and establish his international responsibility. It was also observed that a definition of aggression approved by a large majority of countries would strengthen the part played by law within the United Nations and would eliminate the element of indecision and subjectivity which characterized any political judgement for which the law failed to establish guidelines.
8. On the other hand, some representatives felt that it was neither possible nor desirable to define the concept of aggression. It was observed that the submission of the six-Power draft proposal (see A/7620, para. 11) to the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression did not mean that the sponsors of that proposal had abandoned their long-standing scepticism about the usefulness of the definition of aggression. They had submitted their proposal because the other drafts submitted thus far to the Special Committee not only failed to provide a satisfactory definition but had in fact helped to accentuate rather than resolve the differences of opinion in that Committee. The view was expressed that the adoption of a definition would be superfluous and might even hinder the operations of the United Nations in the field of international peace and security. It was also observed that attempts to define aggression would not promote the codification and progressive development of international law. Although it was recognized that aggression played a part in international relations, it was felt that for the time being it would not be opportune to define the concept of aggression.
9. Most of the representatives who spoke supported the proposal that the Special Committee should resume its work in 1970 in order that it might try to complete its work, if possible, before the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations. Some representatives, however, considered that the problem entrusted to the Special Committee was very complex and deserved the full attention not only of the members of the Committee itself but of the Members of the United Nations in general. The view was therefore expressed that it would be more expedient not to convene the Special Committee until 1971 or 1972, so that the Secretary-General could study any relevant proposals received from States Members of the United Nations.
10. Several representatives expressed the view that in order to be satisfactory any definition of aggression should conform to and be based on the Charter. It should also be supported by the large majority of the States Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. The latter condition was, however, contested by some representatives, who considered it incompatible with the Charter and in particular with the basic principle of the sovereign equality of States. The view was expressed that in the adoption of a definition of aggression there should be no hesitation about resorting, if necessary, to the procedures used in the General Assembly, namely, the rule of the majority.
11. Certain representatives supported the view that the definition should safeguard the discretionary power of the Security Council, the United Nations organ which bore the main responsibility for the maintenance of peace. In connexion with that view, it was explained that leaving the Security Council the discretionary power to determine the existence of a case of aggression did not mean that the Council, in exercising its functions, would not be obliged to take account of the relevant provisions of international law. Some representatives, on the other hand, considered that if the definition was to be useful it must be binding on the organ called upon to apply it. The view was also expressed that the definition, while being based on the concept of the discretionary power of the Security Council, should not make that power exclusive to the point where a deadlock in the Security Council would prevent other competent United Nations organs, particularly the General Assembly, from taking a decision concerning the existence of a case of aggression; according to the Charter, the Security Council bore the main, but not the exclusive, responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
12. Some representatives considered that the definition should be expressly applicable to entities not generally recognized as States. Other representatives said that the definition should refer only to "States" and avoid any excessively general expression such as "political entities"; the Security Council should be left a measure of discretionary power in that connexion.
13. Several representatives said that the definition should be limited exclusively to aggression resulting from the direct use of armed force. It was felt that the incorporation into the definition of varied and imprecise acts to which a State might be subjected would confer upon Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter an exclusive meaning which it did not have; such an extension of the concept of aggression would also lead to the legitimation of acts of individual or collective self-defence which were prohibited under Article 51 of the Charter, which authorized self-defence only in the case of armed attack. On the other hand, other representatives considered that the concept of indirect or covert uses of force must be included in any definition for it to conform to the Charter. Forms of the use of force such as the infiltration of armed bands, terrorism or subversion represented just as great a threat to international peace and security as other forms of physical force and consequently were comprised in the term "aggression" as used in the Charter. It should be possible to exercise the right of individual or collective self-defence provided for in the Charter against both direct and indirect forms of the illegal use of force. Moreover, some representatives felt that the definition should encompass all the forms of aggression which did not involve the use of armed force, such as economic, financial and political pressures, which could be just as dangerous as military aggression.
14. Some representatives considered that the inclusion in the definition of a provision condemning weapons of mass destruction would be very appropriate and useful, for it would back up United Nations efforts to prohibit such weapons. Other representatives, on the other hand, felt that it would be unnecessary to specify in the definition the nature of the weapons used.
15. According to some representatives, animus aggressionis should be taken into account in the formulation of a definition of aggression. They pointed out that the element of intent could be determined by examination of objective facts and that it served the purpose, inter alia, of excluding de minimis incidents which no one could claim were acts of aggression justifying the application of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. In the view of several representatives, however, the definition should be based not on intent, which was a subjective element, but on the objectivity of the act. In that connexion, it was said that the element of intent would be virtually impossible to establish as far as States were concerned and that it could operate as a sanction for anticipatory attacks and enable them to be passed off as preparations justified by the exercise of the right of self-defence.
16. The principle of priority was criticized by some representatives as being incompatible with the Charter. Objections were raised to it in connexion with certain draft proposals submitted to the Special Committee and reviewed below. Several representatives, on the other hand, were in favour of including the principle of priority in the definition. The notion of first use was stated to be of fundamental importance. It was a logical and inevitable idea, and even greater problems would be created by trying to do without it, since those who argued that the question was not who had crossed the frontier first or had attacked first but who had prepared for war overlooked the fact that in reality preparation for war was inseparable from the arms race; it would be impossible to identify the aggressor unless a historical and strategical study was made, and it must be remembered that it was very difficult to distinguish between preparations connected with self-defence and preparation for a war of aggression. The point was also made that although the principle of priority was certainly very difficult to apply, that was no justification for ignoring it; the definition should take the principle into account and leave it to the Security Council to judge the issue in the light of the facts.
17. With regard to the legitimate use of force, several representatives stressed the need to include in the definition of aggression a clear and precise provision recognizing the right of individual and collective self-defence as provided for in the Charter. It was observed in that connexion that even where the right of self-defence represented a response to armed aggression, it was a restricted right which should not detract from the right of the Security Council to act in the interest of the maintenance of international peace and security; any definition of aggression should be based on Article 51 of the Charter as far as the right of self-defence was concerned. It was also stated that the exercise of that right should be recognized only as a means of defence to be used by a victim of an act of aggression for the sole purpose of repelling the aggressor; it would operate as a sanction against the aggressor and not as an exception to the principle of the non-use of force, which would preclude any possibility of the right being exercised for preventive purposes. With regard to the legitimate use of force by regional agencies, some representatives pointed out that under Article 53 of the Charter those agencies were prohibited from taking enforcement action without the authorization of the Security Council; that point needed to be spelt out in the definition. Other representatives stated that such a view was restrictive and was contrary to Articles 52 and 53 of the Charter.
18. Several representatives maintained that the definition should contain a clause recognizing the right of dependent peoples to use force in the exercise of their right to self-determination. It was stated in that connexion that the use of force against a people exercising its right to self-determination would constitute a flagrant violation of the Charter.
19. Some representatives referred to the question of the legal consequences of aggression. The view was expressed that the definition should contain a clause establishing the responsibility bf the aggressor and laying down the principle that any gains he obtained should not be recognized.
B. Views expressed on the drafts submitted to the Special Committee 20. The discussion centred mainly on the USSR draft (see A/7620, para. 9), the thirteen-Power draft (ibid., para. 10) and the six-Power draft (ibid., para. 11) submitted to the Special Committee on 26 February and 24 and 25 March 1969 respectively.
21. Several representatives supported the USSR and thirteen-Power drafts in principle. It was observed that those texts revealed a substantial convergence of attitudes with regard to the fundamental principles on which the definition of aggression should be based. With regard to the USSR draft, it was observed that operative paragraph 1, taken in conjunction with the eighth preambular paragraph, implied the existence of forms of aggression other than armed aggression, whereas within the meaning of the Charter the concept of aggression was confined to acts involving the use of armed or physical force. Moreover, the possible consequences of the criterion of first use as embodied in the USRR draft were felt to be unacceptable. It was said that the rigid application of that criterion by the USSR draft signified disregard for Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, which prohibited not only the use of force but also the threat of force. It was further stated that operative paragraph 2 C of the USSR draft excessively circumscribed those indirect forms of the use of force which could constitute acts of aggression. It was observed that the idea expressed in operative paragraph 3 of the USSR draft ought not to be included in the definition; the Security Council should not have the power to classify acts as acts of aggression unless they were included in the definition. The fourth preambular paragraph of the USSR draft was criticized as suggesting that the use of force would be permitted among States with similar social systems.
22. The thirteen-Power draft was said to deviate from the Charter scheme by arbitrarily excluding the indirect or covert use of force from the concept of aggression as conceived in the Charter, thus, inter alia, denying in certain serious cases of aggression, the right of self-defence which the Charter allowed the victims. It was also said that paragraph 2 of that draft constituted a revision of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter and that paragraph 4 of the draft conflicted with Article 53 of the Charter; similarly, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the draft tended to conflict with Charter law by depriving the General Assembly of its fundamental responsibilities regarding the maintenance of international peace and security. According to one representative, paragraph 2 of the thirteen-Power draft seemed to support an unacceptable view–that some United Nations organs other than the Security Council were competent to use force in conformity with the Charter.
23. In the opinion of some representatives, the six-Power draft tended to place the onus probandi on the victim of aggression by emphasizing the psychological aspects of aggression–the animus aggressionis–at the expense of the material elements. In addition, it failed to provide for some very important elements in aggression; in particular, it did not refer to the right of dependent peoples to use armed force in the exercise of their right to self-determination, and it placed regional organizations on the same footing as the United Nations, contrary to Article 53 of the Charter.
IV. VOTING 24. At its 1169th meeting, on 3 December 1969, the Sixth Committee took a vote on the draft resolution before it (A/C.6/L.785).
(a) At the request of the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, a roll-call vote was taken on a proposal of the Belgian representative that the words "the urgency of defining aggression and" in the fifth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution be deleted. The Belgian proposal was rejected by 56 votes to 15, with 13 abstentions. The voting was as follows:
In favour: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Democratic Republic of), Cuba, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Finland, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Southern Yemen, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia, Zambia.
Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Brazil, Cameroon, Colombia, France, Ireland, Liberia, Mauritius, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela.
(b) The Committee then voted on a proposal of the United Kingdom representative that the wuids "at Geneva in the second half of" in operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution be replaced by the word "in". The United Kingdom proposal was rejected by 46 votes to 16, with 22 abstentions.
(c) The draft resolution was adopted without change by 68 votes to 1, with 15 abstentions.
Recommendation of the Sixth Committee 25. The Sixth Committee therefore recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following draft resolution:
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE QUESTION OF DEFINING AGGRESSION The General Assembly,
Having considered the report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression on the work of its session held in New York from 24 February to 3 April 1969,
Taking note of the progress made by the Special Committee in its consideration of the question of defining aggression and on the draft definition, as reflected in the report of the Special Committee,
Considering that it was not possible for the Special Committee to complete its task, in particular its consideration of the proposals concerning a draft definition of aggression submitted to the Special Committee during its sessions held in 1968 and 1969,
Considering that in its resolutions 2330 (XXII) of 18 December 1967 and 2420 (XXIII) of 18 December 1968 the General Assembly affirmed the widespread conviction of the need to expedite the definition of aggression,
Considering the urgency of defining aggression and the desirability of achieving this objective, if possible, by the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations,
1. Decides that the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression shall resume its work, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2330 (XXII), at Geneva in the second half of 1970;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Special Committee with the necessary facilities and services;
3. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its twenty-fifth session an item entitled "Report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression".
[Text adopted by the General Assembly without change. See "Action taken by the General Assembly" below.]
DOCUMENT A/7861
Administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution submitted by, the Sixth Committee in document A/7853Report of the Fifth Committee
[Original text: English]
[10 December 1969]1. At its 1345th meeting, on 9 December 1969, the Fifth Committee, in compliance with rule 154 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly considered the note by the Secretary-General (A/C.5/1278) and the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (A/7838) with respect to the administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution contained in paragraph 25 of the report of the Sixth Committee (A/7853).
2. Under the terms of the draft resolution the General Assembly would: (a) decide that the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression shall resume its work, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2330 (XXII), at Geneva in the second half of 1970; (b) request the Secretary-General to provide the Special Committee with the necessary facilities and services; and (c) decide to include in the provisional agenda of its twenty-fifth session an item entitled "Report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression".
3. In his note the Secretary-General indicated that the cost of convening a meeting of the Special Committee in Geneva for approximately five weeks, from 13 July to 14 August 1970, would amount to $103,200. This estimate provides for two meetings a day with interpretation and summary records in English, French, Russian and Spanish and in-session documentation not to exceed 120 pages. The provision of these services would make it necessary to recruit 8 interpreters, 22 translator/précis-writers, 8 revisers, 22 stenographer/typists, 1 secretary, 1 meetings-service officer and 3 technicians. In addition, 7 substantive staff members would have to be sent from New York to service the meetings. The total cost of convening the 1970 session of the Special Committee in Geneva was therefore estimated as follows:
United States dollars (a) Staff to be recruited in Geneva 90,500 (b) In-session documentation, provisional and
final summary records8,000 (c) Travel and subsistence for substantive staff
to be sent from New York4,700 TOTAL
103,200 4. In concurring with the estimates of requirements submitted by the Secretary-General above, the Advisory Committee indicated that its approval was subject to any recommendations by the Committee on Conferences as to the arrangements for the proposed session of the Special Committee. In this connexion, the Advisory Committee drew attention to the fact that provision had already been made for the travel of substantive staff fron New York to Geneva for the session of the International Law Commission |6| from 4 May to 10 July 1970 and for a session of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States from 31 March to 1 May 1970. Since the Advisory Committee understood that the substantive staff from Headquarters to service the meetings of the International Law Commission, the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression would be basically the same, the Advisory Committee felt that some savings could be expected under section 5, chapter I (Travel of staff to meetings), item (vi) (International Law Commission), of the budget for 1970.
5. During the discussions on this question, one delegation indicated that it would have wished to vote against the proposal of the Sixth Committee, since it believed the proposal to be inconsistent with the pattern of conferences established by the Committee on Conferences.
6. Accordingly, the Fifth Committee wishes to inform the General Assembly that, should the Assembly adopt the draft resolution of the Sixth Committee and the recommendation of the Fifth Committee concerning the pattern of Conferences, |7| an additional appropriation of $103,200 would be required under section 2 (Special meetings and conferences) of the budget estimates for 1970.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY At its 1831 st plenary meeting, on 12 December 1969, the General Assembly adopted the draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Committee (A/7853, para. 25) by a vote of 83 to 1, with 18 abstentions. For the final text, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 30, resolution 2549 (XXIV).
CHECK LIST OF DOCUMENTS NOTE. This check list includes the documents mentioned during the consideration of agenda item 88 which are not reproduced in the present fascicle.
Document No. Title or description Observations and references A/7620 Report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression (24 February-3 April 1969) Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fourth session, Supplement No. 20 A/C.5/L.785 Algeria, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chad, Cyprus, Dahomey, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mexico Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Sierra Leone, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Arab of Tanzania and Yugoslavia: draft resolution Adopted without change. See A/7853, para. 6 A/C.6/L.786 Administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Committee in document A/7853: note by the Secretary-General Mimeographed Notes:
*. For the discussion of this item, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-Fourth Session, Sixth Committee, 1164th to 1170th meetings; ibid., Fifth Committee, 1345th meeting; and ibid., Plenary Meetings, 1831st meeting. [Back]
**. This question has been discussed by the General Assembly at the twenty-second session under agenda item 95 and at the twenty-third session under agenda item 86. [Back]
1. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fourth Session, Annexes, agenda item 89, document A/7831. [Back 1] [Back 2]
2. Ibid., Twenty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 6, vol. I, para. 5.4 (vi). [Back]
3. For the report of the Sixth Committee, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-second Session, Annexes agenda item 95, document A/6988. [Back]
4. Ibid., Twenty-third Session, agenda item 86, document A/7185/Rev.1. [Back]
5. For the report of the Sixth Committee, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-third Session, Annexes, agenda item 86, document A/7402. [Back]
6. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 6, vol. I, para. 5.4 (vi). [Back]
7. Ibid., Twenty-fourth Session, Annexes, agenda item 76, document A/7914, para. 16. [Back]
Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-Fourth Session, Agenda Item 88: Report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression, Report of the Sixth Committee, Doc. A/7853, Dec. 10, 1969, pp. 1-7.
Editorial Note: This is a true copy of the above-referenced original document. This document is reproduced in Benjamin B. Ferencz's work "Defining International Aggression - The Search for World Peace", Vol. 2, as Document No. 17.
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