Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1

IO Files: US(P)/M(Chr)/18

Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, Paris, Hotel d’Iéna, October 19, 1948

Paris, October 19, 1948

secret

[Here follow list of persons (35) present and discussion of a prior agenda item.]

ii. united states slate for international court of justice

Mr. Gross reviewed the consideration previously given to the International Court of Justice slate by the Delegation, recalling that, pending information from the Department as to the nature of the commitments which had been made to Sir B. N. Rau (India), it had taken no final position on his recommendation to alter the Department’s position paper to support re-election of the five incumbent judges. He said that the Department had now informed the Delegation that a firm commitment had been given the Indian Ambassador on September 3, and he had been told that his government could inform other governments that the United State was supporting Rau. Mr. Gross noted that it was not clear whether the United States was obligated to support Rau beyond the first ballot. Mr. Kopper said he had been present at the interview with the Indian Ambassador in Washington, who had been told that the United States would give “reasonable” support to Rau’s candidacy. Pointing out that India would not expect the United States to support Rail to the end he observed that the United States would have discharged its commitment if it shifted its vote after Rau fell far behind. Mr. Blaisdell called the commitment indefinite, not being specifically limited to the first ballot, nor being extended indefinitely.

Ambassador Austin interpreted the obligations of the Delegation as requiring that it vote for Rau on the first ballot; if the vote were close, to continue to support Rau; and if Rau fell far behind, to shift the vote of the Delegation to another candidate.

Mr. Gross asked whether the commitment was simply to vote for Rau or to talk to others in his behalf, Mr. Kopper said the Indian Ambassador had been informed that the United States would not campaign for Rau but would tell others, if asked, it was voting for him. Mr. Jessup pointed out that there was a difference between saying that the United States was supporting Rau on the first ballot and simply saying it was supporting Rau. Mr. Rusk noted that Rau’s situation was no different in this regard from that of any of the candidates.

After it was noted that the special British problem arose partly from the fact that Sir Zafrullah Khan¹ was also a candidate, the Delegation considered the probable developments in voting strength arising out of the concurrent Security Council and General Assembly balloting on the International Court of Justice candidates. Mr. Jessup thought it very likely that the Polish incumbent would get six votes on the first ballot making him the Security Council preferred candidate. This development would probably be followed by a corresponding shift in the Assembly vote.

Mr. Dulles asked why the original commitment had been made to Rau. Mr. Kopper explained that India had approached the United States on a number of subjects, including its candidacy for the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and Rau’s candidacy for the International Court of Justice.

General policy considerations had appeared to make it important to support India in at least one of these cases and the Court place had been chosen. Mr. Gross regretted that the Court selection had been put on a political basis. Mr. Jessup noted there were political reasons for voting for either the Polish incumbent or Rau. Mr. Gross thought there was a difference in the case of the Pole, since he was already on the Court.

Mr. Cohen asked whether it would do violence to the United States commitment if Rau was told simply that while the United States would vote for him on the first ballot, unless he was in the lead it could not continue to support him. He could also be told that the United States believed it was important not to have the U.S.S.R. feel that Eastern European representation on the Court was being deliberately reduced. Even though the U.S.S.R. would not bring cases to the Court it was quite possible that in the future there would be a greater tendency to seek advisory opinions. Eastern European membership on the Court might make some difference as to the weight these states attached to those opinions.

Mr. Kopper pointed out that those considerations had been known last summer. He did not think that the Indian Delegation would be sympathetic to this approach. Mr. Cohen commented that it was not quite true that the United States knew as much about the situation then, particularly the Western European position. Mr. Thorp pointed out the United States support of India’s candidacy for ECOSOC had also altered circumstances.

Mr. Rusk said that when the original decision was made, both the United Kingdom and Canada had indicated they were supporting Rau. Moreover, the United States national group had nominated the Pole and not the Yugoslav. However, the Department had decided for policy reasons to support the Yugoslav. He wondered whether commitments to individuals were not more flexible than commitments to countries.

Ambassador Austin stated the agreement of the Delegation to support Rau on the first ballot and on successive ballots unless he fell far behind. If it became necessary for the United States to shift its vote he should be informed in advance of the reasons. Mr. Cohen wondered how far ahead the other candidates should be on the first ballot. Ambassador Austin thought far enough to insure their election. It was pointed out that since the Security Council and the General Assembly balloted concurrently there might be different results in each. Mr. Dulles thought the strategy to cover this situation could be decided upon only after a decision as to the candidate which the United States wished to see elected.

Mr. Sandifer recalled that he had taken part in the developments of the present slate in the Department. It had been felt that Southeastern Asia was not adequately represented on the Court and that Eastern Europe was over-represented. On the point whether a commitment to an individual involved less responsibility, he commented that on the basis of his own experience in this Assembly session, the Indian orientation was sympathetic to the United States; if the commitment were broken, there would probably be serious repercussions, especially if a shift was made before a decisive modification in the voting.

Ambassador Austin said that if the Delegation believed Rau to be out of the running as the result of the first ballot, the United States would drop him from the slate. Otherwise it would continue to support him.

Commenting on Mr. Sandifer’s remark, Mr. Cohen expressed some doubt as to whether Eastern Europe was actually over-represented. The Latin-American states had certainly disproportionate representation. He did not think the representation of Southeastern Asia was completely met by taking a seat away from an area where other special political problems were involved.²

[Here follows discussion of another subject.]

1. Pakistani Minister for Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations and Chairman of the Pakistani Delegation to the General Assembly.
2. In several sittings meeting concurrently on October 22 the General Assembly and the Security Council elected Messrs. Hsu Mo, Badawi, Read, Winiarski and Zoricic to the International Court of Justice in that order; for the proceedings, see respectively GA (III/1), Plenary, pp. 368 ff., and United Nations, Official Records of the Security Council, Third Year, No. 119, pp. 1–4 and 16–18.