Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

IO files, SD/A/AC.58/1

¹

Position Paper Prepared in the Department of State for the United States Delegation to the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on Factors²

restricted

[Washington,] September 2, 1952.

General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee

(“to carry out a further study of the factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a territory is or is not a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government”)

the problem

The problem is to determine the position of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly’s Ad Hoc Committee on Factors.

recommendations

[Note: Recommendations on the specific questions of (a) Cessation of Submission of Information on the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam and (b) Future Cessation of Submission on Puerto Rico, are contained in separate position papers which should be utilized in conjunction with this paper.]³

1. In view of the complexity and emphasized importance of the problem to date in the United Nations, the United States Representative should favor full discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee as the United States has previously done in the Special Committee and Committee IV.

2. The United States Representative should bear in mind that the most desirable outcome of the discussions, in view of the exhaustive treatment the factors question has received in the last four years, would be a report by the Ad Hoc Committee which would sum up previous considerations and set forth the conclusion that any definition or list of factors which finally might be formulated can only be useful as a guide in determining when a territory ceases to become non-self-governing.^* In this connection the United States Representative should be guided by the position taken repeatedly by the United States that neither a definition nor a list of factors could be flexible enough to take account of the complexities of constitutional forms and usages in the wide variety of territories and at the same time specific enough to be definitive. In discussions on this point the United States Representative may take occasion to point out that the careful and exhaustive consideration which the factors question has received to date in the United Nations and the divergencies which have characterized the consideration of this question by various Members have amply demonstrated the soundness of the United States position.

3. Should the Ad Hoc Committee desire, in response to General Assembly Resolution 567 (VI), to submit to the Assembly a list of “factors which should be taken into account” elaborating the list contained in the Annex to the resolution, the United States may agree to such a list, provided that no one factor or combination of factors is presented as determining in any given case the status of a territory in relation to Chapter XI. In this connection, the factors emphasized previously by the United States are contained in Annex A.

4. The United States Representative should support the principle that the General Assembly may examine information submitted to it regarding the cessation of information but should oppose any proposed resolution or language which implies that it is the prerogative of the General Assembly ultimately to decide when a territory ceases to become non-self-governing or even the General Assembly and the Administering Authority to decide. We might, however, express the hope that any actions leading to the cessation of reporting under Article 73(e) would be such as to meet with the general satisfaction of UN Members.

5. In formal or informal consultations with representatives of other powers in the Ad Hoc or Fourth Committee, the United States Representative should

(a) Express appreciation for the substantive contributions they have made to the discussions of the “factors question” and the wisdom of their efforts to maintain a cooperative atmosphere in this regard;

(b) Urge the administering powers to exercise the utmost patience in order to maintain a friendly and cooperative atmosphere and, despite whatever the majority conclusions of the Ad Hoc Committee and Committee IV may be, not to exacerbate the situation by any suggestions of non-participation in activities under Chapter XI or disregard for recommendations in the field of non-self-governing territories. We should invite them to interpret in the broadest practicable sense their obligation to transmit information under Article 73(e) of the Charter on economic, social, and educational conditions in non-self-governing territories.

(c) Share fully and frankly with them [as well as the non-administering Members] the United States position on substantive questions.

6. Should a point of order be raised in regard to views of the Belgain Government which stress the fact that many Members have not reported on the aboriginal peoples living within their jurisdictions, the United States Representatives should take the position that such views may legitimately be placed before the Ad Hoc Committee and the General Assembly since neither are bound by the terms of reference of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories which do not entitle it to apply its conclusions to any specific territory. The United States Representative should not initiate discussions on this matter, but in the course of their development, should take the following position:

(a) Express appreciation to the Belgian delegation for the important and impressive data which they have presented for the information of the Committee and the General Assembly;

(b) Indicate that concern for the welfare and development of all aboriginal peoples ought, on the one hand, to enhance appreciation with the United Nations of the general problem of promoting self-government and, on the other, by virtue of their participation in the work of the United Nations to increase the awareness of Member Governments who administer such peoples of their responsibilities in regard to them;

(c) Point out, however, that the absence of territorial identity outside the territorial limits of the Member Governments who administer such peoples would seem to preclude them from the reporting provisions of Chapter XI of the Charter;

(d) Present the view that the matter of reporting on aboriginal peoples within the boundaries of Member States would depend upon the present provisions of the Charter being reviewed and, therefore, extended consideration of this question could only lead the Committee into difficult discussions in the political field which would be beyond the competence of the General Assembly to decide under its present terms.

In discussing the Belgian views, care should be exercised to avoid any statement which might be prejudicial to the position of the United Kingdom with respect to the South African protectorates of Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland, the administration of which is desired by the Union of South Africa.

7. If it seems appropriate at the early stages of the Ad Hoc Committee’s deliberations, the United States Representative should make a general statement along lines of the attached draft (Annex B).⁴

background

Under Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government,” undertake certain responsibilities in regard to these territories. The Charter does not, however, undertake to define the term “a non-self-governing territory.”

At the First Session of the General Assembly, after some discussion of the problem, the Assembly merely “noted” the list of 74 territories on which eight members had transmitted, or declared their intention of transmitting information.

By 1948 the General Assembly had before it information on only 62 of the 74 territories listed in the 1946 resolution. The Assembly then adopted a resolution proposed by India (and considerably modified) which affirmed the principle that the United Nations should be informed of such changes in the constitutional position and status of certain territories as had led the responsible Government to discontinue transmission of information, and requested the Members concerned to furnish the Secretary General with the relevant documents relating to the new status of the territory and its constitutional relationship to the metropole. (GA Res. 222 (III), Annex C).6

At the Fourth Session of the General Assembly a resolution on “Territories to which Chapter XI of the Charter Applies” was adopted. In this resolution the General Assembly considered that it was within its responsibility “to express its opinion on the principles which have guided or may in the future guide the Members concerned in enumerating the territories for which the obligation exists to transmit information under Article 73(e) of the Charter.” The Assembly further invited the Special Committee “to examine the factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether any territory is or is not a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” (See GA Res. 334 (IV), Annex D).⁵

In 1951 the Special Committee undertook an examination of the factors. The Committee’s report on this problem noted that there are numerous elements which should be taken into consideration in determining if a territory is or is not self-governing and that it did not consider that “any single factor or any particular combination of factors can be regarded as prominent or decisive in every case, except that the will of the people of the territory concerned properly and freely expressed, would in all cases be the paramount factor in deciding whether a relationship between the administering authority and a non-self-governing territory has evolved to a stage where that territory could be said to have attained a full measure of self-government.” The report listed a number of factors of a geographical, political, economic and cultural nature which in the opinion of the Committee should be taken into account in determining if a territory has achieved a status of full self-government, stressing that the list is not to be considered as being exhaustive. In “a spirit of seeking understanding rather than marking [sic] controversies” the Special Committee did not enter into the question of competence, that is, who should determine when a territory is no longer non-self-governing.

After receiving the report of the Special Committee, the Fourth Committee of the Sixth General Assembly appointed a sub-committee to study the basic and general factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a territory is or is not a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government and to consider the advisability of establishing procedures for the further study of the problem.

This sub-committee drew up a list of factors as well as a draft resolution which the Fourth Committee submitted to the General Assembly, The Assembly adopted the sub-committee’s resolution (see GA Res. 567 (VI), Annex B) and thereby: decided to take as a basis for the future study of the factors the list drawn up by the sub-committee; invited the Members of the United Nations to transmit to the Secretary General by May 1, 1952, a statement of their views on the factors; appointed an Ad Hoc Committee of ten members (Australia, Belgium, Burma, Cuba, Denmark, France, Guatemala, Iraq, the United States, and Venezuela) to carry out a further study of the factors and to report to the Seventh General Assembly; and invited the Secretary General to convene the Ad Hoc Committee in order that it might complete its work one week before the opening of the 1952 session of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories. The Committee is to convene in New York September 4.

To date seventeen Member Governments have provided statements of their views on the factors question in accordance with the request contained in para. 2 of GA Res. 567 (VI)—Belgium, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador–Guatemala (joint reply), France, Greece, Indonesia, Iraq, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, USSR, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.⁶ The United States response to this request was as follows:

“The United States assumes that the General Assembly Resolution of January 18, 1952, inviting Members to submit their views on this question by May 1, 1952, is primarily intended for those Members who have not participated in the General Assembly’s Committees dealing with this question. The United States has already made known its views through active participation in these Committees and has nothing to add to these views at this time. Any further comments which the United States may wish to present will be made in the Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly…”

The Committee is to take into account all the information available, including that transmitted to the Secretary General on the reasons which have led certain Administering Members to cease to transmit information on certain of their territories.

Past United States Position

In a note of August 19, 1946 transmitting copies of the latest annual reports of the Governors of Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Panama Canal Zone, Guam and Samoa, the Department of State suggested that Chapter II of the Charter “would appear to apply to any territories administered by a Member of the United Nations who do not enjoy the same measure of self-government as the metropolitan area of that member.” The Department of State added that for 1946 the United States had used a purely pragmatic approach in selecting the territories on which it should transmit information on the hope that the experience of the various Members would perhaps reveal more clearly the kind of criteria, if any, which could eventually be agreed upon in making the selection. The United States ceased transmitting information on the Panama Canal Zone after 1946, having received a protest from the Republic of Panama, and indicated subsequently that this was a matter for consultations between the United States and the Republic of Panama. The United States voted for GA Res. 222(III) and stated that even had this resolution not been adopted the United States would expect to inform the Secretary General if for any reason it ceased to transmit information on one of its territories. The United States recorded its understanding, however, that the transmission of the information requested in the resolution did not alter the right of each administering state to determine the constitutional position and status of any particular territory under its sovereignty. The United States restated this understanding when the Special Committee was entrusted with the task of studying the factors. The United States position at that time was that the General Assembly had the right to compile a list of factors for the guidance of Members but that no definition or list of factors could be flexible enough to take account of the complexities of constitutional forms and usages in the wide variety of territories involved and at the same time specific enough to be definitive.

At the Sixth General Assembly during the discussions in Committee IV on the Report of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Alternate United States Representative, Dr. Channing Tobias, included in his statement on November 21, 1951 the following comments on the factors question:

“…A special section of the Report contains a carefully studied analysis of the factors which should be taken into account in determining whether or not a territory has become self-governing within the meaning of the Charter. This report results from an Assembly resolution of two years ago and it reflects, in the view of my Delegation, a great deal of wisdom and intelligence. Undoubtedly some Delegations here may think that they could add other factors to this list and some may think that certain factors appearing there should be eliminated. My Delegation has always taken the position that the circumstances of the various non-self-governing territories are so different that no single factor or combination of factors would necessarily apply in all cases. We have studied this document most carefully and we believe that the Fourth Committee should accept it as a guide to be seriously taken into account in determining when a people have reached the point when it has become self-governing or when it has attained a status whereby it need no longer be reported upon under Chapter XI.

“The United States Delegation believes that territories should be encouraged and assisted to become self-governing as rapidly as possible and we would not wish such a development delayed as a result of laying down so many complex factors to be met that the people might become discouraged in their onward progress toward self-government. We believe it is the duty of this Committee not unnecessarily to complicate the progress or to place too many difficult hurdles in the way. As I look over this list of factors, I could not help but think that a number of so-called independent countries might find it difficult to qualify on all the points mentioned in this list.

“Mr. Chairman, my delegation believes that what we must always strive for is that non-self-governing peoples may be placed in a position where they can freely choose their destiny. It is this element of freedom of choice which in our view is the keystone of the whole question. Non-self-governing peoples should not be coerced against their will to assume a status which they do not desire. Such a relationship is almost certainly bound to make trouble and will usually create deep-seated resentments. And when I say that these peoples should be free-to choose, I mean that they should be able freely to decide the nature of the relationship which they wish to maintain with any other country. History has shown that this relationship has sometimes taken the form of independence. In other cases it has taken the form of some degree of association with the mother country and other countries, and in still other cases, it has taken the form of complete assimilation or integration with another State. All these are possibilities, and it would be a wise man indeed who would undertake to forecast which is the most desirable form of self-government for peoples who are now not fully self-governing.”

Application to Territories Administered by the United States

Under Article 73(e) the United States reports on Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam and American Samoa. It also reports to the Trusteeship Council on its administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. These seven territories are at widely varying stages of political, as well as economic, social and educational development. On the one hand, Hawaii and Alaska are on the threshold of statehood in the Union while Puerto Rico has as of July 25, 1952 achieved the status of an autonomous Commonwealth under a constitution drafted by the people of Puerto Rico and approved by the United States Congress. At the other extreme is the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands composed of 96 distinct island units composed of 2,141 individual islands scattered over an ocean area of approximately three million square miles and with a combined land area of only 687 square miles. The United States has placed on record in the Security Council the statement that despite the fact that no people are more consecrated to the principle of independence than the people of the United States, such status for the Trust Territory could not be achieved within any foreseeable future. The territories of the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa enjoy varying intermediate stages in the development of local self-government and no one can foretell what their ultimate political status will be.

It is obvious, however, that in taking positions in the United Nations on the factors question, the United States must bear in mind that all territories under its jurisdiction are not likely to achieve statehood as an ultimate status and that our present new relationship with Puerto Rico calls for a broader interpretation of “self-government” than simply membership in the Federal Union.

It is assumed that, in view of the changed status of Puerto Rico as a result of the promulgation of its new Constitution on July 25, 1952, it will no longer be appropriate or advisable for the United States to submit information on Puerto Rico in accordance with Article 73(e) of the Charter.⁷ Such action on the part of the United States will depend upon a definition by this Government as to the new relationship between it and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. However, since information remains to be transmitted for the period July 1, 1951 to June 30, 1952, it is assumed that the cessation of submission of information would not become effective until a year hence.

Administering Authorities Which Have Ceased to Transmit Information

France: The French Government in 1949 maintained that the territories on which no information was transmitted (Martinique, Guadeloupe, Reunion, French Guiana, St. Pierre and Miquelon, French Oceania, New Caledonia and Dependencies, French Establishments in India and the Associated States of Indo-China) were no longer non-self-governing by virtue of having become departments of France “with a regime which is largely identical with that of the Departments of Metropolitan France,” or overseas territories “with a regime which on the whole closely resembles that of the Overseas Departments of Metropolitan France as regards the status of the inhabitants and their method of political representation” or associated states with “freedom of self-government to the extent of independence within the framework of the French Union.”

United Kingdom: The British position with respect to Malta in 1947 as stated by the United Kingdom Representative, was that Malta on September 5, 1947 “had attained full responsibility for local self-governments” and while not yet in full control of its external affairs was nevertheless fully responsible for the conduct of its internal affairs. In 1949, the United Kingdom Representative invoked “constitutional consideration” from the phrase “subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require” in Article 73(e) as a reason for the United Kingdom’s ceasing to transmit information on Malta. The United Kingdom Representative stated that “since under the 1947 constitution Malta was responsible for its own internal administration, including the matters mentioned in Article 73(e) the United Kingdom Government was not concerned with these matters for constitutional reasons and could not, therefore, supply any information regarding them”.⁸

Netherlands: On June 29, 1950 the Government of the Netherlands informed the Secretary General of the United Nations that the Netherlands Government would from the current year on no longer present a report on Indonesia since the sovereignty over these territories, with the exception of Netherlands New Guinea, was formally transferred to the Republic of the United States of Indonesia on December 27, 1949. The note of the Government of the Netherlands continued as follows:

… “in all probability no further report on the Netherlands West Indies and Surinam will be submitted after 1950 since both these territories will then have acquired an autonomous status and a full measure of self-government placing them outside the scope of Chapter XI of the Charter. It is, however, the intention of my Government in that case to present to your Excellency a report pursuant to paragraph 2 of Resolution 222 (III) of the General Assembly.”

On August 31, 1951 the Netherlands Government advised the Secretary General that in the opinion of that Government, the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam have now ceased to be Non-Self-Governing Territories within the meaning of Article 73(e) of the Charter and that consequently the Netherlands Government had decided to terminate the transmission concerning these territories. The Special Committee considered the communication from the Netherlands Government and adopted a resolution which noted the information made available by the Netherlands Government relating to Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles and the fact that a conference among representatives of the two territories and the Netherlands on an equal footing was to be held in March 1952 to decide upon a system of cooperation for the common affairs of the three countries and the establishment of a new constitutional order to replace the present interim arrangement. The concluding paragraph of the resolution “Takes note of the communication of the Government of the Netherlands with reference to the cessation of the transmission of information on these territories, and transmits this information, together with its Special Committee report on General Assembly Resolution 334 (IV) and the summary records relating to these questions, to the General Assembly, for any necessary action.” The General Assembly decided (Resolution 568 (VI)) that in 1952 it should examine the communication of the Netherlands Government in the light of any report prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee and take into account whatever new arrangements as to common affairs may be developed by the 1952 conference of representatives of the Netherlands and of the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam. The resolution concludes with the decision “to include in the agenda of the next regular session of the General Assembly the question of the cessation of the transmission of information under Article 73(e) of the Charter as regards the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam.”

[See separate paper covering U.S. position on the question of Cessation of Information on the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam]

Views of the Non-Administering Members

The records of debates show that many non-administering members hold that the General Assembly has final authority to decide, or that this authority is to be exercised jointly by the General Assembly and the respective administering authorities. The replies of the non-administering members who have given views on the factors question are difficult to summarize. It is apparent that a sincere attempt has been made on the part of these members to give careful and objective consideration to the factors question. Their replies, as might well be expected, reflect that they take their own particular political situations and outlooks as the principal point of departure. One recurring theme of the replies has been the question of the competence of the General Assembly to apply any one list of factors to specific territories with the corollary that the cessation of the transmission of information under Article 73(e) of the Charter should depend on a separate investigation of each particular case. Another recurring theme calls for the application of the principle of self-determination. It is significant that of all the non-administering members which have submitted their views only Burma, while agreeing that it would be advantageous to have a list of factors laid down, believe strongly that the list should merely serve as a guide and not be applied rigidly.

Views of the Administering Members

The attitude of the administering authorities likewise reflects their individual political situations as well as their colonial responsibilities. They all hold the general view that, in the final analysis, the decision as to when a territory ceases to be non-self-governing rests with the metropolitan government, and that Chapter XI of the Charter does not provide the basis for maintaining that the General Assembly has the power to decide the question of the cessation of the application of Article 73(e) to a particular territory. Some of them have even threatened to cease to participate in the work of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories and Fourth Committee work as it pertains to Chapter XI of the Charter. While maintaining that the list of factors can only be of value as a guide to Members responsible for transmitting information under Article 73(e), they have participated in the discussion of this question and five Members (Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) have presented detailed and constructive sets of comments for consideration by the Ad Hoc Committee.

Special Views of Belgium:⁹ The Belgium views contain the theme upon which the Belgians have spoken for some time, namely, that there exists in the Americas and Asia peoples with a lower degree of civilization for whom no information has yet been transmitted. There are many examples of the formal establishment through laws and decrees of a special system taking into account their particular status or giving to the State some form of trusteeship over such peoples. The areas in which they live may be regarded as vast reservations in which they are more or less completely outside the laws in force for the rest of the State. In elaborating upon this theme, the Belgian Government lists, from ILO publications, 27 Members of the United Nations who administer sizeable groups of indigenous peoples concerning whom information has not been transmitted in accordance with Article 73(e). The important point is not that the Belgians have now provided elaborate documentation of their theme that reporting on non-self-governing peoples is incomplete. It is to be noted that previous efforts on their part to expand upon this theme have been ruled out of order in the Special Committee and Committee IV on the ground that such information was not before the Committees for consideration. The important question which now arises is whether or not the views submitted by Belgium are properly before the Ad Hoc Committee. These are legitimate views and if the Belgians are not ruled out of order, (and they have informed us that they will walk out if ruled out of order) a new factor of broad significance may have to be considered by the Ad Hoc Committee and possibly the General Assembly. In this connection it should be pointed out that the terms of reference of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories which do not entitle the Committee to apply a definition or list of factors to any specific territory for the purpose of determining its status are not binding upon the Ad Hoc Committee.

Annex A

U.S. Position on the Factors Question for the 1950 and 51 Sessions of the Special Committee on Information from Non-Self–Governing Territories

[Extracted from ODA–630 August 9, 1950, S/NSGT D–37/50 revised as of October 1951]¹⁰

recommendations

1. In view of the complexity and importance of the problem the United States Representative should favor full discussion in the plenary sessions of the Committee, but may support the appointment of a subcommittee once the subject has been thoroughly explored.

2. The United States Representative should be guided by the consideration that the most desirable outcome of the discussions in the Special Committee (and later in the Fourth Committee) would be a recognition of the difficulty or even the impossibility of formulating either a definition or a list of factors which would be presented as determining in every case whether a territory is or is not “a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government”. Neither a definition nor a list of factors presumably could be flexible enough to take account of the complexities of constitutional forms and usages in the wide variety of territories involved and at the same time specific enough to be definitive.

3. In the event that the Committee reaches a conclusion along the lines of Recommendation 2 above the United States Representative should consider seeking the co-sponsorship of a non-administering Member for a resolution which would recommend to the General Assembly that it take note of the difficulties encountered by the Special Committee, express the view that it is not possible to formulate a definition or a list of factors which would be determining in all cases, and invite administering Members to interpret in the broadest practicable sense their obligation to transmit information under Article 73(e) of the Charter on economic, social, and educational conditions in non-self-governing territories.

4. If, however, the Committee should desire, in response to General Assembly Resolution 334 (IV) to submit to the Assembly a list of“factors which should be taken into account” the United States Representative may agree to a list along the lines of Recommendation 5(a) below provided the list is not presented as a definition and no one factor or combination of factors is presented as determining in every case the status of a territory in relation to Chapter XI.

5. In any discussion of the “factors which should be taken into account” the United States Representative:

a. May, as appropriate during the discussion, advance some or all of the following as factors which might be taken into account, pointing out, however, their varying degrees of significance and the difficulty of using them individually or in combination as a test:

(1) Whether the inhabitants of the territory are represented in the metropolitan parliament on the same basis as the inhabitants of the metropole.

(2) Whether incorporation in the metropolitan area assures to the inhabitants of the territory rights and privileges equal to those enjoyed by the people of other component units of the metropole.

(3) Whether the territorial legislature is locally elected.

(4) The respective powers of the territorial legislature and the metropolitan legislature in relation to the territory.

(5) Whether the Governor is appointed by the metropole or elected by the inhabitants of the territory.

(6) Whether the ministers or heads of departments are inhabitants of the territories, and whether they are appointed by the metropole, chosen by the Governor, chosen by the majority party in the territorial legislature, or elected by the people.

(7) The extent of the Governor’s veto, reserve, or decree powers.

(8) Whether universal adult suffrage exists in the territory.

(9) Whether the inhabitants possess metropolitan citizenship.

b. Should oppose, as factors determining the status of territories in relation to Chapter XI, control of external affairs or eligibility for membership in the United Nations.

6. If the question arises, the United States Representative should recall the terms of reference of the Special Committee, which do not entitle the Special Committee to apply a definition or list of factors to any specific territory for the purpose of determining the status of that territory in relation to Chapter XI of the Charter.

7. If, through consultation, it appears that the United Kingdom maintains its intention to seek Special Committee agreement that an administering Member may invoke the phrase “subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require” to cease reporting on a territory which, although admittedly not fully self-governing in the sense of controlling its external relations, is fully responsible for its internal affairs including the economic, social, and educational matters specified in Article 73(e), the United States Representative should seek informally to dissuade the United Kingdom Representative from raising this point in the Special Committee except insofar as he might consider it necessary to make a reservation on the point on behalf of his Government.

Extract from the discussion section of the paper dealing with the distinction between self-government and independence.

There is a distinction drawn between self-government and independence in Article 76 of the Charter. Since control of its external relations is generally accepted as an attribute of a state, the framers of the Charter meant to imply, in making the distinction between self-government and independence, that a territory might be fully self-governing short of having obtained control of its affairs in this sphere. Moreover, Article 76 speaks of development toward self-government or independence “as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”, and, in Article 73(b) administering Members undertake “to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples”. Finally, the inclusion of this factor as a determining factor would cast doubt on the right of a territory to be considered self-governing for the purposes of Article 73(e) even if the people of the territory should choose incorporation into a larger unit or a special form of relationship with the metropole whereby, by mutual agreement, the metropole conducted the external relations of the territory.

See also Department of State Legal Adviser’s “Interpretation of Article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter” annexed to CDA–630.¹¹

Annex E

567 (VI). Future Procedure for the Continuation of the Study of Factors Which Should be Taken Into Account in Deciding Whether a Territory is or is Not a Territory Whose People Have Not Yet Attained a Full Measure of Self-Government

The General Assembly,

Recalling that, in resolution 334 (IV) adopted on 2 December 1949, the General Assembly invited any special committee which might be appointed on information transmitted under Article 73(e) of the Charter to examine the factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether any territory is or is not a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government,

Having examined the report on the matter prepared by the Special Committee on Information transmitted under Article 73(e) of the Charter,

Having undertaken a revision of the above-mentioned factors,

Considering that the production of a more definitive list of factors involves protracted and complex studies on the basis of more complete information than was available in 1951,

1. Decides to take as a basis the list of factors drawn up at the sixth session of the General Assembly, which list is annexed to the present resolution;

2. Invites the Members of the United Nations to transmit in writing to the Secretary-General, by 1 May 1952, a statement of the views of their governments on the factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a territory is or is not a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government;

3. Appoints an Ad Hoc Committee of ten members comprising Australia, Belgium, Burma, Cuba, Denmark, France, Guatemala, Iraq, the United States of America and Venezuela, in order to carry out a further study of the factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a territory is or is not a territory whose people have not attained a full measure of self-government;

4. Invites the Ad Hoc Committee to take into account all information available, including that transmitted to the Secretary-General on the reasons which have led certain Administering Members to cease to transmit information on certain of these territories, and to submit a report to the General Assembly at its seventh regular session;

5. Invites the Secretary-General to convene the Ad Hoc Committee in order that it may begin its work one week before the opening of the 1952 session of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories.

361st plenary meeting,

18 January 1952.

Annex to Resolution 567 (VI) Factors Which Should be Taken Into Account in Deciding Whether a Territory is or is Not a Territory Whose People Have Not Yet Attained a Full Measure of Self-Government

introduction

1. The territories which are covered by Chapter XI of the Charter are these territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government. It may be noted that the expression “self-government” is qualified in the Charter by the words “full measure” in the English text, “completement” in the French text, and “plenitud” in the Spanish text.

2. The task of the General Assembly, at present, is to indicate the factors which should be taken into account in determining whether the result of the advancement of the people of any given territory is such that that territory has reached a stage of self-government where it falls outside the scope of Article 73(e) of the Charter.

3. The condition under which the provisions of Chapter XI of the Charter cease to apply will be that the inhabitants of the territory have attained, through political advancement, a full measure of self-government. The fulfillment of this condition may be achieved by various means, involving in all cases the expression of the free will of the people. The two principal means are (a) the attainment of independence and (b) the union of the territory on a footing of equal status with other component parts of the metropolitan or other country or its association on the same conditions with the metropolitan or other country or countries. The extent to which the provisions of Article 73e continue to apply in the case of territories which have become neither independent nor fully integrated within another State but which have already attained a full measure of self-government in their internal affairs is a question which merits further study.

4. The two principal forms of political advancement mentioned in the above paragraph, call for the consideration of different factors in determining whether a territory has or has not reached a stage of self-government where it falls outside the scope of Article 73(e) of the Charter.

5. Accordingly, the General Assembly lists under two separate headings below the factors to be taken into account, stressing that the list cannot be regarded as exhaustive or definitive, and that a single factor or particular combination of factors cannot be regarded as decisive in every case. Whether the peoples of a territory should be regarded as having reached a stage of self-government where there is no longer any obligation to transmit information should be solved in the light of the conditions enumerated under either of the two headings, taking into account the circumstances of each particular case, which will need to be studied separately.

6. Nevertheless, the General Assembly considers that the essential factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a Non-Self-Governing Territory has attained a full measure of self-government are the following:

(i) Political advancement: Political advancement of the population sufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of the territory with due knowledge;

(ii) Opinion of the population: The opinion of the population of the Territory, freely expressed by informed and democratic processes as to the status or change in status which they desire.

7. These factors apply both to Non-Self-Governing Territories which have achieved independence and to Non-Self-Governing Territories which have freely United or associated themselves on a footing of equal status with other component parts of the metropolitan or other country or countries. In the latter case, however, the following factors are also essential and should be taken into account:

(i) Legislative representation: Representation without discrimination in the central legislative organs on the same basis as other inhabitants and regions;

(ii) Citizenship: Citizenship without discrimination on the same basis as other inhabitants.

i. factors indicative of the attainment of independence or other seperate system of self-government

A. General

1. Political advancement: Political advancement of the population sufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of the territory with due knowledge.

2. Opinion of the population: The opinion of the population of the territory, freely expressed by informed and democratic processes, as to the status or change in status which they desire.

B. International Status

1. Independence: The attainment of independence by the territory, or complete control over its external relations and internal affairs.

2. Eligibility for membership in international organizations: Eligibility for membership in the United Nations or for membership or associate membership in other international organizations; representation by delegates selected by the territorial government.

3. General international relations: Power to enter into direct relations of every kind with other governments and with international institutions, and to negotiate, sign and ratify international conventions.

4. Voluntary limitation of sovereignty: Degree to which the sovereignty of the territory is limited by its own free will when that territory has attained independence or other separate system of self-government.

C. Internal Self-Government

1. Territorial government: Freedom from control or interference by the government of another State in respect of the internal government (legislature, executive, judiciary) and administration of the territory.

2. Participation of the population: Effective participation of the population in the government of the territory by means of an adequate electoral and representative system.

3. Economic and social jurisdiction: Complete autonomy in respect of economic and social affairs.

ii. factors indicative of the free association (whether in a federal or unitary relationship) of a territory on equal status with other component parts of the metropolitan or other country

A. General

1. Political advancement: Political advancement of the population sufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of the territory with due knowledge.

2. Opinion of the population: The opinion of the population of the territory, freely expressed by informed and democratic processes, as to the status or change in status which they desire.

3. Geographical considerations: Extent to which the relations of the territory with the capital of the central government may be affected by circumstances arising out of their respective geographical positions, such as separation by land, sea or other natural obstacles.

4. Ethnic and cultural considerations: Extent to which the population are of different race, language or religion or have a distinct cultural heritage, interests or aspirations, distinguishing them from the peoples of the country with which they freely associate themselves.

5. Constitutional considerations: Association (a) by virtue of the constitution of the metropolitan country or (b) by virtue of a treaty or bilateral agreement affecting the status of the territory taking into account (i) whether the constitutional guarantees extend equally to the associated territory, (ii) whether there are constitutional fields reserved to the territory, and (iii) whether there is provision for the participation of the territory on a basis of equality in any changes in the constitutional system of the State.

B. Status

1. Legislative representation: Representation without discrimination in the central legislative organs on the same basis as other inhabitants and regions.

2. Citizenship: Citizenship without discrimination on the same basis as other inhabitants.

3. Government officials: Appointment or election of officials from the territory on the same basis as those from other parts of the country.

C. Internal Constitutional Conditions

1. Suffrage: Universal and equal suffrage, free periodic elections by secret ballot, freedom of choice of electoral candidates.

2. Local rights and status: Equal rights and status for the inhabitants and local bodies of the territory as enjoyed by inhabitants and local bodies of other parts of the country.

3. Local officials: Appointment or election of officials in the territory on the same basis as those in other parts of the country.

4. Internal legislation: Complete legislative automony of the territory, by means of electoral and representative systems, in all matters which in accordance with the normal terms of association are, in the case of non-unitary systems, not reserved to the central government.

Annex F

Extract from Position Paper Cleared for Item III, A, 3 of the Agenda for the Colonial Policy Discussions in 1950 Entitled “Problems in Connection With the Definition of the Concept of ‘Non-Self-Governing’”

The following extract (p. 3 of the paper) deals with the question of competence:

“1. The United States agrees that each administering Member has the right to determine the constitutional position and status of any particular territory under its sovereignty. The United States also considers that the decision with a respect to specific territories rests with the administering Members concerned. It is assumed that administering Members and all other Members of the United Nations would wish to respect any opinion or judgment handed down by the International Court of Justice with respect to Chapter XI of the Charter. The United States does not consider, however, that the interpretation of the expressions “non-self-governing territories” and “territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government”, since they appear in the Charter, is a matter for unilateral determination by individual administering Members. The United States considers, therefore, that in view of Article 10, the General Assembly would not be exceeding its authority in discussing and attempting to define these expressions, in recommending to administering Members generally the consideration of any definition the Assembly might be able to arrive at, or even in expressing its opinion in general terms, on the principles which have guided or may guide Members in determining on which of its territories it will transmit information. The United States believes that the General Assembly would be unwise to recommend to individual administering Members that they should transmit information on a specific territory or territories.”

1. This was one of three papers in a Position Book entitled “General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on Factors” and dated Sept. 4, 1952. Copies of this and Position Books for other Committee sessions are also in the ODA files, lot 62 D 182.
2. Regarding the membership and function of the Ad Hoc Committee on Factors, see the text of General Assembly Resolution 567 (VI) in Annex E of this paper, p. 1227.
3. Brackets throughout this document are in the source text. The position paper on the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam is not printed; for the paper on Puerto Rico, see p. 1427.
4. If the Ad Hoc Committee decides to take up the question of competence, see the previous position paper (Annex F). [Footnote in the source text.]
4. Not printed.
5. Not printed.

6. These replies are printed in U.N. Doc. A/AC.58/1 and additions 1–6, dated variously from May 22, 1952 to Aug. 20, 1952, and entitled “Ad Hoc Committee on Factors (Non-Self-Governing Territories) Replies of Governments indicating their views on the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a territory is or is not a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government”. These documents are filed (item 10) in the Position Book for the U.S. Delegation to the 1953 Session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Factors (IO files and ODA files, lot 62 D 182). (This item also includes replies filed by Chile and New Zealand subsequent to Aug. 20, 1952.)

   Relevant documentation relating to “the factors question” is also in the ODA files, lot 60 D 257, “NSGT: Factors, etc.”

7. See documentation on Puerto Rico, pp. 1427 ff.
8. Marginal notation beside this paragraph: “would resume reporting, with approval of Malta, if anyone should raise question.” (Source text for this notation is from the paper filed in the Position Book in the ODA files, lot 62 D 182.)
9. The Belgian position is set forth at length in the Belgian reply to the Secretary-General, which is incorporated into UN Doc. A/AC.58/1, May 22, 1952, pp. 3–14. See footnote 7, p. 1217.
10. Entitled “Position Paper on Resolution 334 (IV): Examination of Factors To Be Taken Into Account in Deciding Whether a Territory Is or Is not a Territory Whose Peoples Have not Yet Attained a Full Measure of Self-Government”; not printed. This was a document of the Department of State Committee on Problems of Dependent Areas; it was also serialized in a second documents series, that of the Interdepartmental Committee on Non-Self-Governing Territories (Department of State files, lot 54 D 5, Colonial Policy Committees). Regarding the Committee on Problems of Dependent Areas, see pp. 1427 ff.

11. Annex A of Doc. CDA–630, Aug. 9, 1950 was a 10-page document which included a summary at the beginning as follows:

    “The question has been raised as to the meaning of the phrase “subject to such limitations as security and constitutional considerations may require” which appears in Article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter. In particular, it has been suggested that this phrase may be so construed as to permit a Member of the United Nations to cease reporting with respect to a territory, on the ground that Changes in the territory’s status make it constitutionally inappropriate for the metropolitan state to transmit information to the United Nations under Article 73(e), and, further, that the General Assembly would not be competent to review this action and pronounce upon whether such action is justifiable.

    “Examination of the pertinent provisions of the Charter, the proceedings of the San Francisco Conference, and applicable rules of international law, leads to the following conclusions:

    • “1) The meaning of the phrase in question is not clear and precise, nor can the exact intent of the negotiators be ascertained. Nevertheless the San Francisco records indicate that many delegates would not have agreed to the insertion of this language in the Charter had they considered that this language could be construed so as to permit a metropolitan state to relieve itself arbitrarily and unilaterally of its reporting obligation under Article 73(e).
    • “2) Under general rules of international law governing interpretation of treaties, it is believed that the reasonable and natural interpretation of the language in question, in the light of the general objective of Article 73, is as follows:

      “‘the Members of the United Nations which are administering non-self-governing territories undertake by Article 73(e) to report to the United Nations with respect to economic, social and educational conditions in such territories. This undertaking is subject to “limitation” (in legal parlance, the term “limitation” is used in the sense of “qualification” or “restriction”), i.e., a Member may qualify or limit the information transmitted where security or constitutional considerations so require. To qualify or limit information transmitted obviously is not substantively the same as to withhold information absolutely. Only under the most exceptional circumstances, such a threat to or breach of international peace which directly endangers the security of the territory or of the metropolitan power, could withholding of all information conceivably be justifiable.’

    • “3) It is clear that the administering Member could and would determine in the first instance what security and constitutional considerations may require in connection with its reporting obligations.
    • “4) In a case where an administering Member has been reporting with respect to a territory, pursuant to Article 73(e), and ceases to report on the ground of changes in the constitutional status of such territory, the General Assembly would, and is competent to, review this action, at least to the extent of determining for itself that the territory in question is no longer a “non-self-governing” territory within the meaning of Article 73 and that consequently the administering Member has not violated its obligations under Article 73(e). The General Assembly’s competence to do so is based upon its broad powers to discuss and recommend contained in Article 10, in conjunction with the particular provisions of Article 73.
    • “5) If the General Assembly were to refer these questions to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, it is believed that that tribunal would consider itself fully competent to pass upon them, since that tribunal has jurisdiction, by its Statute to “give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of” an authorized United Nations organ. Obviously a question involving an interpretation of a treaty, as with Chapter XI of the Charter, falls within the Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 65 of its Statute.” (Department of State Committee files, lot 54 D 5, “Committee Documents”)