March 5, 1945
New York Times.
At the Crimea Conference the Government of the United States of America was authorized, on behalf of the three Governments there represented, to consult the Government of the Republic of China and the Provisional Government of the French Republic in order to invite them to sponsor invitations jointly with the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to a conference of United Nations called to meet at San Francisco on April 25, 1945.
Those consultations have now been held. The Government of the Republic of China has agreed to join in sponsoring invitations to the San Francisco Conference. The Provisional Government of the French Republic has agreed to participate in the conference but, after consultation with the sponsoring Governments, the Provisional Government-which did not participate in the Dumbarton Oaks conversations-is not joining in sponsoring the invitations.
Today, at noon, Washington time, representatives of the Government of the United States of America stationed at various capitals throughout the world are presenting to the Governments of thirty-nine different United Nations the following invitation:
"The Government of the United States of America, on behalf of itself and of the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Republic of China, invites the Government of (name of Government invited was inserted here) to send representatives to a conference at San Francisco in the United States of America to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security.
"The above named Governments suggest that the conference consider as affording a basis for such a charter the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization, which were made public last October as a result of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and which have now been supplemented by the following provisions for Section C of Chapter VI:
"1. Each member of the Security Council should have one vote.
"2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members.
"3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VIII, Section A, and under the second sentence of Paragraph 1 of Chapter VIII, Section C, a party to a dispute should abstain from voting.
"Further information as to arrangements will be transmitted subsequently. In the event that the Government of (name of Government invited was inserted here) desires in advance of the conference to present views or comments concerning the proposals, the Government of the United States of America will be pleased to transmit such views and comments to the other participating Governments."
Today, with the issuance of the invitations to the San Francisco Conference, there have been made public the provisions of the text on voting procedure in the Security Council of the general international organization proposed at Dumbarton Oaks.
The practical effect of these provisions, taken together, is that a difference is made, so far as voting is concerned, between the quasi-judicial function of the Security Council in promoting the pacific settlement of disputes and the political function of the council in taking action for the maintenance of peace and security.
Where the Council is engaged in performing its quasi-judicial functions of promoting pacific settlement of disputes, no nation, large or small, should be above the law. This means that no nation, large or small, if a party to a dispute, would participate in the decisions of the Security Council on questions like the following:
(A) Whether a matter should be investigated;
(B) Whether the dispute or situation is of such a nature that its continuation is likely to threaten the peace;
(C) Whether the Council should call on the parties to settle a dispute by means of their own choice;
(D) Whether, if the dispute is referred to the Council, a recommendation should be made as to methods and procedures of settlement;
(E) Whether the Council should make such recommendations before the dispute is referred to it;
(F) What should be the nature of this recommendation;
(G) Whether the legal aspect of the dispute should be referred to the court for advice;
(H) Whether a regional agency should be asked to concern itself with the dispute; and
(I) Whether the dispute should be referred to the General Assembly.
Where the Council is engaged in performing its political functions of action for maintenance of peace and security, a difference is made between the permanent members of the Council and other nations for the practical reason that the permanent members of the Council must, as a matter of necessity, bear the principal responsibility for action. Unanimous agreement among the permanent members of the Council is therefore requisite. In such matters, therefore, the concurrence of all the permanent members would be required. Examples are:
(A) Determination of the existence of a threat or breach of the peace;
(B) Use of force or other enforcement measures;
(C) Approval of agreements for supply of armed forces;
(D) Matters relating to the regulation of armaments; and
(E) Matters concerning the suspension and expulsion of members, and the admission of new members.