Chapter II

AGENDA TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pap

MXOD~CTORY NOTE ...... 27

**PART I. CONSIDERATION OP THE ADOPTION OR AMENDMENT OP RULES 6-12 ...... 27

PART II. THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA Note ...... 27 *‘A. Rule 6 : Circulation of communications by the Secretary-General ...... 27 B. Rule 7 : Preparation of the provisional agenda ...... 27 C. Rule 8 : Communication of the provisional agenda ...... 28

PART III. ALW~TION OF THE AGENDA (RULE 9) Note ...... 28 A. Procedure of voting on adoption of the agenda ...... 28 B. Consideration of : 1. Requirements for the inclusion of an item in the agenda ...... 30 2. Effect of the inclusion of an item in the agenda ...... 34 C. Other discussion on the adoption of the agenda 1. Order of discussion of items on the agenda ...... 35 2. Scope of items and sub-items on the agenda in relation to the scope of discussion . 36 **3. Phrasing of items on the agenda ...... 37 l l 4 . Postponement of consideration of items ...... 37

PART IV. THE AGENDA : MATTERS OF WHICH rn~ SECURITY COUNCIL IS SEIZED (RULES IO AND 11) Note ...... 37 A. RulelO...... 37 B. Rule 11 1. Retention and deletion of items from the Secretary-General’s Summary Statements on matters of which the Security Council is seized ...... 38 2. Proceedings of the Security Council regarding the retention and deletion of items from the agenda . . . . . 45

26 INTRODUCI’ORY NOTE

The present chapter contains material concerning practice of the Security Council in connexion with the rules 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the provisional rules of pro- adoption of the agenda. Section A includes a list of cedure of the Security Council. No material requiring votes taken in adopting the agenda arranged by forms treatment under rules 6 and 8 has been found for the of proposals voted upon. This list is followed by two period under review. case histories summarizing the discussion in the Council As in the previous volumes of the Repertoire, the concerning a procedural aspect of the adoption of the material in the present chapter is presented directly agenda. Section B presents case histories setting forth under the rule of procedure to which it relates. The discussion in the Council of the requirements for the chapter is divided into four parts: part I, Consideration inclusion of an item in the agenda and of the effects of of the adoption or amendment of rules 6-12 ; part II, such inclusion. Section C covers other questions which The Provisional Agenda; part III, Adoption of the have been discussed in connexion with the adoption of Agenda (rule 9) ; and part IV, The Agenda: Matters the agenda, such as the order of discussion of items and of which the Security Council is seized (Rules IO the scope of items in relation to the scope of the dis- and 11). cussion. No material has been entered under part 1, since the Part IV relates to the list of matters of which the Council has not had occasion to consider any change Security Council is seized. The tabulation in Section B in rules 6 to 12. (rule 11) brings up to date the tabulations in the previous volumes of the Repertoire and includes items which Part II provides information concerning the pre- h;ivc appcnrcd in the Sccrctary-General’s Summary paration of the provisional agenda (rule 7). Statement on matters of which the Security Council is Part III contains material on the procedure and seized during the period 1956 to 1958 inclusive.

Part I

**CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OR AMENDMENT OF RULES 6-12

Part II THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA

NOTE the Security Council. Proceedings related to the order The provisional agenda of each meeting is drawn up of discussion are included in part III, C (Cases 14, 15 by the Secretary-General and approved by the President and 16). of the Security Council in accordance with rule 7. The inclusion of new items in the provisional agenda is **A. RULE 6 : CIRCULATION OF COMMUNICATIONS BY confined to those items which have been brought to the THE SECRETARY-GENERAL attention of the Security Council by the Secretary- B. RULE 7 : PREPARATION OF THE PROVISIONAL General under rule 6. The proceedings in connexion AGENDA with a proposal to include a new item in the provisional agenda are included under rule 7 (Case 1). CASE 1 The order of items appearing on the provisional At the 749th meeting on 30 1956, when the agenda, other than the first item relating to adoption, Council considered the letter’ dated 29 usually reflects the stage of consideration reached at from the representative of the United States concerning the previous meeting and the urgency of new com- the Palestine question, with special reference to steps munications. These items are generally described either for the immediate cessation of the military action of by the title of the relevant document used as a heading in , the representative of Iran proposed to or a sub-heading, or by a title which has been spe- include in the provisional agenda for the next meeting, cifically requested or previously approved by the as an additional item, the letter * dated 30 October 1956 Council. The order of items on the provisional agenda from the representative of Egypt. This proposal was and their wording may not coincide with the order and L S/3706, O.R., 11th year, Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1956, p. 108. wording of the items in the agenda as adopted, for these t S/3712, O.R., Ilth year, SuppJ. for Oct.-Dec. 1956, are matters which are subject to the final approval of pp. 111-112. 27 28 Chapter II. Agenda supported by the representatives of the USSR and C. RULE 8: COMMUNICATION OF THE PROVISIONAL Yugoslavia. AGENDA The President () stated that, in the absence of any objection, the letter from the Egyptian delegation [Note : Questions have arisen in the Council during would appear on the provisional agenda of the next the period under review concerning meetings summoned meeting of the CounciLa as a matter of urgency. Discussion has turned on the justification for departure from the practice of con- 8 For texts of relevant statements,see : 749th meeting : President (France), para. 207 ; Iran, para. sulting members of the Council beforehand and is 204 ; USSR, para. 206 ; Yugoslavia, para. 205. described in chapter 1 (Cases 2 and 3).]

Part III

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (RULE 9)

NOTE Section C deals with other auestions, related to the adoption of the agenda, such as the order and latitude The first item of the provisional agenda for each mcetinrr of the Sccuritv Council. under rule 9. is the of discussion of items. adoption of the age&. The ;sual practice ‘of the Council is to adopt the provisional agenda without vote, A. PROCEDURE OF VOTING ON ADOPTION OF THE either with or without amendments, unless an objection AGENDA has been raised.’ Part II1 is concerned with the pro- 1. Votes taken concerning individual items in rhe ceedings of the Council in those instances where an provisional agenda objection has been raised to the adoption of the agenda. When objection has been raised to the inclusion in Section A, dealing with the manner in which the the agenda of an item on the provisional agenda, the Council has taken decisions on the objections raised, vote has been taken in one of two ways. has been presented in tabular form. The section also includes two case histories (Cases 2 and 3) of dis- (i) On the proposul IO include the item in the ugrndu cussion in the Council on the procedure of voting on 734th meeting, 26 Scptcmber 1956 : item 3 : voted the adoption of the agenda. One of these (Case 3) con- uoon at the same mccting.B terns an occasion when the Council voted on the ’ 750th meeting. 30 October 1956 ; item 3 : voted upon provisional agenda after a member had suggested that, at the same mceting.a in view of the importance of the question, a formal vote should be taken cvcn if there were no express 842nd meeting, 9 Dcccmber 1958 ; item 2 (b) and objections to the adoption of the agenda. 2 (c): voted upon at the same meeting.: Section B presents case histories of the discussion in (ii) On the adoption oj the agenda as a whole and not the Council when objection had been raised on grounds on the individual item related to the substance of the item on the provisional 730th meeting, 26 ; objection to item 2.” agenda. The cast histories are related to the procedural aspects of such discussion at the stage of the adoption 746th meeting, 28 October 1956; objection to of the agenda. They are not concerned with the grounds item 2.O of objection which, except for the proceedings of the 752nd meeting, 2 November 1956 ; objection to 783rd and 784th meetings (Case 1 I), arc more fully item 2.1° prcscnted in chapters X and XII. As previously in the 754th meeting, 4 November 1956 ; objection to Repertoire, material from the same cpisodc in the item 2.” practice of the Council is entered under one or the other sub-heading in section B, but the eventual decision 778th meeting, 20 May 1957 ; objection to item 2.” of the Council is recorded only once. 784th meeting, 20 August 1957 ; objection to item 2.”

* Meetings of the Council on a question held in the morning b 734th meeting : para. 123. and afternoon of the same day have been considered to be 0 750th meeting: para. 9. scnarak mectinps. but the Council may dispcnsc with the foimality of adopting the same agenda twkc on the same day. 7 842nd meeting (PV): p. 8. See Rrrwrroirc of rhc Prmtiw of rlrr Scc‘rrrify Corrncil I Y46- 19.~I, 8 730th meeting: para. 85. p. 6R.‘On one .occasion during the period under review, the Council, at two meetings (746th and 752nd) on a question, voted 0 746th meeting: para. 35. to adopt the provisional agenda over the objections of a ‘0 752nd meeting : para. 6. member. At subsequent meetings (753rd and 754th) on the same question the Council adopted the agenda without vote. the 11 7S4th meeting : para. 1. President declaring the agenda adopted with the understanding 12 778th meeting: para. 14. that note would he taken of the objections raised by the mcmhcr when the agenda was first adopted (Case 7). 1s 784th meeting: para. 87. Parr 111. Adoption of rhe agenda (rule 9) 29

In the instances under (i) above, the agenda was CASE 3 - adopted without vote after the vote on the individual item. In the cases under (ii), the vote was taken directly At the 755th meeting on 5 November 1956, the on the adoption of the agenda as a whole on each provisional agenda included, as item 2, a cablcgram*o occasion. Thcrc was no instance in which a proposal dated 5 November 1956 from the Minister of Foreign was made to include the item in the agenda and post- Affairs of the concerning “ Non-com- ponc its consideration. pliance by the , Frnncc and Israel with the decision of the emergency special session of the In other instances, the vote has been taken as fol- General Assembly of 2 November 1956 and immediate lows : steps to halt the aggression of the aforesaid States against Egypt “. 2. Votes taken on proposals to determine or change the order of items The representative of Belgium, after having observed that, in view of the importance of the question before 787th meeting, 6 1957. the Council, the adoption of the agenda should be put 3. Votes taken on the adoPtion of the agenda as a whole to a formal vote even if there were no express objections to its adoption, called for a vote on the agenda.” 755th meeting, 5 November 1956.15 Decision : The Council rejected the provisional agenda by 3 votes in favour to 4 against, with 4 ahstention.s.s1 cAS@ 2 At the 734th meeting on 26 , the CASE 4 provisional agenda contained, as item 2, “Situation created by the unilateral action of the Egyptian Govern- At the 787th meeting on 6 September 1957, the ment in bringing to an end the system of international provisional agenda included under item 2, the Palestine operation of the , which was confirmed and question, the sub-items : (a) letterzS dated 4 September completed by the Suez Canal Convention of 1888 “,I8 1957 from the permanent representative of Jordan; submitted by Frnncc and the United Kingdom ; and, as and (h) letter” dated 5 Scptcmbcr 1957 from the acting item 3, “ Actions against Egypt by some Powers, par- permanent Wpresentativc of Israel. ticularly France and the United Kingdom, which con- The representative of Iraq inquired whether the stitute a danger to international peace and security and Council would first take up sub-item (a) and then pro- are serious violations of the Charter of the United ceed with sub-item (h). - Nations “,li submitted by Egypt. The President (Cuba) replied : The rcprcscntativc of stated that his dele- “ It is, of course, for the Council to take a decision gation considered that the formulation of the problem on this point. As Prcsidcnt, however, 1 felt that, proposed by France and the United Kingdom indicated since thcsc two questions were so closely connected, a proper pcrspcctivc of the situation in respect to the they could be discussed jointly. 1 believe that this Suez Canal, whereas the formulation prcsentcd by Egypt procedure would facilitate the work of the Council did not. It was unnecessary to include the third item, and enable it to resolve the matter.. .” for the Egyptian Government would be given every opportunity to express its views in the course of the The representative of the USSR observed: Council’s consideration of the item proposed by France “The first document referred to in the provisional and the United Kingdom. Hc requested that separate agenda. . . was received yesterday, and this allowed votes be taken on the two items proposed for the time for us to study the document and to form our agenda. opinion upon it. The lcttcr from the representative The President (Cuba) declared that, in accordance of Israel. . . has appeared only today on the Council with the Australian proposal, the Council would take table. Hence, the Soviet delegation has not been able separate votes on items 2 and 3 of the provisional to study it prior to coming to this meeting.. . If the agenda.‘” letter were merely a reply or a statement of the position of Israel in connexion with the question Decision : The [~ro/>o.sal to include item 2 in the raised by Jordan, that would be a different matter, agendu wuy adqted unanimously. The proposal to but in it the representative of Israel requests the include item 3 MU adopted by 7 votes in favour to none Council to discuss a different question from that against, with 4 ah.stentions. The ugenda W(LYado~xed.‘e raised by Jordan. That is why the Soviet delegation

1’ 787th meeting: para. 27. lo S/3736, O.R.. llllr yew, Suppi. for Oct.-l)ec. 19.56. Ifi 755th meeting : para. 27. pp. 128-130. I0 S, 3654, O.R.. 11111 year. SuppI. for -Sepl. lYS6. p. 47. *I 75Sth meeting : parus. 22-23, 26. 1’ S/36.(6. O.R., 111/r pew. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1956, p. 48. ** 755th meeting : par;~. 27. In For texts of rclewnt statcmcnts. set : y3 s/31(78, O.R., l+?lh yeur. Suppl. for July-Sepr. 1957, 734th meeting : President (Cuba). paras. I2 I- 123 ; Australia. pp. 33-34. paras. X7, 94-9.5. ” S/3883, O.R., 12111 yew. Suppl. for July-Sept. 1957, 10 734th meeting : para. 123. pp. 33-34. 30 Chapter II. Agenda

finds itself in a difficult position as regards taking stated that the question of the order of debate should a decision as to whether this letter should be con- be taken up after the adoption of the agenda. sidered at today’s meeting of the Council.” The President stated that the Council would first He believed, therefore, that the Council should adopt vote on the adoption of the agenda, and then consider the provisional agenda and discuss the sub-items con- whether the sub-items should be discussed separately or secutively. jointly.” Decision: The agenda was adopted unanimously.” The representative of Iraq expressed views similar to those of the representative of the USSR. The representative of the United States, in support 9. CONSIDERATION OF : of the suggestion made by the President, observed that 1. Requirements for the inclusion of an item in the there was ample precedent for the Council to discuss agenda the two sub-items simultaneously. However, in order to avoid a procedural debate which would delay and CASE 5 complicate the consideration of the matter, his dele- At the 729th and 730th meetings on 26 June 1956, gation would be willing to take up these questions either the Council had on its provisional agenda a letter” simultaneously or consecutively. dated I3 June 1956 from the representatives of thirteen The representative of the United Kingdom stated that Member States requesting the Council, under Article 35 the Council, by adopting its agenda, would not (1), to consider the situation in . necessarily make a prejudgement on how it intended The representative of France objected to the inclusion to deal with the items. However, the Council could not of the item in the agenda on the ground of Article 2 (7), proceed to deal with any item until it had adopted its since the French Government considered that Algerian agenda, since the first item before the Council was affairs were essentially within the domestic jurisdiction always the adoption of the agenda. He added: of France. In his view, the recognition of the right of “ the to intervene in the internal affairs . , . I should like to remind my colleagues that we of a State would establish a dangerous precedent and have had this kind of problem before in connexion would mean the end of the United Nations. Article 34 with Palestine questions-that is to say, the problem was not applicable to the situation in Algeria, for under of an item put down by one party which is then that Article the Council’s competence was limited to followed by an item put down by another party. I disputes or situations of an international character. should like to refer to what happened in , Furthermore, the competence of the Council did not when we had the same problem. After a very long extend to questions related to violation of fundamental procedural debate, which I hope we may be able to human rights or the denial of the right of self-deter- avoid on this occasion, the decision reached was the mination. following : The representative of Iran stated that the situation “ ‘ 1. The provisional agenda is adopted. in Algeria was of the kind envisaged by Articles 34 and “‘2. A general discussion shall be held in which 35 of the Charter. Stressing the number and importance reference may be made to any or all of the items of of the Member States which had submitted the question the agenda. to the Security Council, he declared that the question should be inscribed in the agenda so as to give those “ ‘ 3. The Security Council does not commit itself Member States an opportunity to express their views at this stage as to the separate or joint character of and in order to determine, under Article 34, if the its eventual resolution or resolutions.’ (670th meeting, continuance of the situation threatened the maintenance para. 2). of international peace and security. The argument based “I would suggest that we might usefully follow the on Article 2 (7) was unfounded, for a question bearing same procedure on the present occasion.” on the violation of human rights was not a matter The President observed : essentially within domestic jurisdiction of a State. The 6‘ United Nations had declared itself competent on the . . . Our practice has been first to adopt the agenda question of the treatment of persons of Indian origin in so that it becomes a definite and not a provisional the Union of South Africa, the Indonesian question and agenda and then to agree as to how the items on it the Czechoslovak question. The Security Council had should be discussed, whether concurrently, whether separately, whether the meeting should be adjourned *l For texts of relevant statements, see : etc. However, if the Council wishes to adopt the 787th meeting: President (Cuba). paras. 3, 12, 19-20, 23-24, agenda with the prior condition set forth by the 27 ; Australia, para. 26 ; China, para. 25 ; Iraq, para. 8 ; USSR. representative of the Soviet Union that after adopting paras. 13-16, 18, 21-22; United Kingdom, paras. 10-11 ; United the agenda sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) will be dis- States, para. 6. cussed separately the Council can certainly do so.” *a 787th meeting: para. 27. After the representative of the USSR had indicated *’ Sl3609. OX., Il~ir year, Suppl. for Apr.-lone 1956, pp. 74-76. The signatories were Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, that he had not intended to pose his suggestion as a Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, “ condition “, the representatives of Australia and China Syria, Thailand and Yemen. Part III. Adoption of the agenda (rule 9) 31

followed from the beginning a liberal policy with respect created by the unilateral action of the Egyptian Govem- - to inclusion of items in the agenda, a policy which had ment in bringing to an end the system of international been supported in the past by certain delegations at operation of the Suez Canal, which was confirmed and present opposed to the consideration of the Algerian completed by the Suez Canal Convention of 1888 “,so question. When there had been doubt as to the inclusion submitted by France and the United Kingdom; and, as of an item, the Council had given the benefit of that item 3, “Actions against Egypt by some Powers, par- doubt to the party requesting the inclusion. In numerous ticularly France and the United Kingdom, which con- instances the Security Council had included items in the stitute a danger to international peace and security and agenda, while stressing the fact that in so doing it was are serious violations of the Charter of the United in no way prejudging its competence or the substance Nations “,JL submitted by Egypt. of the question. The representative of the United Kingdom stated, with The representative of China stated that any action reference to item 3, that this was clearly an attempt on by the Council under Articles 34 and 35, to be fruitful, the part of Egypt to confuse the issue and distract had to have the willing co-operation of France. He, as attention from the very problem which the Egyptian well as the representatives of Peru, the United States Government itself had created. If it was the view of and Yugoslavia, maintained that under the circumstances other members that the Council should consider the the inclusion of the item in the agenda would not item, hc would be prepared not to oppose its inclusion achieve any practical results. The representative of in the agenda. The representative of France associated Cuba believed that it would be dangerous for the himself with the views expressed by the representative Council to intervene in questions within the domestic of the United Kingdom. The representative of Australia jurisdiction of a State. stated that the request to include item 3 in the agenda seemed to be an attempt to divert attention from the The representative of the United Kingdom observed that one of the cardinal principles of the United Nations essential issue which was already before the Council. was not to intervene in the domestic affairs of its The representative of the United States observed that Members, and that a number of founder nations, his support for the inclusion of item 3 in the agenda without whose co-operation the Organization could did not mean that his Government was in agreement hardly have been brought into being, would have with the contention which had been made in the item hesitated to lend their efforts to that great enterprise submitted by Egypt. unless they had known that the Charter enshrined this The representative of the USSR, speaking in support cardinal principle. Aside from the conclusive legal of the inclusion of item 3 in the agenda, stated that at - arguments against the inclusion of the item in the a time when the situation in the Near and Middle East agenda, a debate in the Council on the question of was becoming increasingly acute, the Security Council Algeria would hamper a peaceful solution of the was in duty bound to discuss the situation in order to problem. promote the peaceful settlement of the dispute over The representative of Belgium maintained that the Suez. Because the Council was obliged to hear both prohibition contained in Article 2 (7) was of a cate- sides in a dispute, his delegation was in favour of gorical and general character. It applied to all pro- inclusion of both items in the agenda. visions of the Charter, including those bearing on The representatives of Iran and Yugoslavia expressed human rights and specifically on the right of peoples the view that the inclusion of item 3 in the agenda to self-determination. Furthermore, the practice of would in no way prejudge the substance of the issue.” placing a matter on the agenda to offer an opportunity of elucidating the question of competence was advisable Decision: At the 734th meeting on 26 September when that question had not been discussed ; in the 1956, after item 3 had been included in the agenda by Algerian matter, however, the question of competence 7 votes to none, with 4 abstentions, the Council adopted had been the subject of previous lengthy discussion.*” the provisional agenda.sa Decision: At the 730th meeting on 26 June 1956, CASE 7 the Council rejected the provisional agenda by 2 votes in favour and 7 against, with 2 abstention.s.sD At the 746th meeting on 28 October 1956, the pro- visional agenda included a letter a* dated 27 October CASE 6 1956 from the representatives of France, the United Kingdom and the United States concerning the situation At the 734th meeting on 26 September 1956, the in . provisional agenda included, as item 2, “Situation 5o S/3654, O.R., 11th year, Suppl. for July-Sept. 1956, p. 47. *a For texts of relevant statements, see : 3’ S/3656. O.R., IIfh yeor, Srrppl. for July-Sepf. 1956. p. 48. 729th meeting : France, paras. 29, 97, 100-104 ; Iran, paras. 30, 48, 50-54, 71, 75-92 ; J* For texts of relevant statements, see : 730th meeting: Belgium, paras. 60-61 ; 66-68 ; China, 734th meeting : Australia, para. 94 ; France, paras. 109-l IO ; - paras. 32-34 ; Cuba, paras. 35-42 ; Iran, paras. 3, 8-9. 13-17 ; Iran, para. X3 ; USSR, paras. 56, 60-61 ; United Kingdom, 23-28 ; Peru. paras. 46-49 ; USSR. para. 76 ; United Kingdom, paras. IS, 20 ; United States, para. 43 ; Yugoslavia, para. 74. paras. 52-58 ; United Slates, para. 84 ; Yugoslavia, paras. 72-73. 33 734th meeting: para. 123. *Q 730th meeting : para. 85. a4 S/3690, O.R., llrh year, Suppl. for Oc:.-Dec. 1956, p, 100. 32 Chapter II. Agenda

The representative of the USSR, in opposing the States ; and, as item 3, a letter do dated 30 October 1956 inclusion of the item in the agenda, observed that the from the representative of Egypt. Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic, in its The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking declaration of 28 October 1956, had protested against of item 3, stated that the letter submitted by Egypt placing on the agenda the consideration of any question dealt with the substance of a letter which he himself which concerned the domestic affairs of Hungary. He had read out to the Council at its 749th meeting. He maintained that the invocation of Article 34 by the did not accept the implications and statements con- three sponsoring Powers, in submitting the item to the tained in the letter from the representative of Egypt, Security Council, was unwarranted because that Article nor did he believe that the item would add to a con- empowered the Council to investigate only disputes or structive consideration of the serious question which situations of an international character. was before the Council. Decision: At the 746th meeting on 28 October 1956, The President, speaking as the representative of the Council adopted the agenda by 9 votes in favour to France, associated himself with the statement made by I against, with I abstention.3’ the representative of the United Kingdom. At the 752nd meeting on 2 November 1956, the The representative of Iran proposed to include President (Iran) informed the Council that, by another item 3 in the agenda.” letter”” dated 2 November 1956, the representatives of France, the United Kingdom and the United States had Decision : At the 750th meeting on 30 October 1956, requested an urgent meeting of the Council to consider following the adoption of the Iranian proposal to in- the item on the situation in Hungary, of which the clude item 3 of the agenda by 7 votes in favour to Council had already been seized. none ugainyt, with 4 ubstentions, the Council udopred The representative of the USSR observed: the agenda.” “The Soviet delegation objected at a previous meeting of the Council [746th meeting] to the in- CASE 9 clusion of this item in the agenda, and explained why it was opposed to the consideration of this question At the 755th meeting on 5 November 1956, the in the Security Council. Our objections still stand, provisional agenda included, as item 2, a cablegram” and 1 shall vote again today against the inclusion of dated 5 November 1956 from the Minister of Foreign this item in the agenda, especially in view of the way Affairs of the Soviet Union concerning “ Non-com- in which this meeting of the Council was called. The pliance by the United Kingdom, France and Israel with the decision of the emergency special session of the President has already explained the hurried manner General Assembly of 2 November 1956 and immediate in which this was done, and there is no need for me steps to halt the aggression of the aforesaid States to deal with the point.” against Ebvpt “. The cablegram also included a draft Decision: The agenda W(LS adopted by 10 votes in resolution. favour and 1 uguinst.S’ After the Council had rejected the provisional At the 753rd meeting on 3 November 1956, the agenda,” several representatives explained their votes representative of the USSR again stated that he main- on grounds related to the substance of the item. The tained the objections to the inclusion of the item in the representatives of Belgium, China, Cuba, Peru and the agenda which he had raised at the 746th meeting. The United States maintained that the question of hostilities President replied that the objections of the representative in Egypt was being dealt with by the emergency special of the USSR were noted, The President made a similar session of the General Assembly and by the Secretary- statement at the 754th meeting on 4 November 1956.“” General, and that the USSR proposal would hamper the efforts which were already being made to solve the problem. CASE 8 The representative of the United Kingdom main- At the 750th meeting on 30 October 1956, the pro- taincd that the USSR proposal was meaningless in visional agenda contained, as item 2, a letters@ dated terms of the United Nations since it embodied the idea 29 October 1956 from the representative of the United that two permanent members of the Council should combine against two other permanent members, whereas the Organization had been founded on the assumption 36 746th meeting : para. 35. Jo S/3723. O.R.. 1 Ith yeor. Suppl. for Oc!,-Dec. 1956, p. 117. 87 752nd meeting: para. 6. (0 S/3712. O.R., llrlt year, Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1956, p. I1 1. 3” For texts of relevant statements, see : 41 For texts of relevant statements, see : 746th meeting : President (France), paras. 7. 9 ; USSR, 750th meeting: President (France), para. 5 ; Iran, para. 6 ; paras. 6. 8. IO, 12, 24 ; United Kingdom, paras. 30-31 ; United Kingdom, paras. 3-4. 752nd meeting: President (Iran), paras. 3-4 ; USSR, para. 5 ; 4* 750th meeting : para. 9. 753rd meeting : President (Iran). para. 3 ; USSR, para. 2 ; 4’ S/3736. O.R., Il~h year, Suppl. for OH.-Dec. 1956, 754th meeting : President (Iran), para. 1. pp. 228-230. 80 S/3706. O.R., Ilrh ymr, SuppI. for Oct.-Dec. 1956, p. 108. 44 For decision, see Case 3. Part 111. Adoption of the agenda (rule 9) 33

that there would be unity among those four great dependence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the _ Powers. lmamate of Oman. The representative of the USSR, having noted that The representative of Iraq stated that the clcvcn the resolutions of the General Assembly adopted at its Member States had brought the matter to the attention first emergency special session had not been complied of the Security Council in the belief that a debate on with, stated that the situation rcquircd immediate and the question and a decision thercon would publicize resolute action by the United Nations in accordance the extent to which the peace of the world was with Articlc 42 of the Charter. The fact that the General endangcrcd when some States arrogated to thcmsclves Assembly was taking action on any question did not the task of scttting unitatcratly their differences with relieve the Security Council of the obligation to act if others. British intervention in Oman was not only the circumstances so dcmandcd. The Soviet Government contrary to the principles of the United Nations had submitted the draft resolution to the Council only Charter, but it was ntso subvcrsivc of the whole foun- when it had bccomc clear that the moral pressure of dation on which the United Nations W;IS constructed. the General Assembly would have no effect on the The facts of the situation had thrown in doubt the aggressor Statcs.‘J sense of security of the small States created within the structure of the United Nations, for an impression had been gained that the Organization would bc incapable CASE 10 of protecting the intcrcsts of small nations when those At the 778th meeting on 20 May 1957, the pro- interests did not suit the intcrcsts of large States. The visional agenda included, as item 2, a letter ‘a dated rcprcsentativc of Iraq further stated that the Council 15 May 1957 from the reprcscntative of France relating was called upon to invostigute the matter under to the Suez Canal. Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter and, in his view, the question descrvcd urgent considcrntion by the Council, The representative of the USSR, in opposing the for the cvcnts which had recently taken place in Oman inclusion of the item in the agenda, stated that any left no doubt that the situation might endanger the renewal of discussion on the Suez problem, particularly maintenance of intcrnationat peace and security. in the form suggcstcd in the letter from the rcprc- scntative of France, could only lead to undesirable The rcprcsentativc of the United Kingdom, in complications in regard to pcacc in the Middle East. opposing the inclusion of the item in the agenda, observed that in the Security Council the term The rcprcscntativc of the United Kingdom, in sup- “ aggression” should bc used with duo regard for its - porting the inclusion of the item in the agenda, meaning. The signatories of the tcttcr of 13 August 1957 emphasized that the Egyptian declaration had not closed had thcmsctvcs rccognizcd this, at Icast to sonic extent. discussion on the question of the Suez Canal, as the Although they had referred to armed aggression and representative of the USSR had claimed.” full-scale war, they had not invoked Chapter VII of the h&ion: The ugrndu H’USudoptPd by 10 votes to Charter, but had refcrrcd the matter to the Council as none, with I abstention.‘” a dispute or situation under Article 35. In his view, armed aggression prcsupposcd action between two sovereign States. The letter of complaint, in charging CASE t 1 aggression against the indcpcndencc, sovereignty and At the 783rd meeting on 20 August 1957, the pro- territorial integrity of the Imamatc of Oman, assumed visional agenda included, as item 2, a letter’@ dated th:rt thcrc was an indcpcndcnt sovereign State by that 13 August 1957 from the pcrmancnt rcprcscntativcs name. If the Council wcrc to accept that letter as a basis of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, for discussion and decision, then it, too, would be acting Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen on such an assumption. In fact, however, thcrc was no requesting the Prcsidcnt of the Security Council to indcpcndcnt and sovcrcign State of Oman, the district convene an urgent meeting of the Council, under of Oman being ;I part of the dominions of the Sultan of Article 35 of the Charter, to consider the “armed Muscat and Oman who had already rcmindcd the aggression” by the United Kingdom against the in- Council that the matter was cxctusivcty within his domestic jurisdiction. He further stated that Isritain had taken military action in response to the request of the ‘s For texts of rclcvant statements, see : Sultan for assistance against a revolt which was 75Sth meeting: Australia, para. 63 ; Lklgium, paras. 53-54 ; encouraged and supported from outside, thcrcforc the China, para. S6 ; Cuba. para. 47 ; France, para. 79 ; Peru, charges against the United Kingdom wcrc not only paras. 57-60 ; IJSSK. paras. 37-43 ; 65-75 ; United Kingdom, para. 50; United Slates. para. 29. without foundation but the incoherent and illogical manner in which thcsc chnrgcs had been formulated 46 S/3829, O.R.. 12rJr ycwr. Slcppl. /or Apr.-June 1957, pp. 20-2 I. justified the Council in declining to include the item in the agenda. w For texts of relevant statements. see : 77Xth meeting : USSR, paras. 4-1 I ; United Kingdom, The representative of the Philippines observed that - para. 13. the mere allegation that aggression had been committed 4” 778th meeting : para. 14. by a Men&r State was a matter of deep concern to ‘o S/3865 and Add.1, O.R., JZ/h year, S~rppl./or July-&PI. the United Nations. Hc further stated that the fact that 1957, pp. 16-17. the lcttcr of submission had been signed by eleven 34 Chaprer 11. Agenda

Member States and that the allegation of military inter- the eleven Member States, since that letter had been vention had not been disputed, reflected in some measure formulated in such terms as to constitute a prejudge- the seriousness of the charge and the gravity of the ment of the case. situation. He reminded the Council that it was obliged The representative of China stated that, in the light under Article 39 to consider the item if only to deter- of the explanation given by the representative of the mine whether or not an act of aggression had been United Kingdom, the question of whether the Council committed, that it was empowered under Article 34 to was competent to deal with the matter depended upon investigate any dispute or situation of the nature defined the legal status of the Sultan of Oman in relation to the in that Article, and that Article 2 (7) expressly pcr- dispute. Since this aspect of the problem required mittcd the United Nations to intervene and take enforce- further clarification, it would bc premature for the ment mcasurcs where there was a threat to peace, a Council to take a decision on the question of the breach of the pcacc or an act of aggression, even in adoption of the agenda. matters which wcrc essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a State. The representative of the Philip- Decision: At the 784th meeting on 20 Aug14st 1957, pines emphasized that the inclusion of the item in the the Council rejected the provisional a~~,ctrdu by 4 votes agenda would not prejudge the position of any member in fuvour to 5 aguinst, und I abstention, with one of the Council on the substance of the question. member present und not voting.bo The representative of the USSR, in supporting the After the Security Council had rejected the pro- inclusion of the item in the ngcnda, declared that his visional agenda, the representative of Iraq declared that delegation attached great importance to the appeal by the decision did not reflect the liberal attitude which the eleven Arab Member States since it demonstrated the Council had followed in the past with regard to items deep concern of the Arab pcoplcs about the situation proposed by Mcmbcr States. The rejection of the item which had arisen because of British intervention in the showed a denial of the principle contained in Article 1 internal affairs of Oman. He further declared that the (4) of the Charter which placed upon the Members the Security Council should not fail to listen to the justified duty of utilizing the United Nations as a centre for request of a group of Mcmbcr States of the United harmonizing the actions of nations in relation to one Nations. another.” At the 784th meeting on 20 August 1957, the repre- sentative of , in supporting the inclusion of the 2. Effect of the inclusion of an item in the agenda item in the agenda, stated that the Security Council should not shirk its responsibility to maintain inter- CASE 12 national peace and security, nor should a party to any At the 750th meeting on 30 October 1956, the pro- dispute be denied an opportunity to present its case. visional agenda included, as item 3, a letterb* dated While there had been no reason, so far, to dispute the 30 October 1956 from the representative of Egypt. British position that no illegal aggression had taken place, it was difficult to share the opinion of the The President, speaking as the representative of representative of the United Kingdom that the matter France, and the reprcsentativc of the United Kingdom was purely within the domestic jurisdiction of the objected to the inclusion of the item in the agenda. Sultan, since the Council was confronted not merely The representative of Iran, in supporting the inclusion with the suppression of an internal revolt but also with of the item in the agenda, observed : the intervention of a third Power. “According to the Council’s practice, as the Presi- The representatives of Australia, Cuba and France dent knows bcttcr than I, to place a question on the opposed the inclusion of the item in the agenda, ex- agenda of a meeting does not mean that all the pressing views in support of the position taken by the members of the Council are in agreement with regard rcprescntativc of the United Kingdom. to the complaint submitted to them. Furthermore, we The rcprcscntative of Iraq stated that the eleven cannot know whether or not there are grounds for Mcmbcr States had invoked Article 35 of the Charter the complaint unless the item is placed on the agenda merely to define their capacity in requesting the and the country which had submitted it has an Council to consider the question, since under the Article opportunity to state its CilSe. . . .“5s any Member had the right and duty to bring any dispute or situation of the nature referred to in Article 34 to 50 784th meeting: para. 87. the attention of the Council. In doing so, the signatories 61For texts of relevant statements.see : had reserved their position with regard to any measure 783rd meeting: Cuba, pnras, 72-77 ; Iraq, paras. 3-26 ; or action which the Council might take under Chap- Philippines, paras. 60-71 ; USSR, paras. 78-95 ; United King- ter VI or Chapter VII of the Charter. dom, paras. 27-59 ; 784th meeting, Australia, paras. 17-24 ; China, paras. 12-16 ; France, paras. 25-33 ; Iraq, paras. 34-71 ; The representative of the United States observed that Sweden, paras. H-l 1 ; United Kingdom, paras. 77-81 ; United the information available on the question was not States, paras. 1-7. sufficient to justify his Government in committing itself 61 S/3712, O.R., 11th pear, Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1956, p. 111. for or against the inscription of the item. The United 63 For texts of rclcvant statements, see : States, however, would not accept as valid the inter- 750th meeting : President (France), para. 5 ; Iran, para. 6 ; pretation of the situation as set forth in the letter from United Kingdom, paras. 3-4. For decision, see Case 8. Part III. Adoption of the agenda (rule 9) 35

CASE 13 procedure of the Council required that the items should be dealt with in that order. At the 755th meeting on 5 November 1956, in con- nexion with a cablegram&’ dated 5 November 1956 Following the inclusion of the two items in the from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet agenda,&’ the President observed in reply to the repre- Union, after the provisional agenda had been rejected, sentative of the USSR that there were no proposals the President, speaking as the reprcscntative of Iran, concerning the order of consideration of the items before the Council and that it was normal procedure stated : to deal with them in the order of inclusion. The repre- ‘I . . . The majority of the Security Council members sentative of Yugoslavia then moved that both items be have always held-and my delegation entirely shares discussed simultaneously.b’ that view-that the inclusion of an item in the agenda in no way prejudges the substance of the question. Decision : The proposal of the representative of Yugo- My delegation voted in favour of the adoption of the slavia was rejected by 2 votes in favour, 6 against, with agcndu, because it believes that, if the meaning and 3 abstentions.68 scope of an item whose inclusion is requested by a The President then declared that, in accordance with delegation arc to be properly understood, the item the Council’s decision, the two items would be discussed must first be placed on the agenda.” lb separately, item 2 first and item 3 second.5g

CASE 15 C. OTHER DI!WUSSION ON THE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA At the 787th meeting on 6 September 1957, in con- nexion with the Palestine question, the following sub- 1. Order of discussion of items on the agenda items appeared under item 2 of the provisional agenda: ((0 letter O0dated 4 September 1957 from the permanent CASE 14 representative of Jordan, and (b) lettere’ dated At the 734th meeting on 26 September 1956, the 5 September 1957 from the acting permanent repre- provisional agenda included, as item 2, “Situation sentative of Israel. created by the unilateral action of the Egyptian Govern- Following adoption of the agenda, the President ment in bringing to an end the system of international (Cuba) indicated that the Council would have to decide operation of the Suez Canal, which was confirmed and whether to proceed in accordance with the proposal - completed by the Suez Canal Convention of 1888 ” ; made by the representatives of Iraq and the USSK to and, as item 3, “ Actions against Egypt by some Powers, consider the sub-items separately. particularly France and the United Kingdom, which The representative of China proposed that the Council constitute a danger to international peace and security should take a decision on the order of debate only after and arc serious violations of the Charter of the United hearing the statements of the two parties directly con- Nations “. cerned; the Council would then know the extent to The representative of the United Kingdom proposed which the two aspects of the problem were interrelated to deal first with item 2 of the provisional agenda, in and whether the substance of the matter and the con- accordance with the normal procedure in the Security venience of debate required simultaneous or consecutive Council. The represcntativc of the United States consideration. This proposal was supported by the observed that the item proposed by France and the representatives of Australia and the Philippines. United Kingdom should have priority of consideration The representative of Iraq maintained that the item and that the item submitted by Egypt should be deferred submitted by Jordan was concerned with an immediate until the former item had been disposed of. and actual violation of the armistice agreements, where- The representative of the USSR proposed to consider as the item submitted by Israel was a standing question first the item submitted in Egypt. The representative of which could have been brought before the Council France opposed this proposal, several years earlier. To have statements on two different The representative of Yugoslavia maintained that the matters would, in his opinion, lead to confusion. He logical procedure would be to discuss both items simul- taneously, for it would be impossible to do otherwise 66 734th meeting : para. 122. than consider the various aspects of the problem in their ‘1 For texts of relevant statements, see : intcrrclationship. 734th meeting : President (Cuba), paras. I 18, 126, 133 ; China, paras. 78-79 ; France, para. 110 ; Peru. para. 65 ; USSR, The Prcsidcnt, spcnking as the representative of Cuba, paras. 60-63, 124-125. 131-132 ; United Kingdom, paras. II, 21, and the rcprcscntativc of Peru supported the inclusion 107, 130 ; United States, para. 43 ; Yugoslavia, paras. 74-7.5, of both items in the provisional agenda and their dis- 127-128. cussion in the order in which they appcarcd therein. 68 734th meeting: para. 133. The representative of China belicvcd that the rules of 60 734th meeting: para. 143. 60 S/3878, O.R., 12th year, Suppl. for July-Sept. 1957, 54 S/3736, O.R. 11111 year, Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. I956, pp. 33-34. pp. 128-130. 01 S/3883, O.R., 12th year, Suppl. for July-Sept. 1957, 55 755th meeting: para. 64. For decision, see Case 3. pp. 35-36. 36 Chapter 11. Agenda therefore proposed, with the support of the repre- CASE 16 sentative of the USSR, that the Council first consider At the 789th meeting on 9 September 1957, agenda sub-item (a) and then sub-item (6). item 2 on Admission of new Mcmbcrs included three Decision: The Council dopted the proposal of the sub-items relating respectively to the applications of the representdve of China by 9 votes in favour to I against, Republic of Korea, Viet-Nam,“L and the Mongolian with I ubstention. The proposul of the representutive of People’s Republic.“” Iraq was not put to the vote.“’ The rcprcscntativc of the USSR expressed a pre- At the 787th and 788th meetings on 6 September fercnce for simultaneous discussion of all the sub-items 1957, the representatives of Jordan * and Israel * made and the proposals on them, followed by separate votes their preliminary statements bcforc the Council. on the proposals. The President (Cuba) replied that, in accordance At the 806th meeting on 22 November 1957, after with the practice of the Council and the 1948 advisory inviting the reprcscntatives of Israel and Jordan to par- opinion of the lntemational Court of Justice on ticipate in the discussion, the President (Iraq) stated: Admission of a State to the United Nations, the sub- “Before I proceed to give the floor to the speakers items should be discussed separately. on my list, 1 should like to point out that it may be The representative of the United States, in supporting desirable that the spcakcrs who arc called upon to the position taken by the Prcsidcnt, maintained that it take the floor should address themselves to sub- had been the established practice of the Council to paragraph (u) of paragraph 2 of the agenda.” consider each application for mcmbcrship on its own The representative of Israel * observed : merits, a procedure which required that each application be considered separately. ‘I . . . I think it will be recalled that at the last The rcprescntativc of the USSR stated that, though meeting of the Council it was decided that, until such he would not object to the procedure proposed by the time as the parties had been heard, thcrc would be President, he believed that each delegation was free to no determination as to the order in which the two decide whether to set forth its position on the three sub-items would be taken up. and this was accordingly applications in one or more statcmcnts. done. The parties were heard, but WC arc still, 1 am afraid, in exactly the same state. The parties have not The President dcclarcd that the Council would take complctcd the prcscntation of their cases, and I for up sub-item (u), but that this would not preclude one am perfectly ready to deal with both sub-items. members from speaking on the other sub-itcms.e7 “ 1 think it should bc recalled that this has been the practice of the Council in the past. Sub-items on 2. Scope of items and sub-items on the agenda in the Palestine question have invariably been taken relation to the scope of discussion together. As far as my dclcgation is concerned, WC should prcfcr to pursue the same practice as has CASE 17 been adopted by the Council in the past and deal At the 83 1st meeting on 17 July 1958, in connexion with both items together.” with the letter I* of 22 May 1958 from the rcpre- sentative of Lebanon, the provisional agenda included The President, having drawn the attention of the as a third item a letter dated 17 July 1958 from the Council to the suggestion of the representative of Israel, rcprcscntativc of Jordan entitled, “Complaint by the reiterated his original proposal and invited comment Hashemitc Kingdom of Jordan of interfcrcnce in its thereon. He then stated: domestic affairs by the United Arab Republic “. “ I SW that no member of the Council wishes to The Prcsidcnt (Colombia) suggestedthat the Council speak on this point. Since thcrc is no comment, I take take up item 3 first to afford the reprcscntatives of it that the Council approves the proposal of the Chair Jordan and the United Kingdom an opportunity to be that all speakers should address themselves to sub- heard as a matter of urgency. paragraph (u) of item 2 of the agenda for today.“EJ The rcprcscntativc of the USSR suggested that the Decision : 7‘1~ Council udopred, nGthout vote, the close conncxion bctwccn the two questions on the pro- proposul of the President.“s visional agenda warranted discussing them together.

0s l&solution 1017 (XI), 2X February l9S7 ; S’3XO3, O.K.. )* 787th meeting : para. 39. 12th YCIW, SuppI. for lun.-Mu. 10.57. p, I I ; S’3XXO. O.U., OS For texts of relevant statements, set : 12rh vef1f , SlIppi. for In/y-sepr. 19.57. p. 34; S,3XXI, ibid., pp. 3-i-35. 787th meeting : President (Cuba). paras. 29, 39 ; Australia, para. 32 ; China, paras. 30-3 I ; Iraq, pnras. 35-37 ; Philippines, WI 93X73, O.R.. I2rl1 year, Suppl. for Irrly-Sept. 1957, p. 23 ; paras. 33-34 ; USSR, parn. 38 ; S/3877, ihid.. p. 33. 788th meeting : China, para. 70 ; Oi For tcxls of rclcvant statcmcnts. see : 806th meeting : President (Iraq), paras. I. S-6 ; Israel l , 789th meeting : President (Cuba), para. 6 ; USSR, paras. l-2, paras. 3-4. 9 ; Unilcd States, paras. 7-8. e4 806th meeting : para. 6. G* S/4007. O.R., 13th ycur, Sfcppl. for Apr.-June 1958. p. 33. Pm-t IV. The qqendn : mtrttcrs of which the Security Council is seized (rules 10 md I I) 37 ~---__

The rcprcscntativc of the United States, concurring vations were in effect not in conflict with his suggestion, with the rcprcscntativc of the Soviet Union. suggested declared the agenda adopted.“@ that the order of the agenda be left unchanged, that **3. Phrasing of items on the agenda special statements from Jordan and the United King- dom on item 3 bc heard at the start of the mcctinE and **4. Postponement of consideration of items that members of the Council be free as usual to discuss both items. 00 For texts of relevant statements,see : 83lst meeting(PV) : President(Colombia), pp. 2, 6 ; USSR, The President, after noting that the foregoing obser- pp. 3-5 ; United states, p. 6.

Part IV

THE AGENDA : MATTERS OF WHICH THE SECURITY COUNCIL IS SEIZED (RULES 10 AND 11)

NOTE to steps for the immediate cessation of the military Rule 10 of the provisional rules of procedure was action of Israel in Egypt, after the list of speakers had been cxhaustcd, the Prcsidcnt (France) inquired designed to enable the Security Council to continue, at its next meeting, the consideration of an unfinished item whether the Council desired to hear the representatives without a rcncwcd debate on the adoption of the agenda. of the parties or to adjourn the meeting until that Howcvcr, the provisional ngcnda has not invariably afternoon. contained all items of unfinished business. The cast The rcprcsentative of the United States observed that history included in section A (Case I8) is rclatcd to an he had a draft resolution to submit to the Council, and instance when the Council continued the consideration hc wished to be assured that that would be the pending of an item, as a mnttcr of urgency, at a meeting which, business at the afternoon meeting. by a previous decision, had been allocated to the con- The representative of Australia recalled that, in sideration of another item. connexion with the Palestine question, the Council was In the volume of the Repertoire covering the period seized of the Israel and Jordanian complaints which - 1946 I95 I, it was noted :0 that items on the agenda of had been scheduled for discussion at the afternoon the Council have rcmnincd on the Sccrctary-Gcncral’s mccti ng. 71 Howcvcr. it would bc desirable to postpone Summary Statement of matters of which the Security that discussion and continue in the afternoon with the Council is seized when the tenor of the Council’s dis- consideration of the item which had been introduced cussion has revcalcd a continuing concern with the by the rcprescntativc of the United States. matter. During the period under review. additional evidence supporting such retention has hccn provided At the 749th meeting held in the afternoon of when the President of the Council has announced, upon 30 October 1956. the Council continrlcd its consideration the conclusion of d&ate, that the Council remained of the item submitted by the representative of the seized of a question (Cases 19 and 20). IJnitcd States.” The tabulation appearing in section B.1 brings up to date those appearing in previous volumes of the ;I At the 745th mcctina on 25 October IY56. the repre- Repertoire. sentative of Iran proposed to adjourn the meeting until -the followina week. the date to bc decided by the President (France) after consultationwith the mcmhcrs. The representative of the A. R1JI.E 10 IJSSR proposed, in view of the urgency of the question before the Council. to fix a date for the next mcctina not later than CAW IX the following Tuesday. The President adjourned the meeting, without objection. until Tuesday afternoon, 30 October 1956. At the 74Xth meeting on 30 October 1956, in con- For texts of relevant statcmcnts. see : 745th meeting : President nexion with the Palestine question, with special reference (Francr). para. I I I : Iran. para. I03 ; IJSSR. paras. 105-106. ;z f:or 1~x1s of rclcvant statcmcnts. see : 70 Hepertoirr of Ihe I’mclke of the Seewiry Council. 748th meeting : President (France). paras. 54, 56 ; Australia. 1946-1951, p. 84. para. 57 ; United States, para. SS. 38 Chapter It. Agenda

B. RULE 11

1. Retention and deletion of items from the Secretary-General’s Summary Statement on matters of which the Security Council is seized

This tabulation, which supplements those appearing in the Repertoire, 1946-1951, pp. 85-91, and the Sr~pplen~n~. 1952-1955. pp. 33-40, covers matters appearing in the Secretary-General’s Summary Statements during the period 1956-1958. The items included are (I) those of which the Security Council was seized at the close of the period covered by the earlier tabulations, and (2) items of which the Council has been seized since that time. Items are listed in the order in which they have appeared in the Summary Statement. Items to the end of 1955 are numbered to conform with the numbering in the earlier tabulation. The titles used are those occurring in the Summary Statement except for occasional nbridgmcnts. Two items : (I) Appointment of the Secretary-General, and (2) Election of Members of the International Court of Justice, are not included in the present tabulation, because neither item was included in any of the Summary Statements issued during the period under review.8

Lad action of the Final wtry in Firat inelwion Fir& entry in Ihm Council aa of summa+y stotsmsntaa in the apsndo Summa?( statsmsnt 81 Dcesmbsr 1968 of 81 Deeembw JO58 1. The Iranian question 3rd meeting s/45 Adopted Netherlands pro- 28 January 1946 23 April 1946 posal to adjourn dis- cussion and resume it at the request of any mem- ber 43rd meeting, 22 May 1946 11 3. Statute and Rules of Pro- 1st meeting s/45 Referred report of Military cedure of Military Staff 17 January 1946 23 April 1946 Staff Committee to Com- Committee mittee of Experts 23rd meeting. I6 February 1946 4. Special Agreements under 1st meeting s/45 Discussed report of Miii- Article 43 of the Char- 17 January 1946 23 April 1946 tary Staff Committee ter 157th meeting, 15 July 1957 5. Rules of Procedure of the 1st meeting s/45 Amended rules Security Council 17 January 1946 23 April 1946 468th meeting, 28 February 1950 14. The general regulation 88th meeting S/238 r Dissolved Commission for and reduction of arma- 31 December 1946 3 January 1947 Conventional Arma- ments ments in accordance with recommendation in Genera1 Assembly reso- lution 502 (VI) 57lst meeting. 30 January 1952 Information on armed 89th meeting S/246 ,- forces of United Na- 7 January 1947 10 January 1947 tions (General Asscm- bly resolution 41 (I) and 42 (I)) 19. Appointment of a Gover- l43rd meeting S/382 Postponed discussion of the nor of the Free Tcr- 20 June 1947 2OJune 1947 item ritory of Trieste 647th meeting, 14 20. The Egyptian question 159th meeting S/425 Rejected Chinese draft re- 17 July 1947 18 July 1947 solution 20 1st meeting, 10 September 1947 (1

II The item ” Appointment of the Secretary-General ” was 1946-1951, Case 56, pp. 92-93. considered by the Council at its 792nd meeting, held in private c Combined in S/279 of 14 February 1947 in accordance with on 26 September 1957, and the item ” Election of Members of the Security Council’s decision to deal with the two items the International Court of Justice ” was discussed by the Council together. at its 793rd and 794th meetings on 1 October 1957. d See Repertoire of the Pruc:ice of the Security Council b See Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1946-1951. Case 59, pp. 95-96. Part IV. The agenda : matters of which the Security Council is seized (rules IO and I I) 39 -

1tsm Firrt inelu&m Firat entry in in the agenda Summo?m statsmsnt 21. The Indonesian question 17lst meeting s ‘461 Failed to adopt Canadian 31 July 1947 1 August 1947 draft resolution and re- jected Ilkrainian SSR draft resolution 456th mccting.1, I3 Dcccmbcr I949 22. Voting procedure in the 197th meeting s/533 Prcsidcntial statement con- Security Council 27 August 1947 29 August 1947 cerning outcome of meetings of five permn- ment mcmhcrs in accor- dance with <&era1 As- scmhly resolution of 14 April IYJY, 195th ple- nary session 452nd meeting. 18 Octohcr 1949 24. Procedure in application 220th meeting Fi:fi03 Adopted resolution con- of Articles 87 and 88 of IS November 1947 15 November 1947 cerning procedure to be the Charter with regard employed in application to the Pacific Islands of Articles 87 and 8X of under Strategic Trustee- the Charter to strategic ship of the United areas under Trusteeship states 4 15th meeting. 7 March 1949 25. Applications for member- 409th meeting S/ 1244 Not recommended ship! Republic of Ko- 15 February 1949 7 February 1949 423rd meeting. rea H April 1949 Letter of 11 February 409th meeting Sil2.57 Rcjectcd IJSSK proposal to 1949 from the reprc- IS February 19-t) 14 February I949 refer application to Com- sentativc of the USSK niittcc on Admission of concerning application New Mcmbcrs by the Democratic 4 10th meeting, People’s Kcpublic of 16 t:ehruary 1949 Korea 26. The Palestine question 222nd meeting S ‘623 Noted Secretary-General’s 9 December 1947 12 December 1947 intention to visit coun- tries conccrncd in order to ease tension X4Yth mcetinp, 15 December 19.58 27. The -Pakistan ques- 226th mecting S/641 Adopted a joint draft reso- tion R 6 January 1948 9 January 1948 lution (S !3Y 1I), 3.5 amended, IO call upon the two Governments to co-opcrote with the Uni- ted Nations Kepresenta- tivc in order to arrive at a n agrccmcnt on the prohlcm of demililari- zntion 11 808th meeting, 2 Dcccmbcr 1957

Discussed Argentine draft 28. The Czechoslovnk ques- 268th meeting s/700 resolution tion 17 March 1948 22 March 1948 305th meeting, 26 May 194R

0 See Repertoire of fhe Practice of rhe Securify Council and Jammu question in S/653 of 17 January 1948. The present x946-1951, Case 61, p. 97. title, India-Pakistan question, first appears in S/675 of < - I Listed under this heading are only those applications which 13 February 1948. failed to obtain recommendations as others were admitted by the Council’s later actions as of 31 December 1957. h The text of the draft resolution as adopted appears in R The India-Pakistan question : This item was entitled the document S/3922. O.K., 12th year, Suppl. for Oct.-Dec. 1957, Kashmir question in S/641. This was changed to the Kashmir pp. 21-22. 40 Chapter Il. Agenda

I.orf nction of thr FinalPnlTyin Firnt inrluaion rtsm Counrilnsol Summary *stntrmm1 a* in thr aprnria 3, fbrwnher 1958 of SI Ik!crm&rr IO58

30. Question of the Free Ter- 344th meeting s;9s9 Kcjected draft resolutions ritory of Trieste 4 August 1948 10 August 1948 submitted by Yugoslavia and hy Ukrainian SSK 354th meeting, I9 August 194X

31. The Hyderabad question 3S7th meeting S/lOlO Heard statements by the 16 September 1948 22 September 1948 rcprcscntatives of India and Pakistan 42Sth and 426th meet- ings, 19 and 24 i

33. ldentic Notifications dated 362nd meeting S/ 1029 Rejected joint draft reso- 29 Scptembcr lY4X 5 Octohcr 1948 Y October 1948 lution (S/ 1048) 372nd meeting. 25 Octohcr I948

38. International Control of 444th meeting S/l394 k Adopted Canadian draft Atomic Energy j 15 September 1949 2 I Scptemher 1949 resolution, as amended, and rcjccted USSR draft resolution (S/1391/ Rev.1) 447th meeting, 16 September 1949

43. Complaint of armed in- 492nd meeting s/ 1774 Rejected draft resolutions vasion of Taiwan (For- 29 August 1950 7 September 19150 (S/l757 and Sjl921) mosa) SBOth meeting, 30 November 19~50

44. Complaint of homhing by 493rd meeting S/l774 Failed to adopt U.S. draft air forces of the ter- 3 I August 1950 7 September 19SO rc\olution tS/ 1752) and ritory of China rcjcctcd USSR draft re- solution (S: 174S,‘Rcv.l) SOI st mecting. I2 Scptcmhcr I950

4X. Complaint of failure hy 559th meeting Sl2364 Adopted I’rcnch motion to the Iranian Govcrnmcnt I October 1951 2 Octohcr 19.5 I adjourn the dchatc until to comply with provi- the International Court sional mcnsures indi- had ruled on its own cated by the Intcrna- competence tional Court of Justice 565th meeting. in the Anglo-Iranian 19 October I95 I Oil Company case SO. New applications for 594th meeting S/2770 Not recommended mcmhcrship. Vict-Nam 2 September 1952 8 September 1952 603rd meeting, (S/2446) 19 Scptemhcr 19152 Democratic Rcpuhlic of 594th meeting S/2770 Not recommended Vict-Nam (S/2466) 2 September 1952 8 September 1952 603rd meeting. I9 Scptemher 19S2

5 I. Question of appeal to S77th meeting St679 Rejected USSR draft rcso- States to acccdc to and I8 June l9S2 23 June 1952 lution ratify the Geneva Pro- SX3rd meeting. tocol of 1925 for the 26 June 1952 prohihition of the use of bacterial weapons

i See Hcperfoire of fhe Frcrclice of fhe Srcrrrity Council to the President of the Security Council (S/1377) “. 1946-1951, Case 60, pp. 96-97. k An earlier summary statement. S :138X of 12 Septemhcr J The agenda item at the 444th through 447th meetings of 1949. refcrrcd under the same heading IO a Canadian draft the Security Council was cntitlctl *‘I.etter dated 29 July 1949 resolution (S: 1386) circulated in anticipation of the discussion from the Chairman of the Atomic Energy C‘ommission addressed of the question at a forthcoming meeting. Purt IV. The agendu : matters of which the Security C orrncil is seized (rules IO und I I) 41

Firnt inrluaion I.ast action of the Final entry in Itern Council RI of .summarg Slntrmr7lt a. in Ihe ogrnda 3, IhYrmbrr ,!J.SX of .,I Ilcrember 1958 52. Qucslion of request for 58151 meeting Si26H7 Rejected IJSSR draft reso- investigation of alleged 23June 1952 I July 19S2 lution bacteria1 warfare SgSth meeting, I .52 Failed to adopt U.S. draft resolution SX7th meeting, 3 July 19.52 Failed to adopt U.S. draft resolution S9Oth meeting, 9 July lYS2 156. Letter dated 29 May 19.54 672nd meeting S/3224 Failed to adopt Thailand from the acting perma- 3 6 June 1954 draft resolution (S ‘3229) nent representative of 674th meeting, Thailand to the United 18June 1954 Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/ 3220) S7. Cablegram dated 19 June 67Sth meeting S/3257 Failed to adopt Bratilian- IYS4 from the Minister 20 June 1954 29June 1954 Colombian draft rcsolu- of External Relations tion (S/3236 ‘Rev. I) of Guatemala addressed Adopted French draft rc- to the President of the solution (S/3237) Security Council (S/ 675th meeting, 3232) 20 June 1954 t 59. Letter dated 8 September 679th meeting S/3289 Adjourned to meet again 1954 from the rcpre- 10 I3 September 1954 upon request of any sentative of the U.S. dclcgation addressed to the Presi- 680th meeting, dent of the Security IO September 19S4 Council 61. Letter dated 2R January 689th meeting s/3359 Postponed consideration of 19.5.5 from the repre- 31 7 February 195s matters contained in the sentative of New Zca- letter from the represen- land addressed to the tative of New Zealand President of the Secu- 69 I st meeting, rity Council concerning 14 February I955 the question of hostili- Rejected USSR motion to tics in the area of cer- consider the next item on tain islands off the the agenda coast of the mainland 69lst meeting, of China 14 Letter dated 30 January 1955 from the repre- sentative of the USSR addressed to the Prcsi- dent of the Security Council concerning the question of acts of aggression by the U.S. against the People’s Republic of China in the area of Taiwan and other islands of China

1 At the 676th mcciing on 25 June 1954, the Council failed to adopt the agenda. For case history, see the Supplcmenf, IYSZ-IYS5. Cases 22 and 23, pp. 33, 40. 42 Chapter II. Agenda

Lad action of Final snip in Fird inclusion Firat entry in the hm Council 138 of Summal-# statement m in lhs agenda Summrll stotsment S, December 1958 of Sl Dscambsr lS5S 62. Applications for membar- ship ma

Reconsideration. Mongo- 70 I st meeting sj3507 Rejected USSR amendment See items 73 and 79 lian People’s Republic. IO I3 December 1955 (S/35 17) to United King- below Japan dom draft resolution (S j 35 13) and postponed further comideration of lalter 708th meeting, 21 December 195s Reconsideration. Republic 703th meeting s/3515 No1 recommended See item 85 below of Korea. Viet-Nam 13 December 1955 I5 December 1955 704th meeting. 13 December 1955 64. Admission of new Mem- 7 16th meeting s/3549 Adopted joint draft reso- s/3549 bers. Sudan 6 13 February 1956 lotion (S/3545) I3 February 1956 7 16th meeting, 6 February 1Y56 65. Admission of new Mem- 73 1st meeting S/3626 Adopted French draft reso- S/3626 bers. Morocco 20 23 July 1956 lution (S/3620) 23 July 1956 73 1st meeting. 20 July 1956 66. Admission of new Mem- 732nd meeting S/3630 Adopted French draft reso- S/3630 bers. Tunisia 26 July 1956 30 July 1956 lution (S/3627) 30 July 1956 732nd meeting, 26 July 1956 67. The date of election to 733rd meeting S/3644 Adopted resolution(8/3643) S/3644 fill a vacancy in the 6 September 1956 lOSeptember 1956 733rd meeting. IO September 1956 International Court of 6 September I956 Justice 68. Letter dated 23 Septem- 734th meeting S/3661 After adopting the first ber lY56 from the re- 26 September 1956 I October 1956 part of the joint draft presentatives of France reqolution (S ‘367 I ), the and the United King- Council rejected the dom addressed to the second part as amended President of the Secu- by Iran rity Council (S/3654) 743rd meeting. I3 Octohcr 1956 69. Letter dated 24 Scptem- 734th meeting S/3661 Rejcctcd a motion to dis- her 1956 from the re- 26 September 1956 I Octohcr I956 cuss this item simulta- presentative of Egypt neously with the pre- addressed to the Presi- ceding one submitted by dent of the Security France and the United Council (S/3656) Kingdom 734th meeting, 26 September 1956 70. Letter dated 27 October 746th meeting S/3738 Adopted United States 1956 from the repre- 28 October 1956 6 November 1956 draft resolution (S/3733) sentatives of France, to call an emergency the IJnited Kingdom special session of the and the United States General Assembly addressed to the Presi- 754th meeting, dent of the Security 4 November I956 Council (S/3690) 71. Letter dated 25 October 747th meeting S/3738 Adjourned its discussion to 1956 from the repre- 29 October 1956 6 November 1956 a further date sentative of France ad- 747th meeting, dressed to the Secre- 29 October IY56 tary-General (S/3689 and Corr.1)

m Under this agenda heading, the applications remaining on the list are only those which failed to obtain recommendation. Part IV. The agenda : matters of which the Security C ouncil is seized (rules 10 and I I) 43

Firat inclwim Fir& entw in in ths agenda suwbma+v statsmsnt 72. Letter dated 30 October 750th meeting S/3738 Adopted Yugoslnv draft 1956 from the repre- 30 October 1956 6 November 1956 resolution (S ‘37 19) sentative of Egypt ad- 75 1st meeting. dressed to the President 31 October 1956 of the Security Council (S/3712)

73. Admission of new Mem- 7S6th meeting s/3759 Rccommendcd s: 3759 bers. Japan 12 December 1956 17 December I956 756th meeting, 17 December 1956 12 December 19.56

Mongolian People’s 756th meeting s/3159 Rejected USSR draft rcso- Republic 12 December 1956 17 December 1956 lution (S/37SS) 756th meeting, 12 Dcccmbcr 19.56

74. Election of a member to 757th meeting S/3761 Recommended Mr. Wel- s/3770 fill the vacancy in the 19 December 1956 lington Koo to fill the 14 January 1957 International Court of vacancy left by Justice Mr. Hsu MO 760th meeting, 11 January 1957 75. Admission of new Mem- 775th meeting S/3804 Recommcndcd S; 3804 bers. Ghana 7 March 1957 11 March 1957 77Sth meeting, 11 March 1957 7 March lYS7

76. Admission of new Mem- 786th meeting S/3886 Recommended S 3886 bers. Malaya 5 September 1957 9 September 1957 786th mectiny. Y September 1957 S September I957 77. Admission of new Mem- 789th meeting S/3888 Rejected USSR amcnd- bers. Republic of KO- 9 September 1957 17 September 195 7 men! (S’3XH7) to rccom- rea mend simultaneous ad- mission of 1)emocratic People’s Republic of Ko- rca and of the Republic of Korea Not recommcndcd 790th mecling, Y Scplcmber 1957

Viet-Nam 789th meeting S/3888 Not rccommcndcd 9 September 1957 17 September I957 790th meeting, 9 September l9S7

Mongolian People’s 789th meeting S/3888 Not rccommcndcd Republic 9 September 1958 17 September 1957 790th meeting. 9 .57

78. The Tunisian Question (I) : 8 11 th meeting S/3967 Adjourned the meeting un- Letter dated 13 February 18 26 February 195X der rule 33 1958 from the perma- 8 I I th meeting, nent representative of 18 February 1958 Tunisia to the President of the Security Council concerning : “ Com- plaint by Tunisia in respect of an act of aggression committed against it by France on 8 February 1958 at Sakiet-Sidi-Youssef ” Letter dated 14 February 1958 from the perma- / nent representative of France to the President of the Security Council concerning : “ Situation 44 Chapter II. Aptda ~__

resulting from the aid furnished hy Tunisin to rebels cnahling them to conduct operations from Tunisian territory directed against the in- tegrity of French tcr- ritory and the safety of the persons and pro- perty of French na- tionals ”

79. Ixttcr dated 20 1;cbruary 812th meeting s, 3967 Ijccided that the next 19.5X from the rcpre- 21 February 195X 26 February 1958 mecling. if nccc\\;iry. sentative of the Sudan WOIIILI hc c;~lled zkfter addressed to the Secre- c0nsi~ltalion ;uiwng nicm- tary-General bcrs and the p:trtics con- ccrncd X 12th meeting. 21 February 195X

80. Complaint of the repre- 8 14th meeting S/3996 Failed to adopI United sentative of the USSR 29 April 1958 28 April 1958 Stab draft rcsolulion (S/3995), as amcndcd by Swcdcn, and rejected USSK draf: resolution (S/3997) 817th meeting, 2 May 195X

81. Letler dated 22 May 1958 X IXth meeting s/4017 Decided to delete this item S/4120 from the reprcsentativc 27 May 1958 2 June 1958 from the list of matters 1 December 1958 of I.&anon addrcsscd of which the Council is to the President of the scizcd Security Council con- 840th meeting, cerning : “ Complaint 25 Novcmhcr 195X by Lebanon in respect of a situation arising from the intcrvcntion of the United Arab Re- public in the internal affairs of Lebanon, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of intcr- national peace and security ”

82. The Tunisian question X 10th meeting S,‘402 I St;itcmcnts madc hy rhc rc- (II) : 2 June 195X 9 June 19.58 prc\cnlatives of France Lcltcr dntcd 29 May I958 and Tuni\i:i concerning the :I:rccmcnt rcachcd from the rcprcscntativc by their

(0) “ The complaint brought by France against Tunisia on 14 February IYSX (docu- ment S/3954) ” fh) “ The situation arising out of the dis- ruption, by Tunisia, of the modus vivendi which had hcen cstab- lishcd since February IY5X with regard IO the stationing of French troops at ccrmin points in Tunisian territory ” . 83. Letter dated 17 July 1958 R3 1st meeting S/4061 Agreed to consider simul- from the rcprcscntntivc 17 July 1958 21 July 19158 taneously the complaints of Jordan addressed to suhmittcd by Lebanon the I’rcsidcnt of the Sc- and Jord:m curity C’ouncil conccr- 17 July IYSX ning : “ Complaint by the Hashcmik King- dom of Jordan of intcr- fcrcnce in its domestic affairs by the United Arab Republic ” 84. The date of election to 840th meeting S/4120 Adopted resolution unani- S/4120 fill a vacancy in the 25 November 1958 I December 1958 mously I December I958 Inlcrnational Court of HJOlh mccling. Justice 25 Novcmbcr I958 .- - 85. Admission of new Mcm- 842nd meeting s/4135 Recommended S’413S hers. Rcpuhlic of Y Dccembcr 1958 16 Dcccmber 1958 842nd mccling. I6 December 19.5X

Viet-Nam 842nd meeting s/4135 Not recommended Y Dcccmher 1958 16 December 1958 843rd meeting. 9 December I958

2. Proceedings of the Security Council regarding the the USSR declared that his delegation could not support retention and deletion of items from the agenda the request to reopen the discussion of the Suez Canal question in the Security Council. His reasons were that CASI:. 19 the Dcclnration concerning the Suez Canal and the At the 778th meeting on 20 May 1957, the pro- arrangcmcnts for its operation mndc by the Egyptian visional agcnd;r of the Council included the lcttcr’S Govcrnmcnt on 24 April 1957 was in accord with the dated 15 May 1957 from the rcprcscntativc of France Convention of IX88 and the Charter of the United addressed to the President of the Security Council Nations and rcflcctcd the principles endorsed in the relating to the Suez Cnnnl (item 68 of the list of matters Security Council’s resolution of I3 October 1956. The of which the Security Council is scizcd). In conncxion document had been rcgistercd with the United Nations with the adoption of the agenda, the rcprcsentative of by the Egyptian Government and had acquired the --.-. ~. -~ status of an international instrument. Discussion at the ‘3 S/3X29. O.R.. 12111 your, Suppl. for Apr.-June 1957, 776th and 777th meetings of the Council had shown pp. 20-2 I. that the Declaration constituted a fair and reasonable 46 Chapter II. Agenda basis for the settlement of the question, a conclusion CASE 20 confirmed by subsequent events. In these circumstances, the USSK delegation felt that a new discussion could At the 812th meeting on 21 February 1958, in con- lcad only to complications which would be undesirable nexion with the letter Ye dated 20 February 1958 from from the point of view of peace. the representative of Sudan, after the Security Council had heard the statements of the representatives of Egypt The representative of the United Kingdom observed and Sudan indicating their willingness to settle the matter that at the end of the 777th meeting he had reserved after the elections of 27 February 1958, the rcpre- his rights to speak again more fully at a subsequent sentative of the United States observed that, by the meeting of the Council. It would bc clear from this that very action of adopting the agenda, the Council had it was far from being the view of his delegation that the been seized of the question and could always meet again Egyptian Declaration closed the question of the Suez on short notice, should the situation deteriorate. Canal. The President (USSR) declared that the question sub- The agenda was adopted :’ by 10 votes in favour mitted by the representative of Sudan would remain and none against, with 1 abstention. on the agenda of the Council.” Discussion continued at the 779th meeting, 21 May :957, at the conclusion of which the President (United CAKE 21 States), in summing up the discussion, made the fol- lowing statement : At the 840th meeting of the Security Council on 25 November 1958, after the Council had concluded “These comments reflect continuing doubts on the its consideration of the item on its agenda, namely, part of a number of members regarding the Suez “The date to fill a vacancy in the International Court Canal system now put into effect by the Egyptian of Justice,” the President (Panama) rcfcrred to the Government, and about which clarification by Egypt following communications : (1) a letter ‘” addressed to is desired. him on 16 November 1958 by the Minister for Foreign “The Egyptian Government will presumably wish Affairs of Lebanon reporting the resumption of cordial as soon as possible to examine thcsc points carefully and close relationships with the United Arab Republic and to consider the concrete steps it can take to and requesting the Security Council to delete the remove the doubts which have arisen. Member Lebanese complaint from the list of matters of which Govcrnmcnts will undoubtedly bc guided in their it was seized ; (2) the fifth report 7Bof the United Nations diplomatic actions and users will be guided in their Observation Group in Lebanon setting forth the con- practical actions by the views that have been ex- clusion that the task of the Group under the resolution pressed here today and by the Egyptian response to of 11 June 1958 might be regarded as completed and the questions which have been raised here. In the recommending that the withdrawal of the Group should meantime the Council will remain seized of the be undertaken; and (3) a letterHo from the Secrctary- question and will be in a position to meet again when General of 17 November 1958 stating that in view of the rcpresentativc of Egypt has something further to the two foregoing communications, he had instructed communicate or when other developments make it the Group to present, in consultation with the Govern- desirable.” ment of Lebanon, a detailed plan for the withdrawal, and adding that he considered the task of the Group as The representative of France, taking note of the completed and his remaining duty under the Security President’s summing up, added that: Council resolution as covering only the necessary “ . . , considering that a great number of questions measures for the liquidation of the operation. have been asked, that they are still unanswered and The President declared that he had engaged in con- that WC are waiting for them to bc answered, I should sultation with members of the Council who appeared to like it to bc clearly understood that the Security agree to the deletion of the Lebanese complaint from Council is still seized of the problem and could the list of matters of which the Council was seized, and reconvene if any Member so desires.” to the liquidation of the operation of the United Nations The President replied that the representative of France Observation Group in Lebanon. In the absence of understood the situation correctly. “The Council does objection, he would place on the record that the remain seized of the question, the agenda item is still Council had agreed to such deletion, with the under- pending and the matter can be raised by any member standing that the Secretary-General would inform the of the Security Council.“‘6 General Assembly under his mandate contained in resolution 1237 (ES-3) of 21 August 1958. It was so decided. 7‘ 778th meeting: para. 14. 7* For texts of relevant statements, see : ‘7 For texts of relevant statements, see : 778th meeting : USSR. paras. 4-l 1 ; United Kingdom, 812th meeting : President (USSR), para. 81 ; Japan, para. 58 ; para. 13 ; United Kingdom, para. 61 ; United Slates, para. 54. 779th meeting : Prcsidcnt (United States), paras. 126-127. 129 ; France, para. 128. ‘0 s/4113. 76 S/3963, O.R., 13th year, Suppl. for Jan.-Apr. 1958. ‘0 s/4114. pp. 21-22. 00 s/4115.