21

A.—2

"In view of the importance which the consideration of this proposal assumed in the Committee, the New Zealand delegation desires through this declaration before Commission I to place on public record the fact that, despite the restricted time made available for its discussion in the Committee, the New Zealand amendment received 26 votes in its favour, against 18 contrary votes. It is clear that this vote, while falling short by a very small margin of the two-thirds majority required for the submission of a text to the Commission, shows a substantial majority, which cannot be ignored, in favour of the proposal which, in the opinion of the New Zealand delegation, is of fundamental importance if this Organization is to function effectively. " The New Zealand delegation does not propose to move an amendment in the Commission, but, in view of the very definite expression of the Committee's opinion in support of the New Zealand amendment, it calls the attention of the Nations assembled at the Conference to what it considers to be a grave defect in the principles of the Charter. We do this with the earnest hope that the Security Council in its work of resisting aggression and establishing and maintaining international peace and justice, with the support of all the United Nations, and with increasing experience and confidence, will find it possible and advantageous to accept the New Zealand proposal in practice as a guiding and basic principle in what I devoutly trust will be its realistic approach to the problems with which it will have to deal." Considerable discussion arose in Committee I—and much more in private negotiations outside the Committee —on the clause exempting matters of domestic jurisdiction from the activities of the Organization. This is a matter on which many nations showed themselves susceptible, particularly because of the exceptional powers given under the Charter. Permanent members might in certain circumstances and eventualities in deciding the terms of settlement of a dispute or adjustment of a situation require a member to abide by the will of the Great Powers in a matter of domestic concern. It has been generally recognized that certain matters are solely and properly within the domestic jurisdiction of a State, and under Article 15 of the Covenant of the League such matters were withdrawn from the operation of the League. At San Francisco many delegates felt that in certain cases it would be proper in the interests of peace and justice, and in the preservation of fundamental human rights, to interfere in the internal affairs of Member States. For example, the case of the dreadful cruelties practised in Germany on Jews, Clergy of Catholic and Protestant Churches, Socialists, Communists, and any section of the community which failed to grovel to the Nazis was generally admitted to be an obvious example of a situation in which the World Organization would be entitled —indeed, bound —to intervene. There was, however, extreme difficulty in finding a form of words that would allow sufficient latitude for the Organization to act in such matters and at the same time to make it plain that the sovereign rights of all members were not to be attacked. In the event a solution was found and the following text put forward by the sponsoring Powers and amended in accordance with proposals by Dr. Evatt, the Australian delegate, with whose Delegation New Zealand had closely collaborated on this issue, was adopted in the Committee by a majority of 33 to 4: — " Nothing contained in this Charter shall authorize the Organization to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under this Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VIII, Section B."