24

A.—2

recalcitrant member and that expulsion might entail more drawbacks for the Organization than for the State concerned. Of their number, naturally, were those who stressed the universal character of the Organization. The fact that, owing to the " veto," expulsion could not in any case be applied to the Great Powers was an additional argument. The argument of those favouring expulsion, among which all the Great Powers were included, was, briefly, that this was a power which the Organization ought to possess to be used in the last resort against an incorrigibly recalcitrant State. There voted for the inclusion of a reference to expulsion 19 States (including New Zealand) ; against, 16 States. Since the vote did not attain the required two-thirds majority it was ruled that reference to expulsion should be omitted from the Charter. At the suggestion of the U.S.S.R., the Steering Committee asked Committee 1/2 to vote again on the matter. The second vote gave, in effect, the same results as the first. At the final meeting of the Committee the matter was put to a third vote. Most of those who had voted against expulsion abstained, with the result that the following provision was adopted:— " A member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." (Article 6of Charter.) Withdrawal The sub-committee which examined Expulsion and Suspension also considered Withdrawal. Its conclusions were summarized as follows: — "On the question of withdrawal from the Organization the Chairman explained that the sub-committee had considered this matter and was of the opinion that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals deliberately omitted provisions for withdrawal in order to avoid the weakness of the League Covenant, which had permitted withdrawal. The sub-committee was strongly of the opinion that withdrawal should be impossible." When it became apparent that there was no possibility of modifying the voting formula for the Security Council (the "veto" clause) and, particularly, that amendments to the Charter could be brought into force only if ratified by all the permanent members of the Security Council, there was a revulsion of feeling in favour of some provision for withdrawal. After full debate on the last day of the Committee's work the Committee voted on the question whether withdrawal should be expressly provided for in the Charter. There voted affirmatively, 19 States; negatively, 22 States (including New Zealand). At the same time the Committee adopted by 38 votes (including New Zealand) to 2, the following text for inclusion in its report:— " The Committee adopts the view that the Charter should not make express provision either to permit or to prohibit withdrawal from the Organization. The Committee deems that the highest duty of the nations which will become members is to continue their co-operation within the Organization for the preservation of international peace and security. If, however, a member, because of exceptional circumstances, feels constrained to withdraw, and leave the burden of maintaining international peace and security on the other members, it is not the purpose of the Organization to compel that member to continue its co-operation in the Organization. " It is obvious, however, that withdrawals or some other forms of dissolution of the, Organization would become inevitable if, deceiving the hopes of humanity, the Organization was revealed to be unable to maintain peace or could do so only at the expense of law and justice.