On June 2, 1948, the United States Senate gave its approval to the conclusion by the Executive of two treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation. These were the first two treaties of this type signed by the United States since the cessation of hostilities in the second World War. Each of them had been foreshadowed in earlier treaties. The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with China, signed November 4, 1946, ratifications of which were exchanged November 30, 1948, was to carry out the purpose which China and the United States had recorded in Article VII of their Treaty for the Relinquishment of Extraterritorial Rights in China and the Regulation of Related Matters, signed at Washington on January 11, 1943. That with Italy, signed February 2, 1948, is the type of instrument apparently envisaged in Article 82 of the Peace Treaty with Italy.

In continuation of the note on “Some Aspects of the Work of the Interim Committee of the General Assembly,” the present note will deal with the five resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during the second part of its third session, held between April 5 and May 19, 1949, on the problem of voting in the Security Council and on the study of methods for the promotion of international coöperation in the political field. These resolutions, which were adopted upon the recommendation of the Interim Committee, concern (1) the problem of voting in the Security Council; (2) restoration to the General Act of September 26, 1928, of its original efficacy; (3) appointment of a rapporteur or conciliator for a situation or dispute brought to the attention of the Security Council; (4) amendments to the rules of procedure of the General Assembly; and (5) creation of a panel for inquiry and conciliation.

The International Court of Justice on April 11, 1949, gave its unanimous opinion that, in the event of an agent of the United Nations in the performance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involving the responsibility of a Member (or a non-member) State, the United Nations as an organization has the capacity to bring an international claim against the responsible de jure or de facto government with a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused the United Nations. By a majority of eleven, with four judges dissenting, the Court also gave its opinion that the United Nations has the capacity to claim reparation due in respect of the damage caused to the victim or to persons entitled through him. The Court by ten votes to five gave its further opinion that when the United Nations as an organization is bringing a claim for reparation of damage caused to its agent, it can only do so by basing its claim upon a breach of obligations due to itself; and that respect for this rule will usually prevent a conflict between the action of the United Nations and such rights as the agent’s national state may possess, and thus bring about a reconciliation between their claims.

The relationship between the Government of the Union of India and the Princely State of Hyderabad has attracted world-wide attention. Through what seems to be complete misunderstanding of the legal status of Hyderabad, the United Nations placed the case on the agenda of the Security Council. Although the Nizam of Hyderabad, after the successful conclusion of the Indian Army's punitive expedition into Hyderabad, has petitioned the United Nations to withdraw the case, the question still remains on the agenda.

The International Court of Justice, on May 28, 1948, gave an advisory-opinion concerning the conditions of admission of a state to membership in the United Nations. By nine votes to six it held:

Upon signing the General Act at the close of the United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information, held at Geneva in March and April, 1948, General Carlos P. Romulo, its President, declared that some day that document might be regarded as the Magna Carta of freedom of thought and expression.1 While this view may be somewhat over-optimistic, undoubtedly the Conference showed a balance-sheet of substantial accomplishment. Opening in an atmosphere of deep pessimism contrasting with the brighter ambiance of 1946 when the idea of a conference was launched, the Conference closed with what may be called a victory of limited objectives.

The problem of voting in the Security Council was referred to the Interim Committee by the General Assembly in 1947 for study and a report. The Interim Committee’s report was submitted to the General Assembly and considered by its Ad Hoc Political Committee at the first part of the third session (1948) in Paris.

The General Assembly, at its 160th Plenary Meeting on November 18, 1948, adopted resolution 224 (III) on the effects of Administrative Unions on Trust Territories which, inter alia, called upon the Trusteeship Council to investigate this question in all its aspects and to report to the next (fourth) session of the General Assembly on the results of its investigations and actions taken, and also, whenever appropriate, to request an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice as to whether such Unions were within the scope of, and compatible with, the provisions of the Charter and the Trusteeship Agreements. Pursuant to this resolution, the Trusteeship Council created a Committee on Administrative Unions to undertake preparatory work to facilitate the investigations. This Committee, in addition to preparing documents, made an interim report and a final report.

The General Assembly of the United Nations, at its 179th plenary meeting on December 9, 1948, unanimously approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and proposed it for signature and ratification or accession in accordance with Article XI thereof. Article I of the Convention provides that “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law.” Article V stipulates that the Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective constitutions, the necessary legislation to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts made punishable under the Convention. Such persons are to be tried, according to Article VI, “by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.” The Convention thus envisages the possible creation of an international penal tribunal.