2. The terms of reference of the Committee during the present period of its activities are set out in General Assembly resolution 703 (VII) of 17 March 1953,' as follows: "2. Requests the Collective Measures Committee to continue its work until the ninth session of the General Assembly, as directed in paragraph 4 below, for the maintenance and strengthening of the United Nations collective security system; "4. Directs the Collective Measures Committee: "(a) To pursue such studies as it may deem desirable to strengthen the capability of the United Nations to maintain peace, taking account of the Uniting for peace' resolution,3 resolution 503 (VI) and the present resolution; "(b) To continue the examination of information received from States pursuant to the Uniting for peace' resolution, resolution 503 (VI) and the present resolution; "(c) In the light of its studies, to suggest to the Security Council and to the General Assembly such specific ways and means as it may deem appropriate to encourage further preparatory action by States; "(d) To report to the Security Council and to the General Assembly not later than the ninth session of the Assembly." 3. Since its establishment the Committee has been composed of the following fourteen Members of the United Nations: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Egypt, France, Mexico, Philippines, Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. At its 17th meeting on 16 July 1954, Mr. Santiago Perez-Perez (Venezuela) was elected Chairman to succeed Mr. João Carlos Muniz (Brazil). Information from States relating to the steps being taken in implementation of the recommendations made by the General Assembly 4. Resolution 703 (VII) recommended to States Members, and invited States not Members of the United Nations, to continue and intensify their efforts to carry out the recommendations of the "Uniting for Peace" resolution and of resolution 503 (VI), and to keep the Committee currently informed of the progress made. As stated in its second report (paragraph 26), the Committee addressed communications to Member and non-Member States recalling the recommendations of the General Assembly concerning collective measures. at [of] 7 October 1952, responses had been received from thirty-two States; these responses were summarized in annex G to the second report. Since that date responses have been received from five additional States and these are summarized in annex 2 to the present report.1 As 1 General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 20A (A/2361/Add. 1), pp. 2-3. 2 Ellipsis in original. i.e., Res. 377 (V). Not reprinted here. Question of a United Nations Volunteer Reserve 5. The second report of the Collective Measures Committee, in dealing with the question of the formation of a United Nations Volunteer Reserve, indicated that the Committee had been able to give only preliminary consideration to the proposals made by the first SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations in this regard. The Committee was subsequently advised that the Secretary-General did not wish, for the time being, to proceed with the proposals. The Committee is of the opinion that no further action or study by it is required on this question. Replacements on the Panel of Military Experts 6. During 1953 the Government of the United States of America requested the Secretary-General to terminate the appointments of Lieutenant-General Willis D. Crittenberger and Lieutenant-General Hubert R. Harmon as members of the Panel of Military Experts, and nominated Lieutenant-General Withers A. Burress and LieutenantGeneral Leon W. Johnson for consideration as replacements on the Panel. In accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph 10 of General Assembly resolution 377A (V), the Secretary-General, with the approval of the Committee, appointed Lieutenant-General Withers A. Burress and Lieutenant-General Leon W. Johnson as replacements on the Panel. The current list of members of the Panel of Military Experts is set forth in annex 3 to the present report.2 Principles of collective security 7. Since its establishment the Committee has engaged in a study of the techniques, machinery and procedures of national and international action in the field of political, economic and financial and military collective measures. The members of the Committee felt that the first and second reports contained a relatively comprehensive examination of the various aspects involved in a study of the question, and they hoped that the ideas put forward could constitute a sound basis for any further study or action. During the period covered by the present report, the Committee did not embark on any new or more detailed studies, but it considered that a restatement of the principles of collective security would serve a useful purpose in helping to maintain and strengthen the United Nations collective security system. 8. At the 18th meeting of the Committee on 4 August 1954, the United States of America and the Philippines introduced working papers (A/AC.43/L.3 and L.4 respectively) setting forth a number of important principles of collective security. At the following meeting on 10 August, the Philippines and the United States submitted a joint working paper (A/AC.43/L.5) containing a co-ordinated text. 9. Discussion in the Committee indicated that a number of members wished to make specific suggestions or amendments to the text. It 1 See the Secretary-General's Memorandum of Apr. 20, 1950; supra, doc. 2. 2 Not reprinted here. 415900-57-17 was accordingly decided, at the 19th meeting, to establish a working group of the whole Committee to draft an agreed text. 10. The Working Group on Principles of Collective Security held four meetings under the chairmanship of Mr. Perez-Perez. At the third meeting on 19 August, the Philippines and the United States submitted a revised joint working paper (A/AC.43/L.5/Rev. 1). After further discussion and amendment, the Working Group approved the text (A/AC.43/L.6) of principles of collective security. At its 20th meeting on 27 August the Collective Measures Committee approved the text, which read as follows: "The Collective Measures Committee was directed by General Assembly resolution 703 (VII) of 17 March 1953 to pursue studies to strengthen the capability of the United Nations to maintain peace, taking account of the Uniting for Peace' resolution of 3 November 1950 and resolution 503 (VI) of 12 January 1952. "Acting in pursuance of this directive and having regard to the work previously done by it in developing the collective security system of the United Nations, the Collective Measures Committee has formulated certain principles which it believes should be useful to the Security Council and to the General Assembly in exercising their responsibility under the Charter in the event of collective action being taken by the United Nations in the future. "The Collective Measures Committee recommends that, in order to facilitate the effective application of the collective measures undertaken by the United Nations, and the equitable sharing of sacrifices and burdens, the General Assembly should affirm that, in any case where the United Nations, either through the Security Council or through the General Assembly, decides upon or recommends collective action to maintain or restore international peace and security, it should be guided, in undertaking collective measures, by the principles embodied in the Uniting for Peace' resolution, General Assembly resolutions 503 (VI) and 703 (VII), and the two previous reports of the Committee noted by the General Assembly, and in particular by the following: "1. The greatest possible number of States should make effective and prompt contributions to the collective effort. The contributions of States may be military, political, economic or financial; direct or ancillary. Each State should make contributions in accordance with its constitutional processes and to the extent to which in its own judgment its capacity and resources permit, having regard to the requirements of individual and collective self-defence and internal security and to the total burden and sacrifice assumed by it in support of the Charter. "2. In the event that the collective use of force against aggression is decided upon or recommended, a primary objective shall be to secure the maximum contribution of effective military forces. States supporting United Nations collective measures should co-operate to this end not only by making their own contributions of forces but also by helping to provide logistic support to States which desire to contribute forces but are unable to provide adequately for the equipment, training or supplying of such forces from their own resources. States should also endeavour to make available ancillary support for the benefit of forces participating in such measures. Such ancillary support should include, where possible and subject to the explicit consent of the State concerned, necessary rights of passage through or over its territory and related rights and facilities. "3. Collective self-defence and regional arrangements or agencies constitute an important part of collective security. When action consistent with the Charter is taken in the exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefence contemplated in Article 51, or to maintain or restore international peace and security within the framework of regional arrangements or agencies covered by Chapter VIII, the United Nations should take all appropriate steps, in conformity with the Charter, to make such action effective. "States should seek to obtain, whenever appropriate, in and through the international bodies and arrangements to which they belong or are parties, and within the constitutional limitations and the other provisions of those bodies and arrangements, all possible support for collective measures undertaken by the United Nations. "4. Collective economic and financial measures against aggression should include, where appropriate, all practicable assistance to the victim of such aggression and to the co-operating States. "Furthermore, it is the view of the Collective Measures Committee that: "When United Nations collective measures are taken or recommended against aggression, full consideration should be given to the establishment of appropriate machinery as contemplated in the two previous reports of the Committee, for the co-ordination of collective action and for the study of equitable sharing of sacrifices and burdens. "The Security Council and the General Assembly may wish to take into account, in appropriate circumstances, the arms embargo list and the list of strategic items prepared by the Collective Measures Committee to expedite the application of any embargo which the United Nations may decide upon or recommend." 2 Future work of the Committee 11. Considering the important work which the Collective Measures Committee has performed in the past and the contribution which it 1 Ellipsis in original. See General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/2215). could make in the further study of collective security, it is believed that it should remain in a position to pursue such further study, without prejudice to any change in the membership of the Committee which the General Assembly may wish to make. Problem of Defining Aggression 12. REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM: Statement Made in Committee VI (Legal) of the General Assembly by the United States Representative October 15, 19542 The problem of whether to define "aggression," and, if so, how, is as old as the United Nations Organization and older. The word "aggression" appears more than once in the charter and is a key word in relation to the powers and responsibilities of United Nations political organs for preserving world peace. At the charter conference of San Francisco in 1945, the question of whether to define the term "aggression" in the constitutional instrument of this Organization was directly debated. The considered opinion of the conference was that this should not be done, and it was not. Since 1945 the General Assembly has several times come back to survey the problem of definition. The present series of debates began 4 years ago this autumn. At that time the General Assembly referred to the International Law Commission a draft definition of aggression proposed by the Soviet Union and asked the Commission to "formulate its conclusions as soon as possible." In the succeeding year the Commission met, and accepted its assignment as a request to make an attempt to define aggression and report back. When it came to the point of substantive discussion, the Commission had before it a report by Mr. Spiropoulos, in which it was concluded that: "A legal' definition of aggression would be an artificial construction," which could never be comprehensive enough to comprise all imaginable cases of aggression, since the methods of aggression are in constant process of evolution. After consideration of various proposals, the Commission took as the basis of definition a draft by Mr. Alfaro, but this formula, as submitted to final vote, was rejected 7 to 3 with one abstention. A proposal to make further attempts was defeated 6 to 4 with one abstention. At a later point the Commission inserted into the 1 Charles H. Mahoney. 2 Department of State Bulletin, Dec. 6, 1954, pp. 871-873. Res. 378B (V), Nov. 17, 1950; General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, Supplement No. 20 (A/1775), p. 13. Jean Spiropoulos, Greek Representative in Committee VI. |