The question of certain expenses of the United Nations (Article 17 paragraph 2)

Extraits

[...] The Court gives a “limited scope” to the competence's questions, indeed, is of no legal significance whether, as a matter of book-keeping or accounting, the General Assembly chooses to have the item in question included under one of the standard established sections of the “regular” budget or whether it is separately listed in some special account or fund. The significant fact is that the item is an expense of the organization” (ibid. p.168). One can assert that the consideration of the purposes prevails on the organ that has authorized the expenses or on the budgetary procedure applied. The consideration of the purposes of an institution is not new in the jurisprudence of the Court: the advisory opinion of 28 V 1951 about the Reservations to the Genocide Convention had given a large place to the notion. [...]

[...] The Court does not make any “distinction” between administrative budget and regular one, consequently, no particular distribution of apportioned amounts of the expenses can be done between States: they must participate to all expenses. The Court reminds that if the World Court can “restitute” words or “administrative”) to a text that it had to interpret, it cannot words. If the intention of the drafters had been to limit the para.1, the word “administrative” would have been inserted. One has to observe the importance given to the “practice of the Organization”, which is entirely consistent with the plain meaning of the text. [...]

[...] The Court notices that the resolution clearly adopted with a view to maintaining international peace and security”(ibid. p.175). By declaring that nor UNEF nor ONUC constitute coercive actions, that none of them cannot imply reference to the chapter VII of the UN Charter, by affirming that article 11 was not applicable to the UNEF, and articles 43 and 48 not applicable to ONUC, the Court takes the opposite view of all States´ arguments. Conclusion Consequently, the Court arrives at the conclusion that the question submitted to it in General Assembly resolution 1731 (XVI) must be answered in the affirmative way. [...]

[...] The Court concludes that there is no justification for reading into the text of Article 17, para.1, any limiting or qualifying word before the word (ibid. p.161). Article 17 in the light of the general structure of the Charter The Court, for defining the expenses of the article 17 and replying to the arguments of States, studies other parts of the Charter. Firstly, about the respective powers of the General Assembly and Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, the Court refers to articles and 24 of the Charter. [...]

[...] The exercise of the Court's advisory jurisdiction derives from Article 96 of the Charter and from Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The opinion is in correlation with the financial difficulties of the United Nations (hereinafter referred to as UN) arises by the high cost of the Middle East and Congo interventions and by the failure of certain member countries to pay their dues. The advisory opinion called the World Court to pronounce itself on the question “whether certain expenditures which were authorized by the General Assembly to cover the costs of the United Nations operations in the Congo (hereinafter referred to as ONUC) and of the operations of the UN Emergency Force in the Middle East (hereinafter referred to as UNEF) constitute expenses of the organization within the meaning of article 17 para.2 of the United Charter.” States do not to contribute if the expenses for both operations are not “expenses of the organization”. [...]