§ 28. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose that the General Assembly 340 of the United Nations should request the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the question of whether the General Assembly is legally competent to call upon member States to take enforcement action, in view of the fact that, according to Article 11 of the Charter, the General Assembly must refer any such question to the Security Council, and that it is the latter, alone, which the Charter designates in Article 24 and Chapter VII as the body competent to take decisions on enforcement action.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydNo, Sir. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a reference of this matter to the International Court of Justice since it is common knowledge that resolutions of the General Assembly in whatever terms they may be framed have no mandatory or obligatory force.
I agree that the Security Council is the body competent under the Charter to take decisions on enforcement action.
§ Mr. ZilliacusIn view of that Answer, will not the Foreign Secretary make it clear at the General Assembly that that body has not the right under the Charter in any circumstances to recommend enforcement action? This is a very important issue which may upset the whole balance of the Charter.
§ Mr. LloydI find myself, somewhat unusually, in agreement with the hon. Member. I think that the Assembly has gone wrong in this matter. To he quite fair, I think that part of the reason it went wrong was because of some of the "Uniting for Peace" procedure—invented, I think, in 1950.
§ Mr. YoungerWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify his Answer a little? Does he not agree that although primary responsibility for these matters, of course, rests with the Security Council, there are certain circumstances in which the Assembly has obligations in respect of calling on its members, not necessarily in a mandatory way, to do something about an act of aggression? Is he now seeking to go back on that principle, which has been adopted by all our friends and allies and ourselves, at least since 1950?
§ Mr. LloydI think that the Assembly can make recommendations, but I 341 certainly do not think many people would have been prepared to sign the original Charter had they thought that the General Assembly was to be a body charged with carrying out mandatory or obligatory functions.
§ Dame Florence HorsbrughDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in discussions about the Charter at San Francisco the very reason advanced for setting up the Security Council was that it was felt that the decisions of the Assembly should not be mandatory? Will he make that clear?
§ Mr. LloydI hope that the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh) will have done that. I certainly agree with her.