It has been editorially stated in "Salient" that the United Nations was justified "since the aggressor was clear, although the resolution was illegal." But was it illegal? Let us examine the position.

The United Nations military intervention in Korea is based on three resolutions of the Security Council, taken in the absence of the USSR because of its objection to the Chinese representative. At an emergency meeting of the Security Council at 2 p.m. on June 25, under the Presidency of M. Gopala Menon, of India, the following resolution was adopted:

Resolution for Cessation

The Security Council,—

Recalling the finding of the General Assembly in its resolution of October 21, 1949, that the Government of the Republic of Korea is a lawfully established government "having effective control and jurisdiction over that part of Korea where the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea was able to observe and consult and in which the great majority of the people of Korea reside; and that this Government is based on elections which were, a valid expression of the free will of the electorate of that part of Korea and which were observed by the Temporary Commission: and that this is the only such Government in Korea."

Mindful of the concern expressed by the General Assembly in its resolution of December 12, 1948, and October 21, 1949, of the consequences which might follow unless Member states refrained from acts derogatory to the results sought to be achieved by the United Nations in bringing about the complete independence and unity of Korea; and the concern expressed that the situation described by the United Nations Commission on Korea in its report menaces the safety and well being of the Republic of Korea and might lead to open military conflict there:

Noting with grave concern the armed [unclear: attack] upon the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea.

Breach of the Peace

The Security Council met again on the afternoon of June 27 and adopted the following resolution:—

The Security Council,—

Having determined that the armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea constitute a breach of the peace,

Having called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, and

Having called upon the authorities of North Korea to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the thirty-eighth parallel, and

Having noted from the report of the United Nations Commission for Korea that the authorities in North Korea have neither ceased hostilities nor withdrawn their armed forces to the thirty-eighth parallel and that urgent military measures are required to restore international peace and security.

Having noted the appeal from the Republic of Korea to the United Nations for immediate and effective steps to secure peace and security.

Recommends that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the aimed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 7-1. Yugoslavia voted against, while Egypt and India did not take part, as they had not received instructions from their governments. One June 30 Egypt's representative, Mahmoud Fawzi Bey, reported that he would have abstained in the voting had he received instructions. Sir B. N. Rau of India, on the other hand, stated: "The halting of aggression and the quick restoration of peaceful conditions are essential preludes to a satisfactory settlement. The Government of India therefore accepts the second resolution of the Security Council."

Action for Peace

The Council did not have at its disposal the forces that it should have had under Article 43 for enforcement purposes. Therefore, as the military situation deteriorated it was decided to establish a unified command. The following resolution was adopted on July 7:—

The Security Council,—

Having determined that the armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea constitutes a breach of the peace,

The resolution was passed 7 to 0, with Egypt, India, and Yugoslavia abstaining. The U.S.S.R., meanwhile, claimed that the decisions taken by the Security Council in its absence were illegal. A statement made on July 4 by Mr. Andrei A. Gromyko, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, was, at the request of Mr. Yakov A. Malik, permanent representative of the USSR to the United Nations, circulated as an official document of the Security Council.

The Soviet Objects

Objections Disposed: I

The Russian allegations can be most comfortably disposed of one at a time. As Mr. Warren R. Austin, of the United States, Sir Gladwyn Jebb, of the United Kingdom, and M. Jean Chauvel, of France, pointed out to Mr. Malik as soon as he had returned to the Council to assume the presidency for August, China's representations is covered by Rule 17 of the rule of procedure.

This provides that a Council member to whose credentials objections are made in the Council shall continue to sit, with the same rights as other representatives, until the Council has decided the matter. The Council had not pronounced the credentials of the Chinese representative out of order, and his status [unclear: co] not be determined by "arbitrary flat."

Objections Disposed: II

Now, as Dr. Alberto I. Alvarez, of Cuba, pointed out to the Security Council very early in the game (July 7), "the Soviet Union had itself accepted the position on many occasions that the abstention of a permanent member docs not constitute a veto." The precedent was well established.

As early as August 1, 1947, when the 173rd meeting of the Security Council was dealing with the Indonesian question, the President of the Council was able to state: "It is now jurisprudence in the Security Council—and the interpretation accepted for a long time—that an abstention is not considered a veto, and the concurrent votes of the permanent members mean the votes of the permanent members who participate in the voting. Those who abstain intentionally are not considered to have cast a veto."

On that occasion, one paragraph of the first resolution was adopted by a vote of 7 members, including the concurring votes of only two permanent members, 3 permanent members abstaining; another paragraph was adopted by a vote of eight members, including the concurring votes of three permanent members, two permanent members abstaining. (Official Records of the Security Council, 2nd Year, No. 68 pp. 1700, 1703, 1711-12). As far as I can ascertain, the ruling was not challenged at the time.

No Vote—No Veto

The position is, therefore, that Russia neither voted nor vetoed, and furthermore, the unilateral declaration by the USSR that its voluntary abstention would make it impossible for the Security Council to take nonprocedural decisions having legal force has, in fact, no basis in the Charter.

D. J. Morrison-Wilpred.