ORGANIZATION WORLD H E A L T H ORGANISATION MONDIALE SIXTH WORLD HEALTH АSSEMBLY ENGLISH COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION, FINANCE AND LEGAL МАТTERS - PDF

Description
UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES WORLD H E A L T H ORGANIZATION SIXTH WORLD HEALTH АSSEMBLY ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTÉ i16/kfl/min/1z 19 May 1953 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION, FINANCE

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Taxes & Accounting

Publish on:

Views: 18 | Pages: 15

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES WORLD H E A L T H ORGANIZATION SIXTH WORLD HEALTH АSSEMBLY ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTÉ i16/kfl/min/1z 19 May 1953 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION, FINANCE AND LEGAL МАТTERS PROVISIONAL мinuгеѕ OF' TSE TWELFTH MEETING Palais des Nations, Geneva Tuesday, 19 May 1953, at 3 p.m. CHйIRM1,N: Mr. Т.L. BRADY (Ireland) CONгENPS 1. Report of the Executive Board on study concerning rules and criteria for assignment to regions : application of these criteria to specific territories Notes Corrections to these provisional minutes should be submitted to Mr. Richards, Room A.571, within 48 hours of their distribution or as soon as possible thereafter. Аб/АFL/мin/12 page 2 1. REPORT OF '''RE EXECUTIVE BOARD ON STUDY CONCERNING RULES AnD CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNMENT TO REGIONS - APPLICATION OF ТНЕзЕ CRITERIA TO SPECIFIC TERRITORIES: Item of the Agenda (continued). (Official Reoords No. +2, resolution X5.43, No. 43, resolution EB10.R7, No. 46, resolution EВ11.R51 and Annex 14; Documents A6/15 and Add.l, A6/55, А6 /AFL /2)+) Application of the Criteria to Specific Territories Ссonti.nuation) The CHAIRMAN suggested that it would help the committee to reach a more speedy decision on the item before it if it were to consider the problem on the basis of a general resolution rather than of specific requests concerning specific territories. Two resolutions were before the conmiittee, a proposal by the delegate of Spain (document A6 /AFL /24),and a proposal by the delegate of France which read as follows: The Sixth World Health Asse'nbly, Considering resolution on the establishment of rules and criteria for assigйiюnt to regions, DECIDES that, without prejudice to any questions regarding sovereignty, the countries or territories listed in document А6/33 shall be assigned, or confirmed as being assigned, to the regions indicated therein. le understood that the delegate of Iran might'be prepared to reconsider his attitude on the proposal he had made at the previous meeting and consider those two resolutions instead, and that the delegate of Egypt might be prepared to do likewise. Dr. MALEКI (Iran) thought it would be unwise to take a hasty decision which might damage the integrity of WHO and create a precedent contrary to the Organization's objectives. -His Government, on receipt of the circular letter from the Directох- General, had lodged its protest with the United Nations, and he could only repeat А6 /AFL /Мin /12 page 3 that any unconstitutional decision taken by the present Health Assembly might be detrimental to the interests of his country. He was not authorized by his Government to approve any proposal other than the removal of the name of Bahrein from the list in document Аб /33. Mr. MAHMOUD (Egypt) said that reference had been made at the previous meeting to a request to add the Sudan to the list contained in document Аб /33. Since, however, the Sudan had been a member of the Regional Committee for the Eastern Mediterranean since 1948, the question did not arise. Dr. HURTADO (Cuba) said that the political nature of the discussion at the previous meeting could not be denied. The voting on the Argentine draft resolution, which had taken place in somewhat confused circumstances, had revealed a division of the committee into two small opposing political groups and a large majority who abstained from voting; a vote on the Iranian resolution would probably have shown a similar situation. It was an unfortunate state of affairs with inherent difficulties for the Organization. The delegates of Argentina and Iran had clearly acted on specific instructions from their Governments, and in his view it would have been wiser if a vote had been taken on the draft resolution of the delegate of Spain and the objections of the delegates of Iran and Argentina had been recorded in the minutes. He formally proposed that the committee should support the Spanish proposal, and should in addition declare non- existent the debate and vote which had taken place that morning - a debate which ought never to have occurred in the committee of a technical body. A61AFъ /Min /12 Page 4 The CHAIRMAN reminded thé сommittée of its decision that morning to limit. speeches made by delegates to a period of five minutes. The delegate of Cuba had put forward a motion which would mean reopening the discussion at the morning's meeting. Under Rule 62 of the Rules of Procedure of the Héalth Assembly, two delegates could speak against the motion..и,, GEERAERTS (Belgium) wished to register a protest against the aссusatign that the vote taken that morning had been a political one. His delegation had certainly not voted for political reasons. Mr. Wynne MASQN (New Zealand had understood that the item was still open for discussion, and that the delegate of Cuba had merely asked for the record of the morning's discussion to be expunged from the minutes. D`r.'AУRTAD4 (Cuba) explained that he was not proposing the reopening of the discussion, but that the discussion and the vote on the Argentine proposai which had takén'place at the previous, meeting should be deleted from the records; and;a vote taken instead on the Spanish proposal. The CHAIRMAN understood the delegate of Cuba to make two proposals: (1) to rescind the.decision taken that morning on the Argentine proposal; this would require a two'-thirds majority. (2) to delete the record of the discussion of the Argentine proposal. If the committee decided by a two- thirds majority, to. reopen discussion on the item, it could then decide by a simple majority to delete the records in question. Аб/AFL/Min/12 page 5 Mr. Wynne MASON (New Zealand) insisted that the, committee could not alter document А6 /33, which listed the names of the territories on whose behalf the Director- General had received requests for assignment. A decision by the committee to remove any name from document A6, /33 could only be taken as a reflexion ón the accuracy of the document. Decision: The proposal_ to reopen the debate concerning the Falkland Islands was rejected by 16 votes to 12 with 20 abstentions. The СHAIRМAN invited consideration of the resolutions submitted by the delegates of Spain (document A6 /AFL /24) and of France (see above). Dr.'AUJALEU (France) said that although his delegation's resolution did not differ greatly from that of the Spanish delegation, it had, nevertheless, been thought advisable to submit a separate resolution. The resolution adopted at the previous meeting of the committee specified a certain duration for the temporary assignment of countries or territories as yet unassigned, in order to give the United Nations and its specialized agencies sufficient time to report the results of their study. There remained, therefоr'é, on rthе question of the regions to which those countries were to be assigned. Rather than launch into a discussion affecting the sovereignty of individual territories and outside the competence of the committee, his delegation thought it preferable to follow the list given in document A6 /эз. Dr. SULIANTI (Indonesia) proposed combining the resolutions submitted by the delegates of France and Spain and suggested the following draft: А6 /AFL /мin /12 page 6 The Sixth World Health Assembly, Considering the resolution adopted concerning rules and criteria relating to the assignment of regions, 1. DECIDES to assign provisionally the various territories as listed in document A6/33, without prejudice to any questions regardiцg sovereignt7 2. REQUESTS the Director- General to eхamineаny objections which might be raised before proposing the definitive assignment of these territories for the approval of the Assembly. Professor FERREIRA (Brazil) supported the Indonesian proposal. Mr. de ERICE y O'SHEA (Spain) accepted the draft proposed by the delégate of Indonesia. He then proposed that the debate be closed and a vote taken. Dr. AUJALEU (France) had certain objections to the combined resolution. First, he did not approve of the omission of the phrase confirmed аs`being assigned , which figured in the French draft resolution.- Secondly, paragraph 2 of the Spanish delegation's resolution (which became paragraph 2 of the Indonesian proposal) seemed to be in conflict with the decision adopted at the previous meeting to the effect that final assignment could not be made until the results of the study on the criteria for assignment being made by the United Nations and its specialized agencies were known. The CHAIRMAN concluded that there were now three proposals before the committee: the French proposal, the combined proposal drafted by the delegate of Indonesia, and the Spanish motion for closure. Two speakers might speak against the Spanish proposal. A6 /AFL /Min /1г page 7 Professor FERREIRA (Brazil) thought that a little time should be allowed in order to give the sponsors of the combined draft resolution the opportunity to meet the objections of the dele gate of France' fir. GEERAERTS (Belgium) supported the delegate of Brazil. It seemed to him that the problem might be solved by adding the following words to the proposal submitted by the French delegation: subject to modifications which might in the future justify other provisions . Mr. CA.LDERW00D (United States of America), referring to Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure, proposed a short adjournment. Decision: It was agreed to adjourn the meeting for five minutes. On resumption of the meeting, the CHAIRMAN said that in accordance with Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure, he should take the sense of the meeting on the, motion for closure, two delegates having spoken against it. Should the motion for closure be accepted by the committee, the Chairman would not be in a position to consider any new proposal. He understood, however, that an agreed resolution was being put forward by the sponsors of the two resolutions originally before the committee and in order to allow of its consideration, one of the following alternatives might be agreed upon. A vote might be taken on the motion for closure which the committee could reject or - although there was no specific provision to that effect in the Rules of Procedure - the delegate who proposed the motion for closure might withdraw it with the approval of the committee. л6/лfl/hлin/12 page g lair. de ERICE Ÿ O'SHEk (Spain) asked leave to withdraw his delegation's. motion for closure of the debate in view of the efforts for conciliation made by the delegate of Indonesia, and expressed its full support for the Indonesiá,compromise draft. resolution which read: The Sixth World Health Assembly, Considering resolution on the establishment of rules and criteria for assignment to regions, 1. DDCIDВS that, without prejudice to any questions regarding sovereignty, the countries or territories listed in document Aб /33 shall be provisionally assigned, or confirmed as being assigned, to the regions indicated therein, 2. REQUESTS the Director -General to examine, after receiving these studies, any objections which might be raised before proposing the definitive assignment of these territories for the approval of the Assembly.... The committee assented to 'the withdrawal of the motion for closure o the debate. Dr. AUJAIEU (France) supported the compromise resolution read by the delegate of Spain and drew attention to the fact that, generally speaking, it consisted of the first and second paragraphs of the original French resolution, with the addition of the word provisionally in the second paragraph before the word assigned and the second paragraph before the word assignedt' and the second paragraph of the original Spanish draft resolution with the addition of the words after receiving the results of these studies after the word examine . Dr. SEGURA (Argentina) asked to which.health.assembly it was proposed to submit the suggested definitive assignment of the territories in question for approval. Dr. AUJALEU (France) explained that the preamble of the compromise resolutrx31 Аб /AFL /Yin /12 page 9 referred to the resolution adopted by the committee at the previous meeting relating to a study of the criteria for assignment to be undertaken by the United Nations and the other specialized agencies. When the Director -General had received the results of those studies he would examine any objections that might be raised to the provisional assignment. Mr.?.JYNNE МASON (New Zealand) suggested that the words after receiving the results of these studies should be amended to read after receiving the result of any studies undertaken . Mr. de ERICE y O'SHEА (Spain) said his delegation would accept whatever the delegate of Indonesia decided regarding the proposed amendment. Dr. SULI'NTI (Indonesia), in connexion with the amendment proposed by the delegate of New Zealand, explained that paragraph 2 of the Spanish draft resolution did not state that any assignment made would have to await the studies by the United Nations and other specialized agencies. It had been decided that a provisional assignment should be made by the present Health Assembly in order to avoid lengthy discussions, but any objections to that provisional assignment should be submitted to a future Assembly after examination by the Director- General. The CHtiIВмА N said a small drafting change had been suggested to him in the amendment proposed by the delegate of New Zealand. Instead of after receiving the result of any studies undertaken the amendment might read after receiving the results of the studies referred to . Those studies were the studies referred to in the resolution on the establishment of rules and criteria for assignment to regions adopted at the preceding meeting. A6 /AFL/Лdin /12 page 10 Dr. SULIP'NTI (Indonesia) had not understood that the words after the results of the studies referred to had been retained in the compromise resolution. Dr. АцJALEU (France) felt obliged to ask formally for 'thе maintenance of the wards in question, The CHAIRМЙN said that the vommittee was faced with the position that there was no longer an agreed resolution before it. In order to facilitate'discussion, he suggested that it should consider the draft resolution presented by the delegates of Indonesia and Spain as the original resolution. The words after receiving the results of the studies referred to could be regarded as an amendment presented by the delegation of France. Dr. АUJbIEU (France) asked that the resolution be put to the vote paragraph by paragraph. Sir ERIC PRIDIE (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) said his delegation would be unable to vote for the resolution because paragraph 2. invested the Director -General with responsibilities that did not fall within the functions of his office. He proposed that the words were confirmed as being assigned in paragraph 1. be deleted. Мr. de ERICE t O'SHEA (Spain) expressed surprise at the French proposal that the joint draft resolution be voted on paragraph by paragraph since the draft resolution would then be divided into the two original resolutions and could no longer be regarded as a joint proposal. The two parts of the draft resolution were closely Аб/aFL/Min/12 page 11 linked and should be voted on together. If, however, it were decided to take a separate vote on each paragraph, it would be preferable to revert to the original French and Spanish proposals. The CHАIRмAN drew attention to Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure providing that parts of a proposal should be voted on separately if any delegate, or representative of an Associate Member so requested. Dr. AUJALEU (France) said the French delegation 3onsidered that there was no compromise resolution before the committee since one of the parties to the compromise had rejected certain words contained therein, If, however, the French amendment to paragraph 2. were accepted, his delegation would immediately withdraw its request for a vote paragraph by paragraph. Dr. JAFAR (Pakistan) considered the words were confirmed as being assigned ambiguous and therefore supported the proposal of the delegate of the United Kingdom to delete them. Mr. Z'RВ (Chief, Legal Office) drew attention to an error in the French translation of paragraph 2. - études entreprises should read études envisagées . Dr. SULIANTI (Indonesia) said there appeared to have been some misunderstanding since her delegation had emphasized during the adjournment its disagreement with the insertion of the words after receiving the results of the studies referred to . If the delegate of France did not agree to a vote being taken on the resolution as a whole, her delegation would support the request of the delegate of Spain for two separate votes. A6 /AFL/ yin /12 page 12 lir. de ERICE y O'SHEA (Spain) said that the delegations of Indonesia and Spain being in agreement to withdraw the joint draft resolution, the original Spanish and French proposals remained before the committee. Cdr. CALDEFWOOD (United States of America) moved the re- introduction of the joint draft resolution under Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure. He was prepared to accept the amendments proposed at an earlier stage by the delegates of the United Kingdom and France. the CHA.IRМAN said that according to his reading of Rule 61, the resolution re- introduced was the text as earlier presented jointly by the delegates of Indonesia and Spain. Dr. JAFAR (Pakistan) proposed that the words or confirmed as being assigned be deleted from the third line of the first paragraph of the resolution. Dr. AUJALEU (France) proposed the insertion of the words after receiving the results of the studies referred to after the word examine in the first line of the second paragraph of the resolution. Mr. CALDERWOOD (United States of America) said that he would accept both amend- ments to the draft resolution he had reintroduced. мr. IAHIOUD (Egypt) proposed the deletion from the second paragraph of the words before proposing the definitive assignment of these territories for the approval of the Assembly and their substitution by the words and report on this matter to the Assembly . A6/AFLч'Лdin/Э:2 Page 13 Sir Eric PRIDIE (United Kingdom) proposed that the resolution be voted on paragraph by paragraph. ir. de ERICE y O'SHEA (Spain) supported the United States draft resolution, which was the one originally proposed by his own delegation. With reference to Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure, he considered that; although the draft resolution contained two paragraphs, it could not be divided into two parts. He suggested that the committee should be consulted on whether it wished to vote on the resolution as a whole or on the two paragraphs separately. The CHAIR;J'AN stated that Rule 58 permitted separate voting at the request of a delegate. In the absence of objection he declared the debate closed, and said that the committee was to proceed to vote on the draft resolution reintroduced by the delegate of the United States of America with the amendments to it which he had accepted. Sir Arcot MUDALIAR (India) objected that although the proposed amendments had been accepted by the United States delegate, they had not been accepted by the whole committee. He submitted that the amendments should first be voted on before the resolution. as a whole was put to the vote. The CHAIRMAN said that although the established practice of the committee had been to accept, without voting, amendments accepted by the proposer of a motion,, the committee might, since the question had been raised and as Rule 59 did not give clear guidance in such a case, if it so desired vote separately on the amendments already accepted by the delegate of the United States. Dr. аб/аег,/rin/12 page 14 Cdr. ZARB said that the legal position was that the originator of a proposal was master of it. If, when he was present
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks