Evening star., 1946-04-17
A Matter of Precedent

n Mottef or ffeCe0ent
In suggesting that the United Ma
tions Security Council may no longer
have any legal right to retain the
Iranian case on its agenda, Secretary
General Lie has raised question of
first Importance. The Council up
to now, being virtually newborn,
has been operating largely without
precedents or fixed rules of proce-
dure, but the point raised by Mr.. Lie
has obliged it to call upon it's COM
mittee of experts for immediate ad-
vice to help it determine a course of
action that will bear significantly
and permanently on its future.
At first glance the issue may seem
to involve little more than legal
hairsplitting, with the major parties
to the debate engaging merely in
petty face-saving maneuverS. Actu-
ally, however, there is much more to
it than that. If the Soviet demand
to drop the case were based simply
on the argument that the Iranians
want to drop it, too, and that no con-
troversy really existed, the Council
might be able to concur readily
enough. But the whole question and
the arguments revolving around it
have been carried far beyond that
to raise points which, if not unten-
able in themselves, affect matter of
fundamental policy and precedent in
the United Nations.
Thus, Mr. Gromyko, the Russian
delegate, would have the Council re-
move the Iranian case from its
agenda on the following grounds:
Cd That it took illegal and incor-
rect" action on April 4 when it voted
overwhelmingly to shelve the subject
until May 6, by which time the Red
Army is scheduled to be completely
withdrawn from Iran; (2) that this
was illegal and incorrect" because
it was taken when Russia was absent
from the Council-that is, during
Mr.. Gromyko's boycott; and 60 that
If it fails to drop the question now,
the Council, besides ignoring the So
Wet request, will be denying the free
wish Of Iran as well and will thus be
impinging on the sovereignty of a
small power. In other words, Mr.
Gromyko would have the Council
make kind Of retroactive confess
sion that it was wrong from the start
and that Russia was right. More
than that-and this is Of key signifi-
cance-he would Willingly or unwit-
tingly have the Council historically
committed to the idea that 1t could
not in any circumstance consider
any complaint once that complaint
was withdrawn.
Obviously this is asking for much
too much. Certainly If the Council
acceded to the Russian-Iranian re-
quest on the basis OF such reasons
it would be saying in effect (D that
it had no right to take up cases like
Trans; (2) that in the future any
permanent member, like Russia in
this instance, could block considera-
ton of any small powers appeal by
the simple device of absenting itself
from the Council; and (3) that un-
der no circumstances could it retain
jurisdiction over any dispute against
the wishes of compliments who
change their minds.
AS far as Iran and Russia are con-
cerned, Secretary General Lies view
may be right, and the Councils COM
nittee of experts may confirm it.
But if the Council then drops the
question from its agenda, it should
make abundantly clear, by formal
resolution or other means, that it
admits of no error in its decision
to take Jurisdiction Of the case,
despite Mr.. Gromyko's boycott. The
question of what should be done in
the light of Trans request is another
matter. In the first place, If the
case should be dropped now, the
Council could reassert jurisdiction
at any time. Secondly, unless Iran
has been coerced into seeking dis
missal of the case, it is difficult to
see wherein the Council would set
an undesirable precedent by acced-
ing to the request. These presum-
ably are some of the considerations
that will influence the final decision.