Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-04-24
BY PHIL YEAGER AND
JOHN STARK

JOHN STARK
The United Nations charter is
about to get its first big going-over
since 1945-but this time without
the fanfare which proclaimed its
birth in San Francisco 10 years ago.
Most U. N. champions who dreamed
of the charter as the basis for q
great regime of world law have
either dropped out of sight or lost
the stars from their eyes.
Today, in the United States at
least, the pronounced tendency is
toward more realistic-almost de-
tached-considerat Of the prob
lens involved in revising the U. N.
charter.
The charter itself provides for a
review this year with an eye to
amendment. providing a majority of
the member nations want such
review conference. 1t is foregone
conclusion that this will be the case,
but nobody truly conversant with
the problems of the U. N. is expect
ing any miracles.
The concept of the U. N. charter as
legal instrument which could, or
should, be forged into a means of
supernatural legal power has pretty
we'll faded from view. No doubt the
political realists of any age could
have foreseen this. Montesquieu,
the great French philosopher whose
writings so influenced the forma-
ton of our own government, pointed
out that the successful laws of any
nation are so appropriate to the
people for whom they are made that
1t would be very exceptional if those
of one nation prove suitable for an
other" In the more immediate con-
text, Secretary of State Dulles re-
marked to congressional commit
tee not long ago that simultaneous
progress on global scale is pres
emily impeded by sharp cleavage
with reference to the nature of law
-. one-third of the worlds popula-
ton is ruled by those who look upon
human law as means whereby
those in power achieve their objec-
tives and destroy their enemies"
Less Thon Leeol
In any case the more practical,
earthly notion remainS-that the
U. N. charter, even though it is tech
nically law in the United States, must
be regarded less as legal entity than
as body of rules to govern a useful
system of international arbitration:
that this system will be as effective
as its individual subscribers want it
to be. and little more.
Why this attitude prevails today
will become clearer after a quick
look at some of the specific charter
difficulties.
. The Veto. AS everyone knows, the
veto power of the U. MS Security
Council big Five"-United States,
Great Britain, France, China (Na-
tionalist) and RuSSia-carries the
stigma of villain on the U. N. stage.
1t is blamed for most of the U. MS
shortcomings. Russia alone has
used it 81 times, about half of these
as blackballs to block admission of
new members. The other four ma
tons have used the veto spalfngly-
but each has used it, And the
chances are they would have used
1t more often had they found them
selves in minority position on the
council.
Several possibilities have been
suggested for amending the veto
power.
One is to abolish the veto and
substitute majority or plurality
vote. This might get around Soviet
negativiSm in theory, but it runs
into number of practical diff
culties. 1t is doubtful, for example,
# any of the big powers really wants
to get rid of the veto, In addition
for the United States it would
mean that Congress would have to
commit the United States in ad-
vance to take action on the basis of
decisions. made by other nations In
the council. Many treaties (of which
the u. N. charter is one) commit the
United States to advance action, SO
this would not itself appear illegal.
However. subsequent action required
by the Council might easily be of a
nature to conflict with our Consti-
tuition, or even later Federal stat
ute, and therefore be of no effect.
Another suggestion is to limit
matters to which the veto can
apply--specifically from such prob
lens as the admission of new nations
or the peaceful settlement of dis
putes. This. might be more workable.
o Charter Amendment. Note we'll
that this process itself is subject to
the veto. While no nation can halt
the review conference, any one of
the Big Five can veto any amend
ment proposed to the charter, even
though the required two thirds
ratifies the change.