¹ Vol. 46 (1952), p. 483.

² General Assembly, 5th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 20 (A/1775), p. 76.

³ U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/4.

⁴ Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of Its Third Session, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858), pp. 14–15; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 132–135.

⁵ General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 295th meeting, pars. 48–57.

⁶ Ibid., 295th meeting, pars. 61 and 68, and 296th meeting, par. 52, respectively.

⁷ Ibid., 295th meeting, par. 60.

⁸ Ibid., 296th meeting, par. 5.

⁹ Ibid., 295th meeting, par. 62.

¹⁰ Ibid., 296th meeting, par. 12.

¹¹ Ibid., pars. 9–10.

¹² Ibid., pars. 26–29.

¹³ Ibid., pars. 25 and 30.

¹⁴ U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.218/Rev.1.

¹⁵ General Assembly, 6th Seas., Official Becords, 6th Committee, 296th meeting, pars. 76–82.

¹⁶ Ibid., 368th plenary meeting, pars. 188–189. As finally adopted, the resolution became resolution 600 (VI), ibid., Supp. No. 20 (A/2119), p. 85.

¹⁷ General Assembly, 5th Sess., Official Records, Annexes, agenda item 72, Doc. A/C.1/608/Rev.1.

¹⁸ Resolution 378 B, General Assembly, 5th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 20 (A/1775), p. 13.

¹⁹ Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of Its Third Session, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858), pp. 8–10; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 45 (1951), pp. 118–123.

²⁰ U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.208. The text of the Soviet draft resolution is reproduced in full as follows:

“The General Assembly,

“Considering it necessary to formulate directives for such international organs as may be called upon to determine which party is guilty of aggression,

“Declares:

“1. That in an international conflict that State shall be declared the attacker which first commits one of the following acts: (a) Declaration of war against another State; (b) Invasion by its armed forces, even without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State; (c) Bombardment by its land, sea or air forces of the territory of another State or the carrying out of a deliberate attack on the ships or aircraft of the latter; (d) The landing or leading of its land, sea or air forces inside the boundaries of another State without the permission of the Government of the latter, or the violation of the conditions of such permission, particularly as regards the length of their stay or the extent of the area in which they may stay; (e) Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State; (f) Support Of armed bands organized in its own territory which invade the territory of another State, or refusal, on being requested by the invaded State, to take in its own territory any action within its power to deny such bands any aid or protection.

“2. Attacks such as those referred to in paragraph 1 may not be justified by any arguments of a political, strategic or economic nature, or by the desire to exploit natural riches in the territory of the State attacked or to derive any other kind of advantages or privileges, or by reference to the amount of capital invested in the State attacked or to any other particular interests in its territory, or by the affirmation that the State attacked lacks the distinguishing marks of statehood:

“In particular, the following may not be used as justifications for attack:

“A. The internal position of any State; as, for example: (a) The backwardness of any nation politically, economically or culturally; (b) Alleged shortcomings of its administration; (c) Any danger which may threaten the life or property of aliens; (d) Any revolutionary or counter-revolutionary movement, civil war, disorders or strikes; (e) The establishment or maintenance in any State of any political, economic or social system;

“B. Any acts, legislation or orders of any State, as for example: (a) The violation of international treaties; (b) The violation of rights and interests in the sphere of trade, concessions or any other kind of economic activity acquired by another State or its citizens; (c) The rupture of diplomatic or economic relations; (d) Measures in connexion with an economic or financial boycott; (e) Repudiation of debts; (f) Prohibition or restriction of immigration or modification of the status of foreigners; (g) The violation of privileges granted to the official representatives of another State; (h) Refusal to allow the passage of armed forces proceeding to the territory of a third State; (i) Measures of a religious or anti-religious nature; (j) Frontier incidents.

“3. In the event of the mobilization or concentration by another State of considerable armed forces near its frontier, the State which is threatened by such action shall have the right of recourse to diplomatic or other means of securing a peaceful settlement of international disputes. It may also in the meantime adopt requisite measures of a military nature similar to those described above, without, however, crossing the frontier.”

²¹ General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Becords, 6th Committee, 278th meeting, pars. 28–42.

²² Ibid., 280th meeting, pars. 2–11.

²³ Ibid., 289th meeting, pars. 32—47. He concluded however that a definition ought not to be given at the present juncture because it was too dimcult and complex and because it was politically undesirable. Ibid., par. 47.

²⁴ Ibid., 289th meeting, pars. 49 and 53.

²⁵ Ibid., 285th meeting, par. 20.

²⁶ Among these were: Bolivia, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 283rd meeting, pars. 40–47; 284th meeting, pars. 1–7; Burma, ibid., 284th meeting, pars. 28–42; Byelorussia, ibid., 281st meeting, pars. 34–47; Chile, ibid., 281st meeting, pars. 22–33, also 282nd meeting, pars. 50–56; China, ibid., 278th meeting, pars. 43–51, also 285th meeting, pars. 35–45; Colombia, ibid., 281st meeting, pars. 48–54, also 282nd meeting, pars. 57–60; Cuba, ibid., 285th meeting, pars. 25–30; Czechoslovakia, ibid., 286th meeting, pars. 1–21; Dominican Republic, ibid., 283rd meeting, pars. 35–39; Ecuador, ibid., 290th meeting, pars. 20–34; Egypt, ibid., 291st meeting, pars. 1–20; Indonesia, ibid., 290th meeting, pars. 44–53; Iran, ibid., 290th meeting, pars. 35–43; Iraq, ibid., 289th meeting, pars. 1–8; Lebanon, ibid., 286th meeting, pars. 22–31; Peru, ibid., 289th meeting, pars. 9–21; Poland, ibid., 283rd meeting, pars. 1–24; Saudi Arabia, ibid., 290th meeting, pars. 10–19; Syria, ibid., 288th meeting, pars. 37–43; Ukraine, ibid., 290th meeting, pars. 1–9.

²⁷ Ibid., 279th meeting, pars. 1–9, in particular pars. 8 and 14; also 291st meeting, pars. 21–28 and 292nd meeting, pars. 1–16.

²⁸ Ibid., 279th meeting, pars. 3–11.

²⁹ Ibid., 279th meeting, par. 14.

³⁰ Ibid., 281st meeting, pars. 6–33, also 292nd meeting, pars. 27–53. He added that “no one had claimed that it was impossible to define aggression; what could be said was that it was impossible to reach a satisfactory definition which would not give rise to unforeseen results or place difficulties in the way of the defence of the victim of aggression.” Ibid., par. 49.

³¹ Ibid., 281st meeting, par. 12.

³² Ibid., 282nd meeting, pars. 4–23, in particular, par. 9.

³³ Ibid., 284th meeting, par. 43. The U. S. representative referred to the observations of a number of delegations who had said that the U. S. had in 1945, at the International Conference on Military Trials held in London, argued for the view which was now that of the Soviet Union. He said that that was true, but the state of international relations had now become such as to convince the U. S. that a definition of aggression had become not only undesirable but even dangerous (ibid., 286th meeting, par. 36). The Soviet representative stated that General Nikitchenko, at the London Conference of 1945, explained that in the opinion of the U.S.S.R. a definition of aggression should not be included in the statute of a tribunal whose sole duty was to punish war criminals in pursuance of existing definitions (ibid., 288th meeting, par. 32).

³⁴ Ibid., 284th meeting, pars. 8–26, in particular, par. 19.

³⁵ Ibid., 282nd meeting, pars. 40–45.

³⁶ Ibid., pars. 46–49.

³⁷ Ibid., 285th meeting, pars. 46–48.

³⁸ Ibid., 282nd meeting, pars. 1–3.

³⁹ Ibid., 287th meeting, pars. 1–48, in particular, par. 30.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 282nd meeting, pars. 24–39.

⁴¹ Ibid., 285th meeting, par. 5.

⁴² Ibid., 288th meeting, p. 15.

⁴³ Ibid., 281st meeting, par. 15.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 279th meeting, par. 8.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 281st meeting, par. 14.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 287th meeting, par. 33.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 279th meeting, par. 12.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 281st meeting, par. 16.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 286th meeting, par. 28.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 285th meeting, par. 30.

⁵¹ Ibid., 280th meeting, par. 5.

⁵² Ibid., 290th meeting, par. 22.

⁵³ For example, Burma, ibid., 284th meeting, par 42; Iran, ibid., 290th meeting, par. 42; Iraq, ibid., 289th meeting, par. 7; Norway, ibid., 295th meeting, par. 14; Syria, ibid., 288th meeting, par. 43.

⁵⁴ These questions are studied in a comprehensive report which the Secretary General of the United Nations will submit to the General Assembly at its seventh session in accordance with the resolution on this subject finally adopted by the General Assembly (Resolution 599 (VI)). General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 20 (A/2119), p. 84.

⁵⁵ U.N. Doc. A/C.6/L.206.