asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if it is obligatory for members of the United Nations to register with it all treaties and agreements between them; if so, the purpose of registration; whether such registration gives any function to the United Nations to initiate discussions on such treaties or agreements or to give interpretations of any section of them that may, at any future date, be a subject of dispute between the contracting members.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Treaties and Agreements.
5.
Article 102 of the United Nations Charter provides that every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any member of the United Nations shall be registered with the secretariat and published by it. I understand that the purpose of the provision, which is based on a similar provision in the Covenant of the League of Nations, was to prevent secret treaties which were thought to have been an important contributory cause of the first world war. Unless registered a treaty or agreement may not be invoked before any organ of the United Nations. Registration does not of itself give any function to the United Nations to discuss such treaties or agreements or to adjudicate on their interpretation in the event of a dispute between the parties.
If that is the case, can the Minister state why it was necessary to write a specific indication into the Sunningdale communiqué that it would be registered when he tells us now that there was such a provision under the United Nations?
That is a separate question.
If an international agreement has to be registered under the UN regulations why was it specifically written in?
The Deputy's question relates to the United Nations.
Is it a fair interpretation of the Minister's answer that the fact of registration adds nothing to the agreement on its face?
Perhaps the Deputy did not follow my reply. I said that unless registered a treaty or agreement may not be invoked before any organ of the United Nations. Registration does not of itself give any function to the United Nations to discuss such treaties or agreements or to adjudicate on their interpretation. There is an effect in that it enables parties to invoke them, whereas a treaty could not be invoked for the United Nations otherwise.
Does the invoking of such an agreement give the United Nations some rights of interpretation of its contents?
The question of what it meant could arise in the debate. For example, the Security Council could take account of the agreement and make a recommendation on a dispute. Obviously in making a recommendation on a dispute and in taking account of an agreement it would have to make its interpretation of the agreement.
Is it not a fact that once such an agreement is registered with the United Nations the International Court of Justice at The Hague has a function in interpreting it?
Such an agreement could be referred to the International Court of Justice but only with the consent of both parties.
With such consent of the two parties to the agreement, could the International Court of Justice interpret it?
It could if both parties wished.
6.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations can use the veto to prevent discussion at the United Nations of any matter arising from treaties or agreements between them and other members of the United Nations.
Permanent members of the Security Council cannot use the veto to prevent discussion of any matter.
The relevant rule is contained in Article 27.2 of the charter which provides that decisions of the Council on procedural matters shall be made by the affirmative vote of nine Members. The unanimous affirmative vote of the permanent members is not required for such decisions.