*The assessments of the countries which became members of associate members of WHO in 1961 are shown in parentheses and are not included in the total. [Footnote in source text.]

**Associate Members of WHO.

K. Developments in International Law

THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE AND IMMUNITIES, VIENNA, MARCH 2APRIL 14, 1961: Report of the U.S. Delegation, Submitted July 13, 1961 1

INCREASE IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION FROM TWENTY-ONE TO TWENTY-FIVE: Resolution 1647 (XVI), Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, November 6, 1961 2

74. FUTURE WORK IN THE FIELD OF THE CODIFICATION AND PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: Resolution 1686 (XVI), Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, December 18, 1961 3

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1505 (XV) of 12 December 1960,*

Considering that the conditions prevailing in the world today give increased importance to the role of international law in relations among nations,

Emphasizing the important role of codification and progressive development of international law with a view to making international law a more effective means of furthering the purposes and principles set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, Mindful of its responsibilities under Article 13, paragraph 1 a, of the Charter to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification,

Having surveyed the present state of international law with particular regard to the preparation of a new list of topics for codification and progressive development of international law,

1. Expresses its appreciation to the International Law Commission for the valuable work it has already accomplished in the codification and progressive development of international law;

1United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, Vienna, Austria, March 2-April 14, 1961: Report of the Delegation of the United States of America, With Related Documents (Department of State publication 7289).

U.N. General Assembly Official Records, Sixteenth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/5100), p. 61. This resolution, sponsored by the Representatives of Cameroun, Colombia, India, Japan, Liberia, Nigeria, Sweden, and the United States, was adopted unanimously.

Ibid., p. 62. This resolution, sponsored by the representatives of 12 member states, was adopted unanimously.

4 Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 186-187.

2. Takes note of chapter III of the report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its thirteenth session; 5 3. Recommends the International Law Commission:

(a) To continue its work in the field of the law of treaties and of State responsibility and to include on its priority list the topic of succession of States and Governments;

(b) To consider at its fourteenth session its future programme of work, on the basis of sub-paragraph (a) above and in the light of the discussion in the Sixth Committee at the fifteenth and sixteenth sessions of the General Assembly and of the observations of Member States submitted pursuant to resolution 1505 (XV), and to report to the Assembly at its seventeenth session on the conclusions it has reached;

4. Decides to place on the provisional agenda of its seventeenth session the question entitled "Consideration of principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations".

'U.N. doc. A/4843.

Part III

WESTERN HEMISPHERE DEVELOPMENTS

A. The Inter-American System-the Organization of American States

75. "THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM... STANDS WITH CONSIDERABLE CREDIT TO ITS ACCOUNT AT THE CLOSE OF A YEAR THAT ONCE AGAIN PUT ITS CAPACITY AND EFFECTIVENESS TO THE TEST": Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary General of the OAS (Mora) on the Activities of the OAS for the Year 19611

The report that I herewith submit for consideration by the Council of the Organization of American States covers one short year in the life of an institution whose past stretches back several decades and whose future extends to the horizon of the Pan American ideal. That is, it deals with a conventional slice cut from a continuing reality in which the landmarks of progress do not necessarily coincide with calendar years. Thus, much of the work accomplished in 1961 is a continuation of previous programs, while much that has only just been started will bear its fruit in the future.

It therefore seems to me appropriate to preface the report itself with an introduction evaluating the work as a whole-a sort of balance sheet of successes and failures, which will reveal that the inter-American system, subject though it is to so many pressures and contingencies, stands with considerable credit to its account at the close of a year that once again put its capacity and effectiveness to the test.

In essence, the effectiveness and practical value of an organism are gauged by how well it carries out the purpose assigned to it. The function creates the organ, and it gradually, by adaptation, shapes mechanisms to meet the developing needs. Each new vital need involves the adaptation of the corresponding organ or instrument; and, as these necessities are countless and arise out of ever-changing circumstances, an increasing complexity of the mechanism characterizes all biological or institutional growth.

If this growth is not to be anarchic and uncontrollable, it must take place within a state of perfect equilibrium, and the required process of division and specialization may not contravene or exceed the implicit purpose but rather must fulfill it precisely.

In dealing with the inter-American system, we must see that this law of growth is faithfully obeyed, so as to ensure that the energy poured into diverse

1

Organization of American States: Annual Report of the Secretary General to the Council of the Organization, 1961 (OAS doc. OEA/Ser.D/III.13 (English)).

political, economic, social, and cultural activities will not overflow the banks of its channels or produce a fundamental, irreconcilable contradiction between what we intended to be and what we are.

Within the biological nature of its organic development, the structure of the inter-American system has inevitably been influenced by another characteristic of our time: the effect of technology on the lives of men and of human communities. Thus, what we might call horizontal growth, resulting from a diversification of activities, has been accompanied by a vertical type of evolution tending toward specialization and specification.

Relations with agencies and offices of this specific type must be governed by the principle of technical autonomy enunciated in the Charter of Bogotá,' and with this in view I have always sought to assure them all the freedom of action and initiative compatible with the established administrative order. Furthermore, experience has afforded me an opportunity to appreciate the increasing importance of technical activity and to recognize the urgency of need that has led to the collaboration of specialized officials and experts employed on contract in developing the numerous programs of the OAS.

But good administrative policy in the field of international organizations calls for a proper balance between the two eternally conflicting tendencies, the centralizing and the decentralizing. Overcentralization of institutions when they are in the developing stage weakens the initiative of the component parts and inhibits their freedom of action. Excessive decentralization may do harm, on the other hand, because it usually involves duplication of effort and tends to enfeeble the organization as a whole. Moreover, the multiplication of independent agencies not only raises costs by creating an inordinate bureaucracy but undermines the Organization's center of political power and is contrary to the structure established in the OAS Charter.

I believe that these two tendencies must be reconciled at the point where the benefits derived from decentralization are not nullified by the disadvantages it generates.

On this matter, as in everything concerning the Organization, we must determine our conduct by consulting the principles on which it is based.

The OAS is in fact a system-that is, its component parts, if properly integrated, contribute to a total purpose transcending that of each one individually. By itself, the specialized agency lacks the perspective necessary to encompass these ultimate objectives of the system to which it belongs, which in the case of the OAS are those stipulated in the Bogotá Charter.

Hence it is up to the General Secretariat-as the central, permanent organ of the OAS-to coordinate the many and varied activities promoted by interAmerican cooperation. Without impairing the fullest technical autonomy that the component agencies should enjoy, it must see to it that Article 97 of the Charter is respected, which provides that the specialized organizations shall take into account the recommendations of the OAS Council.

Our regional community has asserted time and again that juridical organization is a necessary condition for the security and peace of America, and that this peace is based on social justice and on protection of the rights and freedoms inherent in human dignity, through the effective exercise of representative democracy.

In conception and expression, the preamble of the OAS Charter is so emphatic that it leaves not the slightest doubt that "the true significance of American solidarity and good neighborliness can only mean the consolidation on this continent, within the framework of democratic institutions, of a system of individual liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man."

These interrelated concepts make up a political philosophy that is implicit in each and every provision of the inter-American treaties, agreements, resolutions, recommendations, and declarations—a fact that, in itself, stamps our Organization with an overwhelming significance and a unique and unmistakable style. The circumstance of a community of nations adhering to a particular political

'Text in A Decade of American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1941-1949, pp. 427-445.