Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-21T10:45:33.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Authoritativeness of the English and French Texts of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) on the Situation in the Middle East

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Toribio De Valdés
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article in this Journal by Dr. Shihata, it is implied that the English text of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) of November 22,1967 on the situation in the Middle East should, for purposes of interpretation, enjoy some measure of precedence over the French version. This view appears to be based on the fact that English was the original language of the draft resolution which without change became Security Council Resolution 242 (1967). The underlying issue is now famous. The English and French versions of this resolution are considered to conflict in that the latter provides, literally, for withdrawal of Israeli forces from all occupied territories, whereas partial withdrawal would appear to satisfy the requirements of the former.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , April 1977 , pp. 311 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Organization.

1 Shihata, , Destination Embargo of Arab Oil: Its Legality under International Law, 68 AJIL 591, 604, n. 70 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 22 SCOR, Res. & Dec. 8 (1967), 62 AJIL 482 (1968).

3 At the time of the adoption of Resolution 242 (1967), English and French were the only working languages of the Security Council. Rule 41 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of then read: “Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be the official languages of the Security Council, and English and French the working languages.” This rule now reads: “Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be both the official and the working languages of the Security Council.”

4 UN Doc. S/8247, November 16, 1967.

5 Paragraph 1(i) of the English text speaks of “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” The French version of this phrase is “Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit.”

6 The text of a resolution of a UN organ in one of the working languages (designated hereinafter, for ease of reference, as the “most felicitous” language) may, in certain respects, be closer to the intent of the organ, as revealed by the records, than the texts in the other working languages. (For an example of this, compare the English and French texts of General Assembly Resolution 904(IX) in the light of the observations made thereon by the International Court of Justice in the South West Africa Voting Procedure case [1955] ICJ Rep. 67 at 72). This does not mean, however, that those texts are not equally authentic with the “most felicitous” language version.. The reason why the interpretation conforming more closely to the “most felicitous” language version commends itself is not that the organ meant the “most felicitous” language version to prevail over the other language versions but rather that the travaux préparatoires support that interpretation, which would, therefore, be the correct one even if the “most felicitous” language were not one of the working languages of the organ. (The situation contemplated is not one where the “most felicitous” language version is altogether irreconcilable with the other language versions.) Accordingly, this note does not attempt to ascertain whether either of the two working language versions of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) is “more felicitous” with respect to whether withdrawal in conformity with operative paragraph 1(i) of the resolution is to be total or not. (It is submitted that such an attempt would prove fruitless, for an objective examination of the records does not reveal the intention of the Security Council in this respect.)

7 Cf. rules 51–57 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, rules 32–35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Economic and Social Council, and rules 41–47 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council. (Contained in UN Docs. A/520/Rev.12 (74.I.6), E/5715 (75.1.15), and S/96/Rev.6 (74.1.5).)

8 In the practice of the organs in question, individual instances of formal action by them are designated as either “resolutions” or “decisions.” The choice between one or the other of these terms depends, generally, on the nature of the action. Thus, as a rule, the former term is employed when the action is substantive, the latter when it is procedural. But the distinction is not relevant to this note, in which the term “decision” applies to any type of formal action.

9 One other proposition that could be inferred is to the effect that every statement must be interpreted into the working languages. It is, however, unnecessary to do so because a provision to that effect is contained in specific rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Economic and Social Council. (Cf. rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, rule 42 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council, and rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Economic and Social Council.)

10 In this regard, representatives on UN organs fall into two categories: (1) representatives of states whose official languages are among the working languages of the organ concerned, and (2) representatives of states whose official languages are not among those languages. A representative in the former category will normally work in the language of the state he represents or, in the case of Canada and a few other UN members, in either of the two languages. Those in the second category will normally use the working language of the organ concerned that they know best. It may also occur that they work in more than one of the working languages; the representative of, say, Italy, might, for instance, use English to make statements previously prepared by other officials of his Government, his knowledge of English being sufficient for this purpose, but use French to make unprepared statements because he is more proficient in this language than in English.

11 For an attempt to grade working languages on the basis of the number of representatives using (or presumably using) them, see Rosenne, S., On Multilingual Interpretation, in 2 The Arab–Israeli Conflict 909 (Moore, J. N., ed. 1974)Google Scholar.

12 If any amendments to the draft report that have been submitted in working languages other than the original language have been adopted, the final report indicates, as original languages, that of the draft report and, additionally, those in which the amendments were originally made. An example of this practice is provided by the Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, to the thirtieth session of the latter. 30 GAOR, Supp. (26), UN Doc. A/10026 (1975). This document is marked (on page iii) “Original: English– French,” although the corresponding draft report (UN Doc. A/AC.154/L.61 and Add. 1–3) is marked “Original: English.” The reason for this is that during the consideration of the draft report amendments thereto by the representative of France were adopted by the Committee.

13 Thus, the report of the Committee mentioned in the preceding footnote to the twenty–ninth session of the General Assembly is marked, on page iii, “Original: English.”

29 GAOR, Supp. (26), UN Doc. A/9626 (1974).

14 1(1) GAOR, Annex 22, UN Doc. A/43/Rev. 1 (1946).

15 1 UNTS 15.

16 In fact, immediately following the adoption of Resolution 242 (1967), the representative of France stated that the French text of the resolution was “equally authentic with” the English one, and this statement does not conflict with anything said by other representatives. 22 SCOR (1382d mtg.) para. 111 (1967).