42

directly interrelated, part of a single unhealthy climate of feeling and opinion." To ignore that interrelation when fresh cases of repression of human liberties were brought to the attention of the United Nations would be to ignore the lessons of bitter experience and the very spirit of the Charter. The Assembly, representing as it did the conscience of mankind, manifestly had the duty to take action. Referring to his detailed discussion at the Assembly's session six months previously of the thesis that the question of violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the three countries was not within the competence of the General Assembly, Sir Carl Berendsen stated that, while the drafting of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter was admittedly defective in certain aspects, there could be no doubt that the clear intention of the Charter was that certain fundamental rights and freedoms transcended national boundaries and could therefore not be considered as " essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a State." Quite apart, therefore, from the explicit obligation contained in the treaties of peace, there was the additional and transcendent obligation enshrined in the Charter. The New Zealand delegation, while supporting any proposal that might be considered as desirable to ascertain in full and complete detail the facts of the case, maintained the position which had been stressed at the previous session—namely, that the Assembly had the full and clear right and duty to discuss the question, to inquire into it, to make recommendations upon it, and, if it were deemed necessary, to call upon the responsible Governments for redress or condemn them on the basis of available evidence. The New Zealand delegation therefore supported an Australian amendment to the joint draft resolution which would have the effect of establishing an ad hoc Committee to report to the fifth regular session of the General Assembly on the situation in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Roumania with respect to the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Soviet Union and its supporters, repeating the arguments which they had put forward at the previous session, strongly defended the case which had been advanced by Bulgaria, Hungary, and Roumania. The great majority of the Committee, however, agreed with the course of action proposed by the United States—namely, that various questions should be referred to the Internationa] Court of Justice. The Committee was therefore not prepared at that stage to accept the Australian proposal for the Fact Finding Committee as an additional safeguard should the joint resolution fail to achieve the desired result. When the Australian amendment was put to the vote it was rejected, only 5 countries (Argentina, Australia, the Lebanon, New Zealand, and Uruguay) voting in favour, there being 29 against and 22 abstentions. The joint draft resolution, with slight amendments, was then adopted by 41 votes (N.Z.) to 5 with 9 abstentions. The New Zealand delegation abstained in