Membership: UN Charter

Introduction
Chapter II of the Charter deals with Membership. The Charter has classified the members into two
categories: 'Original Members' and the ‘Subsequent Members'.

According to Article 3 of the Charter Original Members are the States which participated in the San
Fransisco Conference or signed the United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942 and signed and ratified
the Charter in accordance with Article 110.

Fifty States participated in the San Francisco Conference, either from the beginning or following
admission by vote of the Conference.

Poland, a signatory to the United Nations Declaration did not participate in the San Francisco Conference
because at that time it did not have a government recognized by all the sponsoring powers. However, a
space was left in the Charter for the signature which its representative affixed on October 15, 1945. Thus
these fifty-one States became the Original Members.

Admission
According to Article 4 of the Charter subsequent members are those States which are admitted to
Membership by a decision of the General Assembly adopted on the recommendation of the Security
Council. Wordings of Article 4 give an impression that a member is admitted in the United Nations by the
decision of the General Assembly simply on the recommendation of the Security Council, i.e., irrespective
of favourable or unfavourable recommendation. But it is not so. General Assembly may admit a member
only when the Security Council makes a favourable recommendation. In 1949, the General Assembly
resolved to ask the International Court of Justice on the question. Can the admission of a State to
Membership in the United Nations, pursuant to Article 4, Paragraph 2, of the Charter, be effected by a
decision of the General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for the
admission or of the negative vote of a permanent member upon the resolution. The Court in its advisory
opinion on the Competence of the General Assembly Regarding Admission of a State to the United
Nations' was of the opinion that the General Assembly may decide on the admission of new members only
on a positive recommendation of the Security Council. Thus a State may be admitted in the United
Nations on two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, but it must be preceded by the affirmative vote
of nine members of the Security Council including the concurring votes of the permanent members. The
admission of a State as a member in the United Nations is therefore a matter which is decided by both the
organs, i.e., by the Security Council and the General Assembly in spite of the wordings of Article 4
paragraph 2, according to which only the General Assembly seems to be authorised to decide upon, the
admission of new members. If the Security Council is not in favour of the admission of an applicant State,
it need not make any recommendation at all. In such cases, the General Assembly is not in a position to
take a decision by which the applicant State is admitted to membership. It is also to be noted that the
Assembly is not bound to accept the recommendations of the Council. It may refuse to admit a State to
membership though recommended by the Council. But the Assembly can decide to admit a State only if it
has been 'recommended'. Hence, the favourable recommendation of the Council must precede the decision
of the Assembly.

Article 4, Para 1 of the Charter lays down the conditions which a State is required to fulfil in order to
become a member of the United Nations. They are: firstly, membership is open to 'peace-loving State', and
secondly, to those States which 'accept the obligations' contained in the Charter, and thirdly, to those
which are able and, willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter. In this connection the
reference of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Admission of a State to
Membership in the United Nations is relevant. During 1946 and 1947 a number of States applied for
admission, most of whom had their applications vetoed by the USSR, and therefore no State could be
admitted in the United Nations. The General Assembly decided on November 7, 1947 to request an
advisory opinion from the Court on the legality of such conditions. The Court in its advisory opinion on
Conditions of Admission of State to Membership in the United Nations delivered in 1948 laid down five
conditions which a new applicant must fulfil for becoming a member of the United Nations. They are (a)
it must be a State; (b) it must be peace-loving; (c) it must accept the obligations of the Charter, (d) it must
be able to carry out these obligations; and (e) it must be willing to do so. Although the conditions for the
admission of a member have been clearly laid down, it is difficult to determine whether an applicant state
is a 'peace loving' or whether it is able and willing to carry out its international obligations. These are such
matters which are decided by each member of the Security Council and of the General Assembly not only
on merits alone. Political considerations are sometimes involved therein. The delayed admission of
Bangladesh and Vietnam is ample proof of it.

Chinese Representation in the United Nations :

Chinese representation in the United Nations remained for a long time in a confusing state. The Republic
of China was an Original Member of the United Nations and was a permanent member of the Security
Council. At that time, Chiang Kai Shek was the head of the State. In 1949, his government was
overthrown by the Communist over the main land of China. Chiang Kai Shek fled to Farmosa, which is
popularly known as Taiwan, and established his government over there. However, it continued to
represent the Republic of China in the United Nations. Since 1950, the matter relating to Chinese
representation in the United Nations has been discussed in the General Assembly from time to time,
because Communist regime in the main land of China has been claiming representation in the United
Nations. Chiang Kai Shek continued the representation because of the pressure of the United States and
other Western countries. In 1971, after the Kissinger's visit to China, and later, when the relations between
the United States and the Republic of China became cordial, the United States advocated for its
representation in the United Nations. The General Assembly in 1971 adopted a resolution wherein it was
resolved that the representatives of the Government of People's Republic of China are the only lawful
representatives of China in the United Nations. Accordingly, on October 25, 1971, the People's Republic
of China was admitted in the United Nations and the representatives of Chaing Kai Shek were expelled
from the United Nations. Since then, People's Republic of China has occupied one of the permanent seats
of the Security Council.

The total number of members of the United Nations has gone up to 193. South Sudan became the 193rd
member of the United Nations in 2011. Thus, the Organisation is represented by the overwhelming
majority of the States of the World. It is indeed an important step towards the goal of universality of
membership-a goal that it has embraced since its inception.

Suspension
Article 5 of the Charter provides that a member may be suspended from the United Nations. According to
it a member may be suspended from exercising its rights and privileges of Membership. if the Security
Council has been taking preventive or enforcement action against it. Suspension may be effected by the
General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. Suspension of a member being a non-
procedural matter requires the affirmative votes of nine members including concurring votes of five
permanent members of the Council. The above provision implies that when a member is suspended, it is
deprived by all the rights which a member enjoys. For instance, it ceases from representing in the General
Assembly and the three Councils, it ceases from electing as a member of these Councils, and it cannot be
invited to participate in the discussions of the Security Council under Articles 31, 32 and 34 to bring to the
attention of the Security Council, or of the General Assembly and other situations under Article 35, Para 1
of the Charter. It is to be noted that a suspended member remains a member and has to fulfil all the
obligations of membership. Suspension from the exercise of the membership does not mean that it has
become a non-member. Hence, suspension from the exercise of the membership rights may at least
temporarily place the member concerned in a position worse than that of a non-member because it cannot
exercise those rights which are available to the non-members. The rights and privileges of a member may
be restored to by the Security Council without reference to General Assembly.

No member has been so far suspended from the Membership of the United Nations. However, in 1974, the
Assembly suspended South Africa for its Apartheid policy from participation in the work of its Twenty-
ninth session. South Africa lost its voting rights in the Assembly but it retained the UN Membership.

Expulsion
Article 6 of the Charter lays down provisions regarding expulsion of a member from the United Nations
by stating that if a member persistently violates the principles of the Charter, it may be expelled from the
Organisation by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. Expulsion from
the Organisation is an enforcement action in so far as it is an action taken against the will of the State
concerned. Expulsion is enforced upon a member in contrast to voluntary withdrawal. It being a non-
procedural matter, requires the affirmative votes of nine members including the concurring votes of the
permanent members of the Security Council. The decision of the General Assembly requires, in
conformity with Article 18, Para 2, a two- third majority of the members present and voting. Both
decisions are necessary to bring about the expulsion of a member. No member has been so far expelled
from the Organisation. Once a member is expelled from the Organisation, it acquires the same position as
to that of a non-member. Thus, after expulsion, it may exercise all those rights which a non-member has.
It appears strange that while a suspended member cannot enjoy the rights of a non-member, an expelled
member may exercise all such rights. Hence, the effect of expulsion is not as rigorous as that of
suspension.

On October 30, 1974, the Security Council discussed and voted upon a resolution recommending the
immediate expulsion of South Africa from the membership of the United Nations. But the resolution
failed because of the veto exercised by the three permanent members of the Council.

Yugoslavia's Membership in the United Nations :

When Yugoslavia lost a considerable portion of its territory followingmsecession of Croatia, Slovania,
Macedonia Bosinia and Herzegovina. Security Council on September 19, 1992 declared that 'the State
formerely known as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has ceased to exist' and that 'the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of the
former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations. The General Assembly acting on the
recommendation of the Council on September 22, 1992 adopted a resolution that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia consisting of Serbia and Montenegro cannot automatically continue the membership of the
former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations, and it should apply for
membership in the United Nations and shall not participate in the Assembly's work. The letter addressed
to the Permanent Representatives of Bosinia, Herzegovina and Croatia dated September 29, 1992 from the
Under Secretary-General, the Legal Counsel of the United Nations stated that while the above-mentioned
General Assembly resolution neither terminated nor suspended Yugoslavia's membership in the
Organisation, however, it cannot automatically continue the membership of the former Yugoslavia in the
United Nations. Since no further development has occurred in this regard, it is deemed that its
membership has been discontinued. Yugoslavia was also prevented from participating in the work of the
Economic and Social Council. Yugoslavia was granted the membership of the United Nations on its
request on November 1, 2000 by the General Assembly in the name of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The decision to disallow Yugoslavia from participating in the U.N. debate is the first case in the history of
the United Nations. It is to be noted that the decision of the Assembly was not consistent with the practice
of the United Nations. If action could be taken against Yugoslavia for having lost a considerable portion of
the territory, there is perhaps no reason for having not taken an action in a similar case that occurred in
1990 with the dismemberment of the U.S.S.R. Why Russia was allowed to continue the membership of
the U.S.S.R. when a considerable portion of its territory was lost due to its dismemberment?

Withdrawal
Membership of the United Nations may be terminated against the will of the member by expulsion in
conformity with Article 6 of the Charter. But the Charter does not contain any provision for those
contingencies where a member wishes to withdraw itself from the Organisation voluntarily. The Covenant
of the League of Nations had made a provision for the withdrawal of a member. It could be done by a
member either by giving a two years' notice, or if any amendment was opposed by a member, or was not
otherwise acceptable to it, it could mean that the particular member has ceased to be a member of the
League of Nations. But the Charter has not made any such provision. During the debate at San Francisco
Conference, the Committee was of the view that the Charter should not make any express provision either
to permit or to prohibit withdrawal from the Organisation. The Committee deems that the 'highest duty' of
the States, which will become members is to continue their co-operation within the Organisation for the
preservation of international peace and security.
If however a member because of 'exceptional circumstances' wants to withdraw from the Organisation,
and wishes that the burden of maintaining international peace and security should be left to other
members, it is not the purpose of the Organisation to compel that member to continue its cooperation in
the Organisation. The above view may mean that withdrawal from the Organisation may be possible in
'exceptional circumstances'. Although it is difficult to lay down as to what are the exceptional cases,
following may be given by way of examples, that is, when the Organisation has become unable to
maintain peace, or when it could do so only at the expense of law and justice, or when a member's rights
and obligations as such have been changed by the amendment in the Charter to which it has not
concurred; and when an amendment duly accepted by the necessary majority in the Assembly or in the
General Conference fails to secure the ratification necessary to bring such amendment into effect.

Although a member has not been given, under the provision of the Charter, a right to withdraw from the
Organisation, withdrawal from the Organisation is a sovereign right of a State, and as such, it may be
exercised by its members as and when they desire. In the 9th Plenary Session of the Conference, on June
25, 1945, the Soviet delegate declared that 'the opinion of the Soviet delegation is that it is wrong to
condemn beforehand the grounds on which any State might find it necessary to exercise its right of
withdrawal from the Organisation. Such a right is an expression of State sovereignty and should not be
reviled, in advance, by the International Organisation'. According to the opinion of the delegation of the
Soviet Union, the right of withdrawal is a consequence of the principle of democracy as well as of the
principle of sovereignty. The view appears to be sound because the Charter is a treaty and no State can be
compelled to remain a party to it against its wishes. However, if the Security Council considers that the
withdrawal of a member would constitute a threat to the international peace and security, it may according
to Article 39 recommend to the member to forbear from withdrawing, and in case of non-compliance with
the recommendation, it may take enforcement measures against that State. Thus, the Security Council may
compel the State to remain a member of the Organisation.

Indonesia :
In the past, on one occasion the question of withdrawal from the Membership arose. On January 20, 1965
Indonesia informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw from the United Nations as
from January 1, 1965 "at this stage and under the present circumstances". It took the decision because
Malaysia has been elected as a member of the Security Council. However, on September 19, 1966,
Indonesia announced its decision to resume full cooperation with the United Nations and to resume
participation in its activities standing with the Twenty-first Session of the General Assembly. On
September 28, 1966, the General Assembly took note of this decision and the President invited
representatives of Indonesia to take seat in the Assembly. Thus, Indonesia resumed its seat. It was not a
case of withdrawal because had it withdrawn from the Organisation, its admission would have been
possible only after completing the procedure which is adopted for a State seeking a Membership of the
United Nations as laid down under Article 4 of the Charter.

Also, read about observer states.