Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion)

Facts

• The GA authorised the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in Suez (1956) and the United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONUC) (1960)
• Both operations were authorised under the Uniting for Peace resolution after Security Council (SC) deadlock
• France and the USSR refused to pay their assessed share of operational costs
• They argued that only the SC could authorise enforcement action, and that GA-authorised operations were ultra vires
• The GA requested an advisory opinion from the ICJ

Issue

1. Whether expenses incurred by the GA-authorised peacekeeping operations constituted "expenses of the Organisation" within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the UN Charter, binding on all member states.

Held

• The expenses were expenses of the Organisation under Article 17(2)
• The GA has competence to authorise peacekeeping operations under the Uniting for Peace resolution
• Peacekeeping is not the same as enforcement action under Chapter VII; it does not require SC authorisation
• All member states are obligated to bear their assessed share of such expenses
• The presumption favours validity of GA resolutions unless clearly outside Charter purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Expenditures authorised by the General Assembly for peacekeeping operations fulfilling the purposes of the United Nations are expenses of the Organisation under Article 17(2). The distinction between enforcement action (requiring SC authorisation) and peacekeeping (which the GA may authorise) is fundamental. All member states bear the financial obligation regardless of their vote on the authorising resolution.