## Facts

- The United Nations authorized two peacekeeping operations: the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF I) in the Middle East (1956) and the United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONUC) (1960).
- These operations generated substantial costs that the General Assembly treated as part of the Organization’s budget and apportioned among Member States pursuant to Article 17(2) of the UN Charter.
- Several Member States refused to pay assessed contributions, arguing the expenditures were not “expenses of the Organization” because the operations were allegedly beyond UN organs’ competence or otherwise improper.
- On December 20, 1961, the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on whether the expenditures authorized for UNEF and ONUC constituted “expenses of the Organization” within Article 17(2).
- The Court received written statements and held public hearings in 1962.

## Issues

1. Whether expenditures authorized for UNEF and ONUC constitute “expenses of the Organization” within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the UN Charter.
2. Whether Member States may deny the “organizational” character of such expenses based on objections to the legality, propriety, or institutional competence underlying the operations.
3. How the Charter’s allocation of functions between the General Assembly and Security Council bears on the characterization of peacekeeping costs under Article 17(2).

## Decision

- The Court answered the General Assembly’s question in the affirmative by a vote of 9–5.
- Expenditures for UNEF and ONUC were held to be “expenses of the Organization” within Article 17(2), to be borne by Member States as apportioned by the General Assembly.
- The Court rejected a narrow reading of Article 17(2) limited to “regular” or “administrative” expenses.
- The Court reasoned that allowing individual States to withhold payment because they dispute an operation’s legality or political basis would defeat the Charter’s collective financing scheme and impair the UN’s capacity to carry out peace and security functions.

## Legal Principles

- “Expenses of the Organization” under Article 17(2) encompasses amounts spent to carry out the purposes of the United Nations, not merely routine administrative costs.
- When competent UN organs authorize activities directed to Charter purposes, the resulting costs are organizational expenses for Article 17(2) financing purposes.
- Member States may not unilaterally reclassify duly authorized peacekeeping expenditures as non-UN expenses based on their own views about legality, propriety, or institutional competence.
- The General Assembly’s role in peace and security, including financing and authorizing non-enforcement peacekeeping measures, can operate alongside the Security Council’s primary responsibility; peacekeeping not amounting to Chapter VII enforcement may still generate expenses within Article 17(2).
- The UN possesses implied powers necessary to perform its functions, and established institutional practice may confirm a broad understanding of the Organization’s financing authority under the Charter.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that the costs of UNEF and ONUC were “expenses of the Organization” within Article 17(2), making Member States responsible to pay assessments apportioned by the General Assembly and preventing unilateral nonpayment based on objections to the underlying operations.


Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, 1962 I.C.J. 151 (July 20)