Kelsen's The Law Of The United Nations (1951), which has 1000 pages. The section on trusteeship is 150 pages long. Chapters 11, 12 and 13 of the UN Charter are exactly about the trusteeship system for the Micronesian region, but I have never studied it carefully. Why was Micronesia the only 'strategic area'? Who decided? You can read it in the Internet Archive.
1000ページあるケルゼンのThe Law Of The United Nations (1951) 。信託統治に関する箇所は150ページある。国連憲章11・12・13章がまさにミクロネシア地域を対象とした信託統治制度に関してであるが、じっくり勉強した事がない。なぜミクロネシアだけ「戦略地区」となったのか？誰が決めたのか？インターネットアーカイブで読める。
16. Protection of Non-Self-Governing Peoples
2. The Trusteeship System
(b) The territories to he placed under trusteeship p 570-577
(b) The territories to be placed under Trusteeship
The Covenant of the League of Nations provided in Article 22, paragraph 1, that ‘ those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the states which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves ’ should be placed under the mandate svstem. The Charter of the United Nations does not, however, establish an obligation to place definite territories under trusteeship. Article 77 only indicates certain categories of territories which may, but need not necessarily, be placed under the trusteeship system of the Charter. It may be deduced from the ‘ objectives ’ of the trusteeship system, as determined in Article 76, clause (&), that only territories whose peoples have not yet attained ‘ self-government or independence ’ can be placed under the trusteeship system. For only with respect to such territories the provision of Article 76, clause (fc), is applicable: to promote ‘ their progressive development towards self-government or independence.’ The meaning of the terms ‘ self-government ’ and ‘ independence ’ is doubtful. As pointed out, the meaning of ‘ self-government ’ sometimes includes * independence,’ i.e., external sovereignty. If, however, selfgovernment is supposed to be something different from independence —as in the phrase of Article 76 (b): self-government ‘ or ’ independence—self-government probably means political self-determination, that is a democratic form of government; whereas independence means external sovereignty. Since independence in this sense has nothing to do w r ith the form of government, the provisions of Article 76 are not applicable to a territory which is 4 independent ’ although its form of government does not correspond to the principle of self-government. Hence a sovereign state cannot be placed under trusteeship even if its form of government is not democratic. And when a trust territory is made independent, that is to say, established as a sovereign state, the objective of Article 76 ( b ) is attained even if the form of government of this new state is not that of self-government. This is the consequence of the wording: self-government ‘ or ’ independence. Excluded from the trusteeship system are, according to the express provision of Article 78, the territories ‘ which have become Members of the United Nations.’ It seems that only under these restrictions the provisions of Article 77 are to be understood.
To be placed under the trusteeship system is the effect of a special agreement. Article 77 expressly refers to ‘ subsequent individual agreements by which territories may be placed under the trusteeship system. 2 Article 77 stipulates:
1. I he trusteeship system shall apply to suc h territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
(a) territories now held under mandate;
(b) territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
(c) territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
The 'subsequent agreement ’ referred to in paragraph 2 is probably identical with the ‘trusteeship agreements ’ mentioned in paragraph 1. 3
It is of importance to note that the Charter does not impose upon the Members an obligation to place certain territories under the trusteeship system. Article 77, it is true, reads: The trusteeship system ‘ shall ’ apply . . . , but its text continues: to such territories as 1 may ’ be placed thereunder 1 by means of trusteeship agreements.’ Since a territory can be placed under trusteeship only by agreement, the voluntary consent of the state which has the right to dispose of the territory is necessary. 4 The wording of Article 77, paragraph 1, clause (c), characterising only the territories mentioned in this clause as ‘ voluntarily ’ to be placed under the trusteeship system, is mis¬ leading. 5 All the territories are voluntarily to be placed under the system; 6 the whole trusteeship system, in so far as it is established by the trusteeship agreements, has a voluntary character; and without the trusteeship agreements by which territories are placed under the trusteeship system of the Charter, this system cannot work. 7 Besides, it is not only the coming under the trusteeship system of a definite territory, it is also the terms of the trusteeship which can be established only by a trusteeship agreement, according to the clear wording of Article 77, paragraph 2.« The wording of Article 77, paragraph 1, clause (c), is incorrect also because the territories referred to in clauses (a) and ( b ), too, can be placed under the trusteeship system only by states ‘ responsible for their administration ’; and even this formula is not quite correct, since in order to place a territory under the trusteeship system of the United Nations it does not suffice to be ‘ responsible for the administration ’ of the territory. The state or the states must have the right to dispose of the territory. If the wording of clause (c) was intended to authorise a state actually administering a territory without being the territorial sovereign, to place it under trusteeship, clause (c) is in conflict with general international law. If actual administration would suffice to entitle a state to place a territory under trusteeship, any territory under belligerent occupation could be disposed of in this way by the occupant power; which would evidently constitute a violation of general international law. Besides, it is hardly possible to derive the competence of placing a territory under trusteeship from Article 77. For the purpose of this Article is to determine the territories which may be placed under trusteeship, not the states by which trusteeship agreements may be concluded. This is the purpose of Article 79.
As pointed out, the Charter contains also a provision by which certain territories are positively excluded from being placed under the trusteeship system. It is Article 78 which provides: ‘The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.’
According to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, certain territories ‘ which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them ’ have been placed under the ‘ tutelage ’ of some of the victorious pow r ers which were obliged to exercise this tutelage ‘ as Mandatories on behalf of the League.’ The intention underlying the Charter is to place the territories which were under the mandate system of the Covenant, or some of them, under the trusteeship system of the Charter. An express exception is made bv Article 78 which w'as intended to apply in the first place to Lebanon and Syria. Their territories were under the mandate system of the League but they became Members of the United Nations by being permitted to attend the San Francisco Conference and to sign and ratify the Charter. However, as far as these states are concerned, Article 78 is superfluous. No prohibition to place certain territories under the trusteeship system is necessary when this effect can be brought about only voluntarily, that is to say, with the consent of the state which has the right to dispose of the territory concerned. Since Syria and Lebanon are now independent states, they cannot be placed under the trustee¬ ship system without the consent of their respective governments. It is even doubtful whether Article 78 is applicable at all to these states since they are not territories whose peoples have not yet attained self-government or independence. Besides, the text of Article 78 is not quite correct since only ‘ states, ’ and not ‘ territories, * can become Members of the United Nations. However, it was not possible to formulate the Article as follows: The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories of states which have become Members of the United Nations. For such provision would have had the effect to prevent the Members of the United Nations to place any territory, acquired by them, under the trusteeship system. Under general international law a state is entitled to place a territory under the trusteeship system of the United Nations only if it has sovereignty over this territory, that is to say, if it has the right to dispose of this territory. On the other hand, there are Members of the United Nations which were not yet ‘ independent ’ when the Charter came into force, such as India and the Philippines. To the territories of these communities Article 78 was certainly applicable though this was not intended. But with respect to them, the statement of Article 78 4 relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality ’ is more than problematical. For these communities were certainly neither ‘ sovereign ’ nor ‘ equal ’ as compared with other Members.
The first category of territories mentioned in Article 77 that may be placed under the trusteeship system are 4 territories now [that means at the moment the Charter came into force] held under mandate.’ As pointed out, the Charter does not impose upon the states entitled to dispose of the former mandated territories the obligation to place under the trusteeship system all these territories. The opposite opinion, advocated in the discussion of the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, 9 has no basis in the Charter.
The trusteeship svstem of the United Nations is intended to be applied not only to territories formerly held under League mandate, but also to the territories which rnav be detached from enemy states (clause (b) ), and other territories offered for this purpose by the states concerned (clause (t) ). As pointed out, not only the lastmentioned territories but also those referred to in clauses (u) and ( b ) can only ‘ voluntariK ’ be placed under the trusteeship system. This results, especially with respect to former mandated territories, also from Article 80, whose paragraph 1, stipulates:
Hxcept as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79 and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agree¬ ments have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. If nothing in the Charter alters the rights of the states relating to territories under their jurisdiction ‘ except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements . . . placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded/ the Charter cannot be interpreted to oblige states to place territories under the trusteeship system. But this, and that prior to the coming into force of the trusteeship agreements the Charter has no effect on the legal status of the territories to be placed under the system, is already the consequence of Articles 77 and 79. According to these provisions territories can be placed under the trusteeship system only bv the trusteeship agreements which, as ‘ agreements,’ can be entered into only voluntarily and which must determine the terms of trusteeship, so that all provisions of the Charter concerning trusteeship are applicable to a territory only after the agreement concerned has come into force,.most of the provisions of the Charter becoming binding only when inserted into the agreement. This holds true especially of the provision of Article 76, clause (d), according to which it is one of the basic objectives of the trusteeship system to ‘ ensure equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals/ As long as a territory is not placed under the trusteeship system by a trusteeship agreement, this provision cannot apply. Hence, the formula of Article 76, clause (d),
‘ subject to the provisions of Article So is superfluous. It seems that the purpose of Article 80, paragraph 1, was to conserve rights established with respect to certain territories prior to the coming into force of Chapter XII of the Charter pending the making of trusteeship agreements. Hut the provisions of Chapter XII concerning the legal status of the territories referred to in this Chapter apply only after these territories have been placed under trusteeship, and that means: after the trusteeship agreements have come into force. Also without the provision of Article 80, paragraph 1, the rights concerned would not have been altered by the Charter. However, not only paragraph 1, but also paragraph 2, of Article 80, is quite redundant:. 1 It runs as follows:
Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Artic le 77. Paragraph 1 cannot give grounds for delay or postponement of negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system since it has no specific effect at all. Besides, since there is no obligation whatsoever to place territories under the trusteeship system, any state may delay or postpone the negotiation and conclusion of the trusteeship agreement without violating the Charter.
2 During the discussion oi the Working Paper in Committee II/4 the delegate for Irgypt proposed to delete the words 4 by subsequent individual agreements ’ from paragraph B 1 of the Working Paper (corresponding to Article 75 of the Charter).
He argued that the reference to individual agreements was a matter of detail which did not. properly fall within a clause dealing with general principles; furthermore, its meaning was obscure.—In opposition to this, it was argued that the words it was proposed to delete were an essential element in the decision to establish a trusteeship system and could not he removed without creating confusion. The existing mandates had been brought under the mandatory system of the League of Nations h\ individual agreements, and the three types of territory which it was proposed to bring under the new trusteeship system could only be placed under this system by means of similar agreements. The words in dispute conveyed that no territory could he placed under trusteeship by any form of unilateral action.—Decision: The amendment was defeated and paragraph B 1 was then adopted by 31 votes to 1.* (U.N.C.I.O. Doc. 448, II/4/18.)
3 During the discussion of Section B, paragraph 3 of the Working Paper, which corresponds to Article 77 of the Charter, it was pointed out ‘ that there were 2 references in paragraph 3 in different terms to subsequent agreements and that these references were ambiguous.’ (U.N.C.I.O. Doc. £i2, H/4/21.)
4 At the 19th meeting of the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly the delegate of the South African Union correctly stated that there is nothing in the Charter to support the contention that a government ‘ could he compelled to enter into a trusteeship agreement even against its own views or those of the people concerned.’ (Journal of the United Nations, No. 33: Suppl. No. 4-A/C.4/68, p. £i.) The Union of South Africa refused to place the former mandate territory of South West Africa under the trusteeship system of the United Nations.
The Fourth Committee of the General Assembly adopted in 1947 a resolution by which it recommended that the General Assembly urge the Government ol the Union of South Africa to propose a trusteeship agreement ior South West Africa. This resolution contained the statement that ‘ it is the dear intention of Chapter XII of the Charter of the United Nations that all territories previously held undermandate, until granted self-government or independence, shall be brought under the international trusteeship system.’ (Doc. A/4'22.) The General Assembly, however, at its 10 5th meeting amended this resolution bv striking out this statement and expressed only 4 the hope that the Union Government may find it possible * to propose a trusteeship agreement. (Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly Doc. A/519, pp. 47 f.) In the discussion preceding this resolution the repre¬ sentative of the United States declared 4 that the conclusion of trusteeship agree¬ ments was to be a voluntary, and not a compulsory, process ’ (Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Plenary Meetings, Vol. 1 , p. 578). To justify the opposite interpretation that Article 77 established an obligation to place the territories indicated in this Article under trusteeship, the representative of the Soviet Union advanced the argument that if there were no such obligation ‘a situation might arise under which no country would place its territories under trusteeship ’ (Summary Record of Fourth Committee November 1 — December 12, 1946, p. 90, p. 188). This possibility exists; nevertheless, the Charter did not establish an obligation of the Members to place territories under trusteeship.
5 At the 105th meeting of the General Assembly the representative of China stated :
‘ Under Article 77 of the Charter, the Trusteeship System is applicable to three categories of territories, the first of which comprises territories now held undo mandate. The requirement of a voluntary act. is mentioned only in connection with the third category of territories and can hardly be held applic able to terr itories under mandate. Use of the word 4 voluntarily * in the third category c onveys the sense of compulsion in regard to the other categories, particularly mandated territories which are specifically referred to and emphasised in Article 8o, paragraph 2 of the Charter, which does not condone any delay or postponement of the negotiations and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated territories under the Trusteeship System. Therefore, 1 submit that there is a clear obligation on the part of the mandatory Power to place mandated territories under the Trusteeship System.’ (Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Plenary Meetings, Vol. I, pp. 600 f.) The same view was expressed by the representative of Haiti (p. 608).
6 At the Hearings (p. 314) the Chairman inserted in the record a letter from the Secretary of the Navy which contains the following statement w ith reference to the chapter on the trusteeship system: ‘ This chapter has been a matter of particular concern to the Navy because of our recognition of the fact that undivided control of certain strategic areas in the Pacific wrested from the Japanese by our armed forces in this war, is essential to the security of this country. Our agreement that this Charter is in accord w ith the military interest of this country is conditioned by our understanding that the United States is not committed by this Charter or any provision thereof to place under trusteeship any territory of any charac ter, and that if this country hereafter determines to place any territory under trusteeship this will be done only on such terms as it may then voluntarily agree to.’
In the course of the discussion the Chairman made the following statement :
* We signed the Charter on the theory that our interests in the Pacific and elsewhere were amply protected. The first thing to note is that no territory can be placed under trusteeship without the: consent of the nations affected. If we are in possession of an island in the Pacific our interests are sure to he affected, and it cannot be placed under trusteeship except with our consent. When territories are so placed the conditions under which they are placed under the trusteeship must he agreed to by the affec ted nations. In short, it was our attitude that if we are in possession of an island which we have conquered from Japan at the cost of blood and treasure we can remain in possession of it, if it is within a strategic area, until we consent to have it go under trusteeship; and when we do agree that it go under the trusteeship, we have the right to stipulate the terms upon which it will go there.' After a Senator said, * We have very serious claims concerning land which, at the great cost of blood, we have taken from Japan,* the Chairman stated:
Under our conception, all we have to do is to hold on to them until such time as we need to give them up. I do not think we would want to give them up if they are in strategic areas. If wc did, we would give them up with strings on them which would guarantee . . . The Senator: 4 Who would determine the strings ? *
The Chairman: ‘ We would—the United States.* . . . The Chairman: ... It is conceivable that there might he some territories within a strategic area, which would he large enough so that we might retain those portions necessary for military and naval purposes and yet put the other portions where the population resided under some qualified trusteeship.’ . . . The Chairman: 1 We would have to consent to the terms under which such territories would go in trusteeship, which means that we keep the control in our hands.’
7 At the 16th meeting of the fourth Committee of the General Assembly the delegate of Belgium stated: 4 The trusteeship agreements had no other purpose than to put the Charter into effect in a given territory.’ (Journal of the United Nations, No. 27: Suppl. No. 4-A/C.4/49, p. 26.)
8 At the 1 24th meeting of the Security Council the delegate of the United States stated with reference to Article 77, paragraph 2: * This clause, if my memory is correct, was regarded at the time of the negotiation of the Charter as a sort of joker . . . ’ (Official Records of the Security Council 2nd Year, No. 3 1, p. 649.) As a matter of fact, the clause was already contained in the Working Paper (Doc. 323, II/4/1 2), which was the basis of the discussion in Committee II /4 of the San Francisco Conference and was only stylistically modified. Why should a clause considered to be a mere 4 joker * have been inserted into the final text of the Charter ?
» That the Members are obliged to place all former mandated territories which are under their jurisdiction under the trusteeship system of the Charter was maintained at the 3th meeting of the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly by the delegate of Brazil, at the 7th meeting by the delegate of India, at the 18th meeting by the delegate of the Soviet Union, and at the 19th meeting by the delegate of the Byelorussian Republic. (Journal of the General Assembly, No. 14; Suppl. No. 4 A/C./4/6, p. 18; No. 17; Suppl. No. 4 A/C.4/i8,p. 27; Journal of the United Nations, No. 30; Suppl. No. 4/A/C.4/34, p. 37? No. 33; Suppl. No. 4 A/C.4/68, p. £6.) At the 4th meeting of the Fourth Committee the delegate of the Netherlands correctly maintained that Article 77 4 did not make the transfer of mandated territories to the trusteeship system absolutely obligatory.’ (Journal of the General Assembly, No. 13; Suppl. No. 4-A/C.4/3’, p. 11.)
1 The original text contained in Section B, paragraph 5, of the Working Paper (U.N.C.l.O. Doc. 323, II/4/12, p. $) which was the basis of the discussion in Committee II/4, read as follows: ‘ Hxccpt as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship arrangements placing each territory under the trusteeship system, nothing in this chapter should be construed in and of itself to alter in any manner the rights of any state or any peoples in any territory.* At the 10th meeting of Committee II/4 (U.N.C.l.O. Doc. 580, II/4/24, p. 2) 1 the delegate for the United States stated that paragraph B £, was intended as a conservatory or safe¬ guarding clause. He was willing and desirous that the minutes of this Committee show that it is intended to mean that all rights whatever they may be, remain exactly the same as they exist—that they are neither increased or diminished by the adoption of this Charter. Any change is left as a matter for subsequent agreements. The clause should neither add nor detract, but safeguard all existing rights, whatever they may be.’ Since the Charter cannot change existing rights established by a treaty different from the Charter and not concluded by the same states, a clause excluding such change is superfluous. At the 13th meeting of Committee II/4 the delegate of the United States suggested an amendment which became Article 80 of the Charter (II.N.C.I.O. Doc. 877, II/4/3 J, p. 3).
In the discussion of Section B, paragraph £, of the Working Paper, 4 it was suggested, w'ith reference to mandated territories, that the* paragraph should include a specific reference to paragraph 4 of Article 2? of the Covenant of the League of Nations (the so-called A Mandates). Objections to this suggestion were raised on the grounds that it would be inadvisable to refer, specifically, to any one international instrument to which all the United Nations were not parties. It was stated that the phrase “ existing international instruments ” was preferable..- The Committee accepted the interpretation that among the “ rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples ”... there are included any rights set forth in paragraph 4 of Article 2? of the Covenant of the League of Nations.’ (Report of the Rap¬ porteur of Committee II/4 (U.N.C.I.O. Doc. 1114, II/4/44 (17 (u), p. 5). I he rights of the peoples of the mandated territories mentioned in paragraph 4, Article 2 2, of the Covenant, consists in that their wishes must be considered 4 in the selection of tlu* Mandatory.’ i bis right could not be altered by the Charter but only by an amendment to the Covenant. But it does not imply a right with respec t to the selection of the administering authority under the trusteeship system ol the Charter. If Article 80, paragraph 1, has no other meaning than that it. does not alter Article 72, paragraph 4 of the Covenant, it is superfluous. If it intends to confer upon the peoples of mandated territories referred to in Article 22, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, the right to participate in the selection ol the adminis¬ tering authority under the trusteeship system of the Charter, its text is certainly insufficient. In this respec t the wording suggested by the delegate for Iraq in the 1 *th meeting of Committee II/4 (U.N.C.I.O. Doc. 877, II/4/3.5, p. 3) vvas more adequate: 4 (u) I11 the event of any territory being placed under the trusteeship system, nothing in this Chapter should he construed in and of itself to alter in any manner the rights of any state in any territory or to diminish the rights of the people of that territory. (/>) Notwithstanding anything containe d in this Chapter, in the event of the transfer to the trusteeship system of any territory now administered on the basis of paragraph 4, of Article 22, of the Covenant of the I eague of Nations, such trusteeship shall not apply to such a territory save within the limits and for the purposes laid down in the aforementioned paragraph of the Covenant. In favour of the mot ion, it was said that, unless amended, paragraph B w ould leave peoples coming under the trusteeship system at the mercy of those making the trusteeship arrangements, for no provision was included for consulting the desires ol the peoples concerned. The paragraph should contain a guarantee that in drawing up trusteeship arrangements the rights of the peoples concerned should not be in any way reduced. While it was gratifying to have it. recorded that the rights set forth in paragraph 4, of Article 2 2, of the Covenant, were included in paragraph B 3, it would he preferable to word paragraph B so that there could he no doubt on this matter.* This motion was rejected on the following reasons: ‘ Against the amendment of the delegate of Iraq, it was said that the effect would be to cut ofl the rights of some peoples in some territories as the text of the amendment used the word “ people ’* in the singular, whereas the paragraph (as suggested by the United States delegate] would safeguard all rights. Moreover, it was pointed out that not all ot the United Nations were parties to the same international instruments, some for example being bound by the Covenant and some not. Account should be taken of the respective positions of all the United Nations in this respect.’ The amendment suggested by the delegate of Iraq referred to the terms of trusteeship agreements. Its effect would have been that these agreements had to guarantee to the people of each trust territory the same rights as guaranteed to it by paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the. Covenant. The amendment suggested by the delegate of the United States ('which became Article 80 of the Charter) referred to the period until ’ the trusteeship agreements have been concluded, and expressly excepts these agreements from the principle not to alter the rights granted by the Covenant to the peoples of the mandated territories.
6 公聴会（p.314）では、議長が海軍長官からの書簡を記録に挿入した。この書簡には、信託統治制度に関する章について次のような記述がある。この憲章がわが国の軍事的利益に合致するという我々の合意は、米国がこの憲章またはそのいかなる規定によっても、いかなる領土をも信託統治下に置くことを約束されないこと、また、今後わが国がいかなる領土をも信託統治下に置くことを決定した場合にも、その時点でわが国が自発的に合意しうる条件によってのみ行われることを理解することを条件とする」。
議論の過程で、議長は次のように述べた：
* われわれは、太平洋やその他の地域におけるわれわれの利益が十分に保護されるという理論に基づいて、この憲章に署名した。まず注意しなければならないのは、いかなる領土も影響を受ける国の同意なしには信託統治下に置くことはできないということだ。太平洋に浮かぶ島を我が国が所有している場合、我が国の利益が影響を受けることは確実であり、我が国の同意がない限り、その島を信託統治下に置くことはできない。このように領土が信託統治下に置かれる場合、その条件は影響を受ける国々が同意しなければならない。要するに、われわれが血と財宝を犠牲にして日本から征服した島を所有している場合、それが戦略的地域内であれば、信託統治下に置かれることに同意するまで所有し続けることができるというのがわれわれの態度である。ある上院議員が、「我々は、多大な犠牲を払って日本から奪った土地に関して、非常に深刻な主張を持っている」と述べた後、議長は次のように述べた：
私たちの構想では、放棄しなければならないときが来るまで、その土地にしがみついていればいいのです。戦略的地域にあるのであれば、手放したくはないと思います。仮に手放すとすれば、......それを保証するような紐付きで手放すことになるだろう。. . 議員 4 その条件は誰が決めるのですか？*
議長：「われわれ、つまりアメリカだ。議長： ......戦略地域内に、軍事と海軍の目的のために必要な部分を保持するのに十分な大きさの領土があり、人口が居住している他の部分を、何らかの適格な信託統治下に置くことは考えられる。. . 議長：1 我々は、そのような領土が信託統治下に置かれる条件に同意しなければならない。
