The Creation of the United Nations and the Establishment of Its Headquarters: Humanist Ideals Tested by Political and Geopolitical Realities – Chloé Maurel

The following article was published in the January 2026 issue of the International Review of Contemporary Law, the journal of the IADL, focusing on the 80th anniversary of the UN Charter. Below is an English translation of the French original.

The Creation of the United Nations and the Establishment of Its Headquarters: Humanist Ideals Tested by Political and Geopolitical Realities
Chloé Maurel

San Francisco, New York, 1945–1952.

Eighty years ago, on April 25, 1945, the San Francisco Conference convened to create the United Nations—before the end of the Second World War, and even before the capitulation of Germany (May 8) and Japan (September 2). Delegates from fifty nations gathered solemnly in the San Francisco Opera House to hear the radio-broadcast welcome address of U.S. President Harry S. Truman. This international conference marked the founding of the United Nations.

In what historical context, and amid what political and geopolitical stakes, did the creation of the UN—and the profoundly political decision regarding the location of its headquarters—take place?

Drawing upon the speeches and official documents produced by the United Nations on that occasion, as well as contemporary press coverage, this article offers a present-day and synthetic perspective on that founding event. Seen from the vantage point of eight decades, it clearly reveals the disjunction between the humanist ideals proclaimed at the time and the realities of international and geopolitical relations that have unfolded over the subsequent eighty years.

• April 25 – June 26, 1945: The San Francisco Conference and the Founding of the United Nations

The origins of the United Nations can be traced back to the signing, on January 1, 1942, in Washington, of the “Declaration by United Nations” by representatives of twenty-six states, including the United States, the USSR, and China. This marked the first appearance of the term “United Nations,” coined by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who would die on April 12, 1945—two weeks before the opening of the conference.

The San Francisco Conference was presided over by Edward R. Stettinius, an American statesman and member of the Democratic Party, then serving as U.S. Secretary of State. The Soviet representative, V. Molotov, proposed replacing this single presidency with a more democratic arrangement—namely, a presidium composed of four representatives, one from each of the Four Powers, who would preside in rotation. This proposal, however, was not adopted.

The USSR nevertheless obtained a significant concession: it would hold three votes in the UN General Assembly, as both Ukraine and Belarus—then Soviet republics—were granted one vote each, in addition to that of the USSR itself.

• France Positions Itself

France was represented by Georges Bidault, Minister of Foreign Affairs, who declared that France would always remain firmly committed to the doctrine of collective security as a means to prevent war. He added that “France will wholeheartedly give its support to any league of nations that safeguards national rights while ensuring peace for all future generations.” Bidault secured the recognition of French as a working language of the Conference, on equal footing with English. Acting on the instructions of General de Gaulle, he also requested—and obtained—that French be made one of the official languages of the United Nations, again on equal status with English. France would moreover gain a permanent seat on the Security Council, along with the right of veto.

• A Gigantic Conference

It was within the walls of the War Memorial Opera House and the Veterans Building, in the heart of San Francisco facing City Hall, that “electricians, carpenters, and movers worked day and night to assemble stages, lighting, telephone cables, and offices to host the largest diplomatic conference since Versailles in 1919. The program scheduled for the conference was demanding: five working days per week from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with additional sessions held at night. The San Francisco Conference was distinctive in that it was open to the public. Beyond the many journalists covering the diplomatic event, members of the public could also attend the sessions by requesting tickets at the box office.”^[1]

It was therefore a vast and spectacular undertaking.

• Intense Legal Work

The Conference embarked on intense legal work: drafting and adopting a Charter for the new organization. To this end, it established a Steering Committee composed of all the heads of delegations—one representative per state, totaling fifty members. In addition, an Executive Committee of fourteen delegation heads was tasked with preparing recommendations for the Steering Committee.

The draft Charter of the United Nations was divided into four main parts, each examined by a commission, themselves subdivided into twelve technical committees.

“The First Commission dealt with the general purposes of the Organization, its principles, the admission of members, the organization of the Secretariat, and the question of amendments to the Charter.

The Second Commission examined the powers and functions of the General Assembly.
The Third Commission addressed issues concerning the Security Council.
The Fourth Commission studied the draft Statute of the International Court of Justice, prepared by a committee of jurists from forty-four countries who had met in Washington in April 1945.”^[2]

• U.S.–Soviet Tensions: Harbingers of the Coming Cold War

“For several days, there was something akin to a trial of strength between the Americans and the Soviets,” recalled shortly afterward the French diplomat Jean-Jacques Mayoux. The USSR succeeded in securing the admission of Belarus and Ukraine—republics within the Soviet sphere—as full members of the UN, in exchange for the admission of Argentina (deemed a “fascist” country by the USSR), a concession granted to the United States^[3]. Meanwhile, the question of Poland’s membership—given that the country had yet to form a government—further poisoned East–West relations.

More broadly, one can already discern, at this very conference, the seeds of the rivalry between the two great Allied powers, the United States and the USSR—soon to become adversaries in the Cold War. A certain mutual mistrust prevailed between the two giants. Nevertheless, the general atmosphere of the conference remained one of unanimity, enthusiasm, and a shared spirit of international unity.

• Memorable Speeches

U.S. President Harry S. Truman declared:

“That we have today a Charter at all is indeed a prodigy. (…) Some doubted that the fifty nations gathered here, differing so greatly in race, religion, language, and culture, could ever come to agreement. Yet all these differences have been eclipsed by their common and unwavering will to defeat war. And understanding has triumphed over discussion, dissension, and divergence of views. Here, in the full light of public scrutiny, in the tradition of freedom-loving peoples, fifty peace-minded nations have spoken openly and freely; before this world assembly they have borne witness to their faith and their hope. Disagreements have been overcome. This Charter is not the work of one nation, nor of a group of nations. It is the fruit of the spirit of conciliation and tolerance that has guided these deliberations. This proves that nations, like men, can state their differences, confront them, and find common ground. And that is the very essence of democracy—the surest means to preserve future peace. Through your concord, you have opened the way toward harmony for the years ahead (…).”

The words “faith,” “hope,” “understanding,” and “peace” reflected the optimism and aspirations inspired by this conference.

Ezequiel Padilla, head of the Mexican delegation, speaking from the perspective of the “smaller” nations, declared:

“(…) The small nations, which at this Conference have demonstrated a keen sense of responsibility and have cooperated with generosity and dignity, are destined for a great mission: to hold firmly and courageously the sacred torch of the Law. In this noble task they shall not stand alone, for ordinary men in every country, great or small, share their hope and faith in a common destiny. At the call of justice, peoples—great or small—will respond with equal fervor, will rise with equal ardor (…). Our trust is placed not in nations, whether weak or strong, but in common humanity. All peoples know that the world cannot endure the terrible shock of another total war without relapsing into barbarism. Living in peace is thus an absolute necessity. Let us therefore place our trust in one another and give full measure to our good will (…).”

The words “hope,” “fervor,” and “trust” embody the atmosphere of optimism and determination for peace and concord among nations.

Andrei Gromyko, Acting Head of the Soviet Delegation, likewise expressed optimism and enthusiasm:

“(…) At the conclusion of the Conference’s work, the most difficult problems have been overcome, and we have succeeded in fulfilling the mission entrusted to us. We have established a document that will become the foundation of the international organization—its constitution. (…) To achieve this great and noble ideal, it is essential that the members of the international organization, above all the major military powers of the world, remain united and act in concert. It is equally necessary that all members of the international community endeavor to resolve their disputes, whatever they may be, by peaceful means, in a spirit of conciliation and goodwill (…)”^[4].

Georges Bidault, head of the French delegation to the San Francisco Conference, emphasized in his address of May 1 that France,

“despite the betrayal [of Pétain and the collaboration], has not ceased for a single day of this war to fight alongside [the Allies], with whatever means it possessed, under the orders of General de Gaulle, for the cause of the United Nations. (…) France—speaking on behalf of the 100 million people of its metropolis and empire, a community whose trials have shown the world the unshakable solidity of its spirit—asserts here firmly both all the rights and all the responsibilities that are the lot of a first-rank power.”^[5]

Through these words, he claimed for France a leading position within the UN. He concluded brilliantly:

“Confident in her renewed strength, confident in the promises of the future, sure of herself to the point of having been the first, in the aftermath of such an ordeal, to restore through free and orderly elections the regular functioning of democratic institutions, France will dedicate herself with fervent devotion to the great task of ensuring for the world security for all and justice for each.”^[6]

• The Question of the Veto

A departure from the democratic character of the United Nations: whereas in the General Assembly each member state—rich or poor—holds one vote, in the Security Council, composed of fifteen members, ten serve on a rotating basis while five states enjoy the privilege of permanent membership and the right of veto: France, the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and the USSR—the five powers recognized as the victors of the Second World War.

In 1948, the USSR demanded that the principle of unanimity be adopted for the passage of resolutions in the Security Council, but without success.^[7] Similarly, its later proposal in 1960–61 to replace the single Secretary-General with a three-person presidium—representing, respectively, the Western, Eastern, and Southern blocs—was not accepted either.

• The Issue of the Colonies

The United States positioned itself in favor of colonial independence, though more for economic than ideological reasons. As Jean-Jacques Mayoux observed, “it is a vital necessity for the American economy to open new and highly profitable markets, to secure the millions of new consumers required for its continuous expansion.”^[8]

The newly founded United Nations thus turned its attention to the fate of the colonies: the goal was to establish a legal regime for territories placed under the Trusteeship of the United Nations. “This issue gave rise to lengthy debates. Was the purpose of trusteeship to be the ‘independence’ or rather the ‘autonomy’ of the populations of these territories? In the former case, what would become of regions too small to defend themselves by their own means? In the end, ‘autonomy’ was the term adopted.”^[9]

The UN therefore remained cautious and somewhat ambiguous on the colonial question, creating instead a Trusteeship Council, under Chapter XIII of the Charter, to oversee eleven trust territories administered by seven Member States and to ensure that “appropriate steps shall be taken to prepare these territories for self-government or independence.”

• Adoption of the United Nations Charter by Unanimous Vote

On June 25, the delegates gathered for a final plenary session at the War Memorial Opera House. The British representative, Lord Halifax, presiding over the meeting, presented the final draft of the Charter:

“In all our lives,” he declared, “we shall never be called upon to vote on an issue more important than the one before us today.”

“Given the historical importance of this vote,” Lord Halifax proposed that, rather than proceeding by the usual show of hands, the adoption should take place by roll call. One by one, the delegates rose to cast their vote. Then, the entire audience—some 3,000 people—stood as well. A tremendous ovation broke out when the President announced that the Charter had been adopted unanimously.”

With visible emotion, President Truman added:

“Thanks to this Charter, the world may begin to glimpse the moment when all human beings will be able to live decent lives as free men.”^[10]

Indeed, the Charter of the United Nations set forth clear humanist and progressive principles. In its Preamble, it proclaims the determination “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,” to reaffirm “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,” to “establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained,” and to “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”

The Charter also enshrines the values of tolerance, peace, good neighborliness, international security, and the economic and social advancement of all peoples. In Article 1, it resolves “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,” and to develop “friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”

Furthermore, Article 2 affirms, in democratic spirit, “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”^[11]

Eighty years later, the aspirations to peace and harmony among nations that took shape in the creation of the United Nations and the adoption of its Charter remain both inspiring and instructive. Yet, several reservations qualify this achievement: women represented barely three percent of the participants in the Conference; the question of colonial independence was left unresolved; and the veto power constitutes a clear deviation from the egalitarian principles proclaimed by the new organization.

• The Question of the Location of the United Nations Headquarters: A Major Political Issue

In September 1945, members of the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations debated whether the Organization should have a single, centralized permanent headquarters, or rather a decentralized structure with multiple offices distributed across the world.^[12] Ultimately, the idea of a permanent headquarters prevailed.

The following year, a subcommittee was tasked with conducting “an inspection trip to the regions of Boston, San Francisco, and Philadelphia, as well as visits to the sites of Flushing Meadow and White Plains–Harrison, in the New York area.” The experts expressed “a preference for two sites—Belmont-Roxborough, in Philadelphia, and the Presidio, in San Francisco—considered of equal merit; and, in the second instance, for the White Plains–Harrison site in Westchester County.”^[13]

The British representative, Mr. Younger, emphasized “the particular importance which his delegation has always attached to the highly significant question of selecting a permanent headquarters for the United Nations Organization. The matter concerns not merely the founding of what might be regarded as the capital of the United Nations, but also the location of that capital in such a way that it may become, in every sense of the term, the very center of world affairs—situated as conveniently as possible for the greatest number of governments.”

He noted that “initially, the United Kingdom delegation had favored Europe. This preference rested on various political, historical, and cultural grounds. However, equally persuasive arguments have since been advanced in support of the contrary view,” and, in the end, the United Kingdom came to support the idea that the UN headquarters be located in the United States.^[14]

By contrast, the Soviet representative, Mr. Saksin, while conceding that the USSR agreed to the establishment of the headquarters in the United States as recognition of that country’s essential role in the Second World War,^[15] strongly opposed the conclusions of the subcommittee’s report, which he deemed “unacceptable” and “inadmissible.” According to the USSR, “the most important factor that should have been taken into account in describing the sites visited was the geographical factor. Yet (…) while the distance between Brazil and San Francisco, for example, was measured with great precision, the distances between San Francisco and Moscow, or San Francisco and Paris, were not included.”^[16]

Thus, the Soviet Union opposed the choice of San Francisco. Ultimately, the Soviet and American representatives agreed on the idea that the UN headquarters should be located on the East Coast of the United States, specifically in New York.^[17]

In her book Capital of the World: The Race to Host the United Nations, Charlene Mires traces the fervent competition that swept through numerous American cities and towns over the question of hosting the future UN headquarters, and the many efforts made by municipalities across the United States to promote themselves for that honor.^[18]

• The Construction and Decoration of the United Nations Headquarters: A Powerful Symbolic Undertaking

The United Nations Headquarters in New York was gradually erected until it came to comprise a complex of four buildings located in Manhattan, along the East River.

Construction began in September 1948 and was completed on October 9, 1952. The site stands as a symbol of the pacifist and universalist aspirations of this international organization. Its very conception reflects that ideal: European and American architects and artists worked together to bring it into being. As an international territory, the building embodies the post–Second World War hopes for peace, human rights, and global development. How, through its construction and decoration, does this vast complex embody international cooperation and the aspiration to world peace?

• A Multinational Team of Architects, Bringing Together Soviets and Americans

The decision to construct the Organization’s headquarters in the heart of New York City was made during the first session of the United Nations General Assembly, held in London in February 1946, and in subsequent meetings through December of the same year. The chosen site was then a derelict area of old docks, workshops, and slaughterhouses.

Rather than entrusting the project to a single architect, the Organization chose to establish a collaborative team composed of architects from different Member States. This multinational group included the American architect Wallace K. Harrison as chief architect, and the Soviet Nikolai D. Bassov. In the tense context of the Cold War, the UN was careful to accord equal representation to both blocs.

The team also included major figures of European and American architecture such as Le Corbusier and the Brazilian Oscar Niemeyer, while Scandinavian architects—particularly the Swede Sven Markelius—played a key role, notably in interior design.

• The Construction and Inauguration of Vast and Solemn Buildings

After developing some fifty preliminary designs in 1947, the architects launched the building works. The cornerstone was laid on October 24, 1949, by the UN Secretary-General, the Norwegian Trygve Lie, in the presence of U.S. President Harry S. Truman. The stone bore the inscription “UN” in the five official languages—English, Chinese, Spanish, French, and Russian—and enclosed, within a metal box, copies of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The tallest building, completed in 1952, is a 39-story skyscraper (168 meters high), clad in 2,000 tons of Vermont marble and glass walls. Its materials—aluminum, glass, and marble—were considered both noble and modern at the time. It houses 80,000 square meters of office space.

The Conference Building, stretching 122 meters in length, is bordered by an exterior terrace lined on three sides by an 800-meter Burmese teak ramp.

The General Assembly Hall, inaugurated in 1952, accommodates nearly 2,000 seats equipped with headsets for simultaneous interpretation. The building also includes a Meditation Room.

The Assembly Hall is notable for its concave structure, its domed roof, and the Foucault pendulum suspended from the ceiling of the first floor.

Scandinavian architects, renowned for their design expertise, played a decisive role in furnishing the conference rooms. The Security Council Chamber was designed and furnished by Norway: architect Arnstein Arneberg created its distinctive horseshoe table, and Norwegian artist Per Lasson Krohg painted a vast mural symbolizing pacifist and universalist ideals.

The Trusteeship Council Chamber was furnished by Denmark and designed by Danish architect Finn Juhl, featuring a three-meter teak sculpture of a woman with raised arms by Danish artist Henrick Starcke.

The Economic and Social Council Chamber, created by the Swedish modernist Sven Gottfried Markelius, was furnished by Sweden.

The Library Building, named the Dag Hammarskjöld Library in memory of the Secretary-General who died tragically in 1961, was financed by the Ford Foundation. Built of white marble, glass, and aluminum, the 67-meter-long structure houses 400,000 books and several million UN documents.

• An Interior and Exterior Décor Expressing an Universalist Spirit

The solemn aspect of the complex is enhanced by the arrangement of the flags of the 193 Member States, displayed in a sweeping curve more than 150 meters long, and by its carefully conceived exterior decoration:

“A circular pool with a central fountain was built in front of the Secretariat Building thanks to a donation of $50,000 from American children. The wave motif adorning the basin’s bottom consists of alternating bands of crushed white marble and black pebbles. The pebbles were collected on the beaches of Rhodes (Greece) by local women and children, who offered them to the Organization. A bronze sculpture dedicated to the memory of former Secretary-General Hammarskjöld was erected at the edge of the pool in 1964. This abstract sculpture, entitled Single Form, was created by British modernist artist Barbara Hepworth and donated by Jacob Blaustein, former U.S. representative to the UN. A bronze statue by Henry Moore, Reclining Figure: Hand, stands in the landscaped area north of the Secretariat Building.”

“A monumental staircase, donated by the State of New York in memory of Secretary-General Hammarskjöld, connects the esplanade in front of the public entrance to the General Assembly Building with the gardens. In these gardens overlooking the East River, one finds the monument dedicated to the memory of Eleanor Roosevelt, as well as sculptures donated by Germany, Brazil, the former Soviet Union, and the former Yugoslavia.”

“In keeping with the Organization’s international spirit, the materials and furnishings of the Headquarters were sourced from numerous countries: limestone from the United Kingdom for the façades of the Assembly and Conference Buildings, marble from Italy, office furniture and shelving from France, chairs and textiles from Czechoslovakia and Greece, carpets from England, France, and Scotland, tables from Switzerland, and interior woodwork from Belgium, Canada, Cuba, Guatemala, the Philippines, Norway—and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

“The only artwork commissioned by the General Assembly for the Headquarters is the painting Titans by the American artist Lumen Martin Winter, commemorating the World Youth Assembly held at the UN Headquarters in 1970.”¹³

Thus, the décor manifests a consciously universalist spirit, combining European and American materials and influences. Yet Africa is absent, and Asia only marginally represented.

When the UN was founded, it counted 51 Member States. Over the decades, many new members joined, notably those emerging from decolonization: by 1960, membership had risen to 99, and today it stands at 193. This expansion necessitated the enlargement of the Headquarters: successive extensions were undertaken in 1964, 1976, and a major renovation took place from 2008 to 2013.

In 2003, real-estate developer Donald Trump sought to obtain the contract for this renovation but was unsuccessful. In 2012, he expressed his disappointment publicly, mocking the Headquarters’ design and deriding its “cheap marble tiles” in a tweet.

• Artworks from Around the World Bearing a Message of Peace

The United Nations Headquarters houses numerous works of art inspired by pacifist ideals. The stained-glass window by Marc Chagall, situated beside the Meditation Room, depicts humanity’s struggle for peace and commemorates Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. Nearby stands a bronze sculpture by the American artist Robert Cronbach, along with bronze plaques honoring “the military observers and members of the Secretariat who have died in the service of the United Nations in observation, mediation, and conciliation missions.”^[19]

Two works are especially emblematic of the Organization’s peace-oriented aspirations. The mosaic Golden Rule (1985) by the American artist Norman Rockwell, a gift from the United States and crafted by Venetian artisans, beautifully symbolizes transatlantic cooperation. It portrays men and women of diverse ethnicities and religions gathered in a shared moment of contemplation.

Equally powerful is the sculpture Non-Violence (1988), by the Swedish artist Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd, installed on the forecourt of the Headquarters. This bronze revolver with its barrel knotted stands as a universal emblem of the renunciation of violence.

Another major work is the monumental diptych War and Peace (1952) by the Brazilian painter Cândido Portinari, commissioned in 1952 and inaugurated in 1957—without the artist’s presence, as his communist sympathies made him unwelcome in the United States at that time.

From Asia comes the Japanese Peace Bell (1954), cast from coins collected by young people from sixty countries, symbolizing the unity of all continents in the pursuit of peace.

• A Living Institution and a Global Symbol

Today, the UN Headquarters remains a dynamic and vital center of global diplomacy. The 193 Member States of the United Nations send more than 5,000 delegates annually to participate in the sessions of the General Assembly. During these sessions, or those of the Security Council, as many as 6,000 journalists may be present. The UN Secretariat itself employs nearly 5,000 international civil servants, and the Headquarters welcomes close to one million visitors each year.

The building has also secured a place in the collective imagination, appearing in numerous films and television series—from Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest (1959) to Black Panther (2018)—as well as in video games.

Yet, in the profoundly unstable international context of our own time, the United Nations faces a growing risk of marginalization. It is urgent to restore to the UN the full capacity for action envisioned at its founding in 1945—to enable it to pursue its fundamental mission of fostering world peace, promoting human rights, supporting economic, social, and cultural development, and safeguarding the environment and the global climate.

• Sources and Bibliography
• Information fact sheet on the UN Headquarters, published in 2012 by the Intelligence Group, Visitor Services of the UN Headquarters: https://visit.un.org/sites/visit.un.org/files/FS_UN_Headquarters_History_F rench_2012.pdf

• Chloé Maurel, Une brève histoire de l’ONU au fil de ses dirigeants, Paris, Éditions du Croquant, 2017.
• Chloé Maurel, Histoire des idées des Nations unies, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2015.
• Chloé Maurel, Les Grands discours à l’ONU, Paris, Croquant, 2024.
• Jean-Jacques Mayoux, « San Francisco. Histoire et leçons d’une conférence », Politique étrangère, 1945, n°10-2, p. 141-160.
• Charlene Mires, Capital of the World: The Race to Host the United Nations, New York, NYU Press, 2013.
• « San Francisco 1945 : la conférence qui changea le monde », site de l’ONU : https://news.un.org/fr/story/2020/06/1071882

 

[1]             « San Francisco 1945 : la conférence qui changea le monde », sur le site de l’ONU. https://news.un.org/fr/story/2020/06/1071882

[2]             Ibid.

[3] Jean-Jacques Mayoux, « San Francisco. Histoire et leçons d’une conférence », Politique étrangère, 1945, n°10-2, p. 141-160.

[4]             Source of these 3 speeches : Le Courrier de l’Unesco, octobre 1985, p. 11.

[5]             « La conférence de San Francisco », Le Monde, 3 mai 1945.

[6]             Ibid.

[7]             UN Archives, General Assembly, A/793, 10 déc. 1948, 3^rd session : « The problem of voting in the Security Council » (resolution project by USSR).

[8]             Jean-Jacques Mayoux, article cited.

[9]             https://news.un.org/fr/story/2020/06/1071882

[10]           Ibid.

[11]           https://www.un.org/fr/about-us/un-charter

 

[12]           UN archives, Preparatory Commission of the United Nations, committee 10 : memorandum on the headquarters of the United Nations organization, PC/EX/G/10/Corr.1, 11 sept. 1945.

[13]           UN archives, Comité du Siège permanent, compte rendu des séances, 6 déc. 1946, 18^th session, M. Entezam (Iran). P. 25.

[14]           UN archives, Comité du Siège permanent, compte rendu des séances, 6 déc. 1946, 18^th session, M. Younger (UK). P. 25.

[15]           UN archives, Comité du Siège permanent, compte rendu des séances, 8 déc. 1946, 21^th session,  M. Saksin (USSR) P. 39.

[16]           UN archives, Comité du Siège permanent, compte rendu des séances, 6 déc. 1946, 18^th session, M. Saksin (USSR) P. 28.

[17]           UN archives, Comité du Siège permanent, compte rendu des séances, 6 déc. 1946, 22^e séance, propos de M. Austin (Etats-Unis) P. 47-48.

[18]           Charlene Mires, Capital of the World: The Race to Host the United Nations, New York, NYU Press, 2013.

[19]           All these quotations are taken from the UN information fact sheet  (2012).

All articles published in the International Review of Contemporary Law reflect only the position of their author and not the position of the journal, nor of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.