Under many constitutions this proposition would not be applicable because such acts would be ultra vires and would not generate expenses of the organization. However, it may be suggested that the proposition applies as a presumption where there is no

implied) in the constitution. It must also be remembered that in many organizations the relationship between deliberative organs is hierarchi- cal and not based on a sharing of concurrent powers or on co-existent jurisdictions, as in the UN, so that importance attaches to the scope of delegation. The obligation to pay Since the UNEF and the ONUC operations and the ensuing Expenses Case, there has been some controversy as to whether member states are under an unqualified obligation to pay what they have been assessed or whether there are circumstances in which a member state can legally withhold its contribution. The controversy has affected the funding of not only the UN but also other organizations, such as the UNESCO and the ILO. The Soviet Union and France particularly refused to pay their share of the expenses for the UNEF and the ONUC because they con- sidered them to have been incurred under ultra vires decisions. They continued to refuse to pay even after the opinion in the Expenses Case71 which was endorsed by the GA (but later agreed to pay). The USA which had supported the position that thereinternational business litigation was an obligation to pay has subsequently withheld funds unilaterally from the UN because it did not agree with certain expenditures of funds.72 Writers generally favour the view that there is no right to withhold payment for any 71 While the Court did not address the issue of the obligation to pay, Judges Fitzmaurice and Morelli in separate opinions, and Judge Spiropoulos in a declaration thought that all member states were under no obligation to contribute financially to the ONUC and the UNEF: 1962 ICJ Reports at pp. 199ff., p. 224 and p. 180, respectively. 72 The USA threatened to withhold funds in connection with the treatment of the PLO in the WHO: see Kirgis, ‘Admission of Palestine as a Member of a Specialized Agency and Withholding the Payment of Assessments in Response’, 84 AJIL (1990) p. 218, who thinks it would have been illegal. The USA withheld funds from the financing of the dispute resolution of the Sea Preparatory Commission: see Note, ‘United Nations Financing of the dispute resolution of the Sea Preparatory Commission: May the United States Withhold Payment?’, 6 Fordham ILJ (1982--3) p. 472. 376 f i n a nc i ng reason,73 let alone disagreement as a minority with decisions of the UN, though the opposite view has been expressed.74 The better view is that decisions by the GA making assessments are in principle binding and create legal obligations, even though there may be a significant minority consisting of the larger contributors which disagrees with decisions to incur expenditures. There is no legal rationale for not basically recog- nizing