such a qualification could only be read in, if it must necessarily be implied from the provisions of the Charter considered

as a whole or from some particular provision thereof which made it unavoidable to do so in order to give effect to the Charter. The Court came to the conclusion that there was no room for such necessary implication for four reasons.62 First, because in Article 17(3) the term ‘administrative budget’ is used in connection with the functions of the GA in regard to the specialized agencies, the distinction between the 62 Ibid. at pp. 159--62. e x p e n s e s 371 administrative budget and the general budget of the UN was present to the framers of the Charter; hence, the absence of an explicit qual- ification in Article 17(1) or 17(2) means that such a qualification was not intended. Second, other parts of the Charter showed that a vari- ety of expenses which were not administrative had to be included in the ‘expenses of the Organization’, e.g., Chapter IX and X and Article 98 which obligated the SG to perform functions entrusted to him by the other organs of the UN. Third, the GA did not in practice make such a distinction in its financial resolutions or in its budgeting; on the contrary, such operational matters as technical assistance had been included in the budgets. Fourth, it was consistent practice of the GA to include in the annual budgetary resolutions provisions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security; provision was also made for ‘unforseen and extraordinary expenses’ arising in that rela- tion, and such measures had been adopted without dissent from 1947 to 1959 except in the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 when adverse votes were cast because UN Korean war decorations were included. ‘Expenses’ do not exclude expenditures resulting from operations for the maintenance of international peace and security On this rule too the judges who gave separate opinions agreed with the Court. The argument that such expenditures were excluded was based on the premise that they fell exclusively to be dealt with by the SC and more especially through agreements negotiated in accordance with Article 43. The Court rejected this argument for the following reasons.63 First, Article 18 included as decisions on important questions decisions on budgetary questions; these were decisions which had a binding effect and there was no indication that expenditures arising from the main- tenance of international peace and security were excluded from the purview of the budget and from Article 17(2). Second, the responsibility of the SC for the maintenance of international peace and security was primary and not exclusive; although only the SC could require coer- cive action which was binding, the GA was also concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security. Third, the fact that the GA was not permitted to take any ‘action’ under Article 11(2) did not affect the position, as this referred only to ‘enforcement