which seems to have been the actual situation envisaged by the Court

when it made the general statement of principle in the Expenses Case. The absence of conformity with the provisions of the Charter relating to the division of functions among several organs alone was referred to and nothing was said about failure to conform to provisions relating to procedure such as voting or other kinds of excess of power. But more important is the fact that it was stated that such non-conformity with the Charter does not necessarily place the expenditures outside the pale of the expenses of the organization. Thus, it would seem that the Court contemplated certain circumstances in which non-conformity with pro- visions of the Charter would have the effect of disqualifying expendi- tures, while it was of the view that sometimes such non-conformity would not be an obstacle to expenditures qualifying as expenses. On the other hand, it cannot be asserted with certainty that the Court intended to lay down a principle that where there was conformity of a resolution with the purposes of the organization, and even though there was a violation of terms relating to the functions of an organ, expenditures incurred under such a resolution would always qualify as ‘expenses of the organization’ under Article 17(2). All that can be deduced from the Court’s judgment is that expenditures incurred under such a resolution 54 Ibid. at p. 168. 55 1954 ICJ Reports at p. 59. 368 f i n a nc i ng may be ‘expenses of the organization’ for the purposes of Article 17(2) or would probably be such expenses. The limits of that principle were not discussed. It was established, on the other hand, that the particular expenditures incurred under the particular resolutions taken in con- nection with the UNEF and the ONUC -- which were not only within the purposes of the Charter but in conformity with the various provi- sions of the Charter as well -- were ‘expenses of the organization’ for the purposes of Article 17(2). As to the general principles involved and the general definition of such ‘expenses’, the Court did not give more than an indication of what the position might be. Judge Spender took a somewhat different view. In his separate opinion he was categorical in stating the principle which governed the classifi- cation of expenditures made by the SG under resolutions made by the other organs of the UN. It was his view that whether such expenditures were to be classified as ‘expenses of the organization’ for the purposes of Article 17(2) depended only on whether the resolutions or the actions of the SG under which the expenditures were incurred were connected with the purposes of the organization. It was irrelevant whether the resolutions were taken in conformity with the other provisions of the Charter; and where the SG acted outside the scope of his authority,