to in draft resolution A provided that the regular sessions of ESCAP, ECA and ECLA in 1984 would be held away from their established headquarters. The 10 EEC States were not opposed to that arrangement, provided that it was formally endorsed by thE Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly, as required by section I, paragraph 4 (f), of General Assembly resolution 31/140. The Council, for its part~ had approved in the summer the venues of the sessions of the three bodies in question. However, the delegations of the EEC countries that were members of the Council had at that time expressed their regret at the premature closure of the / .. A/C.5/38/SR.25 English Page 3 (Mr. Rallis, Greece) debate on that important question, and they had not supported specific provisions of the resolution adopted in order to underscore their concern that the Council should not merely rubber-stamp the decisions of the commissions. Since the approval of the General Assembly was still required and the relevant substantive committee, namely the Second Committee, had not yet considered the matter, it would be inappropriate for the Fifth Committee to take a decision at the current stage on to include in the programme budget appropriations related to the sessions in question. The position of the 10 EEC States did not in any way imply criticism of the countries which had offered to host the meetings of the regional commissions. However, at a time of budgetary stringency, the Fifth Committee must weigh carefully any proposal which had such considerable financial implications. 5. Mr. TAKASU (Japan) agreed with the preceding speaker that the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly should not merely rubber-stamp decisions by the regional commissions. General Assembly resolution 31/140 made it clear that exceptions to the rule that bodies should meet at their established headquarters 
**Analysis**
This text appears to be discussing the organization and budgeting of international meetings and conferences, specifically the sessions of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLA). The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting that it is a discussion within the United Nations system. The text mentions the need for formal endorsement by the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly, and the financial implications of hosting these meetings. This suggests that the category is related to international governance and organization.

**Category**
International governance