The Geneva Protocol Part 38

_Article 18._

69. Article 18 was inserted to satisfy apprehensions which had been expressed in certain quarters. The British Delegation were not convinced of its necessity, but saw no reason to object to it.

_Article 19._

70. Article 19 was inserted as a saving clause. It emphasises the intention to preserve the Covenant as the princ.i.p.al doc.u.ment governing the relations between States Members of the League. The relations between signatories and non-signatories to the Protocol are still to be governed by the Covenant. The Covenant is to stand, but it is to be enriched by the princ.i.p.al provisions of the Protocol. The amended Covenant is intended ultimately to take the place of the separate regime of the Protocol.

_Resolution No. 1._

71. It had been originally suggested that the provisions of {247} the Protocol should be embodied in the form of resolutions to be submitted for adoption by the a.s.sembly. In view, however, of the fact that adoption of such resolutions by the a.s.sembly might be held to commit the Governments there represented to the acceptance of its provisions, and in view of the difficulty which Delegations found in consulting their Governments, this proposal was found to be impracticable. It was thereupon decided that the Protocol should be drawn up as a separate instrument, and that its acceptance should be recommended by the a.s.sembly to all States Members of the League.

72. The draft of a resolution on these lines, which had been drawn up by the British representative, was discussed by the First Committee on the 27th September. Paragraph 1 recommends the acceptance of the Protocol. Paragraph 2 provides that the Protocol shall be open immediately for signature for those representatives who were already in a position to sign. This was added in view of the fact that the French and several other Delegations had announced their intention to sign the Protocol before leaving Geneva. Paragraph 3 was inserted because it was felt that the drafting of amendments to the Covenant was too technical a matter to be done hastily.

73. The remaining paragraphs of the resolution relate to the proposed Disarmament Conference which was dealt with by the Third Committee.

The resolution was unanimously adopted by the a.s.sembly on the 2nd October.

_Resolution No. 2._

74. This resolution recommends the acceptance of the obligatory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague by all Members of the League. The discussions regarding the special Protocol opened for signature in virtue of article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Permanent Court, had revealed that the power to make reservations was wider than had been at first thought. It was therefore decided that no new Protocol was required, but that the power to make {248} reservations should be clearly recognised in the resolution of the a.s.sembly.

_M. Politis's Report._

75. M. Politis's draft report on the work of the First Committee was presented to the Committee on the 28th September, and the discussion upon it lasted all day. This draft, which was very ably drawn up, gave a remarkably clear and adequate account of the achievement of the First Committee.

76. Some criticism was made by the representative of Hungary and others of a tendency in the report to give peace a secondary position to that of justice in the predominating idea of arbitration. As a result, the offending pa.s.sages were redrafted.

77. In its final form M. Politis's report was incorporated in the general report submitted to the Fifth a.s.sembly by the First and Third Committees. This general report[2] was adopted unanimously by the a.s.sembly on the 2nd October, and it can thus be regarded as the official doc.u.ment containing the views of the Members of the League in regard to the interpretation of the Protocol.

III.--WORK OF THE THIRD COMMITTEE.

78. The Third Committee began its deliberations on the a.s.sembly resolution on arbitration, security and disarmament on the 9th September, under the presidency of M. Duca (Roumania) (subsequently replaced by M. Politis [Greece]), and the proceedings opened with a general discussion, which was continued until the 13th. Lord Parmoor and Mr. Henderson represented the British Empire.

79. After the method of procedure had been settled, a statement was made expressing the standpoint of the British Delegation on the questions of arbitration under the three heads of arbitration, court decisions and conciliation, and the views then expressed were maintained at the subsequent meetings. A short {249} reference was made to the question of sanctions, but any detail was avoided in order to leave room for free discussion with the members of the French Delegation. The note of the British Government on the Draft Treaty of Mutual a.s.sistance was referred to as expressing the final view and not requiring any further comment.

80. Most of the speakers devoted some time to a statement of the views of their Governments on the Draft Treaty of Mutual a.s.sistance, against which the main objections urged were the uncertainty in regard to the definition of aggression, the too wide discretion and powers conferred upon the Council and the evils attendant on the system of "complementary agreements" sanctioned by the Treaty. The first defect might now be remedied by the extension of the system of arbitration, which would simplify the definition of aggression. As regards the "complementary agreements," even those who recognized their harmful possibilities were compelled to admit that they could not be abolished or prevented, and that their power for evil might be lessened if they were controlled and brought within a general scheme of mutual a.s.sistance under the League.

81. All the speakers were in substance agreed that the Covenant itself afforded the best basis for any scheme of mutual a.s.sistance; that it needed only to be developed and carried to its logical conclusion in order that it might provide an adequate basis of security.

82. In summing up the debate the President observed that there appeared to be general agreement on the interdependence of the three problems of arbitration, security and disarmament, and on the point that a complete system could be evolved from the Covenant itself. Everyone was prepared to accept the principle of economic and financial sanctions, though some difference might exist on the subject of military sanctions. Little had been said about disarmament, which could only follow as a consequence of the solution of the twin problems of arbitration and security.

{250}

83. It was then agreed, on the morning of the 13th September, to appoint a sub-committee of representatives of twelve Delegations to formulate concrete proposals.

84. The sub-committee, known as the Fourth Sub-Committee of the Third Committee, was composed as follows:--

Lord Parmoor or Mr. Henderson (British Empire).

M. Paul-Boncour (France).

M. Schanzer (Italy).

M. Branting (Sweden).

M. Benes (Czechoslovakia).

M. Villegas (Chile).

M. Kalfov (Bulgaria).

M. Poullet (Belgium).

M. t.i.tulesco (Roumania).

Mr. Matsuda (j.a.pan).

M. Lange (Norway).

M. Skrzynski (Poland).

85. The sub-committee met for the first time on the afternoon of the 13th September, under the presidency of Dr. Benes. The first meeting was occupied by a discussion on procedure. In the first instance, it was proposed to appoint a drafting committee of three members to draw up proposals, keeping in close touch with a similar committee to be appointed by the First Committee, but this idea was subsequently abandoned, and the President was requested to draw up the outline of a scheme, to be submitted to the sub-committee, if possible, on the 15th September. This the President undertook to do, but he was only able to submit his proposals for the first time on the 16th September. The delay was due mainly to the necessity of consulting with representatives of the First Committee and with certain Delegations.

In particular, meetings were held on the 15th September between representatives of the French and British Delegations who went carefully through the scheme and reached a preliminary agreement on a number of points of principle. This agreement greatly facilitated the eventual completion of the work.

{251}

86. These proposals were in the form of a draft Protocol, of which articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 concerned the First Committee, and have already been dealt with in the preceding section of this report. The remaining articles, as originally proposed, may be summarised as follows:--

87. _Article_ 4.--The Council or the Permanent Court may appoint International Control Commissions, composed of civilian and military experts, to ensure that during the course of the arbitral procedure none of the parties makes preparations for economic or military mobilisation.

88. _Article_ 6 recommends the establishment of demilitarised zones and their control, if desired, by the League of Nations.

89. _Article_ 7.--As soon as the declaration of aggression has been made, the obligations of the signatories in regard to the sanctions of all kinds in article 16, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant will immediately become operative against the aggressor. These obligations to be interpreted as obliging each of the Members of the League to co-operate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant of the League and in resistance to any act of aggression.

90. In accordance with article 16 of the Covenant the signatories undertake, individually or collectively, to come to the a.s.sistance of the State attacked or threatened, and to give each other mutual support by means of facilities and reciprocal exchanges as regards supplies of raw materials and food-stuffs of every kind, openings of credits, transports, transit, and for this purpose to ensure the safety of the land and sea communications of the attacked or threatened State.

91. If both parties to the dispute are declared aggressors according to the above provisions, the economic sanctions to be applied to both of them.

92. _Article_ 7A.--The Council of the League of Nations to instruct the Economic and Financial Committees, Temporary Mixed Commission and Permanent Advisory Commission to draw up (1) plans of action for establishing the blockade of {252} the aggressor State, and (2) plans of economic and financial co-operation between the State attacked and the different States a.s.sisting it.

93. _Article_ 8.--The Council to be ent.i.tled to accept individual or collective undertakings entered into by States, determining in advance the military forces which they would immediately place at the Council's disposal in order to carry out the measures decided upon, in accordance with the preceding articles.

94. When the aggressor has been designated, the signatories may, in accordance with undertakings previously entered into, place in the field the whole, or such proportion as they may consider necessary, of their military forces against the aggressor.

95. _Article_ 8A.--In view of article 10 of the Covenant, the above sanctions must not include the violation of the political or territorial independence of the aggressor.

96. _Article_ 9.--The signatories to take part as soon as possible in an International Conference for the Reduction of Armaments under the auspices of the League. The Council to draw up the programme for this Conference.

97. If, within a time limit of (Transcriber's note: blank s.p.a.ce in source) after the coming into force of the Protocol, the Conference has not met, or the scheme for the reduction of armaments drawn up by it has not been adopted and carried out, the Council may record the fact, and each signatory shall regain its freedom of action.

98. If, during the time limit specified above, a dispute arises, the provisions in the Protocol to be applicable in full.

99. _Supplementary Clause_ (to be inserted in article 9).--The conditions in which the Council may declare that the scheme of the International Conference has not been carried out, shall be defined by the Conference itself.

100. _Article_ 10.--Differences relating to the carrying out or interpretation of the Protocol to be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice.

101. _Article_ 11.--The Protocol to be open for signature by {253} all States, to be ratified, and the ratifications to be deposited with the League. The Protocol to come into force between the signatories ratifying it, as from the date of ratification.

102. The sub-committee held eight meetings in all, finishing its work on the 22nd September. The articles were not discussed in their numerical order, and a discussion of one article was often adjourned while the examination of another article was begun. As it is not attempted here to give a full summary of the discussions, it will perhaps be convenient to take the articles in order and show what modifications were introduced.