[Distributed to the Council
and the Members of the League.]
C. 212. M . 72.
1926. v .
Geneva, M arch 22nd, 1926.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
r e p l ie s o f t h e s p e c i a l c o m m itte e o f j u r i s t s a p p o in te d
UNDER THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF SEPTEMBER 28t h , 1923 .
OBSERVATIONS BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE STATES
MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE.
Note by the Secretary-General :
In ex e cu tio n of th e re p o rt of H is E x cellen cy V iscount Ishii, a d o p te d b y the Council
on M arch 17th, 1926, th e t e x t of w h ich is p rin te d below, th e S ecretary-G eneral has the honour
to co m m u n icate to th e M em bers of th e L eague ob serv ation s b y vario u s Members of the League
upon th e re p o rt m a d e to th e Council in 1924 b y th e Special C om m ittee of J u rists appointed
under th e C ouncil’s reso lu tio n of S e p te m b e r 28th, 1923.
These o b serv atio n s were p re se n te d in response to th e in v ita tio n addressed to th e Members
of th e L eague b y th e Council’s reso lu tio n of S ep tem b er 26th, 1925, a n d th e A ssem bly’s reso­
lution of S ep te m b e r 21st, 1925, of w hich th e t e x t will be found in th e re p o rt of Viscount
Ishii.
The o b se rv atio n s of th e G o v e rn m e n t of Cuba were n o t received in tim e to be placed
before th e Council a t its m ee tin g of M arch 17th, 1926, b u t are reproduced below.
F o r convenience of reference, th e re p o rt of th e Special C om m ittee of J u ris ts is p rin ted
in a n a n n e x to th e p re se n t d o cu m e n t.
I. R E P O R T B Y H I S E X C E L L E N C Y V IS C O U N T I S H I I .
In consequence of a prop osal of th e N e th e rlan d s delegation w hich h a d been referred b y
the F ifth to th e S ix th A ssem bly, th e A ssem bly, on S ep tem b er 21st, 1925, ad o p te d the follow­
ing reso lu tio n :
“ T he A ssem bly req u ests th e Council of th e League to invite the G overnm ents of
S ta te s M em bers of th e L eague w hich find, in th e re p o rt of th e Special Com m ittee of
J u r is ts a p p o in te d u n d e r th e resolution of th e Council of S ep tem b er 28th, 1923, d o u b tfu l
p o in ts w hich req u ire elucid atio n, o r w hich m a y h av e o th e r co m m en ts to m ake on this
re p o rt, to fo rw ard th e ir o b serv atio n s to th e S ecretaria t of th e League of N ations before
F e b r u a r y 1st, 1926, w ith a view to a possible ex a m in a tio n of th e m a tte r b y a C om m ittee
to be a p p o in te d b y th e C ouncil.”
B y a resolution of S ep tem b er 26th, 1925, th e Council ap p ro v ed the procedure proposed
b y th e A ssem bly a n d a d o p te d th e following resolution :
“ The Council, a t th e in stan ce of th e S ix th Assem bly, in stru cts the Secretary-G eneral
to in v ite th e G overnm ents of S ta te s M embers of th e League which find, in the repo rt of
th e Special C om m ittee of J u ris ts ap p o in ted u n d e r th e resolution of th e Council of Sep­
te m b e r 28th, 1923, d o u b tfu l p oints w hich require elucidation, o r which m ay have o th er
co m m en ts to m ak e on this re p o rt, to fo rw ard th e ir observations to the S ecretariat of
th e L eague of N a tio n s before F e b ru a ry 1st, 1926, w ith a view to a possible exam inatio n
of th e m a t t e r b y a c o m m itte e to be ap p o in ted b y th e Council.”
B y a circ u lar le tte r (No. 113. 1925. V), th e S ecretary-G eneral com m unicated th e above
resolution of th e Council to all th e M embers of th e League, ad d in g t h a t he would be glad, in
acco rdance w ith th e Council's decision, to receive a n y observations which the G overnm ents
m ig h t desire to form u late. My colleagues on th e Council have no d o u b t a c q u a in te d them selves
w ith th e replies from th e G overnm ents w hich have been circulated in d ocu m ents C. 57- r 92^- Y ;
C. 57 (a). 1926. V ; a n d C. 57 (6). 1926. V.
S. d. N. 600 (F.) 4- 600 (A.) 3/26. Im p. J. de G.
Publications of the League of Nations
V. LEGAL
R eplies h av e been received fro m tw e n ty -o n e G o v ern m en ts in all. A u stra lia , South
Africa, th e B ritish E m pire, F ran c e, Ita ly , J a p a n , B razil a n d E s th o n ia h a v e in d ic a te d t h a t they
do n o t desire to p re sen t a n y o b serv atio ns. T h e G o v e rn m en t of C uba s ta te s t h a t th e m atter
is u n d e r consideratio n b y th e c o m p e te n t a u th o ritie s, whose views will be fo rw a rd e d as soon
as received. T he re m a in in g replies, n a m e ly th o se fro m D e n m a rk , F in la n d , Greece, the
N etherland s, P o lan d, S alv ad o r, Sweden, S w itzerland , H u n g a ry , N orw ay, S ia m a n d Uruguay,
c o n ta in reserv atio n s o r criticism s a n d o b se rv atio n s re la tin g to som e o r all of th e replies of the
C om m ittee of J u rists.
These criticism s a n d ob serv atio n s, w hich we owe to th e in itia tiv e of th e N etherlan ds
G o vernm ent, co n stitu te , in m y opinion, a n im p o r t a n t c o n trib u tio n to w a r d s th e elucidation
of th e p ro b lem s in q uestion .
T he Council h a s n o w to decide, in ac co rd a n ce w ith th e te rm s of th e A sse m b ly ’s resolution
of S ep tem b er 21st, 1925, w h e th e r it is desirable to refer th ese p ro b le m s to a n ew Com m ittee
for e x a m in a tio n in th e lig h t of th e co m m u n ica tio n s w hich h av e been receiv ed fro m th e abovem en tio n ed M em bers of th e League. I am , on th e whole, of th e opinion t h a t , while th e ini­
tia tiv e of th e N e th e rla n d s G o v ern m en t h a s p ro d u c e d a m o st v a lu a b le re s u lt in ev o k in g s ta te ­
m en ts of th e ir opinion fro m so m a n y G overnm ents, th ere w ould n o t be a n y p ra c tic a l a d v a n ­
ta g e in a tte m p tin g to c a rry th e m a tte r fu r th e r b y a p p o in tin g a new C o m m ittee w hich would
reconsider th e answ ers given b y th e Special C o m m ittee of J u ris ts to th e q u estio n s addressed
to it b y th e Council a n d fo rm u la te new answ ers to th ese questions. T he o rig in al answers
were ap p ro v e d b y th e Council as a whole on M arch 13th, 1924. The resolutio n ad o p te d on
t h a t occasion w as as follows :
“ T he Council, h av in g n o ted th e replies of th e S pecial C o m m ittee of J u r is ts to the
qu estions raised in th e reso lu tio n of th e Council d a te d S ep tem b er 28th, 1923, approves
tho se replies as a whole.
“ I t fu r th e r decides t h a t th e te x t of th e p re s e n t resolution, to g e th e r w ith th e te x t
of th e replies, sh all b e co m m u n ica te d to all th e S ta te s M em bers of th e L eague of N a tio n s.”
In a d o p tin g th is resolution, th e Council d id n o t of course in te n d to a c c e p t th e replies
of th e ju rists for itself, o r to im pose th e m u p o n th e M em bers of th e L eag ue, as a final and
ex h a u stiv e s ta te m e n t of th e law on th e p o in ts d ea lt w ith. On th e c o n tra ry , c e r ta in Members
of the Council, while voting for th e resolution, felt free to m ak e reserv a tio n s as to th e ap plication
of replies in c e rta in cases. T he sam e o p p o rtu n ity to express th e ir o pinions h a s no w been
en jo yed b y all th e M em bers of th e League, a n d th e essential o bject a im e d a t b y t h e prop osal
of th e N e th e rla n d s G o v e rn m en t a p p e a rs to m e in th is w ay to h av e b ee n a tta in e d . W e m ust
re m e m b e r t h a t th e q uestion s answ ered b y th e ju ris ts are g en eral q uestion s of in te rp r e ta tio n
of th e C ovenant a n d of in te rn a tio n a l law, u p o n w hich it w as felt desirable t h a t th e Council
sh o u ld ta k e th e adv ice of a stro n g legal co m m itte e b u t which, as th e c o m m u n ic a tio n fro m the
Swiss G o v e rn m en t ju s tly p o in ts o ut, c a n n o t be a u th o rita tiv e ly a n d finally s e ttle d b y a rep o rt
fro m a n y c o m m itte e, h ow ever co m p e te n t. T here ca n be no d isp u te as to th e co m p eten ce of
th e original C om m ittee, a n d th e fa c t t h a t it felt it desirable to give g en eral answ ers to the
qu estio ns p u t, w ith o u t a tte m p tin g to la y d ow n d e ta ile d rules g o v ern in g th e in fin ite v a rie ty
of cases w hich m a y arise in p ra ctice, is in itself a reason for th in k in g t h a t th e se q u estio n s are
h a r d ly su sceptible of a n y o th e r tr e a tm e n t. O n th e o th e r h an d , w h en a case p re s e n ts itself
in w hich it m a y be a p p r o p ria te for th e Council to look for g u id an c e to t h e replies of th e Ju ris ts ,
it is obvious t h a t th e Council will a t th e sam e tim e ta k e in to co n sid eratio n th e o b serv atio n s
on th ese replies w h ich it will h av e th e a d v a n ta g e of h a v in g received fro m so m a n y Members
of th e League.
I w ould th ere fo re propose t h a t th e Council sh o u ld a b s ta in fro m a p p o in tin g a n ew Com­
m itte e , b u t sh o u ld n o te th e c o m m u n ica tio n s received fro m th e M em bers of th e L eag ue and
cause th e m to be circ u lated to all th e M em bers of th e League.
If m y colleagues are in ag re e m e n t w ith th is p o in t of view, I w ould p ropo se t h a t th e Council
sh o u ld sim p ly a d o p t m y p resen t rep ort.
II.
O B SE R V A TIO N S O F T H E G O V E R N M EN T S O F T H E STA TES
M E M B E R S O F T H E L E A G U E O F N A T IO N S .
R e p ly from S o u th Africa.
P re to ria , N o v e m b e r 2 6th , 1925.
W ith reference to y o u r le tte r C.L. 113. 1925, of O cto ber 10th, 1925, in w hich th e Union
G o v e rn m e n t is re q u e s te d to forw ard, before F e b r u a r y 1st, 1926, o b se rv atio n s on th e report
b y th e Special C o m m ittee of J u r is ts on th e in te rp r e ta tio n of th e C o ven ant of th e League, I
h av e th e h o n o u r to in fo rm y o u t h a t th e answ ers of th e J u r i s t s seem to h a v e b e e n specially
considered b y th e e x p e rt advisers of M em bers of th e Council of th e L eague a n d t o h av e given
rise to no d o u b ts in th e ir m inds. T h e legal advisers of th e U nion G o v e rn m en t ca n see no points
w hich req uire elu c id a tio n , a n d th e U nio n G o v e rn m en t does n o t th erefo re con sider it necessary
to offer a n y o b serv atio n s on th e re p o rt in question.
(Signed) J . B. M. H e r t z o g ,
P rim e M in ister, U nion of S o u th Africa.
— 3 —
Reply from Australia.
M elbourne, J a n u a r y 7th, 1926.
I h a v e th e h o n o u r, b y d irec tio n , to in fo rm you t h a t th e C o m m on w ealth G o v e rn m en t has
no o b s e rv a tio n s to m a k e in re g a rd to th e re p o r t of th e Special C om m ittee of Ju ris ts .
(Signed) J . D e a n e ,
_____________
Secretary.
Reply fro m Brazil.
[Translation.]
G eneva, F e b ru a ry 26th, 1926.
I h a v e th e h o n o u r t o in fo rm y o u t h a t th e B raz ilia n G o v e rn m en t has in s tru c te d m e to
inform y o u t h a t i t h a s n o o b se rv atio n s to m a k e on th e re p o rt of th e Special C om m ittee of
Ju ris ts re fe rre d to in t h e Council re so lu tio n of S e p te m b e r 28th, 1923.
(Signed) A franio DE M e l l o - F r a n c o .
Reply fro m the British Empire.
J a n u a r y 25th, 1926.
In y o u r l e tte r No. C.L. 113. 1925, V, of O c to b e r 10th last, you en q u ire d w h e th e r His
M ajesty ’s G o v e rn m e n t desired to receive a n y f u r th e r in fo rm a tio n or t o m ak e a n y com m en t
on th e re p o r t of th e S u b -C o m m itte e of J u r i s t s a p p o in te d u n d e r th e reso lu tio n of th e Council
of S e p te m b e r 28th, 1923, to in v e s tig a te c e rta in q u estio n s re la tin g to th e in te rp r e ta tio n of
th e C o v en an t a n d o th e r p o in ts of in te rn a tio n a l law.
I a m d ire c te d b y S e c re ta ry Sir A u sten C h am b erlain to in fo rm y o u t h a t His M ajesty ’s
G o v e rn m en t are satisfied w ith th e opinions ex p ressed in th e re p o rt a n d do n o t consider t h a t
th ere is a n y n ee d t o a p p o in t a n o th e r c o m m itte e to m ak e a fu r th e r e x a m in a tio n of th e question.
(Signed)
R. H . C a m p b e l l .
Reply from Cuba.
[Translation from the S p a n is h .]
I.
H a v a n a , N ov em b er n t h , 1925.
I h a v e t h e h o n o u r to ackn ow led ge re ceip t of y o u r l e tte r C.L. 113. 1925. V, d a te d O ctober
10th last, in w h ich y o u w ere good en o u g h to fo rw a rd to th is D e p a rtm e n t th e in v ita tio n addressed
b y th e Council to th e S ta te s M em bers of th e League to fo rw ard before F e b ru a ry is t,
1926, th e ir o b se rv a tio n s on th e re p o rt of t h e Special C om m ittee of J u ris ts ap p o in te d b y th e
Council on S e p te m b e r 2 8th, 1923, fo r th e co n sid eratio n of c e rta in qu estio ns concerning th e
in te rp r e ta tio n of t h e C o v en an t a n d o th e r p o in ts of in te rn a tio n a l law.
I b e g to in fo rm y o u t h a t th is re p o rt on th e five questions s u b m itte d to th e C om m ittee
of J u r is ts is n ow u n d e r c o n sid eratio n b y th e c o m p e te n t au th o rities, whose views we shall
have m u c h p leasu re in fo rw a rd in g to th e S ec re ta ria t as soon as we receive them .
(Signed) Miguel Angel C a m p e ,
Under-Secretary of State.
[Translation from the Spanish.]
H a v a n a , J a n u a r y 4th, 1926.
T he replies to th e first fo u r questio ns call for no special observations ; th e y are in a c c o r­
dance w ith th e g en e ral sp irit of th e C ov enan t a n d w ith th e p ra c tic a l applicatio n w hich is
cu sto m arily giv en to it.
T h e re p ly to t h e fifth q uestion , on th e o th e r h an d , is so m ew h at in co n tra d ic tio n w ith
the s y s te m g e n e ra lly a c c e p te d in A m erica a n d expressed in Article 2 of th e C onvention signed
at M exico on J a n u a r y 2 9th, 1902, b y th e delegations of th e R epublics of A rgentine, B olivia,
Colombia, C osta R ica, Chile, th e D om inican R epublic, E cuad or, S alvador, G u a te m ala, H o n ­
duras, Mexico, N ic a ra g u a , P a ra g u a y , P eru a n d U rugu ay .
— 4 —
T h a t article, which was su b seq u e n tly ra tifie d b y th e P an -A m e rican Congress, ru n s as
follows :
" T h e S tates n e ith e r assu m e n o r recognise in fa v o u r of foreigners a n y obligations
o r responsibilities o th er t h a n th o se su b sistin g in fa v o u r of th e ir ow n n a tio n a ls b y their
co n stitu tio n or th e ir laws. C onsequently, th e S ta tes are n o t responsible for dam age
suffered b y foreigners th ro u g h a c ts c o m m itte d b y p artie s or in d iv id u a ls a n d in general
for d am age caused b y a c c id e n ta l ev e n ts of a n y kind, su ch as a c ts of civil or n a tio n a l war,
unless th e c o n s titu te d a u th o r ity h as been neg ligent in th e fulfilm en t of its d u tie s.”
I have th e h o n o u r to co m m u n ic a te th e a b o v e for th e in fo rm a tio n of th e Council of the
League of N ation s.
(Signed) Carlos M anuelo d e C e s p e d e s .
Reply from Denmark.
[Translation.]
Berne, J a n u a r y 29th, 1926.
W ith reference to y o u r l e t t e r C.L. 113, 1925. V, w hich you were good en o u g h to forw ard
to th e D a n is h G o v e rn m en t on O cto ber 10th, 1925, con cern in g th e replies of th e Special Com­
m itte e of J u r is ts a p p o in te d u n d e r th e Council reso lu tio n of S ep tem b er 28th, 1923, I am
in s tru c te d b y m y G o v ern m en t to info rm you t h a t th e D a n ish G o v e rn m en t wishes to reserve
its opinion re g a rd in g P o in t IV of th e re p o rt of th e ab ov e-m en tio n ed C om m ittee a n d th e wording
of th e fo u r th question.
(S ig n ed ) O l d e n b u r g ,
D anish M in ister at Berne.
Reply from Esthonia.
[Translation.]
T allin n , F e b ru a ry 27th, 1926.
I h av e th e h o n o u r to in form you t h a t th e E s th o n ia n G o v e rn m en t h as no ob servation s
t o m ak e on t h e re p o rt of th e Special C om m ittee of J u ris ts re ferred to in th e Council resolution
of S e p te m b e r 28th, 1923.
(Signed) A. S c h m i d t ,
Director of Political A ffa irs for the
M in ister and by authorisation.
Reply from Finland.
[ T ra nslation.]
Helsingfors, J a n u a r y 26th, 1926.
I n y o u r le tte r (C.L. 113. 1925. V) d a te d O ctober 10th, 1925, y o u were good en o u g h to
co m m u n ic a te to m y predecessor th e following resolution ad o p te d b y th e Council on S ep tem ber
26th, 1925 :
‘ ‘T h e Council, a t th e in sta n c e of th e s ix th A ssem bly, in s tru c ts th e S ecretary-G eneral
to in v ite th e G o v e rn m en ts of S ta tes M em bers of th e L eague w hich find in th e re p o rt of
th e Special C o m m ittee of J u r is ts a p p o in te d u n d e r th e resolution of th e Council of Sep­
te m b e r 28th, 1923, d o u b tfu l p o in ts re q u irin g elucidatio n, or w hich m a y h av e o th e r com ­
m e n ts to m ak e on th is re p o rt, to fo rw ard th e ir o b serv atio n s to th e S ecretaria t of th e League
of N a tio n s before F e b r u a r y i s t , 1926, w ith a view to a possible e x a m in a tio n of th e m a tte r
b y a C o m m ittee to be a p p o in te d b y th e C ouncil.”
T he F in n is h G o v ern m en t desired to ta k e th is o p p o rtu n ity of s u b m ittin g som e observa­
tio n s on th e a b o v e -m en tio n ed re p o rt, a n d I h a v e th e h o n o u r to fo rw ard th e m herew ith.
(Signed) E m ile S e t à l
A n n e x to th e Reply from Finland.
T h e F in n is h G o v e rn m en t ta k e s th e o p p o rtu n ity of su b m ittin g h erew ith a n u m b e r of
o b se rv atio n s re g a rd in g th e replies of th e Special C om m ittee of J u r is ts a p p o in te d u n d e r the
C ouncil’s re so lu tio n of S ep te m b e r 28th, 1923, to consider c e rta in q uestion s con cerning the
in te rp r e ta tio n of th e C o ven ant a n d o th e r p o in ts of in te rn a tio n a l law.
The fo u r th q u estio n referred to th e C om m ittee of J u ris ts concerns th e use of coercive
m easu res w hich are n o t in te n d e d to c o n s titu te ac ts of war. In th e F in n ish G o v e rn m e n t’s
opinion, th e re p ly m ad e b y th e C om m ittee is too vague a n d should be su p p le m e n te d in order
to la y d ow n a line of c o n d u c t for G o v e rn m en ts to follow. O therw ise th e C o m m ittee’s opinion
m ig h t even be inv ok ed, a g a in st th e in te n tio n of its a u th o rs, to ju stify c e rta in abuses in in te r­
n a tio n a l policy.
— 5 —
The C om m ittee of J u r is ts seem s inclined to id en tify m easures of coercion p u re ly a n d
simply w ith m ea su res classed as reprisals ; this, how ever, a p p e a rs to b e so m ew h a t a r b itr a r y .
T h ere m a y be coercive m ea su res in resp ect of w hich th e ju stific atio n of reprisals pro p e r, i.e.,
that th e S ta te h a v in g recourse to th e m only wishes to o b ta in satisfac tio n fo r a w ro n g it h as
suffered, c a n n o t be in vok ed. M oreover, coercive m easures are n o t a lw a y s c h a ra c te ris e d b y
d irec t a c ts of violence ; pressure can be b ro u g h t t o b ea r o n a n o th e r S ta te b y th e m e re t h r e a t
of im m e d iate a c tio n if it does n o t s u b m it to th e d em an d s m ad e u p o n it.
In re a lity , coercive m ea su res described as n o t being acts of war, or even as b ein g “ p a c ific ” ,
may c o n s titu te a g rav e d a n g e r for th e s e c u rity of th e sm aller S tates. If th e reg im e im p o sed
by the C ov enant is to h a v e a n y value, it is m o st im p o rta n t to a d o p t a n in te rn a tio n a l p o licy
under which, as it becom es m ore a n d m ore possible to p ro h ib it a n d repress aggression, c o m m o n
action ca n be s u b s titu te d for w a r in e n su rin g respect fo r th e obligations of th e L eague re fe rre d
to in A rticle 16 of t h e C ovenant. M oreover, i t is essential t h a t a n in d iv id u a l S ta te s h o u ld
not be allow ed to ta k e th e law in to its ow n h a n d s a n d p re su m e u p o n t h a t in e q u a lity of s tr e n g th
which m u s t alw ay s su bsist b etw e en S tates.
A lth o u g h Articles 12, 13 a n d 15 a n d also A rticle 17 of th e C ovenant only refer d ire c tly
to war, recourse to w a r bein g p ro h ib ite d s u b je c t to c e rta in conditions, a n d even re n d ere d su b je c t
to th e p en a ltie s p ro v id e d for in A rticle 16, it sh o u ld be b o rne in m in d t h a t th e te n d e n c y w hich
predo m inates in th e C o v en an t is to p re v e n t n o t o n ly recourse to w a r b u t aggression as such.
H ow ever g re a t th e t e m p ta tio n m a y b e in politics to m inim ise th e consequences of A rticle
10 of th e C o venan t b y a n equ ivocal in te rp r e ta tio n , th is a rtic le rem ains non e th e less th e c o rn e r­
stone of th e legal s y s te m of th e League. I t is tr u e t h a t th e c o n stitu tio n of th e League does n o t
expressly q u a lify aggression as a n in te rn a tio n a l crim e ; nevertheless, A rticle 10 re g ard s i t
as a m a t t e r of concern to th e L eague a n d as a n illicit a c t calling for com m on action, th e m a in ­
tenance of t h e te rr ito r ia l in te g r ity a n d political in d ep e n d en ce of ev e ry M em ber of th e L eague
being a n o b ligatio n on each one of its M em bers. As re g ard s th e precise m ea n in g of th e te rm
"ag g ressio n ” in A rticle 10, i t sh ou ld b e em p h a sise d t h a t an aggression ca n ta k e place w ith o u t
a previous d ec lara tio n of w a r on th e p a r t of th e aggressor. E v e n if a S ta te ac tin g in su ch a
w ay as to im peril th e in te g rity o r in d ep e n d en ce of a M em ber of th e L eague ex pressly an n o u n c es
its in te n tio n of av o id in g th e effects of a n o u tb re a k of w ar, th is does n o t re n d e r th e te r m
“ aggression” in app licable. In d e ed , i t is in ad m issib le t h a t such a S ta te sh o u ld b e p e r m itte d
to a p p ly coercive m easures described as n on -w arlik e a c ts w ith o u t exp osing itself to in te rv e n tio n
on th e p a r t of th e League. B u t we m a y go fu rth e r. Supposing th e v ictim of such a c ts sho uld
re ta lia te b y a d e c la ra tio n of w a r; th is, ac co rd in g to th e c o n te n tio n ag a in st w hich we are
arguing, w ou ld h a v e a p erfec tly in ad m issib le consequence, to w hich a tte n tio n h as a lre a d y
been d ra w n b y a d istin g u ish ed w riter, M. Charles De Visscher, in th e following passage :
" . . . . b y a stra n g e re v ersa l of t h e rôles, it w ould b e th e v ictim of ac ts of violence,
a nd n o t th e in itia to r responsible for th e m , w ho w ould be re g a rd e d as th e cause of a n u n ju s t
w ar a n d w ould becom e liable to th e collective san ctio n s p ro v id ed for in A rticle 16 of th e
C o v en an t” (Ch. D e V i s s c h e r , " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of th e C o ven ant on th e M orrow of th e Ita lo G reek D is p u te ,” Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, 1924, page 384).
I t sh o u ld be a d d e d t h a t co n v e n tio n s h a v e b ee n concluded u n d e r th e auspices of th e L eague
of N a tio n s in w hich th e logical consequences of th e above prem isses h a v e been draw n.
I n th is co nnectio n th e F in n ish G o v e rn m e n t need o n ly q u o te as an ex am p le th e fact
th a t th e C on v en tio n con cernin g th e n o n -fo rtificatio n a n d n e u tra lis a tio n of th e A alan d Isla n d s
describes as a n aggressor in A rticle 7 a n y o n e m ak in g a s u d d e n a t t a c k e ith e r again st th e A a la n d
Islan ds or across th e m a g a in st th e F in n is h m a in la n d ; su ch a n a t t a c k b rin g in g in to p la y
the p en a ltie s p ro v id ed in th e C on ven tion w ith o u t a n y d istin c tio n b ein g m ade b etw een
hostilities ac co m p an ied b y a d e c la ra tio n of w a r a n d a n a c t of violence c o m m itte d w ith the
in te n tio n of av o id in g war.
I t should also be p o in te d o u t t h a t Article 10 of th e C o ven ant reckons w ith th e possibility
of a n aggression im perilling th e p o litical in d ep e n d en ce of a S ta te w ith o u t necessarily ta k in g
th e fo rm of a n a t t a c k a g a in st t h a t S t a t e ’s te rrito ry . If th is po ssib ility is allowed, it m u st
also be a d m itte d t h a t a t h r e a t o r d an g e r of aggression is sufficient to ju stify m easures ensuring
th e fulfilm en t of th e o b lig atio n c o n tra c te d u n d e r Article 10. I t follows t h a t a b ro a d definition
m u st be given to a c ts w hich u n d e r A rticle 10 of th e C ovenant are c o n tra ry to th e obligation
of re sp ectin g a n d m a in ta in in g th e in te g rity a n d ind ependence of Members. It is n o t only
th e m o st serious assa u lts on th e v ita l in te re sts of a S tate, such as a rm e d in te rv e n tio n again st
its will, o cc u p atio n s of te rrito ry , b o m b a rd m e n ts , th e fom en tin g of a re v o lu tio n ary m ov em en t
d irec ted ag a in st its p o litic al in d ep en d en ce, etc., w hich are of th is ch aracter. O th er less violent
m easures, su ch as th e d e m a n d w ith o u t legal ju stification for a given privilege accom panied
b y a t h r e a t of aggression, are also in c o m p a tib le w ith th e good order w hich should reign u n d e r
th e ægis of th e League.
*
*
*
I t is to be re g re tte d t h a t th e fu n d a m e n ta l clause of th e C ovenant, Article 10, should
have been left incom plete, a n d t h a t definite provisions re g ard in g its scope and application
should still be lacking. I t is p a rtic u la rly re g rettab le t h a t a definition of th e aggressor or
a t least som e m e th o d of d e te rm in in g th e aggressor should n o t have been devised. There can,
however, be no d o u b t as to th e im p o rta n c e of Article 10 for the in te rp re ta tio n of o th er articles
of th e C ovenant, p a r tic u la rly A rticles 12, 13, 15 an d 17.
T h e Special C om m ittee of J u ris ts expressed the opinion th a t "coercive m easures which
are n o t in te n d e d to c o n s titu te acts of w a r m a y o r m ay not be consistent w ith th e provisions
of A rticles 12 to 15 of th e C o v en an t” , b u t it o m itte d to ind icate th e principles on w hich th e
Council sh o u ld ac t w hen dealin g w ith a d is p u te arising o u t of m easures of th is k in d ta k e n against
-
6
-
a n o th e r S tate. A solution of th is k in d is too liab le to be governed b y co nsideration s of expe­
diency. I t is to th e C o venan t itself t h a t we m u s t look to discover in w h a t circum stances
m easures of coercion are co nsistent o r n o t w ith t h e fu n d a m e n ta l articles in question.
T he F in nish G o vern m en t is con vin ced t h a t th e C o m m ittee’s re p ly m u s t be supplem ented
b y a tru e ap p reciatio n of t h e source of in te rp r e ta tio n c o n s titu te d b y A rticle 10. A s soon
as a measure of coercion im perils the interests placed under the safeguard of the League of Nations
in virtue of Article 10 of the Covenant, this measure m ust be regarded as inconsistent with the terms
of Articles 12, 13, 15 and 17 of the Covenant. On th e c o n tra ry , it is co n d em n ed b y t h e Covenant.
The F in n ish G o v e rn m en t is th e re fo re of th e opinion t h a t th e Council, w hen a d isp u te has been
laid before it, m u s t be g u id ed b y th e co nsid eration s p u t fo rw ard abov e in deciding w hether
a coercive m ea su re is c o m p a tib le o r n o t w ith th e c o n s titu tio n of th e League.
T he F in n ish G o v e rn m e n t has a lre a d y p o in ted o u t t h a t Article 17 of th e C ov enant must
n o t be neglected in decid in g w h e th e r m easures of coercion are co n sisten t o r n o t w ith th e pro­
visions of th e C o v en an t ; it c a n n o t b u t re g ret t h a t th is im p o r ta n t p o in t h a s n o t been taken
into c o n sid eratio n e ith e r in t h e q uestion s p u t to th e C om m ittee of J u r i s t s or in th e replies
m ad e b y th e la tte r. I t is tr u e t h a t th e th ird p a r a g ra p h of Article 17 o nly refers to th e case
of a S ta te n o t a M em ber of th e League having recourse to war a g a in st a M em ber. T he same
applies th ere fo re to A rticles 12, 13 a n d 15 of th e C ovenant, w hich also o n ly re fer to w a r ; n ev er­
theless, it w as w ith good reaso n t h a t th e qu estio n of “ p acific” coercive m easu res was raised.
In th e F in n ish G o v e rn m e n t’s opinion, it is im p o r ta n t to la y stress on th e in e v ita b le conclusion
d eriv e d fro m A rticles 10, 11 a n d 17 t h a t one of th e first m issions of th e L eague is to safeguard a
M em ber ag a in st a c ts of violence on th e p a r t of a non-M em ber, n o t on ly in th e case of violence
in th e fo rm of w a r p ro p e rly so called, b u t also in th e case of a n y m easure of coercion covered
b y th e te rm “ e x te rn a l aggression” in th e sense of A rticle 10 of th e C ovenant.
Reply from France.
[Translation.']
P aris, D ecem ber 22nd, 1925.
On O ctober 10th last, y o u were good en o u g h to in v ite m e to fo rw ard a n y observations
th e F ren c h G o v ern m en t m ig h t desire to m a k e w ith re g a rd to th e re p o rt of th e Special C om m ittee
of J u ris ts on ce rta in qu estions “ co ncern in g t h e in te rp r e ta tio n of th e C o ven ant a n d other
p o in ts of in te rn a tio n a l la w ” .
I h av e th e h o n o u r to in fo rm y o u t h a t I c a n o n ly confirm th e opinion exp ressed b y the
F re n c h re p re s e n ta tiv e on th e Council of th e L eague a t th e l a t t e r ’s m ee tin g of M arch 13th,
1924, w hen he a p p ro v e d in su b sta n c e th e replies g iv en b y th e ju rists to th e q u estio ns referred
to th e m b y th e Council.
F o r th e P rim e M inister a n d M inister for F oreign Affairs :
(Signed) L a r o c h e ,
Councillor of State, M in iste r P lenipotentiary,
Director of Political and Commercial Affairs.
Reply from Greece.
[Translation.]
A thens, J a n u a r y 4th , 1926.
W ith reference to y o u r l e tte r of O ctober 10th la st, in w h ich y o u were good enou gh to
in v ite Greece, as a M em ber of th e L eague of N a tio n s, to fo rw a rd before F e b r u a r y is t, 1926,
a n y o b servation s i t m ig h t w ish to m ak e concerning th e re p o rt of th e Special C o m m ittee of
J u r is ts a p p o in te d u n d e r th e Council’s re so lu tio n of S e p te m b e r 26th, 1923, I h a v e th e ho nou r
to co m m u n ic a te to you th e follow ing :
T h e Greek G o v e rn m e n t ap p ro v es b o th th e su b stan ce a n d th e te rm s of th e replies of the
C om m ittee of J u r is ts to th e first, second, t h ir d a n d fifth questions referred to it b y th e Council.
I t is u n ab le , how ever, to give its a p p ro v a l to th e fo u rth re p ly con cerning m easu res of
coercion as a t p resen t w orded.
T he absence of a definite criterio n fo r d istin g u ish in g b etw e en m easures of coercion which
are ju stifia b le as being c o m p a tib le w ith th e C ov enant a n d m easures w hich are inadm issible
is liab le to give rise to m is u n d e rs ta n d in g s w hich it is im p o rta n t to avoid.
E v e n if th is lack of precision were re m e d ied b y m ean s of a su itab le definition, it none
th e less a p p e ars t h a t m ea su res of coercion, as a m ea n s of d irect action, ca n w ith difficulty
be reconciled w ith th e t e x t a n d sp irit o f th e C ovenant. For, clearly, d irect a c tio n tak in g
th e fo rm of a n y k in d of coercion is in c o m p a tib le w ith th e in stitu tio n of proceedings before
th e Council, h a v in g th e effect in som e so rt of ta k in g th e d isp u te o u t of th e h a n d s of th e parties
to it.
S uch a p p e ars to be, m oreover, th e view a d o p te d b y th e Council in its re c e n t decision in
th e G reco-B ulgarian d isp u te, w h ich th e Greek G o v e rn m en t in te rp re ts as im p ly in g a reversal
of its previous ju risp ru d en c e on th is point.
(Signed) L. K a n a k a ris R o u f o s ,
Greek M inister for Foreign A ffairs.
Reply from Hungary.
[Translation.]
G eneva, F e b r u a r y i s t , 1926.
I h a v e t h e h o n o u r to c o m m u n ic a te to y o u h erew ith th e o b servations of th e R oyal
H u n g a rian G o v e rn m e n t 011 th e re p o rt of th e S p ecial C om m ittee of Ju rists.
On R ep lies Nos. 1, 2 a n d 3 th e R o y a l H u n g a ria n G o vernm ent h as no ob serv atio ns to
offer.
As re g a rd s No. 4, how ever, m y G o v e rn m e n t is of opinion t h a t the reply is open to v ery
serious q uestion .
It is s ta te d t h a t coercive m ea su res ta k e n b y one M em ber of the League of N a tio n s a g a in st
an o th e r M em b er are n o t a b s o lu te ly irreco n cilab le w ith th e provisions of Articles 12 to 15 of
the C ov enan t. T his opinion a m o u n ts to g r a n tin g th e p ossib ility of coercive m easures as
betw een S ta te s re g ard less of th e p ro c e d u re laid dow n in A rticles 12 to 15 of th e C ovenant ;
it even a im s a t le g itim isin g s u c h m ea su res in c e rta in cases. I n th e view of the R oyal G overn­
m ent, t h e Special C o m m itte e ’s o p inio n n o t m e re ly te n d s to w eaken th e stip u latio n s of th e
C ovenant (Articles 12 t o 15) — th e re b y e n d a n g e rin g its su prem e object, nam ely to g u aran tee
peace a n d s e c u rity a m o n g th e n a tio n s — b u t is in c o n s is te n t w ith th e sp irit of th e C ovenant.
The C o v en an t m ak es n o m e n tio n of “ m ea su res of co ercio n ” as b etw e en S tates M embers of
th e L eague. On th e c o n tra ry , i t b in d s th e S ta te s M em bers, in view of th e th r e a t to peace
which w ou ld be offered b y s u c h " m e a s u re s of c o e rcio n ” , to reso rt to th e procedure laid down
in A rticles 12 to 15 in th e e v e n t of d is p u te s a risin g am o n g th em .
M oreover, t h e v e ry p rin c ip le of m ea su res of coercion strik es a t th e fo un datio ns of th e
League of N a tio n s, w h ich is b ase d u p o n t h e e q u a lity of th e stro n g a n d th e w eak ; for in p ra c ­
tice su ch m ea su res ca n o n ly b e ta k e n b y a s tro n g S ta te a g a in st a w eak S ta te.
A p a rt fro m t h a t p o in t, th e H u n g a ria n G o v e rn m e n t’s d o u b ts as to th e justice of th e Special
C o m m ittee’s a t t i t u d e are s tre n g th e n e d b y t h e fa c t t h a t th e C o m m ittee’s rep ly does n o t e s ta b ­
lish th e re s p o n sib ility — in th e e v e n t of th e coercive m easu res bein g show n to be u n ju stified —
of a S ta te w h ich re so rts to violence. T h u s po w erfu l S ta tes m a y reso rt to force w ith o u t fear
of serious consequences, a n d , a c co rd in g t o th e J u r i s t s ’ re p o rt, th e u tm o s t t h a t th e Council
can do will b e to re c o m m e n d t h e d isc o n tin u a n c e of t h e coercive m easures. I t is q u ite pos­
sible, h ow ever, t h a t w here coercive m ea su res are ta k e n th e stro n g S ta te m ay, before th e Council
has tim e to in te rv e n e , inflict serious m o ra l a n d m a te r ia l d am ag e on th e w eak S ta te, a n d will
be u n d e r no co m pu lsio n to m ak e good su ch d am ag e.
A gain, t h e w o rd in g of th e C o m m itte e ’s re p ly m ig h t in itself give rise to serious m is­
givings ; th e re p ly to Q u e stio n 4 o n ly refers, like th e q u estio n itself, to "m e asu re s of coercion
w hich a re n o t m e a n t to c o n s titu te a c ts of w a r ” .
Since reference is m a d e h ere o n ly to m ea su res w hich are n o t m e a n t to c o n s titu te acts
of w ar, i t m ig h t be su p p o sed t h a t th e Council in te n d s to exclude all m easures of coercion
w hich p u b lic opinio n m ig h t re g a rd as a c ts of w ar. T he w ording, how ever, is so m ew h at obscure,
a n d leaves ro o m for a d ifferent in te rp r e ta tio n , n a m e ly t h a t th e in d iv id u a l opinion of th e S ta te
w hich ta k e s m ea su res of coercion is sufficient to decide w h e th e r su ch m easures c o n stitu te
ac ts of w ar. U n d e r th ese circ u m sta n ces, t h e d o o r is left wide open for th e ta k in g of m easures
of coercion ; fo r th e S ta te w h ich ta k e s th e m ca n alw ay s say th a t , in ta k in g a n y given m easure,
it h a s no w a rlik e o b jec t, b u t m ere ly desires to u p h o ld its prestige, safeg u ard its in tere sts, or
th e like. N o r m u s t it b e fo rg o tte n t h a t m ea su res of coercion a n d a c ts of w a r are closely
re la ted , since th e y h a v e th e sam e p urp o se — to en ab le a S ta te to im pose its will u p o n a n o th e r
S ta te b y force. Since v io len t m ea su res c a n o n ly be ta k e n b y stro n g S tates, it is obvious th a t
w eak S ta te s h a v e re aso n to a p p r e h e n d th e p ossib ility even of h av in g to su b m it to violence
a t th e h a n d s of stro n g e r S tates, a n d , w h a t is m ore, t h a t in su ch cases the stro n g er S ta tes
m a y m a in ta in t h a t th e ir a c tio n is n o t in c o n s is te n t w ith th e ir obligatio ns to th e o th er M embers
of th e L ea g u e u n d e r th e C ovenant.
I n th e opinion of th e R o y a l H u n g a ria n G overnm ent, th e Special C o m m ittee’s rep ly
to Q uestion 5 is also open to d isp u te. T h e qu estio n is this : W hen is th e respon sibility of
a S ta te in v o lv ed b y th e com m ission of a p o litic al crim e a g a in st th e persons of foreigners in
its t e r r ito r y ?
A c co rdin g to th e J u ris ts , th e S ta te is b o u n d not m erely to ta k e m easures for th e p u rsu it,
arre st a n d b rin g in g to ju stic e of th e c rim in als, b u t also for th e prevention of th e crim e. The
R o yal H u n g a ria n G o v e rn m e n t considers t h a t enquiries w ould be desirable w ith a view to
d eciding w h a t m easures sh ould be ta k e n b y a S ta te in o rd er to p re v e n t such crimes. I t is
q u ite obvio us t h a t ev e ry S ta te is b o u n d to m a in ta in its public police service a t a certain
level of efficiency a n d to exercise special vigilance on behalf of th e safety of foreigners em ployed
in official d u tie s (legations, etc.), who are m ore p a rtic u la rly exposed to these risks ; b u t, a p a r t
from t h a t , th e S ta te is n o t in a p osition to p re v e n t crim es being co m m itted , w h e th e r th e y are
crim es a g a in s t its ow n citizens or a g a in st foreigners.
(Signed) Z oltân B a r a n y a i ,
Chargé d ’Affaires of the R oyal H u n g a ria n
Delegation accredited to the
League of Nations.
Reply from Italy.
[Translation from the Ita lia n .]
Geneva, M arch i o t h , 1926.
W ith reference to y o u r circ u lar le tte r of O ctober i o t h , 1925 (C.L. 113.1925.V), I have
the h o n o u r to inform you t h a t th e R o y a l I ta lia n G o v ern m en t h a s no o b se rv atio n s to m ake in
respect of th e rep o rt of th e special C om m ittee of J u ris ts referred to in th e Council resolution
of S ep tem b er 28th, 1923.
(Signed)
G r a n d i.
R e p ly f r o m ja p a n .
[T ranslation.]
P aris, J a n u a r y 30th, 1926.
In a le t t e r (C.L. 113) d a te d O cto ber i o th , 1925, you were good en o u g h to ask th e Japanese
G o v e rn m en t, in c o n fo rm ity w ith th e decision ta k e n b y th e Council of th e L eague of N ations
on S e p te m b e r 26th, 1925, to forw ard to yo u a n y o b servations it m ig h t desire to m ak e on the
re p o rt of th e Special C om m ittee of J u r is ts a p p o in te d u n d e r th e resolution of th e Council
of S e p te m b e r 28th, 1923.
I h a v e th e h o n o u r to in fo rm yo u t h a t th e J a p a n e s e G o v ern m en t h as ju s t no tified me
t h a t i t has no o b serv atio n to m ak e on th is re p o rt, w hich h as been u n a n im o u s ly ac cep te d by
th e Council.
(Signed) Y. S u g i m u r a ,
Chief of the Japanese League of
N a tio n s Department.
R e p ly f r o m th e N e th e r la n d s .
[T ran sla tio n.]
Berne, J a n u a r y 21st, 1926.
I h a v e th e h o n o u r to refer to y o u r circular le tte r of O ctob er io th , 1925 (C.L. 113.1925. V),
in w hich, in accordance w ith a decision b y th e Council, you re q u ested th e N e th e rla n d s Govern­
m e n t to fo rw ard a n y o b serv ation s w hich it m ig h t desire to m ak e on th e re p o rt b y th e Special
C om m ittee of Ju rists.
A fte r careful ex a m in a tio n , th e N e th e rla n d s G o v ern m en t is stro n g ly of opinion t h a t the
re p o rt co n ta in s a ce rtain n u m b e r of d o u b tfu l points, a n d considers th a t , fro m th e p o in t of
view of th e d ev elo p m en t of in te rn a tio n a l p u b lic law, it is im p o r ta n t t h a t th ese p o in ts should
be elu cid ated.
A ccordingly, I h a v e received in stru c tio n s to fo rw ard to y o u in a n an n e x th e t e x t of the
o b serv atio n s a n d questions w hich th ese d o u b tfu l p o in ts h a v e su gg ested to m y G overnm ent.
F o r th e N e th e rla n d s M inister :
(Signed)
W. F. v a n L e n n e p ,
Secretary of Legation.
A n n e x to the Reply from the Netherlands.
O B S E R V A T IO N S B Y T H E N E T H E R L A N D S G O V E R N M E N T ON T H E R E P O R T OF
T H E S P E C IA L C O M M IT T E E O F J U R IS T S .
I . T he reply to th e first qu estio n lay s do w n t h a t th e Council, w hen seized a t th e instance
of a M em b er of th e League of N a tio n s of a d isp u te s u b m itte d b y t h a t M em ber as likely to
lea d to a ru p tu re , is n o t b o u n d —- before e n q u irin g in to th e su b stan ce of th e d isp u te — to
co nsider w h e th e r such description is well founded. T he second p a r a g ra p h in th e re p ly adds
t h a t t h e Council m a y a t all tim e s e stim a te th e g r a v ity of th e d isp u te a n d d e te rm in e th e course
of its ac tio n accordingly.
T h e N e th e rla n d s G o v ern m en t is d o u b tfu l as to th e ex a ct m ea n in g of th is reply. Is it
to be co nclud ed t h a t i t is fo r each of th e p a rtie s to th e d isp u te a n d for th e m alone to judge
w h e th e r t h e d isp u te is likely to lead to a r u p tu r e a n d t h a t th e Council, while e s tim a tin g the
g ra v ity of th e d isp u te in o rd e r to d ete rm in e th e course of its action, m u s t o nly declare its
in co m p eten ce w h en in its opinion th e d isp u te is n o t “ likely to lead to a r u p t u r e ” ? Or does
th e re p ly m e a n t h a t th e Council, a lth o u g h n o t b o u n d in th e first place to consider w hether
th e d is p u te is lik ely to lead to a ru p tu re , m u s t declare itself in c o m p e te n t if a n e x a m in a tio n
of th e case convinces it t h a t th e d isp u te is n o t one com ing w ith in t h a t c a teg o ry ?
I I . T he N e th e rlan d s G o v e rn m en t does n o t clearly see th e connection b etw e en th e first
a n d secon d p ara g ra p h s in th e re p ly to th e second question. Is th e second p a r a g ra p h a general
s ta te m e n t of th e reasons w hich led th e C om m ittee of J u ris ts to a d o p t th e ru lin g co n ta in e d in
— 9 —
the first p a r a g r a p h ? Or do th e tw o p a ra g ra p h s deal w ith en tire ly d istin c t cases ? If the
latter, th e N e th e rla n d s G o v e rn m e n t th in k s t h a t th e d istin c tio n betw een th e tw o categories
is not q u ite clear. In p a rtic u la r, i t w ould like to know w h a t m eanin g is to be given to th e
expression “ o th e r ju ris d ic tio n ” in th e second p a rag ra p h . If th is te rm m ean s a n y o th e r ju ris ­
diction t h a n t h a t of th e Council, th e tw o p a ra g ra p h s w ould refer to th e sam e cases. On th e
other h a n d , if th e w ords refer to som e ju risd ictio n o th er th a n th e “ a r b itr a tio n o r ju d icial
proceedings” m en tio n ed in th e first p a ra g ra p h , it is n o t clear w h a t ju risd ic tio n is m ea n t.
Is th e p ro c ed u re of con ciliation looked u p o n as one of the “ o th er ch ann els” m en tio n ed in th e
second p a r a g ra p h , so t h a t th e reference b a c k b y th e Council of a d isp u te w hich h a d previou sly
been b r o u g h t b y a g re e m e n t b etw e en th e tw o p arties before a Conciliation Com m ission is
not c o m p u lso ry in accordance w ith th e first p a ra g ra p h , b u t optional in co n fo rm ity w ith th e
second p a r a g ra p h ?
I I I . H e r M a je s ty ’s G o v e rn m e n t en tire ly concurs in th e first tw o p a ra g ra p h s of th e
reply to th e t h i r d qu estio n, b u t it is d o u b tfu l of th e m eanin g of th e th ird p a ra g ra p h . Does
this p a r a g r a p h seek to re s tric t th e com p eten ce conferred u p o n th e Council in v irtu e of th e
first a n d second p a r a g ra p h s ? Can th e d u t y of th e Council to “ have re g ard to in te rn a tio n a l
en g a g em en ts” im p ly t h a t th e Council sh o u ld declare itself in co m p ete n t to deal w ith th e d is­
p u te in q u estio n ? If so, w h a t were th e cases th e C om m ittee h a d in m ind ?
I V . T he re p ly to th e fo u r th q u e stio n is confined to lay ing dow n t h a t coercive m easures
which are n o t in te n d e d to c o n s titu te a c ts of w a r m a y o r m a y n o t be co n sisten t w ith th e p ro ­
visions of A rticles 12 to 15 of t h e C ov enant. T his prov ides no criterion b y which to judge. H ow
are p erm issible m ea su res of coercion to be d istin g u ish ed fro m th ose w hich are n o t perm issible ?
H ow are th e circ u m sta n ces to be d e te rm in e d in w hich coercive m easures are or are n o t p er­
missible, a n d w h a t coercive m ea su res will it be perm issible to ta k e ?
V . In view of th e fact t h a t th e p ro b le m d e a lt w ith in th is question is a t present u n d e r
c on sideratio n b y th e C o m m ittee fo r th e C odification of In te rn a tio n a l Law , H er M ajesty's
G o v ern m en t prefers to m ak e no o b serv atio n s on th is point.
Reply from Norway.
[Translation.]
Oslo, F e b r u a r y 3rd, 1926.
I h a v e th e h o n o u r to in fo rm y o u t h a t th e N o rw eg ian G o v e rn m e n t h a s no o b serv ation s
to offer on th e replies of th e S p ecia l C o m m ittee of J u r i s t s to Q uestions 1, 2, 3 a n d 5.
As re g a rd s th e re p ly to Q uestion 4, th e N o rw eg ian G o v e rn m en t desires to p o in t o u t t h a t ,
in its view, th e C o v en an t a b s o lu te ly p ro h ib its th e use of a rm e d force as a m ea su re of coercion
before a d is p u te h a s been s u b m itte d to th e p ro c e d u re laid dowrn in A rticles 12 to 15 of th e
C ovenant.
T h e N o rw eg ian G o v e rn m e n t does n o t feel called u p o n to offer a n y opinion as to how
fa r n o n -m ilita ry m ea su res of coercion are co n sisten t w ith th e te rm s of th ese articles of th e
C ovenant.
(Signed) J o h . L u d . M o w i n c k e l .
Reply from Poland.
[Translation.]
Geneva, O cto ber 23rd, 1925.
In a circ u lar l e t t e r d a te d O c to b e r i o t h last (C. L. 113.1925. V), yo u were good enough to inform
th e P o lish G o v e rn m en t t h a t th e Council of th e League of N ations, on S ep tem b er 26th, 1925,
in s tru c te d you, in acco rd an ce w ith a req u est to t h a t effect m ad e to it b y th e A ssem bly a t
its la s t session, to in v ite th e G o v e rn m en ts of th e S tates M em bers of th e League which found
in th e re p o rt of th e Special C om m ittee of J u ris ts ap p o in ted u n d e r th e reso lutio n of the Council
of S ep tem b er 28th, 1923, d o u b tfu l p o in ts requ irin g elucidation, or which m igh t have o ther
c o m m e n ts to m ak e on th is re p o rt, to forw ard th e ir ob serv ation s to th e S ecretariat of th e
L eague of N a tio n s before F e b r u a r y 1st, 1926, w ith a view to a possible ex am in atio n of the
m a tte r b y a C om m ittee to be a p p o in te d b y th e Council.
I w ould re m in d you in th is co n n e ctio n t h a t on J u n e 23rd, 1924. the Polish delegation
s u b m itte d for th e in fo rm a tio n of th e M em bers of th e Council a m em o ra n d u m con tainin g th e
o b serv atio ns of th e P o lish Section of th e In te rn a tio n a l Law Society w ith reg ard to th e re p o rt
of th e Special C o m m ittee of J u ris ts . In th e ev en t of a C om m ittee being ap p o in ted b y th e
Council to ex a m in e th e replies of th e v ariou s G overnm ents, I should be glad if you w ould
s u b m it to it th e o b se rv atio n s m en tio n ed above.
A t th e sam e tim e, I sho uld be g lad if, in view of the g reat interest displayed b y the^ Polish
G o v ern m en t a n d th e p u b lic opinion of m y c o u n try in th e work of the League of N atio ns,
the Council w ould consid er a p p o in tin g a Polish ju rist belonging to th e Polish Section of the
In te r n a tio n a l L a w S ociety to sit on th is C om m ittee.
(S igned) G. D. M o r a w s k i ,
Resident M in ister attached to the
League of Nations.
—
IO —
A nne x to t h e Reply fr om Poland.
L etter
from t h e
P
o lish
D elegate
a c c r e d it e d to t h e
Sec r e t a r y -G e n e r a l
of t h e
L eague
of
N a tio n s
to t h e
L eague.
[T ranslation.]
G eneva, J u n e 23rd, 1924.
I n re p ly to th e circ u lar l e tte r fro m th e S ecretaria t d a te d M arch 22nd la s t (C.L.44.1924.V)
re g ard in g th e re p o rt of th e S p e c ia l C om m ittee of J u r is ts on th e in te rp r e ta tio n of A r t i c l e
15 of th e C o ven ant of th e L ea g u e of N atio ns, I h a v e th e h o n o u r to in fo rm y o u t h a t , in
view of th e g re a t in te re s t it ta k e s in th is question, t h e P o lish G o v e rn m en t h a s co m m u n ica te d
th e a b o v e -m e n tio n e d re p o rt to t h e P olish B ra n c h of t h e I n te r n a tio n a l L aw Association.
The la tte r, h a v in g ca re fu lly e x a m in e d th e re p o rt, em b o d ied its conclusions in a m e m o ra n d u m
w hich I h av e th e h o n o u r to t r a n s m it to y o u h e re w ith for th e in fo rm a tio n of th e M em bers of
th e Council of th e L eague of N ations.
(Signed)
T. L u k a s i e w i c z ,
For the Delegate accredited to the League
of N ations.
Observations of the P olish B ranch of the International L a w Association in Regard to the Report
of the Special Committee of J u rists on the Interpretation of Article 15 of the Covenant.
I t m u s t be recognised t h a t , in principle, th e in te rp r e ta tio n given b y th e S pecial C om m ittee
of J u r is ts to A rticle 15 of th e C ovenant of th e L eague of N atio ns is well founded.
T h e first reply, in lay in g d ow n t h a t th e C ouncil’s freed om of a c tio n c a n n o t be re stric ted
o n p u re ly fo rm a l gro un ds, to u ch e s th e v e ry i m p o r ta n t qu estio n of co m petence ; i t disallows
co n sid eratio n of w h a t is called th e “ previous q u e s tio n ” . T he Council is n o t bo und, before
consid ering th e m e rits of a d isp u te, to e x a m in e w h e th e r it is “ lik ely to le a d to a r u p t u r e ” .
T h e im p o rta n c e of a d isp u te, its significance, th e d a n g e r t h a t it involves, a n d th e ten sio n th a t
it create s are a ll p ro b lem s to be ta k e n in to co n sid eratio n , as well as th e n a tu re of th e case
a n d its a tt e n d a n t circu m stan ces, a n d th e y c a n n o t be a d m itte d as a b a r to th e Council’s com ­
p eten ce, e ith e r a t th e re q u e st of th e p a r t y concerned or on th e Council’s ow n m otion. The
Council is n o t obliged, before s tu d y in g th e qu estio n a t issue, to decide w h e th e r it co n stitu tes
a d is p u te in v o lv in g legal consequences.
T h e second re p ly pro v id es a solution for th e p ro b lem s inv olved b y th e p le a of “ lis pendens
befo re a n o th e r ju ris d ic tio n ” ; th is p lea sh ould , in th e opinion of th e C om m ittee of Ju rists,
be a d m itte d . I t m a y be a d m itte d eith er ex officio b y th e Council (in c o n fo rm ity w ith th e im ­
p lied m e a n in g of th e first p a r a g r a p h of Article 15) or ag a in a t th e req u est of one of th e parties,
if all th e p a rtie s co n c ern e d in th e d isp u te h av e a lre a d y agreed to s u b m it it to a n o th e r in te r­
n a tio n a l a u th o r ity (G. S c h ü c k i n g a n d W e h b e r g , pages 294, 364). I t sh o u ld be po inted
o u t t h a t th e o pinion of th e C o m m ittee of J u r is ts on th is p o in t is opposed t o t h a t expressed
b y th e F irs t C om m ittee of th e T h ird A ssem bly of th e L eague of N ations, w hich, w hen ex a­
m in in g th e p ro jec t of th e S ub-C o m m ittee on th e P ro c e d u re of C onciliation, laid dow n th e
prin cip le t h a t “ in no case ca n a c o n v e n tio n b etw e en p a rtie s im pede th e o p e ra tio n of Article
15 of th e C o ven ant ; t h a t recou rse b y one of t h e p a r tie s to th e Council as soon as t h e situ atio n
c o n te m p la te d b y A rticle 15 arises is alw ays possible a n d h a s th e effect of im m e d ia te ly sus­
p e n d in g th e p ro c ed u re of d irec t con ciliatio n ” (M inutes of th e F irst C o m m ittee of th e T h ird
A ssem bly, 1922, page 86). I t was for th is re aso n t h a t A rticle 9 of th e orig in al d r a f t was
su p p re sse d (see p age 68).
W hile i t m u s t be recognised t h a t in p rincip le th e second re p ly is well fo unded, it m ust
n o t be fo rg o tte n t h a t cases m a y arise in w hich th e claim t h a t a d isp u te is o utside th e Council’s
co m p e te n ce w o uld be liable to infringe th e rig h ts of th e parties. T he a u th o r ity called upon
t o ju d g e th e d isp u te quoad essentiam p ro v id ed fo r in A rticle 15 m a y be a n o rg a n isa tio n or in te r­
n a tio n a l in s titu tio n in w hich one of th e p a rtie s is n o t re p rese n te d a n d h as no v ote. This
o c c u rre d in th e Ita lo -G re e k d isp u te, in w hich M. Politis, in asking t h a t th e co m p eten ce of
th e Council sh o u ld be recognised, v e ry rig h tly claim ed t h a t th e pro ced u re laid dow n in Article
15, p a r a g r a p h 1, w as n o t p reclu d ed b y th e fa c t t h a t th e d isp u te h a d been laid before th e Confe­
ren ce of A m b assad ors.
“ S ta te s w hich, like ours, are n o t re p rese n te d on th e Conference of A m b assa d o rs do not
recognise as legal th e ju ris d ic tio n of t h a t b o d y ” (Minutes, page 1282).
T h e t h ir d re p ly provid es a n in te rp r e ta tio n of th e g re a te s t im p o rta n c e : n am e ly , t h a t the
case c o n te m p la te d in p a r a g r a p h 8 of A rticle 15 is th e on ly case in w hich th e p ro c ed u re laid
dow n in t h a t a rtic le s h a ll n o t a p p ly ; in consequence, special in te rn a tio n a l c o n v e n tio n s con­
ta in in g re serv a tio n s in re g a rd to a r b itr a tio n c a n n o t be p lea d ed as a b a r to pro ceed ings being
ta k e n b y th e Council.
I t sh o u ld be p o in te d ou t, how ever, t h a t th e e n u m e ra tio n of th is p rin cip le does n o t p ro ­
vide a clear a n d u n q u e s tio n a b le solution. In th e first place, th e m ea n in g of th e e ig h th p a r a ­
g ra p h of A rticle 15 h a s n o t been finally a n d a b so lu te ly d ete rm in e d (the difference in th e E nglish
a n d F re n c h te x ts m u s t b e ta k e n in to consideration). T he a d v iso ry opinion of th e H a g u e
T rib u n a l w ith re g a rd to th e A n g lo -F re n ch d isp u te con cern ing n a tio n a lity in th e countries
u n d e r F re n c h p r o te c to ra te recognises in p rinciple th e esse n tia lly relativ e c h a r a c te r of the
possible solutions w h en it d e te rm in e s w h a t m u s t be u n d e rsto o d b y th e p h ra se “ solely w ithin
th e d o m estic ju r is d i c t i o n ................................ An esse n tia lly re la tiv e question, i t d ep e n d s upon
— II —
the d ev e lo p m e n t of in te r n a tio n a l re la tio n s ”
(Collection of A dvisory Opinions, Series B»
No. 4> Pa Se 24 )- T h e o p in io n of t h e C o m m ittee of Ju rists, m oreover, seem s insufficiently
clear, because th e clauses in special a r b itr a tio n con vention s p re clu d in g th e in te rv e n tio n of
a third a u t h o r i t y are in th e m a jo rity of cases id e n tic a l w ith th e re serv a tio n in th e eig h th
p arag rap h of A rticle 15. S uch clauses, ac c o rd in g to S t r u p p (Die wichtigsten A rten der Vôlkerrechtlichen Schiedsgerichtsvertrage 1917), re fe r to th e co n stitu tio n of one of th e c o n tra c tin g
parties, to its v ita l in tere sts, its in d ep e n d en ce , its in teg rity , its h o n o u r or its so v ereig n ty
(e.g., th e R usso-B elgian C o nv entio n of O c to b e r 30th, 1904)" These reservatio ns are of th e
same c h a r a c te r as t h a t c o n ta in e d in p a r a g r a p h 8, Article 15. F u rth e rm o re , th e fo rm u la
employed b y th e ju rists does n o t ta k e in to a c c o u n t reservation s preclud ing a r b itr a tio n in
cases of “ conflict w ith th e in te re sts of a t h ir d S ta t e ” . (See digest of clauses of th is k in d :
N i e m e y e r , D ie Internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit Z. f. in t. R echt, 1918, Vol. X X V I I ,
pages 308 a n d 309). F in a lly , th e opinion of th e ju ris ts is liab le to cause confusion in view of
the fact t h a t th e la s t passag e of th e rep ly , w hich refers to Article 21 of th e C ovenant of th e
L e a g u e of N a tio n s, does n o t m a k e it clear w h e th e r th e plea in b a r to the proceedings should
not be e x c lu d e d b y th e o p e ra tio n of p a r a g r a p h 8 of Article 15, since a special a rb itra tio n con­
vention u s u a lly exclu des e v e ry k in d of in c id e n ta l p lea (e.g., the Italo -A rgentine C onvention
of J u ly 23rd, 1898, th e C en tra l A m eric an C o nv entions of D ecem ber 20th, 1907, a n d Con­
ventions of th e B ry a n ty p e).
T he f o u r th a n d fifth replies con cern q u estio n s of a p ra c tic a l n atu re .
The f o u r th re p ly deals w ith th e I t a l i a n c o n te n tio n t h a t coercive m easures ta k e n to safe­
guard th e le g itim a te in te re s ts of a n in ju re d S ta te do n o t c o n s titu te a c ts of war. W h e th e r
coercive m easures are or are n o t c o n sisten t w ith th e provisions of Articles 12 to 15 of th e
Covenant of th e L eagu e of N a tio n s d ep e n d s on t h e in d iv id u a l circum stances of each case.
The re p ly of th e ju ris ts p ro v id es no in d ic a tio n as to w h a t c rite rio n is to be a d o p te d in
d eterm in ing w h e th e r coercive m easu res c o n s titu te a n a c t of w a r ; is it to b e th e in ten tio n
(anim us) of t h e p a r t y h a v in g reco urse to coercion, or is it to be th e c h a ra c te r of the coercive
m easure itself ? Self-defence in th e form of re to r tio n a n d reprisals is allow ed b y th e C ovenant
of th e L eagu e of N a tio n s in so fa r as it does n o t invo lve “ ru p tu re of re la tio n s” (S c h ü c k i n g
and W e h b e r g , page 293).
The c o n te n tio n of th e f o u r th reply, d ra fte d in g en e ral term s, is t h a t “ peaceful o cc u p atio n ” ,
in so fa r as it does n o t b e a r th e c h a ra c te r of a n a c t of w a r (aggression w ith o u t dec lara tio n of
war) a n d w hen u n d e r ta k e n solely fo r th e p u rp o se of “ g u a ra n te e in g ” righ ts o r of ta k in g a
"p le d g e ” , is n o t in itself in c o n siste n t w ith th e te r m s of th e C ov enan t of th e League of N ations.
It m ig h t be said t h a t a n o c c u p a tio n of th is k in d is a ju stifia b le a c t of self-defence o r a species
of reprisals (such as p ea cefu l b lo c k a d e for ex a m p le , see P rofessor C y b i c h o w s k i — T reatise,
page 239). In th e case in p o in t, M. S a la n d ra p u t fo rw ard th e legal a rg u m e n t in th e following
words : “ T h e o cc u p atio n was m ere ly designed to assure o bligations arisin g o u t of re sp o n ­
sibility fo r a te rrib le crim e . . . T h e c reatio n of th e L eague of N a tio n s does n o t con­
s titu te a re n u n c ia tio n b y S ta te s of all rig h t to a c t for th e defence a n d safety of th e ir rig h ts
and of th e ir d ig n ity ” . (M inutes, page 1288).
T he ju ris ts ' re p ly in d ire c tly re je c ts th e d isse n tin g opinions of M. B ra n tin g and V iscount
Cecil b y a d o p tin g th e view t h a t th e Council m u st con sid er e a ch in d iv id u a l case before deciding
w hether th e coercive m ea su res ta k e n b y a n y S ta te sh ou ld be allow ed to s ta n d or not. M.
S alan d ra was e n tire ly ju stified in q u o tin g M. O ppenheim , M. de F au ch ille a n d M. de R olin
(Minutes, p ag e 1314), w ho co n sid er t h a t o cc u p a tio n for th e pu rp o se of g u a ra n te e is adm issible.
On th e basis of th is d o ctrin e , M. S a la n d ra so m e w h a t iron ically p o in ted o u t t h a t " I t a l y , w ho
has re c e n tly ta k e n h er p lace in w orld h isto ry , h a s m erely followed illustrio us e x a m p le s ”
(page 1314).
G e rm an d o c trin e recognises th e a d m is s ib ility of “ peaceful o c c u p a tio n ” in so fa r as it
c o n stitu tes : (1) a n a c t of self-defence, (2) a n a c t of u rg e n t necessity ( N o t s t a n d a k t ) ; (3) an
act ju stifie d o n special c o n tr a c tu a l g ro u n d s ( H e y l a n d , Die Rechtstellung der beselzten Rheinlande, H and b u ch des Vôlkerrechts, Vol. II. P a r t V II, 1923).
F in a lly , th e fifth re p ly lays dow n th e p rin cip le of resp on sibility for in te rn a tio n a l crim es
— a p rin cip le w h ich is u n iv e rs a lly k n o w n a n d accepted.
R e p ly from S a lv a d o r.
[Translation from the S p a n is h .]
San Salvador, D ecem ber 14th, 1925.
I h a v e th e h o n o u r to re p ly h e re w ith to y o u r n o te C.L. 113. 1925. V., d a te d O ctober i o t h
last.
In th is n o te y o u in fo rm e d us t h a t th e Council of the League of N ations on S ep tem b er
26th, 1925, in s tru c te d you, in acco rd an ce w ith a req u est to t h a t effect m ade to it b y th e
A ssem bly a t its last session, to in v ite th e G o v e rn m en ts of th e S tates M embers of th e L eague to
exam ine th e re p o rt of th e Special C om m ittee of J u r is ts d a te d J a n u a r y 24th, 1924, on c e rtain
points c o n c ern in g th e in te rp r e ta tio n of th e C ovenan t a n d o th e r questions of in te rn a tio n a l law,
and to fo rw a rd th e ir c o m m e n ts on d o u b tfu l p o in ts a n d a n y o th er observations th e y m ig h t
wish to m a k e before F e b r u a r y 1st nex t.
My G o v e rn m e n t has no o b serv atio n to m ak e reg arding th e first, second, th ird a n d fifth
questions a n d th e m a n n e r in w hich th e C o m m ittee has answ ered th e m in its re p o rt. I t is
unable to sa y th e sam e, how ever, w ith reg ard to th e fo u rth question. This q uestion a n d its
answer are as follows :
—
12
—
“ Fourth Question. — Are m easures of coercion w hich are n o t m e a n t to constitute
acts of w a r consistent w ith th e te rm s of A rticles 12 to 15 of th e C ovenant, w hen th e y are
ta k e n b y one M em ber of th e L eague of N a tio n s ag a in st a n o th e r M em ber of th e League
w ith o u t p rio r recourse to th e pro c ed u re laid dow n in these articles ? ”
“Reply. — Coercive m ea su res w hich are n o t in te n d e d to c o n s titu te a c ts of war
m a y or m a y n o t be c o n sisten t w ith th e provisions of A rticles 12 to 15 of th e Covenant,
a n d it is fo r th e Council, w hen th e d isp u te h as been s u b m itte d to it, to decide im me­
diately , h a v in g d ue re g a rd to all circu m stan ces of th e case a n d to th e n a tu re of the
m easures a d o p te d , w h e th e r i t sho uld reco m m en d th e m a in te n a n c e o r th e w ith d ra w a l of
such m ea su res.”
My G o v e rn m e n t considers t h a t ac ts of violence u n d e r ta k e n w ith a view to coercion for
a n y p urpo se c le arly c o n ta in an ele m e n t of aggression, p a r tic u la rly w hen th ese ac ts are directed
a g a in st a c o u n try w hich, as we sup pose to be th e case, h a s n o t so fa r a tte m p te d a n y act of
a sim ilar n a t u r e a g a in st th e first c o u n try . At a n y ra te , th is was th e im pression g ained b y my
G o v e rn m en t fro m th e sp irit w hich p revailed d u rin g th e discussions on a rb itr a tio n , security
a n d d is a rm a m e n t in con nection w ith th e G eneva P rotocol. On t h a t occasion i t w as laid down
t h a t a n y c o u n tr y re so rtin g to force in violation of th e o bligation s assu m ed u n d e r th e Covenant
a n d P ro to c o l w ould be re g a rd e d as a n aggressor, a n d it was laid dow n t h a t th is principle not
o n ly a p p lied to cle ar cases of th e use of force w h ich cam e w ith in th e c a teg o ry of ac ts of war
b u t also to th o se w h ich d id n o t c o n s titu te ac ts of w a r in th e tru e sense, since th e sp irit of the
P ro to co l w as to elim in a te violence fro m in te rn a tio n a l life as a m eans of s e ttlin g disputes.
My G o v e rn m e n t considers, m oreover, t h a t ac ts of violence w hich h av e n o t th e character
of a c ts of w a r can on ly be tho se c o m m itte d b y a pow erful n a tio n ag ain st a w eak one, since the
l a t t e r can n a tu r a lly n o t re ta lia te in th e sam e m easure. B etw een tw o n a tio n s of equ al or
a p p ro x im a te ly equal s tre n g th , su ch ac ts w ould be inco nceivab le, as th e n a tio n attack ed
w ould in all p ro b a b ility resist a n y a tte m p ts to coerce it, a n d this w ould give rise to a true
s ta te of w ar. I t is therefore e v id e n t t h a t th e p rinciple la id dow n in th e Special C om m ittee’s
re p o rt in re p ly to th e fo u rth q u estio n refers exclusively to w e ak natio ns, w hich, if th is principle
were accepted, w ould be exposed to insults, eq u a lly u n ca lle d for a n d u n n ec essary fo r th e settle­
m e n t of th e d isp u tes w hich m ig h t arise b etw e en th e m a n d m ore pow erful nation s. A bove all, my
G o v e rn m e n t does n o t see w h y th e Council should m a in ta in , in a n y p a rtic u la r case, th e m easures
of coercion t h a t h a v e been ta k e n a n d w h y it sho uld n o t in v a ria b ly o rd e r t h a t th e previous
situ a tio n sh o u ld be re-established p e n d in g its in te rv e n tio n a n d final decision.
A n o th e r q u estio n t h a t arises is w h e th e r th e Council could in a n y e v e n tu a lity o rd er or
even give its s u p p o rt to ac ts of coercion of th e n a tu r e u n d e r consideration, in th e event of
such a c tio n n o t h a v in g a lre a d y been ta k e n b y one of th e p a rtie s p e n d in g th e Council’s in ter­
v en tio n in th e d is p u te in questio n a n d its decision. T his being clearly m ost im p ro b ab le, why
sh ou ld th e Council to le ra te such m easures a n d m a in ta in th e m for th e sim ple reason t h a t one
of th e p a rtie s h as ta k e n th e law in to its own h a n d s ?
My G o v e rn m e n t considers t h a t , a t th e stage n ow re ach e d b y in te rn a tio n a l law, such
co n duct can h a v e no raison d ’être a n d m u st be co n d e m n ed b y public opinion. T he acceptance
of th is p rinciple b y th e M em bers of th e L eague w ould be d ia m e tric a lly op posed to th e ideas
which led to th e c reatio n of th e L eague, a n d c a n n o t be reconciled w ith th e m ain ten a n ce of
peace th ro u g h a resp ect for law a n d justice.
(Signed) R. A rrie ta R ossi.
Reply from Siam .
B an g k o k , J a n u a r y 8th, 1926.
H is M a je s ty ’s G o v e rn m en t s u b m its th e follow ing o b serv atio n s co ncernin g th e replies
of th e Special C o m m ittee of J u r i s t s to th e five q u estio n s p ro p o u n d e d to th e m con cernin g the
i n te r p r e ta tio n of th e C ov enant of th e L eague of N a tio n s.
H is M a je s ty ’s G o v e rn m en t fu lly a p p ro v e s th e replies given to th e first, second, third
a n d fifth questions.
H is M a je s ty ’s G o v e rn m en t, how ever, feels t h a t a cle are r an sw e r to th e f o u r th question
is essential. A n y a tta c k , h ow ever violent, how ever d e s tru c tiv e a n d ho w e v er unjustified,
m a y be cla im e d b y th e n a tio n m ak in g it to be m erely “ a m ea su re of coercion n o t in te n d e d to
c o n s titu te a n a c t of w a r ” . I t is cle a rly n o t sufficient, th erefo re, m erely to p e r m it th e nation
so a t ta c k e d to a sk th e Council of th e L eague of N a tio n s to decide t h a t th e m ea su res taken
a g a in st it are n o t co n siste n t w ith th e C ovenan t a n d m u s t b e w ith d raw n . S uch a n in terp re­
ta tio n w ou ld op en th e d o o r to serious abuse.
H is M a je s ty ’s G o v e rn m en t feels t h a t c e rta in so-called “ coercive m ea su res” can b e , a n d
clearty o u g h t to be, b ra n d e d in a d v a n c e as in c o n siste n t w ith th e te rm s of th e C o v e n a n t .
O th ers m a y be d eclared to be c le a rly co n sisten t w ith th e C ovenant. O th ers ag ain , as to
w hich th e re is d o u b t, m a y well be s u b m itte d to th e Council for its decision a s t o w hether
or not, u n d e r a ll th e circ u m sta n ces, t h e y are c o n sisten t w ith th e C o ven ant. If th is is done,
how ever, it seem s to H is M a je sty ’s G o v e rn m en t t h a t th e te rm s a n d t h e s p irit of t h e C o v e n a n t
re q u ire t h a t th e su bm issio n to th e Council sho uld b e m a d e before a n d n o t a f te r th e coercive
m easu res are ta k e n .
— 13 —
His M a je s ty ’s G o v e rn m e n t th ere fo re expresses th e hope t h a t f u r th e r s tu d y m a y be m ad e
of the m a t t e r s in v o lv ed in th e f o u r th q uestion in th e hope of b rin g in g th e S ta te s M em bers
of the L eag ue to ag ree on a cle ar in te rp r e ta tio n of th e C o v en an t w hich, so fa r as possible,
will p re v e n t u n ju s t in ju r y to a n y n a tio n a n d u n n ec essary p ro v o c a tio n to w a r th ro u g h th e
medium of a c ts of coercion “ n o t in te n d e d as a c ts of w a r ” .
(Signed)
T r a id o s,
________
M in ister for Foreign A ffairs.
Reply from Sweden.
[Translation.]
S tockholm , J a n u a r y 29th, 1926.
In re p ly to y o u r le tte r of O ctober io th , 1925, in w hich you asked th e Swedish G o v ern m en t
to fo rw ard to th e S e c re ta ria t of th e L eague of N a tio n s a n y o b servations which it m ig h t desire
to m ake on t h e re p o rt of th e Special C om m ittee of J u r is ts a p p o in ted u n d e r th e reso lu tion
of th e Council of S e p te m b e r 28th, 1923, I h av e th e h o n o u r to s u b m it to you th e following
considerations re la tin g to th e q u estio n d e a lt w ith u n d e r (4) in t h a t re p o rt :
A t th e m ee tin g of th e Council on M arch 13th, 1924, w hen th e above-m entioned re p o rt
was e x a m in e d , th e Sw edish re p rese n ta tiv e , M. B ra n tin g , m ade th e following s ta te m e n ts :
“ As re g ard s th e re p ly to th e fo u r th q uestion, th e C om m ittee of J u ris ts has n o t ind icated
th e cases in w hich coercive m easures are leg itim a te a n d th e cases in w hich th e y are not.
I t is ev id e n t t h a t th e re p ly of th e C o m m ittee m ig h t cover different opinions as to th e
legal c h a ra c te r of c e rta in coercive m easures.
In th ese circum stances, m y G o vern m en t
w ould h a v e lik ed th is q u estio n t o be referred to th e P e rm a n e n t C ourt of In te rn a tio n a l
J u stic e in o rd e r t h a t a clearer opinion m ig h t be o b ta in e d on th is ex tre m ely im p o rta n t
a n d v e r y d elicate problem .
“ As, how ever, th is suggestion h as n o t been fa v o u ra b ly received b y m y colleagues,
I declare, in accord an ce w ith m y in stru ctio n s, t h a t m y G o v ern m ent m ain tain s in its
in te g rity th e in te r p r e ta tio n of th e C ov en ant on th is su bject, a n in te rp r e ta tio n w hich
was s u p p o rte d b y m e d u rin g a prev io u s session of th e Council, a n d t h a t it therefore
co n tin u es to be of opinion t h a t th e use of a rm e d forces is n o t co m patible w ith th e C ovenant
in th e circ u m sta n ces in d ic a te d in th e f o u r th question. I accept th e fo u r th reply su bject
to th is d ec lara tio n .”
M ay I be allow ed to a d d th e follow ing to th e se s ta te m e n ts ? The w ording of Q uestion
4 as re g ard s m easu res of coercion w hich are n o t m e a n t to co n stitu te acts of w ar obviously refers
only to m easures ta k e n b y one S ta te a g a in st a n o th e r in o rd er to b rin g pressure to b e a r u p o n
it. The p o in t a t issue a p p e a rs th erefo re to be lim ite d to w h a t in te rn a tio n a l law m ean s b y
reprisals. R ep risals in clud e n o t only m easu res inv o lv in g th e use of arm e d forces b u t also
other m ean s of pressure, su ch as financial m easures, etc.
T he re p o rt of th e C o m m ittee of J u r is ts confines itself, as reg ard s th e fo u rth question, to
statin g t h a t c e rtain m easures of coercion are consistent w ith th e term s of Articles 12 to 15
of th e C o v en an t a n d t h a t o th e rs are n o t. B u t it does n o t trac e a n y line of d em a rca tio n betw een
the tw o classes of m easures, t h a t is, b etw e en th o se which are legitim ate a n d those w hich are
not. I t is, how ever, exceedingly im p o r ta n t to d ra w as clear a d istin c tio n betw een th e m as
possible.
I t sh o uld be n o te d in th is co n nection t h a t opinions on th is question held p rio r to th e
ad o ptio n of th e C ov en an t are now of o nly lim ite d im p o rtan ce in relations betw een S tates
Members of th e L eague of N ations.
1. T he q u estio n w h e th e r a S ta te w hich reso rts to reprisals is defending a ju st cause
is of no im p o rta n c e a t all. A ccording to th e C ovenant, a tte m p ts m u st in every case be m ad e
to settle th e d isp u te b y peacefu l m ean s before a n y recourse is h a d to ac ts of force. According
to A rticle 12, th e p a rtie s are b o u n d n o t to resort to w ar or to ta k e a n y o th e r m easure consti­
tu tin g a ru p tu re , or lik ely to be re g ard e d b y th e o th e r p a r ty as being of t h a t n a tu re , before
applying to th e Council or s u b m ittin g to arb itratio n .
2. T he q u estio n c a n n o t be solved b y an y such p u rely subjective s ta n d a r d as the in te n ­
tions of th e G o v e rn m en t w h ich ta k e s th e m easures in question. The system established b y th e
C ovenant requires t h a t th e q u estio n sho u ld be settled b y an objective s ta n d a r d enabling
the Council to d ete rm in e w hich S ta te it is t h a t first resorted to acts of w ar an d th u s incurred
the pen alties p ro v id e d b y th e C ovenant.
3 . N or can th e q uestio n be s e ttled b y a consideration of th e a ttitu d e ad o p te d b y th e
S tate to w hich m easu res of coercion h av e been applied. If it were accepted t h a t a pacific
a ttitu d e on its p a r t w ould rem ove fro m th e m easures in question th eir w arlike character, it
would follow t h a t th e S ta te a tta c k e d w ould h av e a reason for offering arm ed resistance, since
the m easu re of reprisal w ould th u s a p p e a r as h av in g created a s ta te of w ar an d as therefore
entitling it to ap p e al for help to th e L eague of N ations. Such an in te rp re ta tio n of the C ovenant
would, how ever, be d ire c tly h a rm fu l to th e m ain ten an ce of peace.
The conclusion w hich follows from th e above arg u m e n ts is th a t m easures of coercion
which in v olv e th e use of a rm e d forces m u st be considered incom patible w ith th e provisions
of th e C ov en an t in th e circu m stan ces in d icate d in th e fo u rth question. This conclusion seems
also to acco rd w ith th e a ttitu d e ad o p te d b y th e Council in settling th e conflict betw een Greece
and B ulgaria.
(Signed) Ô s t e n U n d e n .
— 14 —
Reply from Switzerland.
[Translation.]
Berne, F e b ru a ry 2nd, 1926.
I n y o u r le tte r, No. C.L. 113. 1925. V., of O ctob er i o t h , in ex e cu tio n of a decision of the
Council of th e L eague of N a tio n s d a te d S ep te m b e r 26th, 1925, w h ich itself w as p u rs u a n t to
a resolution b y th e s ix th A ssem bly, y o u re q u e s te d th e F e d e ra l Council to fo rw ard to you
before th e 1st of th is m o n th its o b serv atio n s on th e re p o rt of th e Special C om m ittee of Jurists
ap p o in ted on S e p te m b e r 28th , 1923.
In re p ly to th is in v ita tio n , we h av e th e h o n o u r to fo rw ard to y o u h e re w ith a n aide-mémoire
giving th e F e d e ra l C ouncil’s views on th e J u r i s t s ’ re p o rt, its o b se rv atio n s on a n u m b e r of
points, a n d also c e rta in o th e r p o in ts in re g ard to w hich it desires a m o re e x p licit s ta te m e n t to
be m ade.
(Signed) M o t t a ,
Federal P olitical Department.
A ID E -M É M O IR E .
I t is e x p e d ie n t first of all to ex a m in e th e legal c h a ra c te r of th e replies giv en b y t h e Com­
m itte e of J u ris ts . In its resolutio n of M arch 13th, 1924, th e Council m ad e no pro n o u n cem en t
on th is p o in t, b u t a p p ro v e d th e replies in th e ir en tire ty .
T he C o v en an t of th e L eague of N a tio n s c o n ta in s no p rovisions w ith re g a rd to th e proce­
d u re to be followed in its in te rp re ta tio n . T here ca n h a r d ly be a n y d o u b t, how ever, t h a t the
o rg a n of th e L eague w hich h a s to d eal w ith a co ncrete case has also to interpret the Covenant with
a view to its application. S uch in te rp r e ta tio n does n o t, of course, possess a n y b in d in g ch a rac ter
a p a r t fro m th e case in resp ect of w hich th e in te rp r e ta tio n is given. I t is for t h e P erm an e n t
C ou rt of In te r n a tio n a l J u s tic e to give a n abstract interpretation of the Covenant, in th e form of
a n ad v iso ry opinion. I t is h a r d ly o p en to d isp u te t h a t th e replies of th e C o m m ittee of J u r is ts as
a p p ro v e d b y th e Council h a v e no b in d in g ch a ra c te r. T his view has a lre a d y been u p h e ld by
M. G. Ador, m em b e r of th e Swiss delegation, in his speech a t the p le n a ry m eeting of th e Assem­
b ly on S ep te m b e r 8th, 1924, d u rin g th e discussion on th e w o rk of t h e Council. S p eaking of
th e J u r i s t s ’ replies, M. A d o r said :
" T h e Council h a s ta k e n n o te of i t a n d th e d o c u m e n t c a n n o t be re g ard e d as an a u th e n ­
tic in te rp r e ta tio n of th e C ov enant or as b in d in g in c h a ra c te r."
In p a rtic u la r, M. A d o r em p h a sise d th e fa c t t h a t th e L eague A ssem bly could n o t be bound
b y a n in te rp r e ta tio n of th e Council w hen he a d d e d :
“ T h e A ssem b ly m u s t re m a in th e su p re m e a u t h o r i t y in so fa r as concerns th e in terp re­
ta tio n of th e C o v e n a n t.”
O th er sp ea k ers m a in ta in e d t h e sam e p o in t of view. T h ere is, in fact, no d o u b t on this
m a tte r. I t is for th e c o n tra c tin g p a rtie s alone — a p a r t fro m th e cases m e n tio n e d above —
to in te rp r e t an in te rn a tio n a l t r e a ty . It w ould be c o n tr a r y to th is p rin cip le were th e Council,
on w hich o nly a lim ite d n u m b e r of S ta te s M em bers are rep resented , e n title d to give a n in te r­
p re ta tio n of th e C o ven an t w hich w ould b e b in d in g u p o n th e o th e r M em bers. T h e Assembly,
on th e o th e r h a n d , b e in g a b o d y w h ich com prises all th e c o n tra c tin g S tates, can give an
a b s tra c t in te rp r e ta tio n of th e C ov enan t th ro u g h a u n a n im o u s decision, a lth o u g h th is decision
is n o t of a n ab so lu tely b in d in g ch a ra c te r. I t w ould a p p e a r t h a t t h e J u r i s t s ’ replies m ight
lead to som e su ch decision if discussed b y th e A ssem bly.
As re g ard s its authentic interpretation in th e s tric t sense of th e te rm , th e C o ven ant, as has
been said, c o n ta in s no provisions. I t m u st, how ever, b e a d m itte d t h a t th e prin ciples cu stom ary
in in te rp re tin g in te rn a l p u b lic law o u g h t to be a p p lied in this case b y analogy. J u s t as it is
im possible to give an a u th e n tic in te r p r e ta tio n of a law ex cep t b y leg islativ e m eans, so the
a m e n d m e n t pro c ed u re laid d ow n in A rticle 26 sh o u ld be ap p lied to th e C ov enant of th e League
of N a tio n s (see in th is co nn ection th e s ta te m e n ts m a d e in th e F irst C o m m ittee of th e second
A ssem b ly b y M. M o tta a n d M. E rich, t h e F in n is h delegate, Records of the Second Assembly,
Vol. I, p ag es 96 a n d 97). A t th e sam e tim e, th is m e th o d of in te r p r e ta tio n ca n s ca rce ly be
considered in th e p re s e n t case.
A fte r th ese g en eral re m a rk s, le t us proceed to ex a m in e th e p a rtic u la r points.
“ F irst Question. — Is th e Council, w h en seized a t th e in sta n c e of a M em ber of the
L eague of N a tio n s of a d isp u te, s u b m itte d , in accordance w ith th e te rm s of A rticle 15 of
th e C ovenant, b y su c h a M em ber as ‘likely to lea d to a r u p t u r e ’, b o u n d , e ith e r a t th e request
of th e o th e r p a r t y or on its ow n a u th o rity , a n d before enqu iring in to a n y p o in t, to decide
w h e th e r in fa c t su c h d esc rip tio n is w ell-founded ?”
“ F irst Reply. — T h e Council, w h en seized a t th e instance of a M em ber of th e League
of N a tio n s of a d is p u te s u b m itte d , in ac cordance w ith th e te rm s of A rticle 15 of th e Cove­
n a n t, b y su c h a M em b er as ‘lik ely to lea d to a r u p t u r e ’, is n o t b o u n d , e ith e r a t th e request
of th e o th e r p a r t y o r on its ow n a u th o rity , a n d before e n q u irin g in to a n y p o in t, to decide
w h e th e r in fa c t su ch d e sc rip tio n is w ell-founded.
“ T h e Council m ay a t a ll tim e s e stim a te th e g ra v ity of th e d is p u te a n d determ ine
th e course of its a c tio n a c c o rd in g ly .”
— 15 —
I t m ig h t be co nclud ed fro m th e w ord ing of th e first p a r a g ra p h in th is re p ly ("L e C onseil. . .
ne doit p a s . . . — T h e C o u n c il. . . is n o t b o u n d . .
as also fro m th e w ording of t h e second
paragraph (“ Le Conseil p e u t . . . ” — “ The Council m a y . . . ” ), t h a t th e Council is n o t obliged
to consider w h e th e r th e d is p u te is lik ely to lead to a ru p tu re , b u t t h a t it is free to do so. It
would th u s n o t be b o u n d to d eal w ith a d is p u te su b m itte d to it in co n fo rm ity w ith A rticle 15,
p aragraph 1, of th e C o v en an t of th e L eague, unless it th o u g h t t h a t it was “ likely to lead to
a ru p tu r e ” . T h is view w ou ld a p p e a r to us to be c o n tra ry to th e spirit of th e C ovenant. In
our opinion, each M em ber of th e L eague m u s t be left free to ju d g e w h e th e r th e conflict is
likely to lea d to a r u p t u r e a n d w hether, th e re fo re , it should be s u b m itte d to th e Council in
accordance w ith A rticle 15. T h e q u e stio n w h e th e r a d isp u te is likely to lead to a ru p tu re
depends so m u c h u p o n p u re ly su b jectiv e fa c to rs t h a t only th e p arties them selves are able to
estim ate th e w eig ht t h a t sh o u ld be given to th e m . E v e n th e Council would lack an objective
criterion b y w hich to judge. T h a t is w h y it is b o u n d to d eal w ith an y d isp u te s u b m itte d to
it in ac co rd a n ce w ith A rticle 15, p a r a g ra p h 1 (with th e exception of th e cases m en tio n ed
in R eplies 2 a n d 3).
A co m p a riso n b e tw e e n Articles 13 a n d 15 o f th e C ovenant w ould ap pear to lead to th e
same conclusion. A rticle 13 deals w ith a r b itr a tio n o r ju dicial proceedings. These m a y be
applied if th e d is p u te c a n n o t be “ sa tis fa c to rily s e ttle d b y d ip lo m a c y ” . This provision does
not a p p e a r in A rticle 15, w h ich lays d ow n th e princip les of p ro c ed u re in th e e v e n t of an ap p eal
to th e Council. D ip lo m a tic n eg o tiatio n s th e re fo re need n o t necessarily precede an app eal
to th e Council. The d u t y of deciding w h e th e r t h e y do or do n o t desire to pursue these neg o tia­
tions m u s t be left larg ely to th e discretion of th e S ta te s concerned. In its ju d g m e n t of A ugust
30th, 1924, in th e case of th e M a v ro m m a tis P a le stin e Concessions (Publications of the Per­
manent Court, Series A, No. 2), th e P e rm a n e n t C ourt of In te r n a tio n a l Ju stic e said in this
connection :
(P age 13) “ T h e q u estio n of th e im p o rta n c e a n d chances of success of dip lo m atic
n e g o tia tio n s is esse n tia lly a re la tiv e one. N e g o tia tio n s do n o t of necessity alw ays p re­
supp ose a m ore o r less le n g th y series of n o te s a n d d e s p a tc h e s ; it m a y suffice t h a t a
discussion sh o u ld h a v e been com m enced , a n d th is discussion m a y h av e been v e ry sh o rt ;
th is will b e th e case if a d ea d lo ck is re a c h e d o r if, finally, a p o in t is reached a t w hich one
of th e p a rtie s d e fin ite ly declares him self u n ab le , o r refuses, to give way, an d th ere can
th ere fo re be no d o u b t t h a t th e d is p u te c a n n o t be s e ttle d b y dip lo m atic n e g o tia tio n . . . ”
(P age 15) “ T h e C o urt realises to th e fu ll th e im p o rta n c e of th e rule lay in g dow n t h a t
o n ly d isp u te s w hich c a n n o t be s e ttle d b y n e g o tia tio n sh o u ld be b ro u g h t before it. It
recognises, in fact, t h a t , before a d is p u te ca n be m a d e th e su b je c t of a n a c tio n of law,
its s u b je c t- m a tte r sh o u ld h a v e b ee n c le a rly defin ed b y m eans of d ip lo m a tic negotiations.
N everth eless, in a p p ly in g th is ru le, t h e C ou rt c a n n o t d isreg a rd , am ong st o th e r conside­
ra tio n s, th e views of th e S ta te s co ncerned, w hich are in th e b est position to ju d g e as to
p o litic al reason s w h ich m a y p re v e n t th e s e ttle m e n t of a given d isp u te b y dip lo m atic
n e g o tia tio n s .”
If, th erefo re, th e opinion of S ta te s as t o t h e e x p e d ien cy of ap pealin g to th e Court of
Ju stice o r a c o u rt of a r b itr a tio n is decisive, ev e n in cases in w h ich th e provisions of Article 13
reg arding th e failure of d ip lo m a tic n e g o tia tio n s are to be applied, how m u ch m ore should this
opinion be decisive w hen, as in A rticle 15, no su ch pro vision is in clu d ed ?
T hese are th e few p o in ts in th e first re p ly w h ich we th in k should be m ade clearer.
“ Second Question. — Is th e Council, w h en seized of a d isp u te in accord an ce w ith
A rticle 15, p a r a g r a p h 1, of th e C o v en an t, a t th e in stan ce of a M em ber of th e League of
N a tio n s, b o u n d , e ith e r a t th e re q u e st of a p a r t y o r on its ow n a u th o rity , to suspen d its
e n q u iry in to th e d is p u te w hen, w ith th e c o n se n t of th e parties, th e s e ttle m e n t of th e dispu te
is b ein g so u g h t th r o u g h som e o th e r c h a n n e l ?”
“Second R eply. — W here, c o n tra ry to t h e te rm s of Article 15, p a ra g ra p h 1, a dispute
is s u b m itte d to th e Council on th e a p p lic a tio n of one of th e parties, where such a dispute
a lre a d y form s th e s u b je c t of a r b itr a tio n or of ju dicial proceedings, th e Council m u st refuse
to c o n s id e r th e ap p lica tio n .
“ If th e m a t t e r in d isp u te, b y a n ag reem en t betw een th e parties, has already been
s u b m itte d to o th e r ju risd ic tio n before w hich it is being re g u la rly proceeded w ith, o r is
b ein g d e a lt w ith in th e said m a n n e r in a n o th e r channel, it is in co n fo rm ity w ith the
gen eral principles of law t h a t it sh o u ld be possible for a reference b ac k to such ju risd ictio n
to be asked for a n d o rd e re d .”
T he J u r i s t s ’ re p ly d isting uish es tw o cases a n d provides a sep a rate solution for each.
The first case is t h a t in w hich th e d is p u te “ form s the sub ject of a rb itra tio n or of judicial
proceedings” ; th e secon d is w hen th e m a t t e r “ has a lre ad y been s u b m itte d to o th er ju ris ­
diction before w hich it is being re g u la rly p roceeded with, o r is being dealt w ith in th e said
m ann er in a n o th e r c h a n n e l” .
. „
In th e fo rm e r case, th e Council m u s t “ refuse to consider th e ap plication . T his reply
m ust b e re g a rd e d as sa tisfa c to ry . I t is also in accordance w ith th e stip u latio n s of Articles
12 to 15 of th e C ovenant, to th e effect t h a t a d isp u te which is su b m itte d to a rb itra tio n or judicial
procedure c a n n o t be b ro u g h t a t th e sam e tim e before th e Council.
.
T his rep ly , how ever, a lth o u g h correct, m ig h t c a u s e certain m isu n d erstan d in g s w hich it
would be well to avoid. I t m ig h t suggest t h a t th e Council is only in co m p eten t if th e d isp u te
already form s th e s u b je c t of a r b itr a tio n o r of ju d icial proceedings, whereas it m u st obviously
also refuse to e x a m in e th e m a t t e r in th e follow ing circum stances .
— i6 —
(1) W hen th e d isp u te has n o t been s u b m itte d to a n y co urt, b u t w hen th e parties
are b o u n d b y a co n v en tio n to b rin g it before som e co u rt of a rb itra tio n or to judicial
proceedings ;
(2) W hen th e d isp u te is a lre a d y p e n d in g or m u s t necessarily b e b ro u g h t before a
co u rt of conciliation a n d w hen th e p a rtie s are obliged to s u b m it i t to a c o u rt of a rb itra ­
tion or to judicial proceedings in th e e v e n t of conciliation p ro vin g unsuccessful.
F o r th e sam e reasons, th e Council m u s t declare itself in c o m p e te n t w hen th e d is p u te already
form s th e su b je c t of ju d ic ia l proceedings or a r b itr a tio n a n d w hen it is in clu d ed am o n g th e cases
which h ave ju s t been m en tio n ed .
The M em bers of th e L eague of N a tio n s are free to su p p lem en t a n d reinforce b y separate
conv en tions th e p erfectly g en eral o bligations w hich th e y h av e c o n tra c te d in re g a rd to the
peaceful s e ttle m e n t of th e ir d isp u tes as M em bers of th e League. A greem ents of th is so rt can
only con solidate th e f u n d a m e n ta l principle of th e League, n am ely , th e pacific settlem ent
of in te rn a tio n a l disp utes. T h ey c o n s titu te a n ad v an ce on th e C ovenant itself. Accordingly,
a reso lu tion b y th e t h ir d A ssem bly of th e League, d a te d S ep tem b er 22nd, 1922, specially
re co m m en d s to S ta te s M em bers th e conclusion of se p a ra te tre a tie s of conciliation. Switzer­
land , b y th e conclusion of n u m e ro u s co n v en tio n s for ju d ic ia l s e ttle m e n t, a r b itr a tio n a n d conci­
liation , h a s given proof of h e r firm resolve to c o n trib u te as fa r as she can to w a rd s perfecting
th e p ro c e d u re fo r th e peaceful s e ttle m e n t of in te rn a tio n a l d ispu tes.
T hese conventions,
w here th e y d eal w ith con ciliation procedu re, w ith a rb itr a tio n , o r w ith ju d icial procedure,
co n s titu te , in re la tio n to th e co rresp on din g princip les in th e L eague C ovenant, a lex specialis.
T his, in c o n fo rm ity w ith a g en erally accepted rule, ta k e s precedence of the C ovenant, th e latter
b ein g re g a rd e d as a lex generalis. W h en ev er tre a tie s of th is k in d exist, therefore, ap p e al to
th e Council in c o n fo rm ity w ith Article 15 o u g h t o nly to be m ad e in th e last re s o rt, t h a t is to
say, w hen th e p a r tic u la r p ro c ed u re agreed u p o n h as n o t led to th e s e ttle m e n t of th e dispute.
I t w ould be c o n tra ry to th e principle of re sp ect for tre a tie s as p ro claim ed in th e p re am b le of
t h e C ov enan t of th e L eague (“ In o rd e r . . .
by . . .
a scrupu lous resp ect for all
t r e a t y o b ligatio ns in th e dealings of org anised peoples w ith one a n o th e r” ) t h a t one of the
c o n tra c tin g p a rtie s sh o u ld w ish to s u b m it a d isp u te im m e d ia te ly to th e Council in sp ite of
ex istin g conventions. I t w ou ld seem t h a t th e Council sh ould first recall th e a p p lic a n t State
to a sense of th e respect d u e to its t r e a t y engagem ents.
T h e fa c t t h a t th e C o m m ittee of J u ris ts em ploy s a different fo rm u la in th e seco nd p a ra ­
g ra p h of its re p ly is a p p a re n tly a ttr ib u ta b le to its desire to em p hasise t h a t in th e cases referred
to, as opposed to th e cases m en tio n ed in th e first p a ra g ra p h , th e Council m ay a n d n o t must
re fer th e q u estio n back. T he decision to be ta k e n w ould th erefo re d ep e n d u p o n th e opinion
of th e Council.
" T h ir d Question. — Is an objectio n fou n d ed on A rticle 15, p a r a g ra p h 8, of th e Cove­
n a n t th e only ob jectio n b a s e d on th e m erits of th e d isp u te on w hich th e com p etence of
th e Council to m ak e a n e n q u iry can be ch allen ged ? ”
“ T h ird R eply. — W here a d isp u te likely to lead to a ru p tu re is s u b m itte d to the
Council, on th e a p p lic a tio n of one of th e p artie s, in acco rd a n ce w ith th e provisions of Article
15, p a r a g ra p h 1, th e case c o n te m p la te d in p a r a g ra p h 8 of Article 15 is th e o nly case in
w hich th e Council is n o t to enq uire in to th e disp ute.
" I n p a rtic u la r, th e re serv a tio n s co m m o n ly in serte d in m ost a rb itr a tio n treaties
c a n n o t be p lea d ed as a b a r to th e proceedings.
" T h e C o m m ittee considers it desirab le to observe th a t, where th e case arises, the
Council should, in d e te rm in in g th e course of its action , h av e re g ard to in te rn a tio n a l
en g ag em en ts, such as tre a tie s of a r b itr a tio n o r regional u n d e rs ta n d in g s for securin g the
m a in te n a n c e of p ea ce.”
T he re p ly to th is q u estio n also seems satisfac to ry . F u r t h e r discussion on th e force of the
o b jectio n b ased on A rticle 15, p a r a g ra p h 8, of th e C ov en ant no longer ap p e ars n ecessary after
th e A d v is o ry O pinion No. 4 given b y th e P e rm a n e n t C ourt of In te rn a tio n a l J u s tic e on F e b ru a ry
7th, 1923.
W e are pleased to n o te th e p ro n o u n c e m e n t of th e C om m ittee of J u r is ts on a p a r­
tic u la r q uestio n in th e th ird p a r a g ra p h of its reply. T his re m a rk recognises t h a t , in d eterm inin g
th e course of its action, th e Council sh o u ld h a v e reg ard, for exam ple, to Swiss n e u tra lity .
“ F ourth Question. — Are m easu res
a c ts of w a r co n sisten t w ith th e te rm s of
ta k e n b y one M em ber of th e L eague of
w ith o u t p rio r recourse to th e p ro c ed u re
of coercion w hich are n o t m e a n t to co n stitu te
A rticles 12 to 15 of th e C ovenant w hen t h e y are
N a tio n s a g a in st a n o th e r M em ber of th e League
laid dow n in those A rticles ? ”
" F ourth R eply. — Coercive m easures w hich are n o t in te n d e d to c o n stitu te a c ts of
w a r m a y o r m a y n o t be con sisten t w ith th e provisions of A rticles 12 to 15 of th e C ovenant,
a n d it is for th e Council, w hen th e d is p u te has been s u b m itte d to it, to decide im m ediately,
h a v in g due re g a rd to all th e circu m stances of th e case a n d to th e n a tu re of th e m easures
ad o p te d , w h e th e r i t should re co m m en d th e m a in te n a n c e or t h e w ith d ra w a l of such
m ea su res.”
T here are c e rta in om issions in th is reply, a n d it acco rding ly req uires to be m ad e clearer.
I t w ould be well to e x p la in w h a t is u n d e rs to o d b y th e w ords " w h ic h are n o t m e a n t to con­
s titu te acts of w a r ” . Are we to ju dge b y th e in te n tio n s of th e S ta te w hich ta k e s m easures
of coercion, or is it th e n a tu r e of these m easures t h a t is to be re g ard e d as th e d eterm ining
— ly —
factor ?
I t w ould seem t h a t a n ob jectiv e s ta n d a r d is th e only one t h a t should be applied.
It is the n a tu r e of th e m easu re, a n d n o t th e in ten tio n s d ic ta tin g it, w h ich decides w h e th e r it
is adm issible or not.
The C o m m ittee of J u r is ts f u r th e r recognises in its re p ly t h a t th ere are c e rta in “ coercive
measures w hich are n o t in te n d e d to c o n s titu te acts of w a r” b u t w hich are n ev e rth eless c o n tra ry
to the provisions of A rticles 12 to 15 of th e C ovenant. This p o in t also req u ires elucidation.
W ith o u t considering th e qu estion in all its aspects, it o u g h t to be possible to e n u m e ra te
a certain n u m b e r of coercive m ea su res w h ich w ould ce rtain ly n o t be au th o rise d . T his is first
and forem ost th e case w ith m easu res affecting th e te rrito ria l so vereign ty of a S ta te. It m u s t
be considered in c o m p a tib le w ith A rticles 12 to 15 of th e C ovenant for a S ta te to v io late th e
territory of a n o th e r S ta te d u rin g th e course of peaceful proceedings a n d before th e e x p iry
of the tim e -lim it laid do w n in A rticle 12. T his follows fro m th e consid eratio n th a t , if a S ta te
were p e r m itte d to e m p lo y coercive m ea su res ag a in st a n o th e r S tate, th e la tte r o u g h t to be
allowed to t a k e th e sam e m ea su res a g a in st th e form er. M easures of th is kind, which, if ta k e n
sim ultaneously b y b o th S ta tes, w ould in e v ita b ly lead to war, c a n n o t be con sisten t w ith A rticles
12 to 15.
T h e o b lig atio n to resp ect th e t e r r ito r y of S ta te s follows also fro m th e te rm s of Article 1 0
of th e C ov enant. I t is in v irtu e of th is p ro vision t h a t S ta te s M em bers “ are b o u n d to refrain
from a n y vio lent u n d e r ta k in g ” (see th e M essage of th e F e d e ra l Council to th e F ed eral A ssem bly
of A ug ust 4 th , 1 9 1 9 , w ith re g a rd to th e q u estio n of S w itz erla n d ’s accession to th e League
of N ations, page 1 7 ).
" F i f t h Question. — I n w h a t c irc u m sta n ces a n d to w h a t e x te n t is th e respo nsibility
of a S ta te in v o lv ed b y th e com m ission of a p o litic al crim e in its te rr ito r y ? ”
" F i f t h R eply. — T h e re s p o n sib ility of a S ta te is on ly invo lved b y th e com m ission
in its t e r r i to r y of a po litical crim e a g a in st th e persons of foreigners if th e S ta te h as neglec­
te d to ta k e all re aso n ab le m ea su res fo r th e p re v e n tio n of th e crim e a n d th e p u rsu it, arrest
a n d b rin g in g to ju stic e of t h e crim inal.
“ T h e recognised p u b lic c h a ra c te r of a fo reign er a n d th e circu m stan ces in w hich he
is p re s e n t in its t e r r ito r y e n ta il u p o n t h e S ta te a correspo nd ing d u ty of special vigilance
on his b e h a lf.”
T h e q u estio n a n d th e re p ly refer to “ p o litic al crim e s” w ith o u t seeking to define them .
It m a y be agreed t h a t a p o litical crim e is c o m m itte d “ w h en crim es against foreigners are
obviously in sp ired b y h o s tility to th e ir n a tio n a lity , in o th e r w ords, w hen th e y are a tta c k e d
as n a tio n a ls of a c e rta in c o u n tr y ” ; especially, th erefore, w hen — th e above con ditions being
fulfilled — “ t h e v ic tim h a s a p u b lic c h a ra c te r a n d w hen th e a t t a c k is m ad e u p o n h im b y reaso n
of t h a t c h a r a c te r ” x.
W o u ld it n o t be b e t t e r to sp e a k m o re g en e rally of crim es c o m m itte d a g a in st foreigners a n d
not on ly of p o litical crim es ? I t m a y be said g en e rally t h a t a S ta te is in a n y case n o t m ore,
but less, respo nsible fo r crim es t h a t are n o t of a political n a tu re .
As re g a rd s th e “ reaso n ab le m e a su re s” , th e q u estio n w h e th e r th e y h av e or h ave n o t been
taken c a n o n ly be s e ttle d in co n c rete cases. A t th e sam e tim e , a few e x p la n a tio n s seem possible.
Thus, no S ta te is re q u ire d to g r a n t to foreigners a g re a te r m easure of p ro te c tio n t h a n it
g rants to its ow n n atio n als, in so fa r a t le a st as t h e y are n o t obviously th re a te n e d b y reason
of th e ir being foreigners. N o r is i t th e d u t y of th e S ta te to p re v e n t or p u n ish a crim e b y different
m ethods acco rd in g as it is c o m m itte d a g a in st a foreigner or a n ational.
I t w ould a p p e a r obvious, a lth o u g h it m a y be w o rth s ta tin g so explicitly, t h a t a S ta te is
not respo nsible for a ju d g m e n t given a g a in st a crim in al, b u t on ly for his p u rsu it, arrest and
bringing to justice in c o n fo rm ity w ith e x istin g laws. To q u o te M. Ch. De Visscher 2 : “ If
crim inals b ro u g h t before th e re g u la r c o u rts h av e been ju d g e d according to th e procedure laid
down b y th e la w of th e c o u n try , th e o blig atio ns of th e S ta te are d isch arg ed .”
As re g a rd s th e cases d e a lt w ith in th e second p a r a g ra p h of th e reply, th e w ords used b y
M. A do r a t th e p le n a ry m ee tin g of t h e A ssem b ly on S ep tem b er 8th, 1924, again seem perfectly
ap p ro p riate. M. A d o r said t h a t “ th e o n ly d u t y of th e S ta te is to p re v en t, so far as possible,
crimes a g a in st th e official re p re s e n ta tiv e s of o th e r S ta tes w hen on official business w ith in its
te r r ito r y ” .
F in a lly , i t w ould be well to m e n tio n c e rtain circum stances w hich m ig h t dim inish th e
responsibility of S ta te s in th e cases d e a lt w ith in p ara g ra p h s 1 a n d 2. F o r exam ple, a n y fault
c o m m itte d b y th e foreigner him self w ould dim inish responsibility. The sam e w ould ap p ly
if th e crim e a g a in st th e foreigner h a d its origin in events of dom estic policy occurring in his
own c o u n try . The in te rn a tio n a l re sp o n sib ility of a S ta te is clearly dim inished if th e crim e is
the re su lt of po litical ten sio n w hich h a s developed w ith o u t th e S tate on whose te rr ito r y the
crime is c o m m itte d h a v in g been in a n y w a y concerned a n d w ith o u t its being able to exercise
any influence w ith a view to re d u cin g o r rem o vin g such tension.
A n y re p ly t h a t m ig h t be given to th e fifth question m u st necessarily be so general t h a t
its ap p lica tio n in concrete cases will lead to differences of opinion. It m ay be re m a rk ed here
th a t th e q u estio n of th e re sp o n sib ility of S ta te s is clearly one of those which lend th em selves
to a ju d icial or a r b itr a l settlem en t. P a ra g ra p h 2 of Article 13 of th e C ovenant, in fact,
expressly m en tio n s as such “ d is p u te s . . . as to th e existence of a n y fact which, if established,
would c o n s titu te a b re a c h of a n y in te rn a tio n a l obligation, or as to the e x te n t a n d n a tu re of th e
re p ara tio n to be m ad e for a n y such b re a c h ” .
1 M. Ch. De V isscher, i n th e Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, Vol. V (1924),
page 390.
2 Ibid, pages 393 a n d 394.
— i8 —
Reply from Uruguay.
[Translation from the S p a n is h .]
M ontevideo, J a n u a r y 8th , 1926.
In th e first place, m y G o v e rn m e n t desires to reaffirm th e principles w h ich i t h a s always
followed in co n n e ctio n w ith th e p ro b lem s e x a m in e d b y th e C om m ittee of J u ris ts . All endea­
v o u rs m u s t be d ire c te d , while re sp ectin g b o th th e le tte r a n d th e sp irit of th e Covenant,
to w a rd s estab lish in g th e ru le of law , s tre n g th e n in g th e C ov enant in th e in te re s ts of peace
a n d c o n so lid atin g th e influence a n d a u th o r i t y of t h e L eague of N a tio n s — th e p ro p e r inter­
n a tio n a l o rg a n is a tio n to sa fe g u a rd t h a t peace.
I n th e o p inio n of m y G o v e rn m en t, th o u g h t h e princip les in q u estio n m a y h a v e guided
th e w ork t h a t h a s b e e n done, t h e y m ig h t h a v e fo u n d m ore d efin ite a n d full expression.
T he re p ly giv en to Q uestio n 4 suggests o b serv atio n s w hich a re sufficient to ju s tify our
ju d g m e n t.
W e co n sid er t h a t n o m ea su res of coercion ca n be c o n siste n t w ith th e le tte r a n d th e spirit
of th e C o venan t, since th e a d o p tio n of th e C ovenan t m a rk s th e a d v e n t of a n in te rn a tio n a l
o rd e r w h ich p reclu d es th e e m p lo y m e n t of violence u n til a ll a p p ro p ria te m ea su res to dispense
S ta te s fro m th e n ecessity of ta k in g th e law in to th e ir ow n h a n d s h a v e been e x h a u ste d .
T h is is th e o b se rv a tio n w hich m y G o v e rn m en t con sid ers it esse n tia l to m ak e ; on a
m o re c o n v e n ie n t occasion it m a y proceed to co nsider som e of th e re m a in in g questions.
(Signed) J . C. B l a n c o .
ANNEX.
R E P L I E S G I V E N B Y T H E S P E C I A L C O M M IT T E E O F J U R I S T S T O T H E
Q U E S T I O N S S U B M I T T E D B Y T H E C O U N C IL O F T H E L E A G U E OF
N A T IO N S ON S E P T E M B E R 2 8 t h , 1 9 2 3 .
T he C om m ission h a s agreed u p o n th e follow ing replies to th e q uestion s s u b m itte d b y the
Council :
F irst Question.
I s the Council, when seized at the instance of a M em ber of the League of N ations of
a dispute subm itted in accordance with the terms of Article 15 of the Covenant, by such
a M em ber as “likely to lead to a rupture”, bound, either at the request of the other party or
on its own authority, and before enquiring into any point, to decide whether in fact such
description is well founded ?
R eply.
T he Council, w h en seized a t th e in stan ce of a M em ber of th e L eague of N a tio n s of a dis­
p u te s u b m itte d , in ac co rd a n ce w ith th e te rm s of Article 15 of th e C ovenant, b y s u c h a M ember
as " lik e ly to le a d to a r u p t u r e ” , is n o t b o u n d , e ith e r a t th e req u est of th e o th e r p a r ty or on
its ow n a u th o rity , a n d before e n q u irin g in to a n y p oin t, to decide w h e th e r in fa c t such
d e sc rip tio n is well founded.
T he Council m a y a t all tim es e stim a te th e g ra v ity of t h e d isp u te a n d d e te rm in e th e course
of its a c tio n accordingly.
Second Question.
I s the Council, ii'hen seized of a dispute in accordance with A rticle 15, p aragraph 1, of
the Covenant, at the instance of a M em ber of the League of N ations, bound, either at the request
of a p a rty or on its own authority, to suspend its enquiry into the dispute when, w ith the
consent of the parties, the settlement of the dispute is being sought through some other channel ?
Reply.
W here, c o n tra ry to th e te rm s of A rticle 15, p a r a g r a p h 1, a d isp u te is s u b m itte d to the
Council on th e a p p lic a tio n of one of th e parties, where such a d isp u te a lre a d y form s the
su b je c t of a r b itr a tio n or of ju d icial proceedings, th e Council m u st refuse to consider the
ap plicatio n.
If th e m a t t e r in d isp u te, b y a n ag reem e n t betw een th e parties, has a lre a d y b ee n su b m itted
to o th e r ju ris d ic tio n before w hich i t is being re g u la rly p ro ceeded w ith, or is being d e a lt with
in th e said m a n n e r in a n o th e r channel, it is in c o n fo rm ity w ith th e g eneral principles of law
t h a t it sh ou ld be possible for a reference b a c k to su ch ju ris d ic tio n to be asked for a n d ordered.
— 19 —
T h ird Question.
I s an objection founded on Article 15, paragraph 8, of the Covenant the only objection
based on the merits of the dispute on which the competence of the C ouncil to m ake an enquiry
can be challenged ?
Reply.
W here a d is p u te lik ely to lea d to a ru p tu re is s u b m itte d to th e Council, on th e ap p lica tio n
of one of th e p a rtie s, in ac cord an ce w ith th e provisions of Article 15, p a r a g ra p h 1, the case
co n tem p lated in p a r a g r a p h 8 of A rticle 15 is th e only case in which th e Council is not to en quire
into th e d ispu te.
In p a r tic u la r, th e reserv a tio n s c o m m o n ly in serte d in m ost a r b itr a tio n trea tie s ca n n o t
be p lea d ed as a b a r to th e proceedings.
T he C om m ission considers i t desirab le to observe th a t, where th e case arises, th e Council
should, in d e te rm in in g th e course of its actio n , h av e re g a rd to in te rn a tio n a l engagem ents
such as tre a tie s of a r b itr a tio n or regional u n d e rs ta n d in g s for securing th e m ain ten a n ce of
peace.
Fourth Question.
A re measures of coercion which are not meant to constitute acts of war consistent with
the terms of Articles 12 to 15 of the Covenant when they are taken by one M ember of the League
of N a tio n s against another M em ber of the League without p rio r recourse to the procedure
laid down in these articles ?
Reply.
Coercive m ea su res w hich are n o t in te n d e d to c o n s titu te ac ts of w a r m a y or m ay not
be co n sisten t w ith th e p rovisions of A rticles 12 to 15 of th e C ovenant, a n d it is for th e Council,
when th e d isp u te h a s been s u b m itte d to it, to decide im m e d iately , h a v in g due regard to all
the circ u m sta n ces of th e case a n d to th e n a t u r e of th e m easures a d o p te d , w h e th e r it should
recom m end th e m a in te n a n c e o r th e w ith d ra w a l of su ch m easures.
F ifth Question.
I n what circumstances and to what extent is the responsibility of a State involved by
the com m ission of a political crime in its territory P
Reply.
T h e re sp o n sib ility of a S ta te is o nly in v o lv ed b y th e com m ission in its te rrito ry of a
political crim e ag a in st th e persons of foreigners if th e S ta te h a s neglected to ta k e all reasonable
m easures for th e p re v e n tio n of th e crim e a n d th e p u rs u it, a rre st a n d b ring ing to justice of th e
crim inal.
T he recognised p u b lic c h a r a c te r of a fo reigner a n d th e circu m stan ces in w hich he is p re ­
sent in its t e r r ito r y e n ta il u p o n th e S ta te a c o rresp o n d in g d u ty of special vigilance on his
behalf.
G eneva, J a n u a r y 24th, 1923.
For the Special Committee of Ju rists :
(S ig n ed ) A d a t c i ,
C hairm an of the Commission.
(Signed) V a n H
am el,
Director, Legal Section of the Secre­
tariat of the League of N ations.