Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:33:44.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representation in League of Nations Council

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Denys P. Myers
Denys P. Myers*
Affiliation:
World Peace Foundation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The “ Council crisis” in the League of Nations in 1926 has presented a problem in actual international cooperation of some moment. Whether it is permanently solved or only temporarily settled, it can not fail to have a profound effect upon the fundamental bases of international law. The difficulties and decisions at Geneva give practical interpretations to the “ juridic equality” of states, which is the most elusive characteristic of the unit of international relationship. Subjective considerations—“ particular national, historic, cultural and other qualifications”—did not prevail over objective considerations—the effort “ to give the widest and most equitable representation” on the Council. Progress may be said to lie on the objective side in international affairs, since there sound and practical general principles may best be evolved.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 1926 , pp. 689 - 713
Copyright
Copyright, 1926, by the American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The British representative, Minutes of the 40th Session of the Council, Minute 1758.

2 The tendency among writers to base the conception of the state on objective attributes rather than on subjective theory, derived from metaphysical sovereignty, is general and salutary. It accords with the modem scientific practice of dealing with realities more than with philosophic concepts. See particularly Feodor Martens, Traiti de droit international;James Lorimer, Institutes of the Law of Nations; George Grafton Wilson, InternationalLaw; Charles G. Fenwick, International Law; Roscoe Pound's essay, “ Philosophical Theory and International Law,” in Bibliotheca Visseriana, I, at pp. 76-78, and Jesse S. Beeves, La CommunauU internationale (Paris, Hachette, 1925), Chs. I and IV.

3 Report on the Relations between … the Council and Assembly, I, pars, a and b,Records of the First Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 318

4 The Brazilian note of December 1, 1924 (Records of the Special Session of the Assembly, Third Plenary Meeting, p. 25) was interpreted by Germany as agreeing to its exclusive election as a permanent member. The original note stated the eventual Brazilian claim, but was revised by the Brazilian representative at Geneva after consultation with his colleagues on the Council (William E. Rappard, “Germany at Geneva,” Foreign Affairs,IV, p. 544). The Brazilian Government evidently did not abide by the action taken in its name by its representative.

5 The Chinese claim was not exclusively for a permanent seat.

6 No adequate account of the institution has been given. My brochure of October, 1918,seems to remain the only general summary, “ The Supreme War Council” (League of Nations,I, No. 7, World Peace Foundation).

7 Schemes for Maintaining General Peace, by Lord Phillimore (Foreign Office, Historical Section, Peace Handbooks No. 160) is a sufficient reference. The paper is by the chairman of an official British Committee on the League of Nations, whose confidential reports of March 20 and July 3, 1918, played a preliminary part in the responsible negotiations, but did not, however, definitely touch the question here considered.

8 Among those readily available are; Swiss: Message from the Federal Council of Switzerland … concerning the Question of the Accession of Switzerland to the League of Nations (Cambridge, England, 1919), p. 218 (French edition, Message 1119, Annexes, p. 101); German:Sen. Doc. No. 149, 66th Cong., 1st sess., p. 14.

9 Of these only the Smuts plan was separately published, The League of Nations; a Practical Suggestion. Lord Robert Cecil's plan provided for regular conferences, which “ would constitute the pivot of the league.” There would be an “ annual meeting of prime ministers and fo eign secretaries of British Empire, United States, France, Italy, Japan and any other states recognized by them as great powers.” There was to be a quadrennial meeting of representatives of all states included in the league, which “ will be determined at the peaceconference.”

10 Treaty of Peace with Germany. Hearings . . (Sen. Doc. No. 106, 66th Cong., 1stsess.), pp. 1165-66.

11 Ibid., pp. 1181-2, col. 2. The discussion of the German-American-British plan for allocating judges of a court at the Second Hague Conference might be cited as a precedent for the comments.

12 Ibid., pp. 1181-2, col. 3.

13 Conference des prttiminaires de paix, Commission de la Socitti des nations. Procks-verbal No. 1, p. 16 These minutes are printed but not published. The copy used here was received by the writer from a government without restrictions, but as it is in French, the excerpts here given may not always correspond to the English edition which exists.

14 “ Ibid., p. 17.

15 Ibid., p. 19.

16 Ibid., p. 4; English text in Sen. Doc. No. 106, p. 1227.

17 The rules, with their precise distinctions may be quoted: I. The Conference summoned with a view to lay down the conditions of peace, in the first place by peace preliminaries and later by a definitive Treaty of Peace, shall include the representatives of the Allied or Associated belligerent Powers. “ The belligerent Powers with general interests (the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan) shall attend all sessions and commissions. ‘ ‘ The belligerent Powers with special interests (Belgium, Brazil, the British Dominions and India, China, Cuba, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, the Hejaz, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Serbia, Siam and the Czechoslovak Republic) shallattend sessions at which questions concerning them are discussed.“ Powers having broken off diplomatic relations with the enemy Powers (Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay) shall attend sessions at which questions interesting them will be discussed.“ Neutral Powers and States in process of formation shall, on being summoned by the Powers with general interests, be heard, either orally or in writing, at sessions devoted especially to the examination of questions in which they are directly concerned, and only in so far as those questions are concerned.” (This Journal, Supplement, XIII, p. 109.)

18 Conference des priliminaires de paix, Commission de la Sociite des nations. Procbs-verbal No. 2, p. 2; No. 3, p. 1; No. 4, p. 1.

19 Ibid. Comiti chargi de Vaudition des diliguis des puissances neutres, P.-V. Nos. 1. et 2,

20 Ibid., Procks-verbal No. 2, p. 2.

21 Ibid., p. 3.

22 Ibid., Prods-verbal No. 3, p. 4.

23 Ibid., p. 1-2.

24 Ibid., Procbs-verbal No. 9, p. 4-6.

25 Ibid Prochs-verbal No. 10, p. 17; Preliminary Peace Conference, Report of the Commission on the League of Nations, p. 5. The text was practically that finally adopted (Sen. Doc. No. 106, p. 265).

26 Conference des priliminaires de paix, Commission de la SociiU des nations. Comiti ehargi de Vaudition des diltguis des puissances neutres, P.-V. Nos. 1 et 2, pp. 6-7. The committee represented the United States, British Empire, France, Belgium, Greece and Serbia. The neutrals represented were: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Persia, Salvador, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela

27 Ibid., p. 21, where all the proposals are collected.

28 Ibid., Procks-verbal No. 11, pp. 3-5.

29 Ibid., p. 5.

30 Proces-verbal of the third meeting of the second Session of the Council …, p. 3.

31 Proces-verbal of the fifth Session of the Council, p. 193.

32 Ibid., p. 199

33 Procbs-verbal of the eighth Session of the Council, p. 119, discussion at pp. 11, 25: Records of the First Assembly, Meetings of Committees, I, p. 93.

34 Records of the First Assembly, Meetings of Committees, I, p. 11.

35 Ibid., p. 95 and Plenary Meetings, p. 285. The vote is at Plenary Meetings, p. 297.

36 Ibid., Meetings of Committees, I, p. 99.

37 Ibid., p. 13.

38 Report, 9(b), ibid., p. 97, and Plenary Meetings, p. 284.

39 Ibid., Meetings of Committees, I, p. 98, and Plenary Meetings, p. 284.

40 Ibid., Plenary Meetings, p. 291 ff.

41 “ Ibid., p. 320

42 Minutes of the 22nd Session of the Council, Official Journal, III, No. 11, Part III; the protocols are also in Treaty Series, XII, pp. 385—111.

43 Official Journal, II, p. 1164; Treaty Series, IX, p. 174.

44 “T h e mandates are an instance of agreements to which members of the Council are parties. In the case of Great Britain and the Iraq mandate, the Council on several occasions has in resolutions indicated the agreements which would be acceptable to it. The treatiesare British-Iraqi, but in each case have been subject to approval by the Council before entrance into force. The Council decisions were taken September 27, 1924, March 11 and June 9, 1926.

45 C. L. 42. 1925. V. Cf. resolution 2 in Minute 1730, 40th session of the Council, which requests members to send Assembly delegates empowered to sign a slavery convention.

46 Records of the First Assembly, Meetings of Committees, I, pp. 18, 40.

47 Ibid., pp. 68, 70.

48 The resolution was voted December 11, ibid., Plenary Meetings, pp. 434-436

49 In one case, Minute 873, Official Journal, IV, p. 237, an abstention is recorded in respect to an appointment. Nos. 8 and 9 of Rules of Procedure deal with voting methods (Official Journal, I, p. 272).

50 Any state votes as a member of the Council during consideration of matters affecting its cominterests, and, barring certain exceptions, its vote counts in the result. What has been regarded as the boldest action of the Council illustrates the exercise and limitation of this right. When the Council called upon Bulgaria and Greece to withdraw their troops within 60 hours behind their own frontiers, the Council developed the idea alone. The representatives of the two interested parties were then invited to agree to the decision, and finally the Council, including them, voted the resolution at a public meeting. (Official Journal, VI, p. 1699). Neither probably was anxious for the resolution, but acquiescence was cheaper than opposition,which would have blocked an obvious pacificatory move.

51 Publications of the Court, Series B, No. 12, p. 29.

52 Records of Second Assembly, Meetings of Committees, I, pp. 177-78.

53 M. Urrutia on September 29, 1921; Records of Second Assembly, Meetings of Committees,I, p. 94.

54 4 See “ The League of Nations and Unanimity,” by Sir John Fischer Williams, this Journal,19, p. 475, for the extent to which unanimity has been modified, especially in the Assembly.

55 Records of the Special Assembly, p. 25.

56 Special Assembly, Verbatim Record of third plenary meeting, p. 2.

57 Ibid., p. 29.

58 “ Summarized from Minutes of the 40th session of the Council, Minute No. 1758.

59 “ The Permanent Military, Naval and Air Commission, for instance. The Brazilian announcement of withdrawal from the League of Nations of June 12 (C.380.M.131.1926) does not take effect until 1928, so that it does not influence the situation under discussion.

60 The action was forecast in a lengthy communication of June 10 (Official Journal, VII, p. 10G3).

61 The president of the Council (M. Guani, Uruguay) said on June 10: “ My country is absolutely opposed to the principle of permanent seats… . Perhaps in a future more or less distant the true ideal of justice would be to suppress altogether the permanent seats and to establish the absolute equality between the states… . My Government prefers that the principle of equality should dominate the future composition of the Council of the League with the exceptions already provided for in the Covenant and with the exception of Germany.”(Official Journal, Vll, p. 890).

62 Records of the Second Assembly, Meetings of Committess, I, pp. 41, 119.

63 Records of the Fourth Assembly, First Committee, p. 37. “ The seat which was to have been allotted to the United States might perhaps be given to Brazil, as being the most important state in South America.”

64 Minute 1751, 40th session of the Council.

65 “ Minute 1741, 40th session of the Council, Official Journal, VII, p. 870.

66 Record of the Special Assembly, p. 36.

67 London Times, February 18, 1926, p. 8.

68 For instance, India at the 21st session, New Zealand at the 24th session, Australia at the 30th session, Australia and New Zealand at the 35th session, Official Journal, III, p. 1184;IV, p. 367; VI, p. 1363.

69 Official Journal, VI, p. 450.

70 Publications of the Court, Series B, No. 12, p. 29.

71 An interesting argument was put forward by Albania in the Assembly on March 17, 1926. “ If,” said the spokesman, “ a nonpermanent member of the Council opposes the settlement of a question directly affecting the interests of the League …the Assembly… possesses full powers to take an immediate decision.”

72 Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Salvador, Uruguay and Venezuela unanimously called on Brazil to facilitate the admission ofGermany. (Records, p. 29). The resolution was taken March 16 and when theLatin American states found Brazil unyielding they canceled parts of it expressing sympathy for Brazil's insistence on a permanent Council seat and asking for more Council seats forAmerican states. (For original text see Le Temps, March 18, 1926).

73 Letter of the French and British representatives to the President of the Council, September 15,1922, Official Journal, III, p. 1415; discussion and vote at p. 1197; Records of the Third Assembly, Plenary Meetings, I, p. 222; report at II, p. 155.

74 Records of the First Assembly, Meetings of Committees, I, at p.104; Plenary Meetings, p. 414.

75 “T h e discussions ran through almost every phase of the problem, see report, Sec. II, loe. tit., and Plenary Meetings, pp. 426, 432; Meetings of Committees, I, p. 36.

76 Records of the Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 894. The vote was 40 to 0, with 11 abstentions. The report on the amendment is at pp. 688 and 903.

77 For reasons see above, and Minute 1741, 40th session of the Council. The announcement was accompanied by a statement that “ the present situation excludes the possibility of the presence of Spain at an election” of nonpermanent members. Spain desired to insureher own Council position.

78 Records of the First Assembly, Meetings of Committees, I, pp. 104-5; Plenary Meetings,p. 415.

79 Records of the Fourth Assembly, Minutes of the First Committee, p. 37.

80 Ibid., Meetings of Committees, I, pp. 40-42.

81 Report, ibid., Meetings of Committees, I, p. 105; Plenary Meetings, p. 417.

82 Ibid., Plenary Meetings, p. 435, with debate ante.

83 Records of the Fourth Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 115; Records of the Fifth Assembly, Plenary Meetings, pp. 113, 131, 160; Records of the Sixth Assembly, pp. 71, 110.

84 Records of the First Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 416..

85 “ Ibid., p. 434, with debate ante, p. 426 ff.

86 The two points last mentioned were under constant reference throughout the debate of the 19th plenary meeting, ibid., p. 414 ff.

87 The proposal was made as a compromise by Mr. Balfour, rapporteur of the committee, following a suggestion of the Czechoslovak and Chinese representatives, in order to secure progress toward a decision, ibid., p. 433, vote at 435.

88 The committee reports are in only one edition, published as A. 24 and 24(1), 1921. Art. 4 is discussed in A. 24, pp. 10-11.

89 ’ Records of the Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings, pp. 688 and 903.

90 Ibid., pp. 893-4.

91 Records of the Third Assembly, Plenary Meetings, pp. 103, 110.

92 Ibid., p. 349; Records of the Fourth Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 115.

93 Records of the Third Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 349.

94 Records of the Sixth Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 160.