Part 39 (1/2)
103. _Article_ 4.--Objection was raised to this article, mainly on the ground that it gave the Council or the Permanent Court too wide powers of interference, and introduced the idea of a ”super-State.” After consultation with other Delegations, the British Delegation produced an alternative draft which was adopted, and which was substantially embodied in the eventual Protocol itself (becoming article 7). The only essential difference between this draft and the eventual text was that the former provided, in paragraph 2, that the investigations should be carried out ”by the organisation set up by the Conference for the Reduction of Armaments to ensure respect for the decisions of that Conference.
104. _Article_ 6.--Words were inserted to the effect that demilitarised zones were recommended ”as a means of avoiding violations of the present Protocol.” They were to be placed under the supervision of the Council at the request ”and at the expense” of one or more of the conterminous States.
105. _Article_ 7.--There was considerable discussion on the first paragraph, and some demand for a distinction to be drawn, as in the Covenant, between economic and financial sanctions on the one hand, and military sanctions on the other. It was, however, explained that the proposed definition of the aggressor had produced a clearer situation, in which there was no reason why the application of sanctions of all kinds under article 16 of the Covenant should not be justified. It was pointed out that the {254} wording of this first paragraph was illogical. The ”obligations” could not ”become operative against an aggressor.” Accordingly, it was agreed to subst.i.tute the words ”the obligations will immediately come into force in order that the sanctions provided may immediately become operative.” The paragraph was then pa.s.sed with the above amendment.
106. Exception was taken to the words in the third paragraph ”undertake individually or collectively to come to the a.s.sistance.” It might prove difficult to evolve collective plans, and it was agreed, on the proposal of the British Delegate, to subst.i.tute the words ”give a joint and several undertaking to.”
107. In the same paragraph the use of the expression ”to ensure the safety of the land and sea communications of the attacked or threatened State” was questioned in the first place, because it seemed that it might imply naval or military operations. In reply, it was pointed out that the words in the same sentence ”for this purpose” showed that this paragraph related solely to economic and financial sanctions. In the second place the word ”ensure” was objected to, on the score that to undertake to ensure communications might be to undertake an impossibility. Finally, the words ”take measures to preserve the safety of communications” were subst.i.tuted. It was further pointed out that these provisions were to be applied to protect an attacked or threatened State and that a similar distinction was expressly contained in the Covenant.
108. _Article_ 7A.--The British Delegation desired a redraft of this article, taking exception in particular to sub-paragraph (1), in which the word ”blockade” seemed to suggest belligerent naval action. They at first suggested omitting all words after ”Council of the League of Nations” and subst.i.tuting ”shall, as soon as possible after the Protocol has been ratified, take steps to ascertain from each of the signatories what organisation or legislation is necessary to give effect to the economic and financial sanctions.” An alternative suggestion from another quarter was to subst.i.tute the words ”putting into force the economic and {255} financial sanctions against” for the words ”establis.h.i.+ng the blockade of” in sub-paragraph (1). It was agreed to combine both amendments--to adopt the British text above, and to begin a second paragraph with the words ”When in possession of this information the Council shall draw up, through its competent organs: (1) plans of action for the application of the economic and financial sanctions of article 16 of the Covenant against an aggressor State,” &c.
109. Later, the British Delegation proposed to redraft the first paragraph in the form in which it finally appears in the Protocol (having become article 12), to delete the remainder, and to subst.i.tute ”It shall communicate this report to the members of the League and to the other signatories.” The redraft of the first paragraph was accepted, but it was decided to allow the second paragraph to stand, as amended above.
110. _Article_ 8.--The British Delegation had objections to raise against both paragraphs of this article. In the first paragraph they objected to the words ”place at the Council's disposal,” and the second paragraph they regarded as an attempt to revert to what was the operative principle of the Draft Treaty of Mutual a.s.sistance.
111. They suggested as an alternative text:--
”Having regard to the fact that military sanctions are foreseen in article 16 of the Covenant, the Council may receive undertakings from States fixing in advance the military forces which they would be willing to employ against a Member of the League which was declared to be an aggressor.
”In view of the right of Members of the League to enter into such arrangements with the Council, no agreement shall in future be concluded between States Members of the League, providing for military action to be taken by them.”
112. It became evident that the sub-committee could not be induced to accept the second paragraph of this alternative text, and it was accordingly withdrawn. Exception was also taken {256} to the words in the first paragraph, ”against a Member of the League,” &c., and it was agreed to subst.i.tute the words, ”to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations in regard to sanctions which result from the Covenant and the present Protocol.”
113. The French Delegation then proposed that the article should read:--
”In view of the contingent military, naval and air sanctions provided for in article 16 of the Covenant, and article 7 of the present Protocol, the Council shall be ent.i.tled to receive undertakings entered into by States determining in advance the military, naval and air forces which they would bring into action immediately to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations in regard to sanctions which result from the Covenant and the present Protocol.
”When the aggressor is designated, the signatory States may, moreover, place in the field, in accordance with agreements previously entered into, the whole or such part of their military, naval and air forces as they may consider necessary for the a.s.sistance of a State which shall have been the victim of aggression.
”The obligations of the second paragraph shall be duly registered and published by the League of Nations, and shall remain open for adherence by any State Member of the League which so desires.”
114. It was the right of States, as the matter then stood, to enter into special agreements with one another for determining in advance the military, naval and air forces which they would bring to the a.s.sistance of one another under the conditions indicated. Under the Protocol, these special agreements would only come into force when the Council had decided which State is the aggressor: they would simply provide means for applying rapidly the sanctions prescribed in the Covenant and the Protocol.
115. Before, however, agreeing to this text a statement was made on behalf of the British Delegation, expressing regret that the sub-committee had not seen its way to make the Protocol an instrument whereby the League would only act as a whole. It was, however, recognised that the last paragraph introduced {257} an improvement, as, if separate agreements must exist, it would be better that they should be registered with the League. ”But that does not alter the fact that you are making provision on the face of a new doc.u.ment for that which has been turned down in connection with the Draft Treaty of Mutual a.s.sistance.” Further opposition to the draft article was not pressed, but the British Delegation made known their desire that words should be recorded expressing regret that the League was not to act as a whole, and to set its face ”like flint against anything like the old balance of power by allowing these regional pacts to go on under this new instrument.” The above text was then adopted.
116. _Article_ 8A.--The British Delegation proposed that the article should read: ”Shall not affect the territorial integrity or political independence of the aggressor State.” This was agreed to, and it was also decided to prefix a paragraph relating to the costs of military, naval or air operations, similar to article 10 of the Draft Treaty of Mutual a.s.sistance.
117. _Article_ 9.--Objection was raised by the British Delegation to the last paragraph of article 9, and they moved that the following be subst.i.tuted:--
”The provisions of the present Protocol in regard to arbitration and sanctions shall come into force when the scheme for the reduction of armaments, drawn up by the International Conference, has been effectively carried out in accordance with the conditions fixed by the Conference itself.”
118. The French Delegation maintained strongly that the Protocol must be brought into operation before the International Conference could meet. The British Delegation offered a compromise with the suggestion that their Government might sign the Protocol, and ask Parliament to approve it before the Conference met. But preparatory arrangements for the Conference should go on concurrently. Directly agreement was reached by the Conference, ratifications could 'be deposited. As this failed to meet the views of the French Delegation, the British {258} Delegation made a final proposal whereby endeavours should be made to secure ratification and deposit of ratifications before the Conference met, provided the Protocol itself contained a provision to the effect that it should only become operative when the International Conference reached a conclusion. The French Delegation indicated their willingness in principle to accept this, but wished to consider an actual text.
119. At the next meeting the Chairman submitted the following version:--
”The undersigned Members of the League of Nations undertake to partic.i.p.ate in an International Conference for the Reduction of Armaments which shall be convened by the Council of the League and shall meet at Geneva on Monday, the 15th June, 1925. States not Members of the League of Nations shall be invited to this Conference.
”The ratifications of the present Protocol shall be deposited with the Secretariat of the League of Nations at the latest by the 1st May, 1925. If at least fifteen Members of the League, of which four are permanently represented on the Council, have not deposited their ratification by the 1st, May 1925, the Secretary-General of the League shall cancel the invitations.
”The entry into force of the present Protocol shall be suspended until a plan for the reduction of armaments has been adopted by the Conference.