took place at Geneva, from February 12 to March 2, 1924, under the chairmanship of the Brazilian representative on the Council. On March 14, 1924, the Brazilian representative reported to the Council that agreement had not been reached; 69 that a new question of interpretation of Article 4 had arisen, as to the meaning of the words "the said territory"; that numerous other legal difficulties had arisen, though the parties were seeking settlement of them on "practical grounds." He reported also that the German delegation sought to have an arbitration tribunal created, and that the possibility of a second recourse to the Permanent Court of International Justice had been discussed. The German government desired to go to the court, and the rapporteur seems to have favored such a course. Meanwhile the negotiations on other matters being conducted at Warsaw had also reached an impasse, and the German government was urging the submission of those questions also to the court. The Council requested the rapporteur to invite the two governments to continue their negotiations, extending them to cover all questions relating to Articles 3 and 5 of the Minorities Treaty, and To request a third person, who, if no agreement to the contrary has been reached by the two Governments before April 1st, 1924, should be the President of the Arbitral Tribunal of Upper Silesia, to be good enough to undertake to preside over the negotiations mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, in the capacity of mediator; it being understood that, if the negotiations have not resulted in a complete agreement in the form of a signed Convention before June 1st, 1924, this third person shall have full power to arbitrate on all the questions still in dispute.70 The two governments accepted this invitation, and on April 28, 1924, negotiations were begun at Vienna under the chairmanship of M. Georges Kaeckenbeeck, chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal of Upper Silesia. The time limit of June 1, 1924, was exceeded, however, and on the proposal of the chairman the mediation was continued until the end, parallel with the arbitration procedure. An arbitral award was handed down by M. Kaeckenbeeck on July 10, 1924. On August 30, 1924, a convention was signed by which Germany and Poland accept the arbitral award by M. Kaeckenbeeck. The convention is to be ratified and the exchange of ratifications should occur before December 1, 1924. On September 19, 1924, the settlement was reported to the Council of the League of Nations by the Brazilian representative, and the Council congratulated the two governments on the agreement which had been reached.71 The unanimous advisory opinion of the court, relating to the question of Jaworzina (Polish-Czechoslovakian frontier), announced on December 69 League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1924, p. 722. 6, 1923, came before the Council of the League on December 17, 1923, and the Council requested the Conference of Ambassadors "to invite the Delimitation Commission to furnish fresh proposals in conformity with the opinion of the Court and with the results of the Council's deliberations without prejudice to any changes or arrangements which may be freely agreed to by the Governments concerned."72 The report of the Delimitation Commission was duly communicated by the Conference of Ambassadors and came before the Council on March 12, 1924. The Council then proceeded to recommend a definite frontier, and suggested that the final decision should be accompanied by protocols "drawn up in terms as favorable as possible to the reciprocal interests of the inhabitants," with "a view to assuring facilities for communication and economic relations between the communes situated in the proximity." 73 This recommendation was approved by the Conference of Ambassadors on March 26, 1924. On May 6, following, a protocol was drawn up at Cracow, providing for the settlement of the economic questions affecting the Jaworzina region, as well as of other problems of a more general nature. This protocol was submitted to the Conference of Ambassadors at Paris, which, on September 5, 1924, adopted the following resolution: 74 1. The frontier between Poland and Czechoslovakia in the Jaworzina region shall be traced by the Commission for the Delimitation of the Frontier between Poland and Czechoslovakia, in conformity with the opinion expressed by the Council of the League of Nations in its resolution of March 12th, 1924. 2. The Conference takes note of the Protocol signed at Cracow on May 6th, 1924; this Protocol and its annexes are to be regarded as forming an integral part of the delimitation documents fixing the frontier of this region. 3. The clauses of this Protocol relating to the Jaworzina region shall be binding upon the parties concerned as from the moment the delimitation has been effected and independently of the entry into force of the Protocol itself. 4. This decision shall be communicated to the Council of the League of Nations, to the Governments concerned and to the Delimitation Commission. The ninth advisory opinion, relating to the question of the Monastery of Saint-Naoum, was handed down on September 4, 1924. On October 3, 1924, the matter came before the Council of the League of Nations, and after listening to a restatement of the legal situation by the Serb-CroatSlovene representative, the Council expressed the opinion that the court's opinion answered the first part of the question put to it by the Conference of Ambassadors, on June 5, 1924, and decided to communicate the opinion of the court to the Conference of Ambassadors. 75 "League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1924, p. 521. 75 Council/30th Session/P. V. 19/1. THE UNITED STATES AND THE COURT The proposal of President Harding that the United States shall adhere to the Protocol establishing the court, on the four "conditions and understandings" named by Secretary Hughes, has now been before the Senate since February 24, 1923. On December 10, 1923, Senator Lenroot (Wisconsin) submitted a resolution in the Senate, setting forth a series of conditions requiring certain amendments in the Statute of the Court.76 On April 7, 1924, Senator Pepper (Pennsylvania) submitted a resolution in the Senate," asking that the Senate advise the President to call another world conference "similar to the conference heretofore held at The Hague," the agenda to include "a consideration of plans for a World Court either through a further development of the present Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague or through the disassociation of the present Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague from the League of Nations." On May 5, 1924, Senator Lodge (Massachusetts) introduced a joint resolution in the Senate,78 requesting the President to call a third Hague Conference and to recommend to it a draft statute for establishing a World Court of International Justice, the draft being closely modelled on the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, but omitting all references to the League of Nations. On May 5, 1924, also, Senator Swanson (Virginia) submitted a resolution in the Senate,79 providing that the Senate advise and consent to adhesion by the United States to the Protocol of December 16, 1920, on the "reservations and understandings" practically identical with those proposed by Secretary Hughes on February 17, 1923, but adding that the United States signature should not be affixed "until the Powers signatory to such Protocol shall have indicated, through an exchange of notes, their acceptance of the foregoing reservations and understandings as a part and a condition of adhesion by the United States." On May 20, 1924, Senator King (Utah) submitted a resolution, 80 for the Senate's advising adhesion on condition that the Statute of the Court be first amended to admit the United States to participate in election of the judges. On May 20, Senator Pepper submitted a second resolution in the Senate, calling for the Senate's advice and consent to adhesion to the court protocol by the United States on condition that 81 76 Senate Resolution 29, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 77 Senate Resolution 204, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 78 Senate Joint Resolution 122, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. To accompany this, Senator Lodge presented Document No. 107, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., entitled: "Organization of the World for Peace a Plan by which the United States may coöperate with other nations to achieve and preserve the Peace of the World," by Chandler P. Anderson. 79 Senate Resolution 220, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 80 Senate Resolution 233, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. Senator King had submitted an earlier resolution on December 10, 1923. Senate Resolutions 32 and 36, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 81 Senate Resolution 234, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. Also printed in Document No. 116, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. the Statute be amended in various respects. Later, on May 26, 1924, Senator Pepper submitted a report "from the Committee on Foreign Relations" to accompany this resolution. 82 No definitive action has yet been taken by the Senate (December 10, 1924), and on December 3, 1924, President Coolidge stated in his annual message to Congress: America has been one of the foremost nations in advocating tribunals for the settlement of international disputes of a justiciable character. Our representatives took a leading part in those conferences which resulted in the establishment of the Hague Tribunal, and later in providing for a Permanent Court of International Justice. believe it would be for the advantage of this country and helpful to the stability of the other nations for us to adhere to the protocol establishing that court upon the conditions stated in the recommendation which is now before the Senate, and further that our country shall not be bound by advisory opinions which may be rendered by the court upon questions which we have not voluntarily submitted for its judgment.83 During the presidential campaign of 1924, both of the major political parties favored American participation in maintaining the court. The Republican Party platform adopted at Cleveland provided: We indorse the Permanent Court of International Justice and favor the adherence of the United States to this tribunal as recommended by President Coolidge.84 The Democratic Party Platform stated that "the Democratic Party renews its declaration of confidence in the ideal of world peace, the League of Nations and the World Court of Justice as together constituting the supreme effort of the statesmanship and religious conviction of our time to organize the world for peace." 11 85 The friendly and hospitable attitude of the American bar toward the Court and its work continues to manifest itself in frequent resolutions of bar associations. During 1924, the following were among the organizations expressing their approval of the court and their hope for its future: the Boston Bar Association, 86 Mississippi Bar Association, the Erie County Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the Ohio Bar Association, the Vermont Bar Association. 82 Report No. 634, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. Reference should also be made to a resolution introduced in the House of Representatives on April 17, 1924, by Mr. Moore (Virginia), House Resolution 258, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 83 New York Times, December 4, 1924, p. 8. Republican Campaign Text Book, 1924, p. 67. 85 Democratic Campaign Book, 1924, p. 40. Massachusetts Law Quarterly, May, 1924, p. 24. THE OUTLAWRY OF WAR BY QUINCY WRIGHT Of the Board of Editors In the October, 1924, number of this JoURNAL1 the writer examined the changes in the conception of war since the middle ages with the conclusion that under present international law "acts of war" are illegal unless committed in time of war or other extraordinary necessity but the transition from a state of peace to a "state of war" is neither legal nor illegal. A state of war is regarded as an event, the origin of which is outside of international law although that law prescribes rules for its conduct differing from those which prevail in time of peace. The reason for this conception, different from that of antiquity and the middle ages was found in the complexity of the causes of war in the present state of international relations, in the difficulty of locating responsibility in the present régime of constitutional government, and in the prevalence of the scientific habit of attributing occurrences to natural causes rather than to design. It was recalled, however, that the problem of eliminating war has gained in importance while the possibility of solving it through the application of law has improved with the development of jural science. Thus efforts have been made to eliminate war (1) by defining responsibility for bringing on a state of war, (2) by defining justifiable self-defense, and (3) by providing sanctions for enforcement. In so far as wars can not be attributed to the acts of responsible beings, it is nonsense to call them illegal. They are not crimes but evidences of disease. They indicate that nations need treatment which will modify current educational, social, religious, economic, and political standards and methods in so far as they affect international relations. Many prescriptions have been offered. Some aim at human nature directly, by modifying the heredity and environment of the individual so as to eliminate racial and national prejudices, the exhaltation of military glory, and the interest in national prestige. Programs of eugenics, immigration control, social welfare, economic reform, religious revival, modification of school textbooks, regulation of newspapers, peace propaganda and psychological substitutes for war have been urged to this end. Some proposals aim at the nature of the state by modifying the conception of its objects and the mechanism through which it acts. Revision or rejection of the theory of sovereignty; elimination of policies of military preparedness, nationalism, neutrality, political and economic imperialism; 1 Vol. 18, pp. 755–767. |