announced withdrawal from the League itself, giving the two-year notice on June 12, 1926.60 These things are apparent: The veto only postponed the general desire to admit Germany to the League; Brazil, to be logical, on the premises selected, went farther than was originally contemplated.

PERMANENT MEMBERS

The condition that the permanent members of the Council are those states which possess "general interests" has already been indicated. In the large, the permanent members may be regarded as sitting in continuous application of the principle that any member of the League sits for the consideration of matters specially interesting it. There has been very little question of the principle of having some permanent members, and none of the legitimacy of the incumbents being accorded such places. France, Great Britain, Italy and Japan are permanent members by definition in Art. 4, par. 1, of the Covenant, and the United States is potentially so by the same evidence. There has never been any question but that Germany meets the same conditions, and it has been regarded that Russia would be accorded the same position. Such are the current "injunctions of political reason," to use the Brazilian phrase. It is noted that no provision for revision of permanent places exists.

Other permanent seats might be voted under Art. 4, par. 2, of the Covenant. Continuous election would have the same effect so long as it occurred. In 1921, in the First Committee of the Second Assembly, M. Edwards (Chile) proposed a "restoration of the political equilibrium" of the Assembly and Council by adding to the Council. The eight members of the Council he defined as "the great powers of Europe (among which we reckon Spain), Asia, Portuguese America and Belgium." In the Assembly were the Scandinavian entente, the Little Entente, Spanish America and many isolated countries. "By increasing by two-Spain and Brazil-the number of permanent members of the Council, and by only one the number of nonpermanent members, all the great political currents of the Assembly would have a voice in the Council." 62 In the same committee in 1923 he reverted to the matter again, then suggesting that Brazil might occupy the seat left vacant by the United States.63 The contention in behalf of Spain seems to

60 The action was forecast in a lengthy communication of June 10 (Official Journal, VII, p. 1003).

1 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, VII, p. 890).

2 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 met with some acquiescence from permanent members of the Council. The desire of states to occupy permanent seats is undoubtedly affected by their estimation of their importance. The Spanish representative in the Council on June 10 stated "that his Government was unable to accept a classification which would place Spain among the second rank of powers."" Spain had not ratified the amendment to Art. 4 of the Covenant because through nonratification it "desired always to make it possible for it to be a member of the Council by means of successive reëlections up to the moment judged opportune for the nomination of Spain as a permanent member of the Council." 65 Brazil and Poland have also put forward claims largely subjective in character.

The problem involved in determining permanent members is at once that of defining objective qualifications and of applying the definition. The habit of referring to the largest states as "powers" has unconsciously complicated the matter. A curious argument employed for Spain was that it was a neutral in the World War. Yet rating a state on the basis of its military weight is no longer an actual criterion, as shown by the attitude toward Germany, whose armament is limited. All states have heard without objection the Chinese insistence in the Assembly that rating a state on its military strength is a "wrong conception."66 What the criteria should be, however, is another matter.

An interesting feature of permanent membership is that of the British Empire. The self-governing dominions and India being members of the League, they have separate representation in the Assembly. The seat in the Council was discussed by Sir Austen Chamberlain in reply to a parliamentary question in the House of Commons on February 17, 1926, as follows:67

By the terms of the Covenant, a permanent seat on the Council is attributed to the British Empire, but the extent to which that representative can speak on behalf of the Dominions depends upon the circumstances of each particular case and the character of the communications which have passed between his Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments. The Dominions have separate representation in the Assembly, and their representatives there act on the instructions of their own Governments, although frequent consultation of all the empire delegates takes place.

The British dominions sit on the Council when matters affecting them come up.68

It would seem that the British Council seat is something of a composite

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. Official Journal, VII, p. 870.

65 Minute 1741, 40th session of the Council, 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.

one, the spokesman in which sometimes speaks for all, and sometimes for part, of a group. The British declaration on the Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes made on March 12, 1925, expressly dissociated Canada and the Irish Free State from its conclusions and implied the concurrence of other dominions.69 It might well be that the British practice would become a precedent for Council representation of definable groups, thus widening the voices speaking in the Council without proportionately adding to Council numbers.

The Permanent Court of International Justice has said: 70

It is hardly conceivable that resolutions on questions affecting the peace of the world could be adopted against the will of those among the members of the Council who, although in a minority, would, by reason of their political position, have to bear the larger share of the responsibilities and consequences ensuing therefrom.

INCREASE OF NONPERMANENT MEMBERS

The nonpermanent members, being states of limited interests, possess a common concern in the development of international justice. By their disinterested position in matters affecting larger and other states, they have been extremely useful in presenting broad principles which can be accepted on merit. While the representatives of the small states receive their instructions from their own governments only, it is interesting to note that the choice of the nonpermanent members has resulted quite as much from the qualities of their representatives as from confidence in the states by their peers." Czechoslovakia and Sweden are on the Council largely because their colleagues liked and had confidence in Beneš and Branting as statesmen. Not only is the choice representative in personnel, but the nonCouncil states expect to have their views reflected through those they have selected. This was clearly shown in the tense debate in the Assembly on March 17, 1926.72

A change has taken place in the nonpermanent membership of the Council under Art. 4, par. 2, owing to the exigencies of the organ's work. On September 25, 1922, the Assembly agreed to a proposal of the Council to increase the nonpermanent members from four to six. The report to the 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 of Germany. (Records, p. 29). The resolution was taken March 16 and when the Latin 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 for American states. (For original text see Le Temps, March 18, 1926).

Assembly stated "that it is essential to have in the Council representation of the secondary powers, especially for the purpose of solving questions on which the great powers have not been able to come to an agreement." Among other reasons assigned for this action was the addition of nine new states to membership in the League since its beginning. "It is very difficult to insure an equitable allocation of nonpermanent seats among the different countries which, owing to common interests, have a tendency to form themselves into groups." A practical reason was that it had become difficult to find in the Council membership disinterested reporters for the questions on the agenda. The Council letter to the Assembly minimized the importance of changing the proportion of permanent and nonpermanent, since-votes being taken unanimously-"the question of a majority does not arise as far as the Council is concerned." And it was "advisable, moreover, to provide for a future increase of permanent members," Germany, the United States and Russia being specifically mentioned. When such augmentation occurred, the principle of a larger number of permanent than nonpermanent members would be reëstablished. After a short debate, the increase was passed by a vote of 44 to 1, the Netherlands apparently casting the negative vote. 73

ELECTING NONPERMANENT MEMBERS

The principles which must be considered and applied in some degree in determining a scheme for choosing the nonpermanent members of the Council were identified as six in number in the report accepted by the First Assembly." They are:

a. System of rotation;

d. Dates of the partial renewals;

b. Method of apportioning seats; e. Reëligibility;

c. Duration of the mandates; f. Method of selection.

In considering the problem the First Assembly immediately encountered difficulty in interpreting the language of the Covenant, which provides for the selection of the nonpermanent members of the Council "by the Assembly from time to time in its discretion" (librement). A difference arose as to the duration of this discretion. Some held that the Assembly could exercise its discretion for a period of time; others that it must be exercised at the time of each election. The latter view was assumed to be the proper, though unsatisfactory, interpretation of the language.75 Accordingly, in 1921 the Assembly decided to resolve the doubt by amendment: 76

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 The discussions ran through almost every phase of the problem, see report, Sec. II, loc. cit., 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.

3. The committee expresses no opinion as to whether, from the legal point of view, an amendment to the Covenant is, or is not, necessary, but it is of opinion that it is prudent and desirable to adopt the following amendment which would be inserted between the second and third paragraphs of Art. 4:

"The Assembly shall fix by a two-thirds majority the rules dealing with the election of the nonpermanent members of the Council, and particularly such regulations as relate to their term of office and the conditions of reëligibility."

The amendment to Art. 4 entered into force only on July 29, 1926, Spain, a member of the Council, having then ratified it.77 Subsequent deliberations depended much on this delay.

The First Committee in 1920 was divided on every point and the votes, by majority, were uniformly narrow.

The prevailing opinion was against a strict system of rotation, for obligatory rotation would progressively result in the latitude of choice disappearing altogether. This certainty was deemed to override the risk that the failure to guarantee to each member a seat in turn would decrease interest in the work of the Council. "Those members," said the report, "should be chosen who are best fitted to carry out, in conjunction with the permanent members, the duties entrusted to the Council; the election must always be a selection." So that "international, political, economic, social and financial relations of every sort, as well as . . . the respective situations of the various states at the time of the election" should be special considerations in the choice.78 As the members of the League have acquired experience in coöperation and more confidence in each other, the idea that each should some time sit on the Council has disappeared from the debates. Switzerland, in fact, has renounced any claim to representation on the Council.79

..

A motion that three out of the four nonpermanent members should be elected in 1920 from the European and American Continents and the fourth from the remaining parts of the world was passed in committee 13 to 12, with 2 abstentions and 15 absentees.80 The original proposal was Chinese, and it was argued in its behalf that the apportionment was natural, equitable, designed to foster coöperation, obviate preponderance of any group, desirable and destined to enhance the prestige of the Council. Against it the arguments were that the freedom of the Assembly should not be restricted; that the groupings did not give any legal basis for representation; that

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 insure her 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.