Legal > Committee for the amendment of the Covenant of the League of Nations in order to bring it into harmony with the pact of Paris

74
strongly recommended his own amendment as a practical solution, and ventured to think that, if
the Committee accepted it, it would be doing a great work in advancing the cause of peace. He
did not overlook the difficulties pointed out by M. Pella, but they could probably be met by
drafting alterations after the principle had been adopted.
He was quite willing that the report should contain a statement to the effect that the
Committee recognised the incompleteness of the solution but did not at present consider it possible
to go further, and that it hoped that, whether by the acceptance of the General Act or in some
other way, a complete system of arbitral conciliation for all international disputes would shortly
be accepted by all the Members of the keague.
M. Sokai, believed that it would be necessary to concentrate on all the part of the previous
discussion which had been of such a nature as to reconcile the different points of view of the
members of the Committee, and to leave on one side all on which they could not agree. It was
obvious that these points of view would always remain at variance so far as they dealt with the role
played by the Covenant of the League of Nations; but in a concrete case such as paragraph 7
of Article 15 and the suppression of the recourse to war, he believed that an agreement might
be realised. He believed that Mr. Henderson had said at the last Assembly that the object of
the British amendment was to cut away the dead wood from the Covenant, that was to say, all
those things that remained in it but which were without practical utility.
The strong opinion had been expressed by certain members of the Committee that it would
be necessary to replace the solution of recourse to war by precise measures. He, on the contrary,
agreed with Lord Cecil that no parallel could be established between the suppression of the recourse
to war and the substitution of other measures. His opinion was that, if all members agreed to
suppress war but could not make up their minds as to what pacific methods should take its place,
it would be better not to worry about finding such methods, so that the Committee should not be
compelled at the end of its work to declare that, as it had been unable to find another solution,
it would be necessary to keep the recourse to war.
He was in favour of recourse to the Permanent Court of International J ustice. The Council
would perhaps find it necessary, in certain cases, to get legal questions settled by the high judicial
authority of the Court; but, while leaving the Council the right to ask the Court for an advisory
opinion in the case of a very serious dispute, for the solution of which the Council could hardly
hope to come to a unanimous agreement, he believed that it would be necessary to add that,
although the matter had been referred to the opinion of the Court, the Council ought still to go
on looking for a solution to the question by the various means that the Committee had not yet
defined.
Above all, he did not necessarily agree that recourse to war should be replaced by some other
solution in the text of the Covenant. He thought that the first thing was to suppress war, before
the Committee should concern itself with the measures that should take its place in the Covenant.
Dr. von Btffiow regretted that there was so much difference between his point of view and
that of Lord Cecil and M. Sokal, and that there was a misunderstanding concerning his observation
on Article 15, paragraph 7. As an indication of his views he was prepared to accept the amendment
of M. Cot, as far as paragraph 6 was concerned. To express his idea it would be sufficient to add
to paragraph 7, according to the proposal of M. Cot, a sentence to the following effect:
“The Council shall, at the same time, determine the composition, powers and procedure
of the tribunal in such a manner as will, in its opinion, conduce to the obtaining of the most
equitable and appropriate solution for the particular case.”
M. Ito said that two theses had existed for a long time, and would exist for a long time to
come, on this question. They had been upheld with eloquence in the present Committee.
Speaking personally and as a jurist, he would prefer to see M. Cot’s proposal adopted, but he
recognised that in the light of actual circumstances Lord Cecil’s proposal would find easier
acceptance.
Like M. Sokal, he considered that a compromise solution must be adopted. Such a solution
was to be found in Lord Cecil’s proposal which endeavoured to meet M. Cot’s point of view so far
as was possible. In his opinion, if the Committee attempted to go further than Lord Cecil’s
proposal, it would come to no solution at all. For this reason, he would adopt Lord Cecil’s proposal
concerning paragraph 7 of Article 15.
Dr. Woo Kaiseng thought that Lord Cecil’s proposal gave the Council too full authority
and too complete freedom. M. Cot’s proposal explained very clearly what should be the content
of Article 15 and provided, moreover, a method of settling all disputes by laying down that the
Council, if it could not succeed in settling the dispute, would refer it to a court of arbitration. Lord
Cecil had held that this method was too complicated, and Dr. von Bulow had accordingly imme¬
diately suggested a modification. The whole of the discussion dealt solely with legal questions.
Methods to meet cases in which purely political matters were at stake had not been considered.
M. Cornejo had proposed the reference of such disputes to the Assembly. In such cases the
Assembly would presumably meet in extraordinary session.
He agreed with M. Ito and M. Cornejo that it was now time to close the discussion, and that
a decision should be taken by putting to the vote one of the proposals which had been submitted.
M. Unde;n said that he was prepared to accept M. Cot’s new proposal for paragraph Ibis.
In regard to paragraph 6, he would accept a wording in accordance with Lord Cecil’s and his
own proposals, which differed only textually. Personally, he preferred the drafting of his own
proposal.