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

— 76
M. Cornejo accepted the Drafting Committee’s text, but asked that the amendment which
he had presented should be inserted in the report as well as the reasons which he had put forward
to justify it. He proposed to defend his amendment when the matter was discussed by the Assembly.
The text proposed by the Drafting Committee for paragraphs 6, 7 and 7bis was approved.
21. Article 15, Paragraph 8.
M. Ito pointed out that, though much had been said in regard to the first article of the Pact
of Paris, there was also Article II, by the terms of which the contracting parties were required to
seek a solution for their disputes only through peaceful means. If this negative formula were
literally interpreted, it would be seen that the contracting parties were not compelled to achieve any
solution at all. In some cases one of the parties might prefer to leave the question in suspense.
This would not be contrary to the letter of Article II of the Pact of Paris. Paragraph 8 of
Article 15 of the Covenant, however, covered a similar case. Was there not, therefore, strictly
speaking, a contradiction between the two texts? In view, however, of the fact that the Pact
of Paris, in Article I, withdrew from the contracting parties the right to have recourse to war,
it should be considered what would happen in a case such as that covered by this paragraph.
Mention had been made of a gap in the Covenant in connection with paragraph 7. The same
observation could apply to paragraph 8.
Without wishing to make any definite proposal, he would be grateful if reference could be
made to his observations in the report.
M. Cobian thought that paragraph 8 of Article 15 did not cover a real dispute but only the
case in which a nation protested against a measure adopted by another State, which, according
to international law, belonged to the exclusive competence of the party which, had taken the
decision. For that reason, he did not ask that paragraph 8 should be amended. Nevertheless,
if this interpretation were not correct, he would support the request of M. Ito.
The Chairman said that paragraph 8 referred to a simple declaration of fact on the part
of the Council. There was, in such a case, no question of a dispute. The matter concerned the
internal law of States. In course of time, such a matter might eventually come under international
law. In the present circumstances, he did not see how any amendment could be made in the
paragraph.
The Committee agreed.
Paragraph 9. Paragraph 9 did not give rise to any discussion.
22. Article 15, Paragraph 10.
M. Cornejo thought that paragraph 10 contained something entirely illogical which had
evidently escaped the framers of the Covenant of the League. Paragraph 9 laid down that it
was possible for the Council in all cases to submit the dispute to the Assembly. Paragraph 10
laid down that the procedure to be followed by the Assembly would be the same as that followed
by the Council, except that the Assembly would take its decision by a majority vote, provided
that all the States represented on the Council were to be found among that majority. This
provision, in its strict significance, seemed to him excessive.
If the matter which the Council brought before the Assembly was considered a question of
procedure, the Council might decide by a mere majority vote to submit it to the Assembly.
Since the rule of unanimity had been laid down for the Council, it was perfectly logical to ask
that all the votes of the Council should be included in the majority. If, however, the Council
decided unanimously to bring a dispute before the Assembly, that was to say, if it wished to
abandon the dispute, it was inexplicable to require that the Council should be unanimous a second
time when voting in the Assembly. This provision not only conferred a right of veto on each of
the States represented on the Council, but also interfered with their liberty. They would be
bound by their first decision.
Sometimes in a dispute the parties went so far as to say : “ Either I shall gain everything or
nothing.” When, however, they submitted their dispute to arbitrators, to the Court of Justice,
or to the Council, by the very fact of doing so they showed that they preferred to lose the case
rather than to see the dispute continued indefinitely. Each member of the Council, when studying
the question, might desire the triumph of one or other of the parties. Why, however, should
it be thought that the members of the Council would be more obstinate than the parties to the dis¬
pute and that, if they could not form an opinion, they would prevent any decision from being taken ?
Why not assume that they would prefer to find a solution, even if it were not the solution which
they favoured ?
The question was placed before the Assembly when the Council was not unanimous.
Each member of the Council, however, would, in the Assembly, have to abide by the position
which he had taken up; first, because he would think it to be his true opinion and would not
desire to depart from it; secondly, because he would not wish to betray the party in whose favour
he had originally given his vote. It could, therefore, be maintained that the Powers represented
on the Council were the prisoners of their decision. The worst of this provision was that this
obligatory vote would prevent a solution being reached, probably against the wishes of those
who voted. For that reason, he asked that, if the Council unanimously decided to submit a
dispute to the Assembly, it should not be necessary for all the votes of the members of the Council
to be included in the majority of the Assembly for the decision to be valid. This proposal did not
affect the powers of the Council, for it would be enough for one of its members only to oppose
any proposal to transfer the question to the Assembly to stop the whole procedure. He asked
that the power of the Council should be increased and that it should be enabled to abandon the
question, if it so desired, and leave it entirely to the Assembly.