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

— 83
The amendment put forward by M. Cornejo was thus based on Article 20, and though it
was true that analogies between international law and internal law were sometimes dangerous,
the comparison which arose in the present instance might, on the contrary, be regarded as very
just.
In internal law if, for the conclusion of a contract, the consent of one of the parties had been
obtained by methods which involved the violation of a penal law, or even by methods which were
less serious, the contract was null or might be annulled. There was all the more reason for
regarding a treaty as non-existent in international law if it were imposed as the result of a war
prohibited by the Covenant of the Teague.
He would add that M. Cornejo’s idea had a high moral significance, and deserved to
be considered by the Committee and at least mentioned in its report.
M. SokaIv said he would, in principle, have approved the amendment of M. Cornejo
if M. Cornejo had declared that all treaties which were not in conformity with the Covenant
should not be registered, although, even in this form, the amendment would have been superfluous
as it was precisely this category of treaties which was covered by Article 20 of the Covenant.
Any addition in regard to this matter would accordingly be useless.
To introduce the amendment of M. Cornejo into the text of Article 18 would be equivalent
to despairing of the Teague of Nations, for it would be equivalent to admitting that war might
take place; that events might go so far as to involve a treaty imposed by violence, in spite of the
fact that all the measures laid down by the Covenant had been put into action. The power
of the Teague of Nations would only be able to make itself felt at the moment of the registration
of that treaty! That would mean the expression of a point of view so pessimistic that, in
spite of the generous idea which had inspired its author, he could not support the amendment o
M. Cornejo. ^ ^
In conclusion, he thought that the amendment of M. Cornejo went beyond the instructions
of the Committee, which were to harmonise the Pact of Paris with the Covenant of the Teague
of Nations.
Dr. Woo KaisEng said that, as a matter of principle, he agreed with the proposal of M. Cornejo
concerning Article 18. That amendment had already been submitted to the Assembly at its last
session and consequently it ought to be taken into consideration by the Committee. He thought
that it was in conformity with the spirit of the Pact of Paris. It was agreed, that, m order to
suppress war, it was necessary to suppress the causes of war. Consequently, it was most important
to suppress those treaties that had been imposed by violence at the end of a war. In private
law a man could not be allowed, if he had killed another, to claim the wife and property of his
victim. Would what was forbidden among individuals be admitted between nations. He
therefore supported the proposal of M. Cornejo. . , ,
Turning to the text of Article 18 he read there that “ every treaty or international engagement
shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat ”, etc. To meet the Peruvian proposal, he
would propose that the text be modified in the following manner : ‘‘ every treaty or Internationa
engagement validly entered into hereafter. . . .” That would permit of the exclusion of
treaties or engagements imposed by force, and such a modification would do away with all the
difficulties raised by the amendment of M. Cornejo.
M Cot agreed with the idea of M. Cornejo and found it extremely interesting, but did not
see how it coufd be put into practical effect. In fact, it seemed to him impossible to make a direct
reference in the text of the Covenant of the Teague of Nations to the Pact of Pans Since it was
not the duty of the Teague of Nations to see that the Pact of Pans was carried out it should be
enough to sly that the Committee thought it necessary that the Secretariat should not register
treaties concluded in contradiction to Articles 12, 13 and 15 of the Covenant.
treaties cone to re£use registration was allowed, what would be the
authority to decide that the treaty did not fulfil the conditions necessary for it to be registered?
It would probably be the Secretariat of the Teague, but the Secretanat was simply a body of
registration and it would be difficult to entrust it with the task of examining a treaty and of seeing
ifgit was drawn up under sufficiently free conditions. Registration was a matter of procedure
tL lenst imnlv the revision of the treaty registered. Consequently, it would
firs^be’Necessary^to revise11the text^the amendment of M. Cornejo in order to make it
applicable. be ^ ^ it was the d ty of the Council to decide whether
a!* + Ep registered but in that case the Council would have to be given con-
0T^° treaty ^ kfwitv to verify treaties. Would not that attitude be distinctly
s,durable powers and “^y *VeTomSee in dealing with Article 15? If the treaty
inconsistent ^ ont^dictorv to the provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 15, the Council would already
happened o action the system of sanctions. It would thus be admitted that,
hTIuch a^Ise, the Council had shown itself powerless to exercise a decisive influence on the events.
^AcSrdi’ngto'the other hypothesis, namely that of a war, arising consequent on the incapacity
of tht CounSfto come to a unanimous decision, one of the nations party to the dispute having
taken the affair into its own hands and acted m consequence^ if it was declared that the treaty
resulting from these hostilities should not be registered, the Committee would find itself obliged
to return to the text of paragraph 7 and to declare that there were no cases m which the Council
was not bound to impose a peaceful solution for disputes or the execution of its decisions.
Viscount Cecig of Cheewood agreed with the conclusions arrived at by M. Cot and M. Sokal.
If would be a serious mistake for the Committee to discuss the question. He had looked carefully
at the record of the Council’s proceedings to which M. Cornejo had alluded and he had noted tha ,