Legal > Amendment of the Covenant of the League of Nations with a view to bringing it into harmony with the pact of Paris

2
On March 8th, 1930, it submitted a report (document A.8.1930.V) containing most carefully
framed proposals for amendments.
This report and its proposals were referred to the First Committee with a view to the exami¬
nation of that important item of its agenda^—the question of amendments to the Covenant.
After a very thorough general discussion, the First Committee, on the proposal of M. Rolin
and M. Politis, appointed a Sub-Committee to consider the political as well as the juridical aspects
of the problem of bringing the League Covenant into harmony with the Paris Pact. The Sub-
Committee was also instructed to consider what changes, if any, should be made in the proposals
of the Committee of Jurists, and to state in its report whether it considered the question to be
ripe for decision this year.
The Sub-Committee,1 with M. J. Limburg (Netherlands) in the chair, held seven meetings.
I.
The study of the amendments to the Covenant proposed by the Committee of Jurists or,
during the Assembly, by the various delegations led the Sub-Committee to draw up, as a
compromise and provisionally, the following proposals:
Preamble.
In conformity with the proposals of the Committee of Eleven, instead of:
‘ In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and
security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war ”,
the Sub-Committee proposes:
In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and
security by accepting the obligation not to resort to war. ”
Article 12, Paragraphs i and 2.
The Sub-Committee adopted the following wording:
“ 1. The Members of the League agree that, if there should arise between them any
dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will in no case have recourse to war for the settlement
of the dispute, and will only employ pacific means for this purpose. If the dispute cannot be
otherwise settled, it shall be submitted either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to
enquiry by the Council.
“ 2. The award of the arbitrators or the judicial decision shall be given and the report
of the Council shall be made within a reasonable period. ”
I. The text which embodies the condemnation of resort to war in the case of a dispute likely
to lead to a rupture does not differ in substance from that adopted by the Committee of Jurists.
The juridical commentary submitted in this connection by the Committee of Jurists is
accordingly not affected.
II. Nevertheless, the order and arrangement of the provisions of the new Article 12 are
different from those adopted in the text proposed by the Committee of Eleven.
Instead of commencing with the undertaking to employ only pacific means for the settlement
of a dispute likely to lead to a rupture and then enumerating the various forms of pacific procedure
which could be chosen if the “ disagreement ” continued, and stating only at the end of the first
paragraph the undertaking in no case to resort to war, the new Article 12 begins by excluding
resort to war if a dispute likely to lead to a rupture arises between Members of the League, and
lays down as a correlative that only peaceful means shall be employed for the settlement of such
disputes. The enumeration of the various forms of pacific procedure between which the nations
concerned may choose if the “ disagreement ” continues has, therefore, been relegated to the third
sentence of the article.
This new text is clearer and more logical.
III. The Sub-Committee, like the Committee of Eleven, considered that there was no reason
to omit paragraph 2 of Article 12, the utility of which continues, and is even increased with the
extension of forms of pacific procedure and the importance of their success from the standpoint
of world peace.
1 The Sub-Committee consisted of the following:
CASSIN (France), Viscount Cecil of Chelwood (Great Britain), M. Chao-Chu Wu (China), M. Erich
(Finland), M. Gaus (Germany), M. Guani (Uruguay), M. Ito (Japan), M. Limburg (Netherlands), M. Mironesco
Roumama (replaced by M. Visoiano), M. Pilotti (Italy), M. Politis (Greece), M. Raestad (Norway), M. Rolin
(Belgium), M. Und£n (Sweden). v '
M. Hoffinger (Austria) and M. Rundstein (Poland) were present at the meetings in order to explain the
proposals submitted to the Sub-Committee by their respective delegations.