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

— 3 —
Nevertheless, a unification has been accomplished: all tribunals, including the Council, are
bound to reach a decision or make a report within a reasonable time.
Article 13, Paragraph 4.
The Sub-Committee adopted the following text:
“ The Members of the League agree that they will carry out in full good faith the award
or decision rendered in a dispute to which they have been parties. They further undertake
in no way to support a State in refusal to carry out an award or decision. In the event of any
failure to carry out such an award or decision, the Council shall propose what measures
of all kinds should be taken to give effect thereto; the votes of the representatives of the
parties shall not be counted. ”
I. In the new draft proposed by it for the beginning of Article 13, paragraph 4, the Committee
of Eleven had retained the undertaking by the Members of the League to carry out in full good faith
the award or decision rendered, but had substituted in the same sentence, in the place of the original
undertaking—now useless— “ not (to) resort to war against a Member of the League which complies
therewith ”, the undertaking “ not to take any action against any Member of the League which
complies therewith
The Sub-Committee considered it desirable not to merge in a single provision, but to enunciate
in two consecutive sentences of the same paragraph, the positive obligations which rest upon the
parties to the dispute and the general obligation (negative in character) of full good faith which,
on pronouncement of the award 01 decision, become incumbent upon all the other Members of the
League. The provision which, in the first draft, had in view the relations of these Members with
a State which complies with the award or decision has been reversed; it now deals with the attitude
of these Members in regard to a refractory State, the refusal of which to carry out the award or
decision they agree not to encourage.
II. The Sub-Committee unanimously recognised—what the report of the Committee of
Eleven had already emphasised—the cardinal importance of ensuring that the award or decision
rendered should, whatever the circumstances, be carried out. Any failure of the League in this
field would have incalculable consequences and must be guarded against.
The Committee did not feel that it should go beyond the proposals of the Committee of
Eleven in regard to the exclusion of the votes of the parties and to the question as to the manner
in which the Council should take its decision—unanimously or by a simple majority, in accordance
with Article 5 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
III. The text of Article 13, paragraph 4, proposed by the Committee of Jurists in order to
define the part to be played by the Council was adopted in its entirety by the Sub-Committee.
The Sub-Committee unanimously recognised that a " constitutional duty ” devolved upon
the Council to ensure execution, when requested to do so by the State which, having had an award
or decision pronounced in its favour, was faced by a persistent refusal on the part of the other
party to carry out that award or decision. It was agreed that the French phrase “ Le Conseil
propose ” and the English “ It shall propose ”, are imperative and constitute a recognition of the
Council’s responsibilities in such a case.
IV. It is within the power of the Council to resort, if necessary, to third States, in order to
apply to a refractory State measures likely to secure compliance with the award or decision, and
it is for the Council to indicate such measures, as also the time at which they are to be applied.
Proposals made by the Council to States which have not yet become parties to the dispute
are different in character from injunctions to a State which refuses to comply with the award
or decision, the latter being imperatively and absolutely bound by such an award. Members of
the League which have not yet become parties to the dispute are entitled, for their part, in virtue
of the general principles of Article 5, to send a representative to the Council should the question
of their possible participation in the measures contemplated by it arise. At the same time, if
presented with a recommendation by the Council, it is their moral duty to comply with it.
V. As noted in the Jurists’ report, the 'proposed text obviously guarantees the right of
States to proceed by themselves to execution of an award or decision rendered in their favour.
The only question remaining open is that of the limits within which the State in whose favour
the award or decision has been rendered must restrict itself. It appears in accordance with the
general desire to accept the view that the principle of prohibition of resort to war laid down
in the Preamble applies to the case. The lack of sufficient certainty on this altogether new
point of international law should be an additional inducement for the successful State to resort
to the Council, and for the Council to propose measures for the execution of the award or decision.
Article 15, Paragraph 6.
" If the report by the Council is unanimously agreed to by the members thereof, other
than the representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Council shall invite
the parties to comply with the recommendations of the report. The Members of the League
undertake in no way to support any party in refusal to comply with such recommendations.”