Communicated to the Council IJ/Id the Member$ o/ the League.

C. 299. M. 139. 1926. V.

GE:'\EVA, July l :t, l926.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

COMMITTEE ON THE COMPOSITION

OF THE COUNCIL

Part I

REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE

FIRST SESSION of the Committee

HELD AT GENEVA FROM MAY lOth TO 17th, 1926,

W ITH T HE

MINUTES AND APPENDICES

Part U

Extracts from the Minutes

of the Fourth and Fifth Meetings of the

Fortieth Session of the Council

HELD AT GENEVA FROM JUNE 7th TO 10th, 1926.

PubUcations of the Lea~ue of Natlob.s

V. LEGAL 1926. v. 16.

PART I

Report of the Committee

and the

Minutes of the Committee and Appendices

-5-

TABLE OF CONTEN'I'S

Part I. Page

REPO&T TO THE COUNCIL ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON l\{A Y 17TH, 1926

MINUTES OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE, MAY 10TH-17TH, 1926 .

Litt of Members, S1~bstittttes and Ad1;iaers . . . • . • • . . . • . • . . . . . .

First Meeting, May lOth, 1926, at 11 a . m. :

7

8

8

1. Opening of the Session. . . . . 2. Election of the Chairman . . . . 3. Election of the Vice-Chairman. . . 4. Opening Speech by the Chairman . . . . . 5. Publicity of the Meetings of the Committee . 6. General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Observations of the Australian Government on the Problems before the

Committee ............ .. .. . ......... .

9 9

10 10 10 10

14

Second Meeting, May lOth, 1926, at 4 p.m. : 8. General Discussion (continuation). 14

TMrd Meeti1tg, May 11th, 1926, at 10.30 a.m.: 9. General Discussion ( continWJtion). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. ~umber and l\iethod of Election of the Non-Permanent Members of the Oounoil: Proposa ls of Viscount Cecil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

27

Fovrtll Meeting, May 11th, 1926, at 4 p.m. : 11. General Discussion (contimw.tim~). . . . . . . . . ........... . 12. Number and Method of E lection of the Non-Permanent Members of the Council:

.Adoption of the Proposals of Viscount Cecil as a Basis of Discussion. . . . 13. Method of Election and Date of the Entry into Office of the Non-Permanent

Members of the Council : Paragraph 1 of the Proposals of Viscount Cecil. .

28

33

34

Fifth Meeting, May 12th, 1926, at 10.30 a.m .: 14. Method of Election and Date of the Entry into Office of the Non-Permanent

Members of the Council: Paragraph 1 of the Proposals of Viscount Cecil (continuation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

15. System of Rotation for the Non-Permanent Members of the Council and the Question of the Re-eligibility of a Certain Proportion of those Members : Para-graph 2 of the Proposals of Viscount Cecil. . . . . . . . . . . 44

16. Publicity of the Meetings of the Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Bi:cth Meeting, May 12th, 1926, at 4 p.m.: 17. System of Rotation for the Non -Permanent Members of the Council a-nd the

Question of the Re-eligibility of a Certain Proportion of those Members : Para graph 2 of the Proposals of Viscount Cecil (cmdimtation). . . . . . . . . i6

18. Question of Geographical or C<lntinental Representation in relation to Para-graph 3 of the Proposals of Viscount Cecil : Statement by M. Guani. . . . 49

19. Ratification by France of the Amendment to .Article 4 of the CovPnant. . . . 49 20. .Appointment of a Sub-Committee to draft the Text of Pa.ragrapb 2 of the Pro·

posals of Viscount Cecil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 21. Question of the Number of the Members of the Council. . . . . . . . . . . 49

Stttnth Meeting, l\lay 13th, 1926, at 4 p.m.: 22. Publicity of the 1\feetings of the Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 23. Question of the Number of the Members of the Council (continuati,,n ) : Special

Requests on the Part of Particular States : Statement by M. de Palacios on the Case of Spain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Eig~Uh. Meeting, May 14th, 1926, at 10.30 a.m. : 24 · Question of the Number of the Members of the Council (continuation) : Statement

by the Chairman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 25. Question of the Number of the Members of the Council (continuation): Reply

from the Secretary-General to the Question put by the Committee. . . . 63 26. Question of the Number of the Members of the Council (continuation). . . . . 63 27 · Question of the Number of the Members of t he Council (continuation) : Special

Requests on the Part of Particular States (continttation) : Statf'ments by M. Montarroyos, M. Chao-Hsin Chu and M. Sokal on the Cases of Brazil, China and Poland respectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

N' ~ tilt~ Meeting, May 14th, 1926, at 4 p .m. : 28. Question of the Number of the Members of the Col.Ulcil (continuation) . 70

llJi:T~ (F.) 1000 (A.) 6j00. Imp. T. de G.

-6

Tenth Meeting, May 15th, 1926, at 10.30 a.m. : 29. Question of the Number of the Members of the Council (rontinualion). . . 30. Draft Proposals by Viscount Cecil regarding the Number and Method of Electio~

of the Non-Permanent Members of the Council: Reference to the Drafting Committee .............. .. ............. .

Eleve-nth Meeting, May 17th, 1926, at 10.30 a.m. : 31. Observations of the Norwegian Government on the Question of the Composition

and Number of the Members of the Council: Communication by the Chairman. 32. Draft Rules regarding the Number and Method of Election of the Non-Permanent

Members of the Council: Text proposed by the Drafting Committee .... 33. Question of Geographical and Continental Representation : Proposal by M. Guaoi . 34. Character of the Report of the Committee to the Council. . . . . . . . . .

Twelfth M eeting, May 17th, 1926, at 5.30 p.m.: 35. Date of the Next Session of the Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 . Consideration of the Draft Report of the Committee to the Council. . . . . 37. Possible Adjournment of the Next Session of the Committee . ...... . 38. Communication of the Report and Minutes of the Committee to the I\{embers

of the League. . . 39. Close of the Session .

.Appendix I .

Page

84

90

92

92 96

101

102 102 110

111 lll

REPORT AND RI~SOLUTION Olt' THE COUNCIL, ADOPTED ON MARCH 18TH, 1926 . . . . . 113

Appendix II.

Comro:r;rcATIONS FROM GovERNMENTS c.mcm.AT"ED TO THE CoMMITTEE: Lett.er from the German Minister for Foreign Affairs to t he Secretary-General,

dated April 12th, 1926 (C.248. 1926.V) ............... 114 Letter from the First Delegate of Persia to the Le.ague of NatioHR to t he Secretary­

General, dated April 12th , 1926 (C.249.M.94.1926.V [C.C.C .2]) ... 114 Memorandum from the Government of the Republic of Cuba, dated April 20th1

1926 (C.C.0.4) .............. . ......... . .. 115 Communication from the Government of .Australia, datP.d May 5th, 1926

(C.C . C.5) ................. . ........... 115 Letter from the Government of the Kingdom of t be Serhs, Croats and Slovenes

to the Secretary-General, dated May 7th, 1926 (C.C.C.6) ...... 116 Memorandum from the Federal Government of Austria, dated May 11th, 1926

(C.C.C.11) ....... . ...... , .... . ...... ... 117 Observations of the Norwegian Government, dated May 12th, 1926 (C.C.C.16) 140 Communication from the E st honian Government, dated May 14th, 1926

(C.C.C.6) ................. .. .... . ..... 140

A.ppendia: Ill.

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COID1ITTEE BY ITS MEMBERS AND BY THE SE<"'RETARIAT AT THE ComUTTEE'S REQUEST:

Table of Elections to the Non-Permanent Seats on the Couucil in the Year~ 1920-1925 (C.C.C.7 ) ... .. ............... _ . . .. Hl

Proposal~ regarding t he Number and Method of Election of the Non-Permanent Members of the Council, submitted by Viscount Cecil at t he Meeting of )Iay

141 11th, 1926 (C.C.C.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · ?

Additional Proposals by Viscount Cecil (C.C.C.13) ........ · · · 14· Addition to Viscount Cecil's First PropoRals, submitted by M. de Rrouckere W

N~~· ~~ ~h~4ki~to~y· of .A.rticl~ 4 ~f ·the ·c~v~n~nt by 'visc~u'nt. Cecil ·(c:c:c.'12:! 142

Election of Council by the Assembly according to the "Single Transferable Vote 143 System : Memorandum communicated by Viscount Cecil (C.O.C.10) · · · ·

Date of the Beginning of the Manrlates of Non-Permanent Members of t.he Council : Note on t he Ri!ltor y of the Question, prepared by the Secret:l>rlat 144 (O.C.C.1 [a]) . ..... . .... . ...... . .... • · · · ·

A ppen<lix I V.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE 0LOSB OF THE COMMITTEE'S SESSION : Memorandum from the Indian Government, received by the Secretariat 00 149

May 21st, 1926 (C .C.C.18) ......... · · · · · · · · ·. · t · 0~ Memorandum from the Siamese Government, received by the Secretan a 149 June 4th, 1926 (C.C.C.19) ............ . . · · · · · · ·

-7-

o.c.c. 17 (1).

Report to the Council

.Adopted by the Com,mittee at its Meeting of May 11th, 1926.

In accordance with the Council's re. olution of March 18th, 1926, the Committee met on May lOth, 1926, and, having elected M. MoTTA, the representative of Switzerland, as Chairman, and M. LE BRETON, the representative of the Argentine, as Vice-Chairman, proceeded immediately to consider the question referred to it, taking as its basis the Council's resolution and the various considerations put forward in the report made by the Acting President of the Council, Viscount Ishii.

The Committee had also at its disposal a number of documents containing suggestions which various Governments had thought desirable to send to it in response to the invitation addressed by the Council to all the Members of the League.

Such communications were received from the following Governments : Australia, Austria, Cuba, Esthonia, Norway, P ersia, and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

The Committee has held twelve meetings, which, with a single exception, have been public. The Committee has not yet completed its task, and in these circumstances the present report must be confined to giving an account of t he present position of the work.

The Committee has accepted the principle of an increase of the non-permanent Members of the Council. As regards their number and the method of their election, it has adopted at a, first reading the following draft regulations :

"1. The non-permanent Members of the Council shall be elected for a term of three years. They shall assume office immediately on their election. One­third of their number shall be elected each year.

" 2. A retiring Member may not be re-elected for three years commencing with the date of expiration of its mandate unles the Assembly shall so decide, either at that date or in the course of the three years, by a majority of two-thirds ; the number of Members thus re-elected shall not, however, exceed one-third of the total number of the non-permanent Members of the Council.

" As a transitional measure, the decision provided for in the preceding paragraph may, at the elections of 1927, be taken not only with respect to the Members whose mandates expire at that time but also with respect to those whose mandates expire in 1928 and 1929.

" 3. Notwithstanding the above provisions, the Assembly may at any time by a two-thirds majority decide to proceed, in application of Article 4 of the Co1'enant, to a new election of all the non-permanent Members of the Council. In this case the .Assembly shall determine the rules applicable to the new election.

" 4. The non-permanent Members shall be increased to nine in number. . " 5. In order to bring the above system into operation, there shall be elected

rune Members as soon as possible in the next Assembly. Three of them shall be elected for a term of three years , three for two years and three for one year."

'rhe above draft is adopted subject to any modifications which may be made in it at t~~:econd reading in consequence of the conclusions reached with regard to the number 0 e permanent Members of the Council. a The Co~mittee has, in fact, resolved to proceed to a second reading of the draft during d se.c?nd sess10n, which is fixed for June 28th. It has adjourned to this later session all b~lon~ as t? increa~e of the permanent seats and as to the claims made in this connection ~~il, Chma, Spain, Persia and Poland. It has therefore also adjourned its conclusions

g the total number of the Members of the Council. !he The M~nutes of the Committee show in detail the opinions expressed by its members, ofBvot~s g1ven and the reservations made, including the reservations of the representatives re ara~ and Spain in regard to the whole draft, of the representatives of China and Poland ang~ding paragraph 2 and of the representative of Sweden in regard to the principle of

Trease of t~e non-permanent Members of the Council. on th h~ Com~ruttee considers that the increase of the number of the non-permanent seats equit:bl ouncil will permit the .Assembly to take account in a more comprehensive and lith tb e mea ure of the principle of geographical distribution of seats, in accordance

It ~ r~commendations adopted by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth .Assemblies. of tbre18 ngbt to record that the Committee was unanimously favourable to an allocation shoUld eb of ~he non-permanent seats to Latin America and that adequate representation shoUld be gllven to .Asia. The Chinese delegate strongly urged that at least two seats

e a otted to Asia and the other parts of the world outsid~ America and Europe.

-8-

Minutes of the First Session of the Committee on the Composition

of the Council

Hel.d at Ge-neva from Monda.y, May lOth, to Monday, !Jfay 17th, 1926.

List of Members, Substitutes and .Advisers :

Argentine: M. Tomas LE BRETON.

Belgitvm:

Brazil: British Empi're :

China: Czechoslovalria:

France:

Germany:

Italy :

Japan:

Poland:

At::Jpain:

Sweden:

Switzerland:

Uruguay:

M. J. M. C.A.NTILO.

M. DE BROUCKERE. M. J. MEI, OT 1 or M. RoLIN.

M. Elizeu MONT.A.RROYOS.

Viscount CECIL OF CHEr,wooD. Sir Cecil HURST. The Ron. A.M. G. 0.A.DOG.A.N.

M. CHAO-HSIN CHU.

M. Eduard BENE~. 1

M. VEVERKA. M. HEIDRICH.

M. P.A.UJ,-BONCOUR. M. FR.OM AGEOT.

M. VON ROESCH. Dr. GAUS.

M. SCIALOJA. M. Massimo PILOTTI.

M. Michikazu MATSUDA. M. SuzuKI.

M. SOKAJ,. M. LUKASIEWICZ. M. L. BABINSKI. M. A. MUHLSTEIN. M. T. GWIAZDOWSKI.

M. Emilio DE PALACIOS. M. F. RurlRE?. MONTES!NOS. ~f. J. DE A&ENZANA. M. SANCHEZ.

M. SJOBORG. M. HENNINGS. 1

M. BOHEMA.N.

M. MOTTA. M. SECRETAN.

M. Gu.A.NI.

..

1 }{. Benei, M. Henning• and M. MOlot were unable to attend the seeaion.

~9-

FIRST MEETING

Held on Monday, May lOth, 1926, at 11 a.m.

Present: All the members of the Committee.

l. Opening of the Session.

C.O.C.tp. V .1.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL recalled the following resolution adopted by the Council on March 18th, 1926 :

"The Council : "Considering that it is desirable that a thorough study should be made of

the problems connected with the composition of the Council and the number and the method of election of its Members :

"Decides to appoint a Committee for the pul'pose. "This Committee shall give particular attention to the cla.ims up to now

put forward by, or on behalf of, any Members of the J.~cague and shall be authorised to invite the Goveruments of any Members of the League which so desire, to lay before it any statement, whether in writing or through an official representative, in support of their case, or containing their views on any of the problems falling within the competence of the Committee. n shall bear in mind the various proposals on the subject which have been previously discussed by the Council or the Assembly, and in particular the resolution regarding 'geographical and other considerations' repeatedly adopted by the latter body.

"The Committee shall consist of representatives of the Members of the Council and of the following States: the Argentine Republic, China, Germany, Poland and Switzerland. The names of these representatives shall be communicated to the Secretary-General as soon as possible.

"The Committee shall meet on May lOth, 1926, and shall prepare a report to the Council which shall be communicated to the Members of the League for information as soon as possible. In case it is not able to make a unanimous report, it shall make such majority and minority reports as may be necessary in order to acquaint the Members of the League with the full results of its deliberations. "

He added that the Siamese Government bad informed the Secretariat that it desired to make known its views on the question to be discussed by the Committee, not only in writing but also through its official representative.

2. Election of the Chairman.

M. SciA.LOJA proposed that M:. Motta (Switzerland) should be elected Chairman of the Committee.

Viscount CECIL supported the proposal but hoped that the fact that M. Motta would take the chair would not prevent him from entering fully into the discussions of the Comm.ittee .

. M. MoTTA thanked his colleagues for their proposal but asked them not to press it. In mternational politics the Swiss Confederation had always pursued a policy of prudence an~ reserve which was in harmony with the perpetual neutrality of the country. The SWI.Ss Government had considered that it would have been wrong to refuse to be represented on the Committee, as this was an international duty which Switzerland, as a Member of the League of Nations, could not forgo. Nevertheless, M. Motta did not think that he could go so far as to a~cept the office of Chairman which was offered to him.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL thought it was the united wish of the Committee that M. Motta should take the Chair, for this was in the best interests of the League. He appealed to M. Motta to reconsider his refusal.

Viscount CECIL pointed out that the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland was a strong argument in favour of M. Motta's acceptance.

A-- M. SCIALOJA reminded the Committee that M. Motta had been President of the 4l!l!embly of the League.

M. DE BROUCKERE added that, if the fact of the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland compelled M. Motta not to adopt too categorical an attitude, his duties as Chairman would enable him to be of distinguished service in presiding impartially over the discussion.

M:. MOTTA, while maintaining the reservations be had made, said that he was rea;dy t~ accept the office of Chairman if the Committee thought that his country, through hun, COUld be of service to the League in a difficult situation.

M. Motta took the Ohair.

- 10-

3. Election of the Vice-Chairman. M. MoNTARROYOS thought that the Committee should have a Vice-Chairman a d

proposed that the representative of Argentine, M. Tomas LE BRETON, should serve ~~~ that capacity.

M. DE PALACIOS supported the proposal. The proposal of the 1·epresentative of Brazil was adopted.

M. LE BRETON, in the name of his country, thanked his colleagues for this mark their esteem but hoped that he would not be called upon to exercise his new functions a:J that M. Motta, to the advantage of all, would continue without interruption to presid over the work of the Committee. e 4. Opening Speech by the Chairman.

The cHAiit~uN, after having thanked his colleagues for their mark of confidence and sympathy towards his country and himself, emphasised the importance, the delicacr and magnitude of the task entrusted t o the Committee. Whether the League of N atious would be able to continue to live, to make progress and to prosper would undoubtedly depend in a very la1·ge degree on whether the Committee could discover solutions of the problem which would be satisfactory for the League. He expressed the hope, which was certainly shared by his colleagues, the Council of the League and humanity in general, that the Committee would achieve results which would make for greater mutual understandin~ satisfy the present necessities and guarantee the future prosperity of the League. onii when the Committee had achieved results which were satisfactory to all would it be possible to say that the present general anxiety had disappeared. Rarely had any Committee met upon which the hopes and attention of the peoples represented in the League of Nations had been so concentrated.

He hoped t hat the discussions would be carried on in a spirit of conciliation and with a constant preoccupation for the progress of the League. Finally, he asked for the indulgence of his colleagues. He would endeavour to be as impartial as possible and, desirous of unde1·standing all points of view, would listen carefully to the various statements made. 5. Publicity of the 1\leetings of the Committee.

Viscount CECIL hoped that in principle the Committee would sit in public. He bad always been in favour of publicity, but in i(his particular case it was of the utmost importance, because the question which the Committee would examine had excited a great deal of discussion and had given rise to much misunderstanding. The only way to avoid misunderstanding in future would be by publicity. He would not exclude the possibility of sitting in private or secret, but he would urge that it would be a grave mista.ke if the Committee did not adopt the principle that as a rule its meetings should be held in public.

M. PAUL-BONCOUR, M. MONTARROYOS and M. SCIALOJA entirely agreed with the proposal of Viscount Cecil.

The proposal was adopted. 6. General Discussion.

The CHAIRMAN said he had not had time to prepare a plan of work. Did the Committee desire to hold a general discussion of the problem submitted to it, reserving the right to discuss separately at some future date the various points which would arise !

M. ScrALOJA thought that an immediate discussion would perhaps make it possible for the various members of the Committee to obtain information on certain new points of view. He asked any member who had received instructions to bring them to tb& knowledge of the Committee.

M. DE PALACIOS understood that M. SciaJ.oja referred only to those proposals which the Committee had not yet had submitted to it , that was to say, fresh proposals and not those which were already fully known to the membe1·s of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN replied that it was in that manner that the suggestion of M. Scialoja should be interpreted.

The 'representatives of the Press were admitted.

Viscount CECIL wished to make certain observations. When· the composition of the Council was considered, the double question of non·

permanent and permanent Members immediately arose. Since the establishment of the League this question had given rise to much discussion. Since 1921, and even p~rhaps earlier, requests had been put forward for the int roduction of a system of rotation Ill the composition of the Council in order that all Members of the Assembly should be able a~ ~ne time or another to take part in the discussions and work of the Council. This opllll00

had more than once been forcibly expressed in the Assembly. It was to be found more particularly in a draft resolution submitted to the sixth Assembly by the delegate ~or Venezuela. The Committee ought therefore very closely to consider the conclusions whiCh it might reach regarding the question of rotation, which gave rise to various proble~· What ought to be the duration of the mandate held by the elected Members' .At t e expiration of th e mandate, could the Member be re-elected ? If not, for how long should that Member remain ineligible !

-11-

another question arose: Ought the elected Members of the Council to be chosen

1 or for example, should only one-third of them be chosen at a time in order to prevent

tn b 0~ 'completely at one s~gle moment the non-permanent element of the Cotincil ! ~fer g what method of election should be adopted ! At present, the election was by a . le ~ajority vote. .

sUUP would it not ~e prefera:ble. to a.dopt a .kind of proportional rep~e~entation ~ This , t-ern bad given ~e to <?bJ~~t10ns m Par.liaments. where the s~ab1lity of ~fin.istries ~ys ended on orgaruse.d m~Jontle_s.. But. no mconvemence of. t~at kind could anse in the depe of the Council, smce 1ts decl8lons did not depend ou maJonty votes, nor should there ~as within it any party or section. Perhaps. the system of proportional representation e uld automatically provide the best solution of the problem of the geographical

:tribution of Members - a problem very difficult to solve by meaus of a rigid rule - for Members in certain parts of the world might agree among them. elves as to the State which should represent them .

.As regards re-eligibility, account might perhaps be taken of the majority which each non·permanent State had obtained a t its election.

Ought the number of non-permanent Members, at the moment six, to be increased, and by how many'

With regard to the question of permanent Members - a question which had been discussed at such length in Marc~ ~f the present year- the British representative did not think it his duty to express an opnnon.

The British Government was strongly of the opinion that any revolutionary change in the present general state of affairs should be avoided. If the League 'vere to develop on sound lines, care must be taken that that development should be slow. The British Go•ernment would be opposed to any radical change in the composition of the Council, though it considered that modifications might prove necessary, especially in connection with the system of rotation.

In conclusion, the British representative said that the discussion in which the Committee was t~ engage was of great importance. It was, indeed, a debate on the constitution of one of the principal organs of the League. Through loyalty to the League of Nations the Committee ought to reach an agreement, and he hoped that no member of the Committee bad come to Geneva with the fixed intention of clinging to any one particular solution. They should bear in mind the possibility of extending the various suggestions which might be made and of modifying then· personal opinions to meet the wishes of tho majority in order to reach an agreement which would satisfy everyone. It was essential to obtain a final solution while bearing in mind that this question, however delicate it might be, should not prevent the League from carrying out its principal task, namely, the maintenance of peace throughout the world.

M. ScrAJOLA did not wish for the moment to make any proposal but merely to recall certain points which were not perhaps known to evet·ybody.

The Council's position in the League was a very special oLe. It was not a delegation of the Assembly, but constituted, like the Assembly, one of the fundamental organs of the League. It possessed powers of its own, it moved parallel with the Assembly, but neither of the two organs was totally dependent on the other. This was a fundamental factor which should not be touched, directly or indirect ly.

The distinction, in the Council itself, between permanent and non-permanent Members ~emed at first sight to be a privilege which certain States had awarded to themseh·es. Nevertheless, the situation of the League at the time of its formation should not be for­gotten- a situation which, in M. Scialoja's view, still existed and would probably c~>Dtioue to exist for a long time. The League ought not, and could not, be a super-State. This •onld be an anachronism to-day. None of the States associated in the League could accept a sovereign power which would be superior to its own. These States had formed an association, on a footing of equality, solely in order to achieve universal aims.

To achieve these aims it had been suggested that it was necessary to set up a central force, and M. Leon Bourgeois, whose death was so much regretted, bad pressed this sn~gestion very strongly at the time when the matter had been discussed in the Hotel Crillon. . Such a measure, however, had been impractical, for such a central force, placed at the disposal of the Council or the Assembly, would have given the League the character of a super-State.

It had been necessary, however, in order to meet any emergency, to make provision for some sort of a force which would be large enough to impose a common will. It had b~en :~nght, therefore, that certain States, because of their size and constitution, might ~urrush

s ~orce, .and the States in question had been given a permanent seat on the CounciL The ~nSide~ations which he bad just put forward showed that those States formed the skeleton, ~~ mtght so put it, of the League, while the other Members formed its body. From

this lt was apparent that, to diminish the strength of the Council, the skeleton of tho League, Would b~ to diminish the strength of the League. . w· Dunng the preliminary discussions, the British delegate, supported by. Prestdent

ilson, had proposed that the Council should be composed of seven Members -five perma­~:~ and two elected. The solution eventually adopted ha<l been that proposed by the

n delegate, whereby the number of elected Members was increased to four.

-12-

In what circumstances had that figure four been increased to six t Provision h been made for the entry of Germany into the League, for the possibility of the return ad the United States of America and for the possible entry of Russia ; it had been consid fi that, if the number of permanent MeiJlbers could be increased to five, six or seven eft!4 number of elected Members might also be increased and raised to six, pending the inc~ tilt in the number of the permanent Members and even in view of that increase. ea.

When, however, Germany was about to enter the League and the Council th . various considerations had been forgotten. It had been forgotten that it wa-s m~rel:e question of admitting Germany, as the number of elected Members had been increa8~ to six precisely because of the increase in the number of permanent Members.

M. Scialoja did not conclude from this that no account should be taken at the moment of the necessity which might arise of increasing the number of Members of the Council. II had merely wished to remind the Committee of the views previously hold by the Assemble

There was another point which was also of a constitutional nature on which he woJd like to make several observations, namely, the principle of unanimity. This principle must be safeguarded at all costs. The unanimity rule no doubt gave rise to manr inconveniences, but these should not be allowed to deflect the League from the proi>Ef path and lead it in dangerous side-tracks. Unanimity represented the very spirit of the League. Each of its Members was an associate and should not bo dependent upon tho will of the others. If the majority principle were substituted, a super-State would be created, whether this was desired or not; that was to say, an organisation in which the will 01 the majority would prevail over the will of the individual Members. If the League were to preserve its present character, which wa-s the only possible one, the great principle ol unanimity must be preserved.

Nevertheless, it was not sufficient to define this principle in the Covenant. The actual constitution of the League, in fact as in law, must be such as to make it possible for iu work to continue to be governed by this principle of unanimity. Supposing, to state all absurd hypothe is, that the number of the Members of the Council were increased te twenty, it would be useless to continue to say that the Council should observe the principlf of unanimity ; it could not do so. Experience had shown how difficult it sometimes Ttl

for the Council, composed of ten Members, to perform its dut ies precisely because of lhi! principle. If the Council had been composed of twenty Members, there would ha>t been many cases in which it would have been impossible to obtain unanimity. With too large a membership, it could not carry on its work, especially in the most difficult ca..~~ that was to say, in the most important ones. The eventual solution would be the acceptance of the majority principle, and many States would be unable to remain in the League. The League would be outwardly strengthened, but it would quickly dissolve.

These various considerations showed how difficult was the task of the Committee, but, under the guise of ma.king it easier now, Members should not submit proposals whic.b could not be accepted by the Council, the body to which the Committee would ultimately have to report, proposals which, far from strengthening it, might compromise the solidity of the League.

M. DE P ALAoros, without wishing to examine the various questions raised by his t.wo colleagues, desired to submit certain observations on the question of unanimity. He also believed that the principle of unanimity was absolutely necessary for the League. Moreover, it had been one of the essential elements in deciding Spain to adhere to the League, for that count.ry had considered that the sovereignty of States thus remain~ intact. Experience, however, had clearly shown that unanimity was far ea-sier to obtam than was generally supposed. Throughout the six Assemblies which the League b~d held since its creation, there was only one case in which it had not been possible to obt~ unanimity. This was natural, if it were borne in mind that the work of those Assemblle& was carried on by means of important discussions between the representatives . of Governments which were compelled to consider their decisions very carefully and whic~ understood the necessity of achieving compromises. It seemed that, even in the Coun~il

. itself, unanimity had always been obtained, except in two cases : one in 1921, when Brazil, acting in conformity with her rights, opposed an increase in the number of permanent Members of the Council in favour of Spain, and in March 1926 when Sweden had ~o opposed a similar measure. On the othe1· hand, whenever questions of grave conflic~ between States had arisen, unanimity had always been obtained, both in the Counc and in the Assembly.

From these considerations it appeared that the principle of unanimity must be reaffirmed and that the increase in the number of the Members of the Council would not. have the effect of making it appreciably more difficult to obtain unanimity in the future.

M. GUANI entirely agreed with Viscount Cecil on the fact that the Committee o~gh.~ to proceed with its work in such a way as to obtain an agree.ment between the v~,J,lOUS points of view, in order, if possible, to obtain a final result, for such a result was of pnmarY importance for the success of the League.

It was an undisputed fact that Article 4 of the Covenant made provision, in the C?m: position of the Council, for permanent and elected Members. Nevertheless, discuis10n~ had taken place on this question, not only when the Covenant had been drafted b~t 4 during the working of the League. It wa-s precisely Latin-American countries ~hicb h~ pointed out that, though this distinction might in actual fact now be recogJlised, 1t resul

-13-

certain lack of .legal equality between States, _which ':as not ent.irely in conformity a the ideal prinCiples wb1ch ought to govern an mternat10nal assoCiation. During the

at the HOtel Crillon, the representative of Brazil had pointed out that the of this twofold ~~tegory o_f Council ~embers would tend to make the Council a

tion compnsmg certam self-appomted Members and others appointed by the

the first Assembly, the Argentine delegation bad submitted a proposal which all the Members of the Council ought to be elected by the Assembly

od that five of the Members, representing the Principal Powers, should b~

diplomatic history of. Uruguay showed t hat that country had always been in vour of absolute legal equality between States. N~vertheles.s, under certain conditions

had signed the co:venant and bad a~c~pted Art1ele 4 Wlthout change. M. Guani therefore that 1t would be very difficult , at present, to amend that article in the suggested by prev~ous consid~r~tions . I~ se~med that it had been desired, by paragraph of Article 4, to lim1t t he attnbutwn of permanent seats to the five Allied and Associated Powers, and, by the second paragraph, to make it possible to

permanent seats to other Powers which might one day become Members of the League. Consequently, though, in principle, and from the ideal point of view, the distinction

rN>t.wAEm rermanent and non-permanent Members ougbt to be clone away with an rl replaced absolute legal and actual equality between States, it seomed that, subject to tho necessary

tions which he bad made, it would b t> possible to retain the firllt part of Al'ticle 4 the Covenant in its prE'sent form.

With regard to the various formuloo which could be adopted concerning the futu1'e lroDilDO,SJtJton of the Council as regards permanent and elected ~!embers, it might pArhaps be possible to simplify tlle problem by explaining certain factors immediately.

The British representative had mentioned a system of rotation. The members of the Committee might immediately agree as to the meaning of this expression. Ought thE'

of rotation to be common to all the Member~ of the League or should it mert>ly bP , .......... ~., .... that the non-permanent Members of the Council could only be re-elrcted after

lapse of a certain period of time ! Tt seemed that t·he system of integral rotation encounter a decisive object.ion. The t ime would come when, as a result of successive

ltWJ•m ... ~,ons, the choice of the non-permanent Members would be necessarily couiined to or six States. This "\\Oulcl be contrary to Article 4 of the Covenant, which stipulated the non-permanent Members shouJd be "librement" chosen by the Asl:lc.mbly. It

would also be contrary to the interests of the League, which sbould be able to act according to the necessities imposed by circumstances.

It was the duty of the present Commit tee to make certain suggestions Lo the Council regarding the composition of the latter. It would be advisable, first or all , to ascertain whl'ther the proposals which would be made could, accol'ding to the present wording of the Covenant, be carried into effect. I t might be supposed tha t the formula submitted to t he Council would be adopted by it by a majority vote. What would be the situation then ~ A legal discussion of immense importance had taken plare on this question. Oerta in Members of the Assembly had maintained that, in order to estabJish rules concerning the election of the non-permanent Members of the Council, it was necessary to amend A!ticle 4 of the Covenant. According to the arguments in t he report submitted by ~·. Joseph BartMleroy, the non-permanent Members ought, by t he terms of Article 4, to be ltbrement" elected by the Assembly. If, however, rules were drawn up, thiR freedom

would be lost. This argument had been approved by the Assembly. The Committee should therefore reach preliminary agreement on the question

whether the rules for the election of the non-permanent Members of the Council was a question of substance or one of procedure. If it were decided that t he 1·ules adopted -for ~xample, rotation - were a question of procedure, the Council and the Assembly might dectdc by a mere majority. If, on the other hand, the question were one of substance, the necessary number of votes would have to be obtained in the Council and in the ARsambly. Pe:haps the expel'ts of the League should be asked to give an int,erpretatiou regarding thia question.

1 Viscount CEOfL agreed that it would be useful to ask the legal advisers of the League

or a~ opinion on the point raised by the I'epresentative of Uruguay. Nevertheless, the q~teation whethe1· a rule concerning the method of election could o1· could not be adopted ~~ hout amending Article 4 of the Covenant did not seem to him to be of Ruch practical unp~rtance as might at first sight appear. If a large majority of t he Assembly werE> of opuu?n that the election ought , for example, to be canied out by means of a system of rotation a'?-d that the I'etiring Members could not be re-elected for a cer tain period, it could e~press th1s opinion by a vote without settling the mat ter by a formal rule. Such a system llll.hi~ht ~o. called a "gentlemen's agreement" , and the Assembly would follow the procedure " ch 1t JUdged to be the best, even without amending Article 4 of the Covenant.

M .. SCLALOJA agreed with the representatives of Uruguay and the Rritish Empire ~ncerurng .the utility of consulting the legal experts of the JJeague. .As a lawyer, be would, owever, _gtve his own view on the subject.

es I~ hiS opinion, the questiou was one of substance if it were <'Omidcred rrom t he sential point of view, for it affected the very composition of the Council. Questions

-14-

of procedure covered by the Covenaut and by the Rulell of Procedure of the Ass lll were t rue questions of procedure, that was to say, they were the means by which e biJ be obtained a final l!o1ntion, which would be a solution of the substance of the qu~: It would be too much to consider that the election of the Members of the Council " mere question of procednre. The representative of Italy thought that to a cen~·' extent the ohservations of Viscount, Cecil J?ight make it possible to find a way out~ the difficulty if it was agreed that the question was one of substance. The Connnitt cou1d orJly propose rules and not an amendment to the Covenant-. Rule~ bower ft were suhject to amendment, according to the will of t.be majority, for a rule 'was 001fl, question of sub~tance but one of procedure. The Assembly might therefore adopt ~

OJ a the other band, the representative of Italy pointed out that if rules based on the mort radical solution were adopted- that was to say, a necessary and general system of rotation ­a time would come when a certain number of Members of the League would await eleetioa to the Council. In view of the fact that the rule might be changed at any moment b a majority of the Assembly, and, further, that it could not fail to have been changed beca~ of the difficulties to which it would have given rise, the Members in question might fiDd themselves depri-ved of the certainty of a seat on the Council.

In conclusion, the Italian representative thanked M. Guani for having raised this grave question, upon which the solution of many-other problems might depend. PersonaUt he merely wished to put forward the essential part of what was in his mind in order ~ enable his colleagues fully to appreciate the difficulties before them.

7. Observations of the Australian Government on the Problems before the Committee.

The CHA.CRl1AN drew the attentiou of his co1leagues to the telegram sent by 1~ Australian Go-vernment to the Sec1·etary-General (Appendix II, p. 115), in which thai Go-vernment gave its views on the problem before the Committee.

SECOND MEETING

Held on Monday, May lOth, 1926, at 4 p.m.

Chairman : M. MOTTA.

Present : All the members of the Committee.

8. General Discussion (continuation).

M. PAUL-BONCOUR said that the Committee bad to settle a difficult problem. Everyone would remember the circumstances in which this problem had arisen, circumstances which, together with the resolution adopted by the Council in March, established the programme of the present Committee.

The Council had entrusted the Committee with the task of settling, on the basis ol general principles, the problem with which it had been confronted in a concrete form.

But if it were an advantage that the problem now presented itse)f as one of gene_ral principles concerning the -very working of the League, independently of any consideratioe of this or that particular Power, the Committee must, on the other hand, avoid an_o~er danger to which attention had already been drawn. It must not be tempted to revolutio~ all the institutions of the League of Nations. In dealing with a young organisation, II was necessary to beware of reforms which went too far or were premature. . The Committee would a-void this danger by remaining within the limits of the work ass1gned to it by the resolution of the Council.

First of all, what were the measures which the Committee must be careful not to adopt t

It was advisable, in the first place, to a-void any measure which would involre amendments to the Co-venant. Emphasis had already been laid on the diliicultie~ ?f th~ procedure for amending the Covenant. He would draw attention to another difficulty which was of fhst importance. The Committee had to solve a serious problem. The procedure of amendment would not settle the problem ; it would postpone it.

Secondly, as M. Scialoja had said, the Committee mu!!t not allow itself to be drallt into dealing with the question of the suppression of the permanent seats. Doubtless ~~~ idea was attractive and was in conformity with the increasing confidence which ~w be had in the Assembly; but it would be extremely rash for a young organisation (wbJch, moreover, had shown that it was capable ofactingundertheru1esatpresentinforce~to: the risk, as a result of the introduction of so radical a reform, of seeing States leanngh e League of Nations because they did not think it possible to accept that reform. ~t h~ as M. Scialoja bad said, the League of Nations owed its origin to the Powers which tJ founded it, and these Powers should remain the nucleus around which the other Stat were grouped.

-15-

Finally, a further a.r~ent might be i?voked against the suppression of the permanent ts. :M. Scialoja had reiD.lllded the Co~ttee that, be~ore the bu:th of the League, M. Leon

sea ois, on behalf of France,. had. raJ.Bed the question of. an International force. This Bourgeal had been put on .o~e side, smce the League of Nations, as ~f. Scialoja had said, P~not assume the ~os1t1on of a super-~tate .. If the F_'ren.ch repre~e~tative had only 00 ressed his personal VIews, he would certainly raJ.Be no obJecti~n to this Idea ; he realised, rever that to advance at the present moment beyond a certam stage would compromise ~:~e. At a time, however, when there was no international force - a force which

onally thought must one day be the real guarantee of disarmament and true peace­~te ~ necessa.ry that, at critical moments, as a consequence of unanimous decisions of ~e Council, those States, which had a~ their disposal the necessar~ forces to ensure respect f

1 the decisions of the League of Natwns and to come to the assiStance of a State which :as attacked, should, of right, be Me.mbers of the Council and should take part

·nits decisions. The more one wa-s convmce~ of the necessity of international sanctions, ~e more was ~t esse~tial that t?~se Powers which had the necessary forces at thei~· disposal should partiCipate m the demsmns.

Thirdly, it was necessary to consider the rule of unanimity. It had obvious disadvantages, but once it was admitted that the League was, for the time being, no more than an assembly of the nations composing it, having the right to act or not to act within the limits of the Covenant, the rule of unanimity must be maintained. I n certain cases, however, this rule involved such dangers that M. Paul-Boncour thought it would be wise to introduce some legal correctives. In the most urgent and difficult of all cases,. when the problem was to determine the aggressor, the rule of unanimity might be inadmissible in the face of facts which were precise and brutal. In the case of an obvious aggression, in particular, the unanimity rule would either be useless or, pushed to an absurd length, would allow a Power to deny evidence. The French representative was of the opinion that in such ca-ses there should be what might be called a reversal of the onus of proof, unanimity being necessary, not to acknowledge the t ruth but to deny it. M. Paul-Boncour, however, agreed with his colleagues that this question undoubtedly involved in the first place an amendment to the Covenant, and that, consequently, it could not be discussed by the Committee.

The maintenance of the rule of unanimity involved another consequence, namely, tlle limitation of the number of the States Members of the Council. Viscount Cecil and M. Scialoja had pointed out that if it were difficult, at present, to obtain unanimity -llthough, as the representative of Spain had observed, it bad been obtained in the majority of cases- it might become increasingly difficult in a Council the membership of which wa.s larger. .

In the first place, however, M. Paul-Boncour thought that the number of the Members of the Council might be increased without the rule of unanimity being imperilled; a small number of additional seats would not give rise to any very serious danger. Further, it was already evident that the present number might be insufficient in certain concrete cases which henceforth could not be igno1·ed. Certain agreements were no'v in existence -such as the Locarno agreements- which had been registered with the League of Nations and the execution of which implied that several States Members of the Council would be excluded from the decision when a question arising under these agreements was being examined. It was doubtful whether, with these Powers excluded, the Council, as at present composed, would retain a sufficient moral authority at the time when the decision was taken.

The question of an increase in the number of the Members of the Council therefore mll8t not a -priori be put on one side.

The possibility of increasing the number of the Members of the Council being admitted, the question to be considered was the category of seats which might be increased. Should ~e.categories of permanent and non-permanent seats be increased, or should one category ~ mcreased without the other' Did the increase of one category involve an increase of the other!

Article 4 of the Covenant contained no restrictions regarding the increase of the :nber of permanent and non-permanent seats. The Council might make proposals to

6 Assembly, and no amendment of the Covenant was necessary. f Was there a certain proportion which should be maintained between the two categories

0 ~ts '. M. Scialoja had, it seemed, maintained that the League of Nations, in order to re~am faithful to its principle, should keep to the point of view indicated in the original fticle 4 of the Covenant. In the constitutional analysis of this Article which be had made, e had even gone so far as to say that there was on one side the Council and on the other

th: ;A.ssembly, acting along parallel lines, and that the distinction between them must be reamed .. Originally, M. Scialoja's conception of the relationship between the permanent and elective seats was possibly correct , but, by an inevitable process of evolution, the ~ber of elective seats had been increased. This evolution had begun when, in 1922, to Balfour and M:. Leon Bourgeois, acting in the name of the Council, had proposed In ~e Assembly an increase of two elective seats, and it was true to say that the increa-se of the number of elective seats had, to a certain extent, brought to an end the separation " e ~wo. bodies, it being understood, of course, that the nucleus of. perman~nt seats

as lllaintamed- an arrangement with which it was not at the mom en l adVIsable to m terfere.

-16-

There was, accordingly, an increasing desire that the Council should become more more an emanation from the Assembly. M. Paul-Boncour, speaking personally tho and that this could only be to the advantage of the League; if the Committee made pr~pos:~t this sense, it would not be int roducing an innovation but would merely be contin . Ill movement which had already begun. Rvery year the .Assembly became a. more an~ a striking exp~ession of opinion _on the ~art of_ de_mocracy throug~out the world. ;~ Council, durrng the year, earned out 1ts dut1es m accordance mth general indicatio e outlined by the Assembly. The Assembly, moreover, gave proof of so much wisdom ar: prudence and of so much respect for the freedom of the discussions of the Council (th March session was a further proof of this) that by placing confidence in the Assembly 0~ unfortunate consequences for the League could result. It appeared, therefore, that anv increase in the permanent seats on the Council ought to be counterbalanced by an increase in the elective seats.

Ought tho number of permanent seats to be increased f It seemed that this question was already partly answered in that it was unanimously agreed that the presence of Germany in the League of Nations and her I'epresentation on the Council on an equal footing with the Powers which had founded the League was a necessity. Ought there to be any new permanent Members in addition to Germany Y The Committee ought to view this question from a general standpoint independently of any special cases.

But, seeing that there was an increase in the number of permanent seats - since, in any case t hat number must be increased- it would very probably be convenient to re-examine the proportion now existing between the two categories of seats and to increase also the number of elective seats. By what condit ions should the increase in th~ elective seats be governed and for what period should the elected Members sen-e! ln this connection, a whole series of new questions arose.

On this point, however, the Council had given instructions to the Commit tee. It had requested it to take into account the various proposals which had previously been disclliled by the Council or by the Assembly, and, in particular, the resolution concerning geographieal or other considerations which bad been adopted by the .Assembly on several occasions. Each year, in succession, the Assembly had drawn attention to the necessity of taking account of geographical considerations in the distribution of seats. It would therefore bt both convenient and desirable that , in any necessary system of rotation which might bt proposed, account should be taken of the existence of deunite geographical considerations; geographical considerations were, M. Paul-Boncour pointed out, quite different from political ones.

Geographical considerations led to the conclusion that it might be necessary for the .Assembly itself to retain, for such period as it might think useful to determine, a particular nation as a member of the Council.

To sum up, there were a certain number of questions which would one day arise but which could not be discussed immediately. 'l' here were others, on the contra.ry, which were withiu tho terms of reference of t he Committee: increase in the number of Members of the Council ; proportion between permanent and DOlt-permanent Members ; the syste~ of rot.atiou for the appointment of elected Membet·s, account being taken of certalll geographical considerations.

'ro what extent, according to the Rolutions of the problem which it would adopt, "WO~d the Committee encounter the difficulty outlined by M. Guani t This was a problem whiei might ati8e aud which, if the Committee were faced by it, ought to be solved. M. Paul· Boncour did not think, however, tba.t it need be raised immediately.

M. MATSUDA said that, in actual fact, the term.CJ of refareuce of the Committee w~not limited, but t he preseut general discussion showed that it would he better, as far as poss1ble, to refrain from amending the provisions of the Covenant. Up to the present, tbe Council had always carried on its work very satisfactorily. He had never heard any ~-m· plaints regarding its working. Now, however, a problem arose concerning its compos1ti0D and the number and method of elect ion of its Members.

To consider the problem properly, emphasis should be laid ou the fact t~a~. ~ur amendment not based on profound considerations would entn,il very great responstbilitie.~ Viscount. Cecil bad expressed th.ia view and M. Matsuda fully agreed with him. He I~ part.ioula.r emphasis on this poiut, because, since the last Assembly, certain points of nef had beeu exp1·esscd in some unofficial publications on the so-called reconstruction of the Council wbi('h would necessitate an amendment of the provisions of the Covenant. If this course were adopted he feared that no usefult·esult would be obtained.

Two considerations were, he thought, eRsential for the solu tion of the problem. , In the first place, there was the question of the two cntegories of Council :Mexnbcn.

M. SciA.loja had given the history of .Article 4 of the Covenant and the reasons why the institution of two ca.tegorieA had been contemplated when the Covenant was being dr81~ up. The system of two categories should be ma.intained, for it was indispensable to proper working and peaceful misRion of the League. ·'

What possible combinations were there regarding the two categories of Council Me~be~; On this point also the Committee should avoid proposing changes whi<'h woul~ J.JlV~ a.n amendment of the Covenant. I t was well known t.hat it was nE'resl!ary to watt ser

-17-

Years before a_n a~endmentt camt~ninto force, and so long as an amendment was not in force

·sting s1t uatwn roue con 1 ne. the c~condly the principle of unanimity must be considered. Several opiJtionR on that

. ct bad ~ppearecl in the Press since the last specia l session of t he Assembly. ~b'ialoja bad explain~d t he im~ortance of maintaining t he princ~ple of unauiruity, which ~ connected with t he qnest10n whether t.he League of Nattous waR or was not a. super-State. . . . .

If the principle of uuanurut y ought to be mamta,m ed, the number of t he Members of tbe Council could not be indefinitely in~rc:·a~ed, because it was more difficult t o reach a d cision when the members of an orgamsat10n were more numerous . He noted t his fact ether from the theoretical point of view, for it was true that the political couditions of t he

raorld changed and that the League of Nations could not indefinitely remain on a ~beoretical plane. Realities must always be taken into consideration. There was therefore on the one side the historical and le.gal point of v iew of the Covenant and on t he other the political point of view in rela,tion to cmrent events.

He would not at presen t go into the details of the problem, but he thought i t would be advisable to follow, as guiding rules for the discussion, t he priuciples which he bad jllSt e1pla.ined.

M. S.ronoRn said that the task of the Committee comprised a series of problems of t·he greatest importance. Ife h ad no intention of entering in to d et a ils, and only wishefl to express a few general ideas.

One of the most importaDt problems seemed to him to be that of t he system of rotation. He bad noted with great satisfaction t hat this problem had been mentioned in the first place by the firRt speaker, Viscount Cecil, who had very particularly insisted that the queftion should a t la-st be settled. Tt had been t he Sllbject of several examinations and resolutious. He would mert>ly remind the Commit t ee that on fom· occasions - 1921, 1922, 1!123 and 1925 - t he Assembly had unanimousl~ declared i tself in favour of a system of rotation, and that since 1922 precise rules h ad existed on the s uhject.

Why were these rules not applied t B ecause the second Assem bly, which bad declared iu favour of a system of rotation, had considered that, in order to carry out thn.t system, it would be prudent and useful - t hese were t he terms used in the report approved by the Assembly- to adopt an amendmen t to the Covenant, an a-mendment which had not yet received the necessary ratifications. It was highly desirable tllat an a.greement should be reached regarding the application of the syst em of rotation, but if unauimity were not obtained on t his point, no progress could be made.

He bad accordingly wondered whether, iu t he eveu t of an agreement being impossible, it would be uecessary to am end the Covenant. Everyone agreed t hat t.he procedw·e of amendment should be avoided. Would it, then, be contrary to t he Covenant to put in to force a system of rotation by means of a simple decision of the Assembly ~

In the report which i t had submit;ted to t he second Assembly, t he First Committee had not expressed an y opinion on the question whether an amendment of the Covenant was or was not necessary in respect of t he question of rotation. The delegatea of Sweden had always cousidered that. an amendment was not necesfiary, and a large nnmber of other delegations h ad held t he same view. Other delegations, however, had beeu of a contrary opinion. Would it. not he useful, in order to respect legal suscep tibilities and acting on the suppositiou that an agreement could not be reached, to ask for an advisory opinion from the Permanent Court of In ternational Justice t This opinion could be asked for by the Council or by the Assembly . If t he Court thought t hat only a resolution of the Assembly was necessary to put the system of rotation in t o practice, this would he a so lution of t he problem, although, naturally, an agreement would he preferable in view of the fact that the procedure of recourse to the Court for an advisor y opinion meant some delay.

M. Sjoborg t hought t hat, for several reasom, the problem of r otation was the first to be conRidered. The first reason was that it was desirable to have a certain eonsistency, a ~rtain continuity, in t he work ot t he J;eague, aud, since the problem of rotat ion bad been raiSed at the begiuning, a solution of t he problem Rhould continue to be sought. Tf obstacles were encountered, endeavour should be made t o find a means of avoiding them. Further, if t he system of rotation were finally adopted, t he ~olution of other questious submitted to the Committee might becom e easier. I t was possible, for example, that if on<:e the syst.em of rotation were put into force and if different interests and aspirations wh1ch ma.nifested themselves in t he Assembly were thereby represented in the Council, the. question of the composition of the Council might be solved without i t being necessary to mcrease the numblilr of its Members.

1~ should be pointecl out t hat t he syst em of rota tion mig ht be of two kinds. There was, ~st, full compulso1·y rotMion; any Power which had been elected a Member of t he Counc1l could not. be re-elected unt il all t.be other Powers b ad been elected in t urn. There was, however, a110ther system which had been adopted by t he Asl!embly and which was f:u- .les11 rigid. An y Power elected to t he Council could on ly he re-elected after a certain per1od of t ime (three yea1·s according to the propoRal of t he Assembly). He wondered ~hether :hf. Scialoja, when he had spoken of the difficulties which might arise from a system ?f rotation, bad not had only in mind full compulsory rotntion, sinee the rotation defined lll the Assembly·s resolution did not give rise to t he difficulties to which 'M. Scialoja had referred. .

-18-

With regard to the enlargemeut of the Council, it had been proposed that perma seats should be created for Powers which -we1·e not great Powers. Several speakers nent said t hat, according to the Covenant, permanent seats were reserved for the great Powha~ He agreed ou this point but wished merely to add t hat the documents concernin ~~­preparation of the Covenant contained evidence in the sa.me sense : the first draft o1 the Covenant only gave a permo.nent seat to the five Great Allied and Associated Powers a ~ made no provision for increasing the number of seats. n

It waR only in the sec0nd draft, prepared some mont.hs aftorwards, in which tb possibility of an increase first appeared. President Wilson, as 'Rapporteur, then said ~ his report that the second paragraph of Article 4, which was entirely new, contemplated the possibility of increasing the number of seats in the event of the entry into the League of other Powers for which provision wa.s uot, at that time, made.

M. Sjoborg would like to suggest, in regard to the question of new non-permanent seats, a mE>thoil of discuRsion baRed not on the point, of view of the in terests of partir.ular StateR but of the interests of the League of N:ttions, since, if any other point of rleparture were taken, iL would be very difficult to reach any result. If new seats were created with a view to meeting the illtereRts of particular States, the resuJt might be the attrihutiou of seats to a very large number of States, perhaps even to almost all of them.

\Vas it th~refore in the intel'eRts of the Leagu~ of Nat.ions to increase the uumber of t he Members of the Council Y Ou one point M. Sjoborg agreed with Lord Cecil. Anyon~ who suggested the enlargement of the Connell must show t hat the measure was desirable and that i t was not counterbalanced by disadvantages. When it was a question of modifying an existing state of things, it was for the person who desired to make the modification to prove that it was necE>ssary and not for the person who was asking for the maintenance of the strtt'UB guo. It was all the more desira ble not to uepart from this rule in the present case, since the Council, as at present constituted, worked satisfactorily enough.

On the other hand, it must be noted that, if it appeared very easy to increase the number of the Members of the Council, it would be very much more difficult to decrease it. The Covenant, in fact, provided for an increase but not for a decrease, and if once an increase were made and it appeared to present more disadvantages than advantages, it wonld be impossible to bring about the necessary decrease without an amendmE\nt to the Cotenant. Moreover, once an increase were made, there would be too many reasons against decreasing the number for it to be possible to contemplate t aking such a step. On t he contrary, there would probably be new rEiquests for an increase caused by the discontent and jealonsy of States which conside1·ed that they bad as much right to a seat as the States which had become Members of the Council as a result of its enlargement. This might lead, therefore, to a furt her enlargement, and the Council would run the risk of being still further extended.

It would . accordingly be bette1· to maintain the stahts q1w and to organise a system of rotation which, to a very large extent, would give satisfaction.

There was another ve1·y important point to be considered, namely, the consequence of the increase in the membership of the Couucil on the prestige, t he credit of the Assembly. Of the two bodies of the Lea,gue, t he Assembly was the only one in which all the States Members were represented. It was of the utmost. importance for the Members of the League, particularly for the Arnall States, that the prestige of the Assembly should not be prejudiced, a prestige which would decrease in proportion as the Council was enlarged. It was all th~ more necessar y to pr_oteet the A.<;sf.'mbly, as it met only once a year, whereas the Counril met regularly four t tmes a year.

There was also another consideration, wl1ich was hound up with the rule of unanimity. Everyone agreed that thi8 rule should not be modified. Any increase in the number of the Members of t.he Council, however, seriously enda.ngered, as had been said, the maintenance of the rule of unanimity, and the League of Nations would run the l'i~k of dismemberment if this rulo were not maintained.

Finally, there were other disadvantages which might result from an enlar~ed Council. The work would be more cumbersome, and there would be a risk of groups bemg formed within the Council.

M. CHAo-HsiN CHu said that China had always been in favom· of enlarging the Cou~cil. Certain speakers had argued that it would not be easy to obta·in unanimity for all resolutiOns if the number of the Members of the Council were increased. H e did not see very much difference between a Council of ten and one of fifteen Members. Moreover, the present ten Members did not always obtain unanimity. . .

The League of Nations was an organisation which must represent all the contmenb and not one continent more than the others. As to the method of distributing the seats, China had always been in favour of having regard to geographical considerations. ~t w~s on the proposal of China that the second Assembly bad adopted a recommendation lll thiS sense, a recommendation which had been re-affirmed at every Assembly on the req~e~ of China. He was happy to note that M. Paul-Boncour had also just emphasts this principle.

The Council at present included four permanent and six non-permanent Members, and of these_ ten Members seven were European. Asia had only one permanent ~ember~ South America had only two non-permanent Members, and North America and AfriCa werd not represented. The present Council therefore did not represent the whole world, a.o it was essential that the Council should do so.

-19-

II hoped that a satisfactory solution would be obtained. ~t of all, he wi~hed to note that, in principle, agreement .h~d been reached a-s

---ril d the increase m the number of seats. Differences of opm10n existed as to the ~ ... -~ of the permanent or non-permanent seats. He personally was in favour of the ~=e of the permanent seats. He would give his opinion later in regard to the number 111 , ts when the question came up for discussion. of biccording to the Covell:a~~ a Permanent Member must .be one of th~ great Powers. \Vhat however, was the definitiOn of a great Power!_ He h_unse~ _had sru.d at the special ~bly in March that a Po~er was no~ great o~~ to Its J?lilitary forces, but it was

~sarY to take account_ of Its econonuc. potentialities. and 1ts geographical position. ~ hoped that the Committee would consider the questiOn later, and that a definition .-:uld be found which would enable permanent seats to be given to the other great Powers of the world.

As regarded the non-permanent seats, he agreed with Viscount Cecil that the system of rotation should be e~f<?rced. He ass9ci_ated himself ~ith the views of M. P~ul-Boncour, who had propo_se.d_ to diVIde the Council mto geographical groups corresponding with the geographical diVISions of the world.

The continuation of the general discussion was adjourned to the following day.

On the proposal of M. DE PALACios, the Se~etar·iat was asked to distribute a schedule gicing the States elected as non-pennanent Me'n1-bers of the Oo1mcil by the six Assemblies .

The CHAIRMAN drew the attention of his colleagues to the other documents which had been distributed by the Secretariat, part icularly the let ter of the German Minister for Foreign Affairs defining the position of the delegate of the Reich (.Appendix II (a), p. 114), and the documents containing the opinions of .Australia, Cuba, Persia, and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (.Appendix II (d), (c), (b) and (e), pp. 114-116).

He would point out, while desiring to intervene as little as possible in the discussion, that hitherto all the speakers had been agreed on the following points :

(1) To avoid, if possible, touching the Covenant: the proposals should accordingly be made within the limits of the Covenant;

(2) To maintain the rule of unanimity, which was considered at present as inviolable, whatever personal opinion one might have on the subject.

Such were the practical results of the discussion which had just taken place. There were other points on which there existed a .certain degree of unanimity but which were of so delicate a nature that it was preferable not to define them at the present stage.

TIDRD MEETING

H eld 01~ Tuesday, May 11th, 1926, at 10.30 a. ·m .

Chairman : M. MOTTA.

Present : All the members of the Committee.

9. General Discussion (continuation).

his M. DE BRouCK.E&E began by stating that, whatever suggestions he might_ make during observations, he was far from considering any of them as being. at all final. .

. ~hough the unanimity rule implied, for States, the dreaded nght ?f veto, 1t also llnplied_, perhaps still more forcibly, the duty of conciliation. The ~el_g1an Gov:ernment WOuld Join in any attempt at conciliation made with a view to obtammg a satiSfactory aolution of the problem.

-20-

What was the scope of the Committee's terms of reference ' .It .was. not a constituti Committee. The Le~gue .h~d n<_>t yet xeached the .sta~e of modifymg 1ts constitution.OoaJ was faced merely Wlth difficultieS of fact, for whtch 1t was necessary to find a solur h These difficulties must be removed, but that was all that was necessary. 10

11.

The representatiYe of Belgium, like the preceding speakers, had no intention referring to the great principles underlying the League which M. Scialoja had clearf' explained. In t~e vie~ of .the !tali.an represen.ta~ive, the idea of 3: SUJ?er-State should b! set aside, and, Wlth this obJect m vtew, two prmmplcs must be mamtamed : the retenti of permanent Members and the unanimity rule. M. de Brouckere, though not a v;;n advocate of these principles, was prepared to see them maintained. 111

The permanent Members of the Council, according to M. Scialoja, ought to take an important part in the direction of the League, for they formed its backbone. The superiority of living creatures, however, consisted not in their skeleton but in their nervous system, which made the whole body conscious of the reactions of every part. Further the uuanimity rule, according to the Italian representat.ive, was iudispensable for tb~ maintenance of the sovereignty of States. But would the sovereignty of States have been imperilled if the Council had been allowed to decide by a majority vote such questions as the administration of the Saar, mandates, or the settlement of minori ty problems wbicb righ Uy, did not affect the sovereignty of States ~ The Council should be unallimous and the Assembly was allowed to take its decisions by a majority vote. Was it to be couci'nded from this that there was a difference iu the extent and nature of the sovereignty of States according as they had seats on the Council or not ~ It was better, however not to trv 10 justify by reasons the two rules which had been estaulished but to accept them me.relr as the result of a de facto situation to which it was necessary to bow. ·

Having made the abo'e distinction, 1£. de Brouckere was ready to agree to the two rules, because they actually eYisted. but he would, have the gravest objection to the extension of either of them.

As regards the permanent Members of the Council, he admitted only the existing ones. What did this mean' At the beginning, as M. Scialoja bad explained, provision had been made for five States to hold permanent seats on the Council and for two oth~N to be permanent Members "eventually". 'l'hese two States ought to receive the same treatment as those of the first group immediately they entered the League of };'arioll3 in order that the League should be universal, not only from the geographical standpoint but also in order that it should represent all forms of civilisation. 1'he question, with regard to those seven States, was therefore settled, but to add to them other Powers to which a permanent seat would be given and for which this privilege had not been contemplated a t the begiuning would be dangerously to extend the principle of permanency, and to this the I'epresentative of Belgium could not agree. Would this place these latter Power~ on a footing of inferiority t What , however, was a great Pow;er ' An abstract definition could not be given. The quality of a great Power was the result of historical fact. It might be desirable for other P owers to remain for a long time, perhaps for eYer, on the Council, but they should obtain this position as a result of the continued good will or the Assembly and not as a privilege conferred once for all.

Tf a fint increase were made in the number of permanent ~eats, there wnf: no rca on why that increase should ~top, and there WOlll<'l be no means of stopping i t : ,·ioce, at ~arb fresh appointmeut, it would be more difficult to disre~arrl the dema.nds of other State~. From the moment when the present difticulties berame a]Jparent, the number of caudirlate~ for a permanent seat had already increased to fh·e. This would make a total of r""eln• States- an impossible figure, which would not allow the ~!embers elected by the A:!sembly to assume a sufficiently important role - and the difficu lties of the unanimity rule would be aggravated in a manner dangerous for the League.

The difficu lties of the unanimity rule were not the same when thE> number of permanent M:cmbers was considerable, or when, on Lhe other haud, the number of elected Members wns important. Precisely because of tbe clement of permanency. tbe Yote o~ a P ower having a permanent seat could indefinitely prevent the adoption of a resolution desu·ed by a great majority of the Council or of the League of Nations itself.

Any con8iderable increase iu the number of permane11t Members would increase tb£> difficulties attendant upon the unanimity rnle, for yet anothe1· reason. The perroauent Members sittiug of right and not having been chosen by Lhe Assembly were less co.mpel!ed than the others to show a minimum of the "Geneva spirit" . They might have fhvcrgJOg in terests and intentions, all tht;> more so as they were great Powers and the risk of 1101

obtaining una nimity increased with the number of permanent Members. Moreover, ~roul this point of view, account must be taken not of the number of Members but of the flgllfl! oenotiug t heir mutua.l relations. This latter figure incrca,ed quicker thau the first. If !he nnmber of ME-mbers of the Council were raisecl, for exn,mple, to twE>lve, the figure e~pressiog their relatious was eleven times greater t han with four MembP.rs. If this purely ma~helllad tical aSJ)ect. of the quost.ion appeared to be a somewhat abstract conception, and if, tnste~ of taking accou nt of the figme expressing their relations, their value was computed, 1/ Committee, after reflexion, would be led to the conviction that the correction to be roa e in this calculation would he such as to increase the chances of disagreement rather than to diminish t hem.

-21-

Other consideration!: against increasing the number of permanent. seats had been put

d but it was not necessar y to return to them. fol"flir ' .

Tf ro"ision were made for increasing t o seven the number of permanent Members th~r the Members holding seats by r ight, should t he number of elected ·Members b~

?1 raased y Yes. For wha.t reason ~ At the beginning no elected Members bad bPen contem-10~ed then the idea of two ?ad heen put ~or"a~d_; t he Co:enant had decreed four ; soon, pl~arl beeiJ recognised that thi. uumbm· was msuffiCient and 1t had thereupon been increasecl Jl . Why bad the number four been chosen ' Recanf'.e i t was the number of :llembers to s~~ing ~eats by right, less one. Those who had voted for the resolution increasing P{:58 n~mbcr to . Lx. appeared to have been mo>ed do so by two different kinds of t !siderations. Some had wi~bed io re~la~e five minus one by fiYe plu~ one, thus ~tting the elected Members 111 the maJonty. . F or the others, on the COJ~trary, six P ant se..-en less one. WbatcYer the compromise between these two tentlenc1es, it was robevious that in actua l fa.ct the principl(' t hat t he number of elected :Members ~hould be :reat.er than the number of permanent Members had at that moment been applied. Tt would be a good thing to find now a new application of that principle which would make it possible to determin<'1 ouce and fo r all, t he composition of the Council, and it would be necessary to reach the .conclusion th at there ~hould not be more than seven permanent Members n.nd at least 01ght elected Men~bers .

Whv was this consideration necessa.ry in connection with a body taking its tlecisions unanimously ~ F irst, because all the decisions were not taken unan imously. Secondly, there was the influen<'e of general opinion. The delegates to an Assembly did not only vote: thev discussed questions; and since the elected l\Iembers on the Co uncil were t he direct representatives of the Assembly's Yie.ws, t heir num ber was not an unimportant matter.

Thlrdly, t he righ t of >eto did not posse8s only a negative a ·pect. Indirectly, by preventing the adoption of certain solutions, it made for the adoption of others by coropelling States to concentrate their efforts in a definite direction when seeking a common point of Tiew. The influence of this element would be increased if the number of ME>mbers elected by the Assembly wt>r<> rai~ecl to at least eight and if it were recognised that in any case that number ~hould be greater than the number of permanent Members.

With regard to the method of election, t he representative for Belgium supported the principle of annual election in which he found an important gnara11 tee against c<>rta in grave consequences resulting from the princ.ilJle of unanimity. If, owing to tbi~< latter priJ1ciple, a resolution which the Assembly a}Jproved could not he put iuto effect, it would be di.~dvantageous to adopt a system which might make it impossihle, perhaps, for a considerable numb<>r of yea.rs , to change the situation which had arisen. If, however, the opinion of the majority were strongly in favour of a longer period of office - two or three years for example - might it noL be possible to get over this difficulty by adopting a rule whereby it would be })O~siblc to withdraw t he mandate given to a Staf;e vo•bich had not carried it, out to the satisfaction of the Assembly '

Onght the 1\Iembt>J".' of t lJe League of Nations to sit in rotation on the CounciU This meant that a list would he drawn 111) a.nd that each Member would sit on t he Council in turn accordiug to the li~; t, iu alphabetical order or by some other mechanical method. On the pretext of safeguarding the righ ts of the Assembly, sncb a rule woulrl merely destroy them, since the freedom of the Ai'sembly would be i nterfered with by . uch an arbitrary method.

All that was necessary was to take such precautions as would preYent a l\fember of the League from serving for an unduly long period on the Council. This was essential. It had been proposed that a Member should not be re-eligible for a certain number of rears. A rule of this kind would obviously make it easier to be elected on the Council, if not for all Members of the League in succession at least for a considerable number of them.

qught this rule, however, to be applied without exception and mechanically t The Swedish representative had justly pointed out that the rules to be adopted were not intended to further the interests of any particular State bu t those of the League itself. Were there not any circumstances in which it wa.s desirable, not in the i nterests of any par ticular State but in the interests of t he whole League, for a State Lo be able to continue to sit 0? the Council even when the norma.l period of its office had elapsed ' There were many h1Sto~cal examples when the application of this rule would have been extremely desirable, and it was probable that, in the future, similar situations would arise.

How should these exceptions be determined ' Should it bo laid down that certain States should be exempted from the rule a.nd should be re-eligible for an indefinite period ' ~the difficulties which had arisen when it bad been a question of choosing n~w permane~t

ember~ would crop up again in greater force, for this would mean draW1llg up a still Ionge! list. Should it be maintained that only States possessing an importance above .a cetrartam standard, determined by the size of their population,. by the importanc~ ~f t h?u

de or by some other element should be eliuible for elect10n Y The same difficult ies and injustice would be the res~1lt. o

-22-

It might happen that a very small State migh t find itself for a certain period . position when. its presence on ~he Council would be of us~ to th.e League, while the pr~~ 1

on the Council of a State havmg a much larger populatton nngb t not be so indispens b rt A rule must therefore be found which could be applied to all States, which in practice a It. be applied frequently and for long periods to imp~rtant States and which could onl~ applied as an exception and for a very short penod to .st~tes. of lesser importance.

Would the adoptioD; of such ~ rule create an undue dlStmctlOD; between the Membez. of the League t Would It lead to Jealousy between those States which, by their enjopnem of the right of re-eligibility, beco.~e more like great Powers and the other Power! ! Certainly not. T~e small St.ates aspmng to play the. part of. a. ~rea~ Power were Tery linlitet in number, even if they eXIsted at all. The evolutiOn of CivilisatiOn gave the small Statfl as a whole an increasingly useful part to play, and, as representative of a small country M. de Brouckere thought that he was justified in saying that those States had somethint better to do than to try to make themselves the equals of great Powers ; by making a conun01 effort they could play a far more useful part.

The best solution would be to adopt a democratic rule and to state that the Assembly would proclaim that exception when it so desired, either by deciding that such Statfl as might obtain the requisite majority - for example three-fourths, two-thirds or thret­fifths - of the votes could be re-elected beyond the normal term ; or by deciding that by a special vote to be used in special circumstances and protected by guarante~ to be determined, the Assembly could suspend, for any particular reason, the rule that a particular State could not be re-eligible in any particular year.

Even if agreement were reached on these rules, there would still be a difficult quesn0, to settle : how should they be put into force t It was well known how difficult it was not to vote but to obtain the ratification of an amendment to the Covenant. \Thea the representative of Spain had referred to the greater or less ea-se with which the unanimity rule worked, he ought to have taken into account not only measures which it had not been possible to vote unanimously but measures which it had not been possible to ratify. There were certain memorable examples which could be quoted in this connection.

In those circumstances, would it not be necessary not to amend the CoTenant but to make a fresh effort to secure the entry into force of the amendment of 19211 The ratification of this amendment would be sufficient to make the solution an ea ier one.

Nevertheless, it was necessary to face facts, and it was a fact that the amendmenl had not yet been ratified. Should the Committee therefore content itself with the suggestio• of Lord Oecil concerning a "gentlemen's agreement" t Many resolutions adopted by the Assembly and which were in fact "gentlemen's agreements" had not proved of mud effect. Nevertheless, the suggestion of Lord Cecil ought to be retained and might form a part of the solution to be reached. The "gentlemen's agreement" might be so conceived a-s to make it easier to ratify the amendment of 1921. It would result in an atmosphere of greater confidence, since each State would obtain certain advantages and certain concessions could be the more easily made. The "gentlemen's agreement" might perhap1 point the way to a solution. It might perhaps go so far as an agreement on the matter of wording, on the vote, and on the ratification of a new amendment if, in order to reach an agreement, a new amendment, apart from the amendment of 1921, were considered necessary. In any case this "gentlemen's agreement" would have the immense ad>antage of giving all parties an opportunity to display their good will and unanimous desire for an agreement. Once this unanimous desire to reach agreement had been duly noted, ~e greater part of the task would have been accomplished, for it was impossible to concem that persons all showing equal good-will should find it impossible to solve the present difficulties. The members of the present Committee would show that good will, and the present difficulties would be overcome.

M. VEVERKA assured the Committee that his Government had no preconceived idea regarding the accomplishment of the task laid on the Committee, and that it would be Te~ happy to agree to any practical solution of the problem, provided that solution were lD harmony with the democratic spirit. which bad inspired and always would inspire the peoples of Czeohoslovalda. .

He agreed with Viscount. (J{'ciJ that the Committee should not seek, and ~hould r~t~er avoid, any revolutionary solution, any solution which would suddenly break the trarutton of the Oovenant. On the other hand, he earnestly hoped that the Committee would .be guided by a Rpirit of evolution in the widest sense of the term, which might serve as a gmde in transforming the present CouncH.

The Italian representative had himself noted how far the process of evolution had g~ne in a comparatively short time. This was one more reason fQr adapting an organiEahon wbioh, from .the constitutional point of view, was of such a representative character as the Council, to new situatioru a.nd new duties. If the present discussion of t~e Committee showed, as the Ohairman bad noted at the preceding meeting, t.hat this evolution should inevitably lead to a real increase in the size of the Council- that was to say, an increase in the number of non-permanent Members - such an increase should, however, be confined within the following limits:

. ~1) A minimum limit making it possible for all the principal currents of political thought to be represented on the Oouncil so that the Council should be a

-23-

kind a political microcosm corresponding to the pol~tical rcnliticR of the outside world . for it should not be forgott-en that the Council, by its origin and its aims was a 'pre-eminently political organisation. '

(2) A maximum limi~ which would be fixed by. the posr-:ibility which this organi ation h~?. of wor~mg nor.m.ally, ?Y the necessity of assuring its •itality, by tbe possibilitle~ of .Its admunstratr'\e procedure and b~· it capacity to concentr~tte and direct Its efforts towards a common end and a final olution namely, unanimity. '

Turning to the question bow the proposal~ drawn up hy the Committe(' should he put . to prarticc tht> representative of Czechoslo,akia favoured a<; empirical aud as practical ~solution as' poss.ible, .~itbont an amendmen.t of the Covenant. .

It was in thiS spmt that Czechoslovakia would co-operate m the work of the Committee.

M. voN HOESOH reminded the Committee that the German Government bad accepted the invitation addressed to it with certain reservati OilS of which the Committee was aware. He would not at the moment eutel' iuto details, because Germa.ny, in view of the position which she occtlpied in the Committee., w~s compelled 1·o show a certain degree of ref!erve. There wa~ no ueed, however, for him to repeat that he was movec1 with a sin cE-re desire to co-operate with his coll<'agues -a desire which was the result of the altitude adopted by Gt>rmanv towards the Leagne of Nation::;. It was natural, however, thai Lhe reserve wbirb he had menLioned should compel him for the moment to abstain, a.R repreRcntative of Germany, from putting forward definite proposals, though he resf'rved the right to rake part iu the discussion of the Committee the moment its views wert> cr~·stallised and its draft proposals took form.

His remarks should not be in t£>rpreted in the sense that Germ:tny underestimated the importance of the present negotiations. On the contrary, Germany realised their extreme importance, as much for the future of the League as for the political future of Germany itseU.

The representative of Germany concluded by expressing the hope that the negotiations now undertaken would end in a satisfactory result , which would make it possible lor Germany to enter the League without future difficulties.

M. DE PALACIOS thanked the Chairman for having aptly summed up at the preceding meeting the results achieved up to the moment regarding two points- the maintenance of the principle of unanimity and the desire not to amend the Covenant.

It was preferable not to amend the Covenant. In principle, the Spanish Government favouxed the suppression of the permanent Members on the Council and the election of all its Members, but, as the delegate of Uruguay had pointed out, it did not appear to be the time for that. It might perhaps be an ideal which should be retained for the futtll'e. For the moment the status qt'o must be maintained, that was to say, the institution of two categories of Members - permanent and non-permanent - as laid down in .Article 4-of the Covenant.

As regards the question of increasing the size of the Council, the speakers had so far confined themselves to referring to general principles. Some members of the Committee ba~ st~ted that, on general principles, they were against increasing the Council. To adopt this VIew would be, be thought, equivalent to pronouncing against the Covenant. The Covenant provided for the possibility of enlarging the Council, so that on general principles no one could be opposed to such an increase, especially when it was a question of increasing the number of the permanent Members. . When the Covenant spoke of non-permanent Members it said: "The Council, with like approval (approval of the majority of the Assembly), may increase the number of Me~bers of the League to be selected by the Assembly for representation on the Council". ~his was an increase of a general kind. The number of seats on the Cou.ncil would be mc.reased, but the countl'ies to fill them would not be chosen. The representative of Spain waa r.eady to agree, or thought at any rate that it was admissible, to discuss the question of this increase in principle. When, however, reference was made in the Covenant to I>ennanent Members, it was said that "with the approval of the majority of the Assembly the Council may name additional Members of the League whose representatives shall always be Members of the Council". The number of non-permanent Members could ~erefore be increased without naming the countries which would occupy the seats. When, owever, it was a question of permanent Members, the question of their increase could

not be separated from that of the States which would be called upon to occupy these new seats.

Many persons bad upheld the theory that the permanent seats were reserved for the great Powers. Every possible reservation should be made regarding the term "great Power". The Covenant made no mention of great Powers. It stated merely that the Council was composed of the representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. This was the only principle proclaimed in the Covenant regarding the permanent Members, and when the Covenant referred to the possibility of increasing their number, it attached no conditions to that increase.

-24 -

If. i~. were desired to follow the spirit of the Covenant now that there e:( a possibility which everyone hoped to see transformed into a reality, namely the JStE4 on a per~anent basis into the League of Nations and into the Council of th~ Pr;~hy Power ':"hich had formerly been the enemy of the Principal .Allied and Associated Po!lpal an~ 'Yhich happily was an enemy no longer, the presence, as a permanent Member or ~~ pnnc1pal Power which had been neutral, would be of the greatest use. As French delegate had pointed out with regard to certain agreements which ill tht way c?nce~ned any neutral country, there would be several permanent Members of tno Co~ncil which would not be in a position to take part in the vote settling questions of r ht delicacy. It was in the interest of the League of Nations and of its proper workin/t~ ~he representative of Spain raised the question of the necessity of having permanenJ m the Council this principal Power, which had been neutral. 1

. It had been said that the question of permanent Members had a.Iready been settl m 1922; the number of non-permanent Members had been raised to six, because the en~ ~f Germa,ny, the United States and even of Russia had already been provided for and 1t had been decided that there should be six non-permanent and seven permanent Me~ben In the First Committee of the Assembly, though some delegates had been of the opinion that only Germany, the United States of America and Russia should be admittEd as permanent Members, others had taken a quite opposite view. In 1921, the admission as ~ permanent Membe! of the Council of a Power, which was neither Germany nor tbt Uruted States nor Russ1a, had been voted by seven of the Members of the Council, and mon recently certain countries permanent Members of the Council had confirmed their approraJ of this State's admission on a permanent basis. I t could not be said, therefore, with reason, that the increase in the membership of the Council decided upon in 1922 as regards the non. permanent Members had prejudged the question of the increase of the permanent Membet$.

The principle of unanimity, which the Spanish Government had always supported, was fairly easy to apply. It would be still easier if it were possible to make a definite statement on the question whether tmanimity was impaired by an abstention fl'om voting. The example of the Assemhly already showed tha.t such was not the case. At the fiNt Assembly the Spanish delegation had absta.ined from voting, because, although it held a contrary view to that of the majority, it bad nevertheless not de~ired to pia~ any obstacle w the way of unanimity. If it were de<'.lared that the same principle applied as regards the Council, it was obvious that a Sta.te the essential interests of which were not at !!take, the sovereignty of whieh wa~ not cn.lled in question, would not, when it held ' view different. from t.he p1·cva.iling view, wish to prevent the achievement of unanimity and would c.ontent itself with abst.a.ining from voting. There were cNta-in "legal correctives" - to quote the happy expres~ion nsP.d by M. Paul-Boncom - which wert perfectly compat.ible with the Covenant and which made it llOSsible to obtain all the necessary guarantees for the maintenance of the principle of unanimity.

With regn.rd t.o the general question of the increase in the size of the Council, certain arguments had beeu put forward wit.b which the represen tat.ive of Spain could not agret', except with the most formal reservations. It was maintained that, if certain claims were admitted at the moment, jealousy would cause other claims to be made at a future date, which would also have to be admitted. This argument was contmry to justice, "·hirb should always guide the. resolutions . of the Assembly. Ea~h case must be exan:ined on its merits and each claun had an mdependent. va.Jue apart from any other cla1ms. II was impo;sible to connect t~e fate of a claim .recognised as just with that of possible future claims the motives for which sprang from Jealousy.

With rega.rd to the system of rotation, tba.t was to say, the question of non-re-eligibility, it was true that the Assembly, in voting the amendment to Arti<:le 4- of the Covenant, had done so as a result of a report stating that the amendment was prudent, mse and useful. This did not mean that ~~e amendment was ~ot necessa.ry but merely that the opinion of the Comnritt~e wa~ .d1VJded. Some delegatiOn~ thought that the amendment was useless, others considered 1t neces~a.ry. A compromise had then been rea~berl. In reality however the Goverumell ts wh1ch had voted the amendment had reahse~ that it ope~ed the w~y to the establishment of t~~ principle of non-re-elig~bilit~. Sp~tn was among the countries which had not yet ratified the ame.ndment . This pomt, which "a-J ~onnected with the demand made by Spain for a permanent seat on the Council, he ~onl discuss at a later stage. He w~ul~ ?on tent himself at the ll_lOment by saying that the attltnde of his country was ~ntirely JUStified and not at all arbitrary.

Without immediately making known his views on the question of geographi~ distribut]on the SpaJJish representative did not deny the interest which this ques~o~ mi ht • ' f r a certain number of the Members of t he League. Rc would merely renun th! 0 pos~::s ~bat Document C.C.C. 1 included several resolutions of the League from the term orn;ru b~eh 't appeared that the fJuestion of geographical representation affected ~be Co 8 0 t; 1~ 1rt was impossible to estahlish geographical representation without amendl~g th v~nan 1 s~ · 1t was for tbi<~ reason t hat this principle had only been laid down, ~y t e v e. ovenan · . in the form of a recommendation and having regard to special ?Ircum· ariOus Ailsem~lies, t.he at.tention of the Committee so that it might view in 1ts trne

stances, to which he drew · bl light the situation created by this pro em.

-25 - ··

At the fourth .Assembly a recommendation in favour of geographical distribution had adopted on SoptembP.r 27~h, 1923. Two d~ys lat er t-he election~ for the non-

beell t Members. of the ~ounCil had been bel~, ~ntho_nt a~y accoun~ being tak€'n of the ]Jllilendation wh1ch had JUSt been J?as~ed. A simil.ar sttnatt?n had an ·en in the follo'Ving

reco at the fifth Assembly, and agam m 1925 durmg the Rlxth .Asscmblv. The Council ye~r n~vertheless ask~d the Committee to t~ke account o~ the resolutions. ·adopted by the ba·erohhT, more partiCularly those concerrung the question of geographiCal distribution. ~might he asked whether vote given wh~n the elections were being bPid hnd less value h the votes givt>n for the recommendations.

1 80 The Spanish representa~ve had ventured to lay ?efore the Co~mittee ~be present sition but he hoped that h1s statement would not be mterpmterl as m oppos1tion to the

~ncipl~ of geographical distributio11. ITo merely thought that, to introduce such a Principle, it would b~ n_ecessa:y to am~nd tJ;le <?o~enant. The Covenant h~d ~reated a League ~f Nations, an as~oe1at10n of wt~rnatwnalm~v1~uals, and no~ au orgamsat10n of continents or an inter-contmental federat1011.. The priDctple of contmental reprc~entation waR a different principle and would mochfy the structure of the Leagne of NMion ·.

M. SoKAL observed tliat the f(Uestions which had been raised might be divided into two groups. Tn the fint place, reference had been made to the composiLion of t.he Council. The representative of Uruguay had t:aised the import~nt question ~f the m~an!! by wh~cb it was possible to effect reconstructiOn of the Council, a,nrl on tbts que1.t10n the PoliRh representative did not wish to expr<'SS any opinion a,t the moment.

Secondly, certain speakers had dealt. wit!l the composition proper of the Council. Viscount Cecil aorl M. P aul-Boncour had indicated certain guiding rules for a detailed discus~ion or the subject. Further, the Ohairman had note(l that all the members of the Committee were agreed on maintaining the principle of unanimity. Tt wa~ well to emphasise that this question was closely bound up, in the pre. ent discu. c:ion, with that of thP enlargement of the Council. The Italian representatiYe had drawn atteution to tbe dangers inherent in a too exten~ive enlargement, which might t>mhtuger the prinC'ipl~ of unanimity. It was clear that a Council which was too numerous would become a very cumbertlome ma<'hine. Jn the question of unanimity, howeYt:>r, it ·was not the m1mher of ME>mbers which mattered. It was possible to imagine a Yery numeron. Council which would aehieYc una.nimit.y 1·eadily enough, unanimity whlch might, on the contrary, he imperilled owing to a pt:>rmanent divergenc>e within a more limited Council. In practice, experience showed that, thanks to th<' i:pirit of conc>iliation, unanimity <'ould always be obtained and that. t he eulargement of tLe Conndl could not compromise tbi' fundamental principle. The Swedish representative had expressed a somewhat different view a• to the necessity of the enlargement of tl1e Council, bnt he would doubtless associate himself with the other point of view if it appeared that the la.tter offererl t.hc only meaus of settling the problem.

The deiPgatc of Ha ly had given an historical account of the <'ompositiou of the Council w far as the permanent. l\femb<'rS were !"!oncerned, and be had laid cmphal\if-1 on c>ertain arguments bal\ed on the power of the States which were permane11t Members of the Coun<'il. It appeared to him that the factor to be comidered must not he that of ma,terial, military or economic power. The Rtates formiug thf' framework of the Council and of tbl' Leagne of ~ations should represent only a great moral authority arising from their firm rPsolution to ~upport the l;eague and t hP Covenant and to safeguard peace. I n these circumstance~, 1t could not be said that it was a privilege to possess a. seat on t.hc f'ouncil: it was a heavy responsibility. It ~as nece~sary, without going into details, to contemplate a Cou~cil composed in such a way as to guarantee that it would work usefully for the preservatiOn of peace and to facilitate international agreements. For tbil' purpose a continuous represen · tation on the Couucil should be open to all those who were, to the greate~t extent, reRponsihle for peace and who could usefully assume this respon~:<ibilit y.

U. ~IONTARROYOS Raid that, ow-ing to the late hour, he did not wish to speak uutil the folloWing meeting.

Th~ CHAIRABN, while reminding the Committee that, ju confnrmity \Vith t radition,. he would mtervene as little as possible in the discussion, ventured to draw the a.ttentwn of the Committee to an argument which bad been only lightly touched npo11 but '17hich deserved to he not perhaps elucidated bnt at least examined.

Article 4 of the Covenant, in its penultimate paragraph, la.id down that "any l\f~mber 0~ the League not represented on the Council shall be invited to send a representatn~e to Sit as .a Member at any meeting of the Council during the consideration of matters spectall y affe_ctmg the interests of that Member of the League". If this provision, which was of capttal importance, were strictly applied, and applied, at the same time, in a broad and ge~erous spirit, it was calculated in many cases to remove any anxiety on the part of States •hich were not represented on the Council and which might legitimately feu,r that questions eoncernin_g them closely would be settled by the Council without thei~· having. bad .an ~fP0~_ty to emphasise their rights in the normal way .. Without ha,~mg an.y mtent1on thiscntic1smg anyone, he was under the impression- posstbly a wrong tmpress10n - that

pro'ision of the Covenant had not always been fully applied. It had happened that

-26-

States had been invited to come before the Council ; but these States, instead of f~lin. that they were actually sitting on the Council as Members by right , enjoying the ~ privileges and the same rights as the other Members, thus being on a foo ting of equsa~ with them, had the impression that they were not , indeed, in the position of P~ty accused but witnesses, their case having been already more or less prejudiced Et previous discussion between the Members of the Council. Personally, he thought thbr Article 4 of the Covenant was intended to lay down that a Member called before t:t Council must be regarded as enjoying the same rights as the other Members of the Coun .e ! twas ~ecessary! above all! that a s.tate w~ch c~me before the. ~ouncil should ha>e ~ ImpressiOn that 1t was taking part m the discussiOn under conditiOns of equalits and that nothing bad been done without its concurrence. Without wishing- for reasons which would be easily understood- to quote a particular case, he would ask that an endea,0111 should be made in the fu ture to give a very broad interpretation to Article 4 of the Covenant and that States called before the Council should be in the same position a the other Members.

The representative of Spain had raised a question which might be rega,rded as settled - whether a State which a,bstained from voting prevented unanimity from being obtained In the Assemblies, the question had been continuously settled in a \vay which could not ~ contested. When the vote was taken on the amendment of Article 4 of the Covenant, Spain though she did not agree with the principle embodied in the amendment, had not wished to prevent unanimity and had abstained from voting. Other cases might be cited in which certain States bad abstained in order that unanimity migh t be preserved.

It would be hardly possible to support with valid arguments the proposition that il abstention did not detract from unanimity in the Assembly, it should do so in the Coun~il Accordingly, under reserve of any more precise information or any furthettdiscussions which might arise, it should be admitted at once as a principle of positive law in respect of the League of Nations that abstention did not prevent unanimity from being secured.

M. DE PALACIOS was happy to note the agreement which prevailed between the Chairman and himself. With regard to the Assembly there was no doubt in the matter,a!, quite apart from practice, Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure laid down that decisiom must be taken unanimously, and paragraph 5 of the same Article stipulated that the representative who abstained was regarded as absent.

Personally he believed that for the Council the position was the same. The question of unanimity was governed by the same paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Covenant, whether for the Council or for the Assembly. Nevertheless, some time ago, the Spanish Government, during certain negotiations with various Governments, bad formed the impression that there were doubts on the subject. It would be remembered, however, that, when the question of the languages of the P ermanent Court was under discussion, M. LeonBourgeoil had abstained from voting in order not to prevent a unanimous decision from being recorded.

M. SCIALOJA said that he would like to present an observation on this subject, as the question might have some influence on several others. There could clearly be no doubt that abstention on the Council did not prevent unanimity. It must nevertheless be adde~ that abstention on the Council was extremely rare, as it was not very intelligible in relation to this body. On the other hand, ·there might be several causes for abstention in the Assembly. To illustrate this theory the example of Spain might be taken. The Spanish delegate to ~he Assembly had wished not to prevent unanimity. He had not desired to offer an eff~c~re opposition, but, on the other hand, he bad not wanted to vote in the affirmative, WJSh!Dg to reserve for his Government the right not to ratify the decision of the Assembly. Th~ while he did not prevent unanimity from being obtained, he opposed the proposal, if the ne arose, through the intermediary of his Government. Abstention, however, was not compre­hensible in the case of the Council. I n the Council the decisions to be taken were generally such as to produce an immediate effect. In order to oppose the consequences of s~ch decisions it was necessary to vote in the negative, as, in practice, to abstain from "o.tiDg bad the same effect as if the vote were given in favour of a decision. In no case did 8

decision of the Council require the ratification of the Governments. Abstention could onlY be explained on one hypothesis : a State did not wish to hinder something bein_g ?one but, as it did not agree with the proposal, it withdrew in effect from the League of ~atiOns.

The CHAIRMAN observed that a Member of the Council might refuse to take up any definite position on a question without retiring from the League.

M. SorALOJA replied that, by refusing to take up a position, a State was in prac~: giving an affirmative vote, since abstention was equivalent to an affirmative vote. . e case quoted by M. de Palacios referred to a fact of slight importance, but in serious questi~ns an abstention within the Council could not logically be explained. In this ca.ae, abstenttoo was not a method of avoiding unanimity but of contributing to it .

-27:---

Th CHAIRMAN asked those of his colleagues who had suggestions to submit on beS~ method of work to submit them to him in writing.

tbe He ""ould venture to in~cate how he vi~wed .t~e progress of th~ discussion. The ask f the Committee was defined by the Council. ThiS task was to exam me the composition I tho Council the question of the number of its Members and the question of thE' method ol ~ection ~f its elected ~embers. It was obvious that politically the most ~f li~te question was the questiOn of the number of Members, and the problem resoh·ed . e elf into finding a formula for an enlargement of the Council either by increa ' ing the 11UJJ1ber of Members who sat by right or by increasing the number of elected Members. ~difficult question might be_ considered last of all, in the hope that after having di. cu . ed th other questions the Comrruttee would have prepared the way for a solution of the ~tion thus reserved by removing some of the difficulties which it presented.

qu The question of the ~ompo~ition of the C~uncil would not give rise to any serious diseussion. It amounted m reality to the questiOn whether the system of States forming part of the Council as of right a:nd of elec~ed Sta:tes s~ould or sho~d not be maintained. The Committee had already ~eCided that 1t ~as madVIsable to modify the CoYenant, and this question was therefore vutually settled m advance.

With regard to the second question - the method of election of the elected States- a whole series of questions arose, such as the dtuation of the term of office, re-eligibility, total or partialre-eligibility. Admitting that for a certain period a Member leaving Lhe Council should not be any longer eligible, the question arose whether this rule should be absolute or whether exceptions should be made in accordance with the formula indicated by M. de Bronckere, or according to any other formula. There was also the question of the procedure for the election of elected States. Should there be total or partial re-election 1 Finally, there was the question of proportional representation, which personally he thought could hardly be applied to the problem of the composition of the Council but which it was nevertheless necessary to elucidate.

It must be hoped that unanimity could be achieved even without abstentions, by a cordial agreement among all the Members in regard to cer tain principles relating to the question of the non-permanent seats. The Committee would then take up the very much more thorny question, <Viz., that of the enlargement or not of the Council by an increase in the number of its members.

10. Number and Method of Election of the Non-Permanent Members of the Council : Proposals of Viscount Cecil.

ViscoUDt CECIL submitted to the Committee the following list of questions which he bad drawn up as a basis for the discussion of concrete points, taking into account the various opinions which had been expressed :

1. The non-permanent Members of the Council shall be elected for a term of three yea1·s. They shall assume office immediately on their election. One-third of their number shall be elected each year.

2. In principle, the elected Members shall not be re-eligible for three years after the expiration of their term of office. Nevertheless, the Assembly may, by resolution passed by a majority of not less than two to one, declare that an elected Member actually in office shall be re-eligible for another term, provided that not more than one-third of the elected members then in office can be so declared re-eligible.

3. The elected Members shall be increased to nine in number and shall in future be elected by proportional representation.

4. I n order to bring the above system into operation there shall be elected nine Members as soon as possible in the next Assembly. Three of them shall be elected for a term of three years, three for two years and three for one year.

f Viscount Cecil added that he had also prepared a statement on the working of a system 0 proportional representation as he understood the term.

-28-

FOURTH MEETING

H eld on TueSday, May 11th, 1926, at 4 p.m.

Chai1·man : M. MoTTA.

Present : .All the members of the Committee.

11. General Discussion (continuation).

M. MONTARROYOS began by saying that the Chairman had facilitated the statement he was about to make by outlining at the end of the preceding sitting the method which might be followed by the Committee. If the Chairman had not made this declaration M. Montarroyos would have developed further that part of his statement dealing with tha; question. In any case, he would only give his views in so far as i t was necessary to do 80 in order to meet the requirements of the present general discussion.

Amongst the considerations which he was about to put forward he wished :

(1) To establish the problem as he saw it in i ts true perspective; (2) To examine some of the ideas so far expressed, submitting them to a

fa.irly wide critica.l appreciation; (3) To state briefly the method which he considered to be the best for the

work of the Committee.

He would express his ideas solely on the basis of t he resolution of the Council, which had been, so to speak, the origin of the Committee and which constituted the programme of any action that the latter might propose. The resolution of the Council had been drafted with utmost sincerity by the Acting President of the Council, Viscount Ishii, and had been approved by the Council at its meeting held on March 18th last. It was not possible, there· fore, in his opinion, to depart from this resolution, and he would endeavour to treat the question in a rational manner.

The first wish of the Council - a wish expressed in its r esolution - was that the Committee should have an impartial cha.racter. He would adhere fully to this character of impartiality, but, in order to do so, it was necessary to argue quite calmly. Let the members of the Committee reason and speak clearly.

To present the problem in its true aspect i t was necessary to know what was wanted. The resolution of the Council expressly stated that it was necessary to make a. thorough study of the problems connected with the composition of the Council and the number and method of election of its Members.

All questions relating to this subject should therefore be the object of thorough study by the Committee. For this reason, the speaker was sorry to say that he did not sha~ the optimism of the Chairman when the latt.er considered that certain parts of certam questions had been settled. He did not know whether the fact of not touching the Coven~! or whether the question of unanimity were points which had been settled, though he did uot wish to suggest that he 'vould oppol)e these two findings. He would presently expre~ more cJearly his views on the subject.

The resolu tion of the Couneil of March 18th, 1 ~26, adrled : "This Committee shall give particular attf'nt.ion to thP- claims up to now put forward by or on behalf of any ~embers of the l ;eague. .. It shall bear in mind t he various proposals on the subject. wh1ch ~ad been prev-iously discussed by the Council or the A!'isembly, and, in particular, the res?lut~on reg:uding gE>ographir.al and other considerations ... " This text strengthened b1s flf~l conclul'lion to thP- effect that the Committee could not set. aside an v question. Tbe reconstitut ion of the Council was the pro~Yramme submitted to it: Concerning the composition of t.he Council, for example, if it were necessar y to consider the c~ai.ms pot forward and the proposals disr.nssed, it would not be possible to avoid exam11nng t.ne formation of the Council itself and from all points of view. First, ~<hou ld the two cate~ones of 1\femher~ be retained ~ Thir; was a question which aro'le a.nd whic.h ongbt t.o be answered. If the two classes ought to be retained, what proportion should be estabhshe~ between tbem ' Tt was only after having examined this question that. the p1·oblem 0

t.he method of election could he st.udied. The Committee could th~refore set nothing aside. M. Monta.rroyos wished a.lso, on the on<' hand, to note certain fact.s and, on. the othe~,

to make certain observations concernir1g some of t he ideas expressecl by prevjous speak~~· He noted, in the first place, that everyone had expre~sed his good will in endeavonnng

to arri'.·e at a successful issue. He under took, !'o to speak, the 8a.me engagement. On t~ other ha nd, he had hea.rd many limitations expressed which, in llis opinion, could not reconciled with a thorough st.nd v of the question. .

The second fact which he desired to note r.oncerned the statement of the representat~re of Uruguar, M. Guarti. He wished first of all to tha.nk M. Guani for his rema.rks concerm~~ the Rraziliau delegate at the Peace Conference. M. Guani had recalled tha.t. this delega ~

-29-

th first who ill exam ining t he quf'stioo of the compo~i tion of the ('ouncil at tempteil ,a,sintl'~duce t he principle of the ~egal cqo~litr _of uatiOI_I· . The Jha1.ilian tl<:l(?gat~ at tlw toeace ConfProuce was only followmg t he t t:aih t wnal p olicy of Br_azil already expressed M P Ra 116 by ~r. Rny Barbo a . M. Gua:m had ~dded that the tdea of the legal eqnality rr tio~R had been expressed by the Latlll Amen can delegates, but t hat, in l'eality il was 0 ~~~for them a matter of pnttin g th~ir point of view _before the T~en.gue of Xatiou~. The f · ta\·an delegate had adde~ t hat It was not the t m1C' to look for any ruotlification of :C~omposition of t he Coun.Cll. On t he contrary, he lhougl~t. that the it~tention of the ~'"enant ha-d been t o conf111e to t he great. P owers t Le prinleg<' of bemg p<'nmwcut ~ mbers of the Council. If M. Montarroyos undcr l"tood the Uruguayau delegate aright th~ latter was therefore abandoni~g t he idea of exa.mining here t_hc theses of the Latin~ AJnPrir.a,n na~ion on the legal equahty of t he Members of the Council a13 regal'd s the method of their choiCe.

On the suhje0t of unanimi ty, t h <' s peaker had not m nch to sa,y a.ft<'r th~ tat.('ments of M. de P :tlacios and 1\1. Solen! 0 11 t hat qut>st ion . H e shaved their Yi<>w and ~gretted that b~ could not sh~re t h_e feaTs ~xprt>sRed b y the Tta.l~an repr<lsent:1tive. He h::td bad some expen ence of t~e dtscm~Ions winch_ had tnken place 1n the League <•f N n t ious ; for example, iu I he T1·ao ~at Committee, of winch be had been a member. T his Committee bad considered questions which at times bfl.d giY<'n rise to mo~t serious d iscussions. Tti: members had always arrived a t UIHt nimou s t esu lts because they l1 ad alway~ shown that good will wb ich was t he founda tiou of a ll agreem eut, because tbey had studied the questions reasonably and set aside a ll secon<la ry considerations. The T ransi t Committ.ec was, at that time composecl of 16 members; to-day t here w«:>re 18 and i t still functioned in the samr way. Its thember~ considered t hat, wit hout auy renouncem ent of their views, t he~· could and ahould mutually enlighten on E' a nother a nd t hat by a process of nrgumcn t they might arrh-e at a definite result in perfect good fai th b y renouncing, if necessary, opinious which at first sight appeared to be uushakable. H e t herefore accep ted t.be p rinciple of unanimity, which was, as t he Italia n representative had poin ted out, t he ver~' spirit, cs~euce and foundation of the League of Nations, because it constituted t he safeguard of the sovereignty of the States.

His second observation conceJ·ned the r ela tions between the ('ouucil and the Ass<'mblv. He wished to identify himseH with wh at M. Scialoja had said : that the Council and the A.~sC>robly were t wo parallel authorities, two bodies workiug r::ide br ~ide . At 1 he same tirue, cer tain observations whieb be had heard had surprised him. The relatiolls between the Council and the Assembly had b een represented as a species of J·iYalry. There seemed to he a n idea th a t an increase in t he number of Members of the Council wou ld bavt'. the result of diminishing the prestige of t he Assembly . H e cou ld uot accept thi~· view. rt was extremely dangerous for the l;eagu e of Natious to admit the posF~ i bi li t y of: such an idea. The development of the exeeutiYe power of t he ConnC'il depencl<l<l upon the uumber and ('hOi<'e of its Members - quer~tions with which he would ucallatcr. As J·egardfi the relations between t he Council and the As.:;embly , ho wever, he fel t obliged t.o rcmincl the Committee of t he remarkable report of M. Vivia11i which was t he authority in t he matter. M. Montarroyos was at the moment merely t he m ou thpiece of him who!le irlt>as had inspired this rPport ; it was for t his reason t ha t he was fo rm ally opposed to any proposal wh i('h was based on the coneeption of any riva.h-y between the Connllil and the Assem bly .

The third ob8ervation wbich he wished t o make concerned th<' qnl!stion of the great Powers. The idea had been exprt>ssed- an idea which wa, spreading-- that onl,v the great Powers shoulrl. have tht> r ight to be permanent Member~ of the Council. rt had likewise been said t hat the Covenant establisherl t his fact . Now, the letter of Article 4 of th«:> Covenant, which in this m atter was t he law of t he League, did not permit of such a hypothesis. Ar ticle 4 constituted no au th ori ty for the Yiew that only t he g1·eat P owers eouJd be perma nent Mt>m b<'rs of the ('.AJun<'il. The article gaYe no authnrity to say t hat t~e permanent Members of t he Council should be great, ID<'dium or small Power.. It stmply stated t hat t he Council could propose that other P owers should he permanent Members of t he Council. Consequen tly, the letter of Article 4 of the Covenant was absolutely oppoiled to t he concep tion which ha d been pnt forwa rd in the Committee.

On the ot her haud, an historical review of t he discussions at t he Peace Conference ~ad_ be~n made, and, iu inteqweting these discnssiom:, a u endeavour had been made ~o Jll!tif! the view tba.t only t he great Powers could be permanent Mem iH~J:s of t ho Cou !1~1l. Be Wished to r ecall iu a few words the discus.-ions whi0h had taken place smce the Braz1han Government bad taken pa r t in t hem. . There had been first of all a. scheme of President Wilson u11der which, ill effect,, the

five countries promot ing the L eague of Nn.tions were members of a Conu niLt,ec, which ha d, so to speak, no object but t o cnxure a.nd gua rantee the execu t,iou of t,he Pel-l;ct? Tre~ty. A French plan modifying t his first scheme bad afterwards been put for ward . Tlm prOYH~ctl for_ an annual internationa.l conference between all t he couu tries bouud uy t he Trea.ttes, 'lrh~ch would be represen tP.d by a permanent delegMion of Hi members elected for a certain !lenod aud re-eligible . h In the course of t.be first discussion, the Bra7.ilian representative had po inted out ~hat the Committee of five m embeTs could uot <'ODtinue t o e~ist in t he form pr~posed .

~re could be uo CJU<'st;on of a kind of tribuna l composed of b ve members .t~ which t he entire world would he subject. After t he B razilian delegate's rem arki>, a Brtt tsh proposal

-30 -

was put forward which, in a more liberal seme, had determined the evolution towa the present organiRation of the Council. .Afterwards came the Italian proposal provjtl~ for an executive Council compoRed of the five States promoters of the League toaeU:: with oth<>r members which would be appointed by the deleg::~.tes to the .As~emblr . accord~nce with such principles and such method as it was considered would be mo~ convement.

The first Council therefore changed little by litt.Ie, and instead of being an organisation to guarantee the execution of the Peace Treaty, it gradually became a directing organ of the lJeague of Nations, which was slowl.v taking shape.

In the course of the second discussion, the Brazilian representative again oppo~ the proposed composition of the Council, and it was thanks to his intervention that the idea of State representation, in place of what amounted to a per~onal rept·esentation was established. '

In this connection the speaker drew attention to a British proposal put forward br Lord Cecil, which assumed more or less the following form : "The Executive Council could if authorised by a majority of the delegates to the .Assembly, co-opt, on the Ex.ecut,ir~ Council, representatives of States other than· those mentioned above". This proposal already showed the possibility of an increase in the number of Members of the Council without formal amendment of the Covenant.

After all these discussions, the final draft which made mention of the "Principal Allied and .Associated Powers" was drawn up.

This historical review did not in any way lead to the conclusion put forward that onlr the great Powers could be permanent Members of the Council. Moreover, if it were admitt~ that only the great Powers could be permanent Members, the question of defining what constituted a great Power immediately arose.

The Belgian representative had said that no definition existed, that the state of being a great Power was a matter of fact. .A fact must, however, have certain cbaracteristi~. What were the characteristics of a great Power Y Was it military force Y If it were held that only great military Powers could be Members of the Council it was necessary to allow that:

(1) The conclusion of the Versailles Covenant had in no way changed inte:· national relations ;

(2) Countries would be started off on a fresh armament race more marked than that preceding 1914, since even within the League of Nations their importance would be meas.ured above all by their military force, the only nations qualified to be permanent Members of the Council being those who possessed the most soldiers and the most warships.

Was it not possible, under these conditions, that certain nations which had the mearu of becoming military nations but which had not desired to do so because they employed their resOluces for their economic development and because they preferred to co-operate peacefully with other countries, might seek to make themselves military Powers l This was possible, but in such cases the League of Nations would serve only to inmase armaments ; and in tbis case, what would be the object of the forthcoming Disarmament Conference Y

He would next consider the opinion that the permanent Members of the Council were the great military Powers because they could come to the assistance of the League of Nati?ns in moments of crisis. To aillnit this opinion would be to disregard both .Article 8 and .Article 16 of the Covenant, which were the pillars of the League of Nations.

What, then, w.as the criterion for constituting the category of permanent Members of the Council t H e would reserve the right himself to produce one, at the opportune moment, when that question was under examination.

With regard to the method which in his opinion was most suited to the work of the Committee, he wished first of all to make an observation upon the opinions expressed by the Swedish representative, who seemed to him to have tackled the question in the most direct manner.

The Swedish representative bad proposed that the Committee should start its enquirY with the question of rotation. From a logical standpoint this seemed a little strange, becaus~ the proposal amounted to a reversal of the programme. The question of rotation sho~ evidently be considered last, because it was connected with the third of the questions mth which the Committee was called upon to deal, i.e., that of the method of election; the first two being the composition of the Council and the number of its Members. To ad?pt the above proposal would be to begin at the end . .Anybody who examined tbis sugg~st10n from the logical standpoint could not but be considerably surprised. The representative f1 Brazil, speaking personally, was not at all moved by it, for he had understood per~ect Y the object which the Swedish representative had in view. The latter, moreover, Jumself furnished the means of destroying his own suggestion, since be had said: "Is there any need, in the interest of the League of Nations, to enlarge the Council Y".

In putting this question, be should know that his own method would be overthrown if anybody replied to it. To the invitation thus extended, M. Montarroyos wished to rep~Y at once: "Yes, there is need in the interest of the League of Nations to enlarge the Council,

-31-

I am quite ready to prove this when it is desired to consider the question of the increase h number of permanent Members".

t What, then, was the ~ractical . method .. which the Committee should adopt t )lontarroyos would examme now, m a positive manner, the method which it would be en.ient to adopt in carrying out ~he work of th~ Committee.

\n his opinion, in aec?rdan~e w.Ith. the res_?lutiO~ of the C~uncil, the Committee had duties : the first conslBted m finding an Immediate solutwn capable of settling the

'!VO crisis before next September - an immediate solution which, of coru'se, precluded question of amendment of the Covenant ; the second consisted in finding a formula

the constitution of the Council such a-s to satisfy universal opinion and, in particular proposals frequen~ly made by the .Assemb~y a~d by certain m~mbers of the Assembl/ second duty unplie? ~reform of the Co~cil which would e~tablish a normal and definite

for its compositiOn. If the Committee neglected this second duty, it would be nee:Iect•WI> the recommendation contained in the resolution of the Council that the Committee

consider all proposals and requests made by the Members of the Assembly. The duties were in no way incompatible- i.e., on the one hand, an immediate solution

well be found without amendment of the Covenant, and, on the other, this final could be sought which, very probably, would entail an amendment of the

He would give an example to show that the two wei·e not contradictory. As regards question of the enlargement of the Council, it might be assumed, for example, that the

~mmittee would decide that the number of permanent Members must now be increased and that certain nations would be chosen with this object . It migh t also be supposed that the final formula reached would involve suppressing the permanent Members, who would become elected Members. From this it would naturally follow that States which, owing to the temporary formula, had been appointed permanent Members would continue to act as such until the adoption of the final formula, just as the existence of the present permanent Members could not prevent attempts being made to amend the Covenant in snch a manner as to cause all Members of the Council to become elected Members.

The present Committee had therefore two duties to fulfil, between which there was no contradiction. The Committee might submit. an immediate solution and also a final formula for the composition of the Council. H had been maintained on several occasion!:\ that the Covenant should not be touched. He could uot agree wit.b this view so far as the firull formula for tbe Council was concerned, the elaboration of which would necessitate a long discussion at future sessions of the Council constituted according to the provisions of the temporary formula.

As representative of Brazil, he wished to lay before the Comlnittee immediately the reasons why he desired the question of the final formula for the Council to be examined. Tbe first reason was that, in examining it, the Committee would fulfil the dut,y entrusted to it by the Council resolution: secondly, because there was a world opinion which must be taken into account and because various proposals bad been made with the object of transforming the Council into a body composed solely of elected Members.

Brazil was in no way opposed to this transformation of the permanent Membet·s of the Council into elective M<'mbers. It knew this opinion prevailed among the countries of Latin America. It was fOI' this reat~on that be desired to emphasise the necessity of examining this quest ion, contrary to the views of the repre~entative of Uruguay, who thought the moment had not come to do so.

~razil therefore wished this question to be examined, while aRking that an immediate solutiOn should first be found for the present crisis. Brazil could uot break with its traditional policy, which bad bceu upheld at the P eace Oonforence by the Brazilian delegate, M. Epitacio Pessoa.

The question of the number of Members of the Council, which ought to be e:xalnined las~ was a fairly delicate one, and he would prefer not to express an opinion 011 it at the moment. He would keep to the order of the questionR to which be bad referred: the composition of the Council, the numbe-r of Members and the method o£ election. It was necessary, in any case, to examine the question of enlarging the Council, that was to say, of enlarging the permanent as well as the non-permanent element. When it was • question of discussing the number of Members, it would be ueces. ary to examine the problem of the proportion between permanent and non-permanent Members.

On this point he bad been surprised by the opinion expressed hy the French representative. M. Paul-Boncour, replying to the remark made by M. Scialoja, with which thhe representative of Brazil fully agl'eed as far as the relations between the Council and t e Assembly were concerned, had said that the League of Nations was evolving in such a way that the Council should more and more represent the Assembly. He must confess ~~at he did not see quite clearly bow a close connection could be established between the 1 ea.e~pressed by M. Scialoja and that expressed by M. Paul-Boucour in his reply, but, admittmg that there was some form of evolution as regards the relations between the Council ~d the Assembly, he would point out that this evolution would in no way prevent the ~crease of the pe1'manent representation or. the Council. He would remind the Committee, Mowever, of the real meaning of the decision to increase the number of tile non-permanent B emb~ from four to six- a decision which bad been taken on the proposal of M. L~on b ourgeolS a.nd Lord Balfour. In the deci~ion of the Council, which had been approved Y th~ Assembly, it was stat-ed that "a subsequent augmentation of the number of

-32-

permanent Members would re-establish the principle of which .Article 4 was the applica. without its being possible to consider that the change proposed to-day prejudiced tivn re-establishment". From this text it was obvious that the proportion between the perma~Uti and non-permanent Members established by the Covenant ha{). in no way been desn-o e~, If the Committee referred to the decisions of the Council and the Assembly, it. Woui[~ seen that the evolution to which M. P aul-Boncour referred did not exist.

To sum up, .the method whic~ the c.omm~ttee wa~ c.alled. upon to adopt, in confo . with the rasolutwn of th~ Council, con:nsted ~~ examtrung first of all the question 0~ c~Jmposition of the Counml, then the number of 1ts Members a nd, lastly, the methorl of th ~ election. That was the task of the Committee. en

In conclusion, he agt·een with the point of view e~pressed by M:. de Brouckere and Lord Cecil when they had spoken of the necessity of reaching an agreement. He hoped that agreement wonlcl ~e reached and e~pressed the desire t.hat Lord. Cecil,. in the propo•al which he. had commu~1~ated to the C~a1rman, .would take mto con>n~er<ttwn tl:te differ~nt ideaf! whtch the Braz1han representative had JUSt put forward. Hts hope was that an agreement would be reached and that with this end in view the Committee would have the courage to take up all the questions which it ought to examiue in detail.

M. fJ E BRETON wished to state briefly the attitude of the .Argentine in the discussion1 which would take place.

Argentine was a~ present in the position whicl1 s~e had tak~n up at the first Assembl; of t.he League of Natwns. The propMal of the .Argentme at the fust .Assembly, which would he found in Document C'.C.C. 1. 1926 (pages 11 and 12), gave the outline of the Argentiot ideal. .Argentine, however, accepted accomplished facts. She accepted the organi~atio" of the League of Nations a!! conceived at the moment when .Argentine had joined tht League. Sbe did not wish to make any serious changes, but she would do all that she could to prevent the adoption of any amendments which would be con trary to the principle of the lega l eq uali t.y of States - a fundamental principle in he reyes . .Argentine was determin&J to facilitate any Rolution which would solve the present difficulties. She had no prejudicq or preconceived i<leas, and she was ready to accept any u eful proposal for assuring tht proper working of the League. The point of view of his country, however- the reprem,· tatiYe of .Argentine asked lo be excused for iusisting upon it - was that any meaSl!Jt framed with Lhe object of changing the present situation and which might be opposed to her principles could not recei,-e her ~mpport. On the other hand, any measures the objeci of which would bring closer the ideal to which his country was attached would obtain its complet.e approval so that the accomplishment of the great task assumed by the League in the social, economic and humanitarian spheres might be facilitated.

The C tiAlR~tAN said that, if no other member wished to address the Committee, be would close the general discussion. It had not led to any special decision since no definite propo~al had been made.

Wi th regard to the order of work of the Committee, Lord Cecil had submitted, at the end of Lhe preceding meeting, draft proposals which had been distributed. The Chairman, at the previous meeting, bad proposed that; the s.fieoial questions should be d iscussed in the following order : first, the general question of the composition of the Council- and be had added that t his question would probably not give rise to any profound divergence of views; seco11dly, the question of the method of election of the non-permanent or elected Member~ ; and, t.b irdly, the question of the enlargement of the Council properly speaking, that wa~ to sa.y, the que. tion of the increase in the number of Members, either the Members posse3smg seats by r ight or elected Members.

The proposal of Lord Cecil made it possible to follow this order. It was compos~ of fow' article., the first and second concerning questions relating to the method of electiOn, the third touching the principle of the enlargement of the Council. He would add that he did not think that he could settle the method of discussion, for be was the sernnt of the Committee and, consequently, he would be ready to adopt any method which ~o~ld obtain, if not the unanimity for which he hoped, at any rate the approval of the ma)onty of the Committee. .

He would add two remarks which he thought of great importance and, from certaJU points of view, even fundamental.

M. Montarroyos had appeared at one moment - though he had done so in the most courteous and friendly manner- to contest the statement of the Chairman to the effect that there were two points which should be omitted from the discussion in view of the fact that a kind of agreement had already been reached upon them. The firs~ of thes~ points concerned uuanjmity. The Chairman noted with pleasure t hat in hiS speec M. Montarroyos had also formally associat~d himself with the point of view that all !~e members of the Committee without exception considered that, for the purposes of : ~ Committee's discussion, the unanimity rule was beyond dispute. This was oue P010

therefore definitely settled. ohl The other remark of M. Montarroyos was as follows. The Chairman had thou, 1 he was right in saying that all members had agreed to avoid any discussion of any. propos~

which would involve amending the Covenant. There app~a.red here to be a diV"ergen re of view bet.ween himself and the Brazilian representative, but this divergenc.e was ~~en apparent than real. M. Montarroyos had said that be admitted that the Council ba~ J:~ a definite task to the Committee, consisting, first of all, in finding a method by whi

-33-

.. co!lld be settled, and, ne~t, in investigatin~, .at greater length. a~d as a quest,ion for ,u,kt re the problems relatmg to the compos1t10n of the Cottncil, 1ts constitution and .he J:oci of work. Since ~f. Montar~oyos had been ready to recognise thaL the immediate tE ro~ost important task of the Comnuttee fo~· ~he mom~nt c?nsic;ted ifi: as isting the Council an~ the .Assembly to pu.t au end to the crisis, and smce It was qUJLe obvious that this an ult could not be ~btnwcd b,! means ?~ amendments of the CoTen.ant, which could uot ~ too before the tiiDe at wh1ch the cnsts would have to be settlerl m the interests of the be vo e the Brazilian representative and him~elf were really in agreement. The Committee f;ea;: ; would have, during its discm sions, to examine whether it wi hed to go beyond ~fs ~mediate task in order to. undertake. ano.ther of longer d1~r~tion ; for the moment, t ver it would be better for 1t to keep m VIew the more def1mte task which bad been ho'Yened' to it and to put aside anything which would cause its work to extend beyond a assig d h · ·h · h · reasonable period. To o ot erWise nug t mean postporung t e settlement of the crisis itself.

1tL PAUL-BONCOUR, while having no ~bjection to. raise,, nevertheless desired to make reservation with regard to what the Cbauman bad JUSt said. The, latter had stated that

avery member of the Committee had agreed that the question of unanimity was beyond ~iscnssion. He wo11ld remind the Chairman that at the precediug meeting, when he bad ~tiveu his adherence to the maintenance of the unauimity rule, he bad made a re:ervation ooncerniug the legal correctives which might be ~.pplied to it. .A.t the P.rccediog meeting, ll. de Brouckf>re had referred to some of these which M. Paul-Boncotu· h1mself had had in mind in particular, as regards the application of the unanimity rnle to mere questions of for'm or procedure, in connection with which, aR the so•ereignty of States was not properly involved, thjs rule was not justified. He had pointed out at the precccling meeting another legal corrective to which be attached great importance and which might be taken up at the proper time in other circumstances. It was the legal corrective which in certain rases and in the most difficult case~, namely, cases or aggression, would reTerse the ouus of proof and be applied in such a way that the rule of unanimity would come iuto play iu tl!e contrary sense, so that unanimity would be necessary to deny the reality of an indisputable fact. This was not the place to insist on this point, but if, eith<'r iu the> form of minutes or in some other form, any statement were made as t.he result of the Committee's di.sc!lSsions to the effect that the Committee was unanimous in support o£ the unauimity rule, he would like a mention of this express reserve to be ma{le.

M. MONT ARROYOS recognised that the Cha-irman and him. elf were in agreement regarding what he had called the fust duty of the Committee, which was to find an immediate solution for the present c1·isis. He could not, however, forget that there was a second duty ; and, though the Committee might not be able to examine the question, or for some reason W8!S unable to investigate and settle i t, mention should be made in the Minutes that Brazil had wished the Committee to perform this second duty .

M. DE P ALAcros wished to retnrn to the general opinion expressed with regard to the necessity of not amending the Covenant. H e ventured to poiut out that the Chairman himself had begun to amend the Covenant ; at the preceding meeting the Belgian representative had mentioned in the course of his speech "Members by right" and " elected Members". Another member of the Committee had employed the same ~o•xpression. The Chairman himself had used it. He would point out that this expression amounted to an amendment of the Covenant. There were no l\fembe1·s "by right" : there were permanent and non-permanent 1\fembers.

The CHAIR.MAN took unte or the reserves matle hy M. Paul-Bonconr, l\L Montarroyos and M. de Palacios, and in order to show how much he respected the CoTenant, be would no longer speak of "members by right" but "permanent Members", though he would add ~hat in a,ctual fact the distinction between permanent and non-permauenL Members was Itself not contained in the Covenant, since Article 4: made no reference to it . IL was, however, true to say that the terms used by the Lea!!ne were at the moment "permanent" and u • -non·perrnanen t".

12. Number and IUetbod of Election of the Non-Permanent Members of the Council : Adoption of the Proposals of Viscount Cecil as a Basis of Discussion.

The CBA1R1\IAN asked whether the Committee would take as a basis of discussion the draft submitted by Lord Cecil at the previous meeting .

. M. PAUL-BoNcoun. thought that Lord Cecil's suggestion might furni'3b a ~seful b~sis of discussion. As the Chairman had said, the logical order would consist in first settling the question of the permauent and non-permanent Members, but psychologically it would be e~ier to find a final solution if the Committee hega.n by discussing the method of electmg the non-permanent Members, putting on one ~ide the problem of the permanent and non-permanent Members.

Viscou.nt CEc:TL explained that the question of permanent and nor~-permanent ~mb~rs was not taken into consideration in the draft which he had subm1~ted. to. the

liUn.ittee, and would have to be discussed separately. His proposals should, lD hiS VIew, lllerely serve as a basis for discussion.

-S4-

M. SJollORG thought that the proposal to examine the question of the methOd election was au excellent one. t1

He would observe, however, that the proposals of Lord Cecil did not onlv con t.he method of election of the non-permanent Members. Paragraph 3 contained a pro;: concerning the number of the non-permanent Members, and paragraph 4 1)resupll0lei that. the number bad been determined. Lord Cecil would agree, perhaps, that paragraP'I 3 and 4 of his proposals should not be immediately discussed, aud that the Comllli.tttt should confine itseli for the moment to examining questions of principle.

1\1. ScrAI.OJA said that his task was made easier by the observations of M. Sjobo 1 t was ob~iously impossible completely to isolate the ~arious points of the discussi~ 'fhe folll' para~rapbs forming the proposaLc; of Lord Cecil could not be c.onsiderecl as separatt elemeuts. Lo.gieally, th~ first p~ragraph was ~onnecte~ with the last. He t~ought, there!o that the Chauman, whllc drawmg the attent1011 of his colleagueE: to certam specific poio~ could not prevent them from spea.king also ou analogous questions. Ev('ln the di~tinenos between the general and special discussion on t.he various points was of very relatirt importanc.e. 1'here was only one question which might be treat.ecl separately, and it might perhaps be best to isolate it immediately. This question was whether the Committee'" ready 1 o agree to some form of rotation, reserving the question of the method in whicb n Pltould operate, ancl whether this rotation should be complete. These wer(.> isolated poiotJ, but, apart from them, he did not think it possible to treat the four paragraphF: of LordCecii1 proposal separately, though to facilitate the <liscussion the Committee could begin br examining the first two paragraphs.

The CnAIRMAN agreed with the observations of M. Scialoja. Tt was quite COI'It:el that each speaker connected the various points in his mind during the discnssiou, desniU the fact that formally they were isolated, but this wa.s true of any discussion. ·

H e proposed, therefore, that the Committee Rhould first discuss the g~neral questiot of a system of rotation. He laid before the Committee the following questions : Did tht Committee desire to suggest a system of rotation or not ' Secondly, <lid it wish such a rotation to be complete '

The question of rotation could be discussed 011 the basis of Lord Cecil'R proposals. H e accor<lingly proposed that the Committee should begin the d.i.~cussion of Point 1m those Jn·oposals while allowing members to disc.uss R.t the same time the question m rotation.

The Committee adoptul the p1·opo.<tal of the Chairman.

13. }letbod of Election and Date of Entry into Office of the Non.Permanent Members of fu Council: Paragraph 1 of the Proposals of Viscount Cecil.

The CEAl'RlllAN opened the discussion of Point 1 of Lord Cecil's proposals, which wasas follows :

"The non-permanent Members of the Council shall be elected for a term of three years. They shall assume office immediately on their election. One-third of their number shall be elected each year."

Viscount CE(•TL, replying to an observation by M. Sjoborg, said he was ready to o~il any reference to numbers in his proposals. They hart only been inserted to make tbe proJeel clear.

The first sentence: "The non-permanent Members of the Council shall be elected for a term of x years'' involved the admission of the principle of rotat ion of which the A.ssembly had been in favour on seve1·al oceasion.s. M. de Brouck~re bad proposed that the non-permanent Members should be elected for one year. One year was not a sufficiently long period. "During tho first session of the Counc.il the representative of the new Member might feel somewhat strange in his position. H e would prove himself stronger in the sec~nd aud third sessions, but during the fourth session he would be under the threat of re-electiOn and agaiu might not be able to do himself justice. Viscount Cecil had tharefore propo~ed three years because tbat period had been commonly mentioned, but he bad no objectiOn to two years ii the Committee thought that preferable. .

The second sentence said that the non-permanent Membe1·s should assume ?fftce immediately on their election. He know of l1ut one exception to this rule. The Pre~tdent of the United States of America did not assume office immediately, but this wa.s due t.o historical circumstances. Without wishing to criticise the constitution of any country, 1~ might. perhaps be said that this art icle in. the Constitution of tbe United States won not be singled out as the most successful in its operation. Viscount Cecil proposed therefo~ that non-permanent Members should assume office immediately and thus follow the rul~ covering other democratic elections. ,.

The third sentence said: "One-third of their number shall be elected each year · If a period of three years were taken as a basis, the elections might be made either everr third year or a proportion of the non-permanent Members might be elected each year. If the elections only took place every third year, the continuity of the Council would ~ dislocated, and he thought it preferable therefore to elect one-third of the non-perroanen

each year. There was some advantage in assuring a continuous liaison between ~ten1eo~"'un • ., cil and the ;Assembly and of transfusing a certain amount of fresh blood each

into the Council. With regard to the question of complete or partial rotation, he \vas opposed to complete

which at the end of a certain time would limit too greatly the freedom of choice ' the .Assembly.

M. scrALOJ.A co~d not accept Lo~d Cecil's proposal to omit in his scheme all mention fim1res, because m that ~ase not~g of the . scheme would remain. The first paragraph, which mentwned a period of three years and provided that one­

of the Members should be elected each year, presupposed that the number of non­Members would be nine. Nobody had suggested reducing t o three the number Members, which at the moment numbered six. As even this lattei' figure

ft nn,~Jl.rtlu insufficient, it should be raised, according to the proposal of Lord Cecil, to nine, to twelve. Consequently, Point 4 of Lord Cecil's proposals, which provided for the

of three Members for a period of three years, was really included in paragraph 1. He had no remarks to make concerning the date on which Members should assume

He thought that the immediate assumption of office after election was an t suggestion.

In his view, however, nine elected members was too many. Together with the existing five permanent Members,. the tot~l ~umber woul~ be I'aised. to fourteen. - a figure whic? force of circumstances might easily mcrease to fifteen or SIXteen. This would make 1t very difficult for the Council to carry out its duties.

He would in this connection raise a previous question. Would the number of the permanent Members of the Council be increased ~ If that were so, the difficulty would become still gi'eater, for if it were supposed that one or two new permanent l\iembers would now be designated, the total number would be raised to fifteen or sixteen, and later on, when two new States had entered the League of Nations, it would be increased to eighteen. It was obviously difficult to argue on a hypothesis, but account should be taken of it when discussing the proposal of Viscount Cecil.

The second point which he wished to raise concerned the system of rotation. The system proposed by Lord Cecil appeared to him to have one fault . When the nine non­permanent Members were elected, the Assembly would have- if a system of complete rotation were discarded- to take into account a very large number of points of view, all of importance; for example: the geographical point of view, the racial question, the proportion between large and small Powers, groups of States which did not possess a right but which naturally must be considered at the time of an election. The nine elected Members, once such considerations had been taken into account by the Assembly, would form a harmonious whole. From this whole, however, one-third would have to be withdrawn each year. Would it be possible in each partial election to take account to the same extent of the considerations which had originally governed the election of the nine .Members ?

He thought that the system of annual rotation by the election of a t hird of the non­permanent Members necessarily implied that each partial election would be concerned with t{)o small a number of seats to make it possible for the Assembly to take account of all the elements which it had considered at the first election. It was for this reason that he would propose a partial election to cover half the non-permanent Members.

He also thought that the period of three years was not sufficient. As Viscount Cecil had pointed out, a new Member had to a certain extent to learn his duties as a Member of the Council. The first six months served this purpose. If he had a term of office of three years the effective duration of his office was therefore reduced to two and a-half years, which was too sho1·t. He would consequently prefer that the term of office should b~ four years, since this would give greater solidity to the Council, and, in those Cll'cumstances, the whole system of I'Otation must be based on even figures.

Viscount CECIL understood M. Scialoja to suggest that the elections should be held not every year but every second yeru'. If they were to be held every year, the numbe1· of Members would have to be sixteen if account were to be taken of M:. Scialoja's scheme.

M. SCIALOJA preferred that the elections should be made every second year.

M. SoK.AL pointed out that the Committee was discussing Point 1 of Lord Cecil's P~oposal without having received his proposals concerning proportional representation. Since the Committee was discussing the method of election and especially the system of rotation, it would be useful to have Lord Cecil's views regarding proportional representation.

So far as the entry into office immediately afte.r the elec~ion was _co~cerned, a?d in V:iew of the statement that the Committee should concern itself with the frndmg of an 1mmed1ate solut~on, the question arose whether this prescription might be made applicable to the meeting of next September.

He presumed that the Committee was at present engaged upon a first reading, because, as M .. Scialoja had pointed out, the first paragraph of the proposals was intimately bound u~ With the third and fourth, and, furthermore, the question of non-perma:nent _Members lltight be bound up with the question of permanent Members. The present discusSlOll oould therefore be only a first reading.

-36 -

Another ques~ion arose; the proposa.l ":as couched more o~ .less ~n th~ terms of t amendment to Art.lCle 4 of the Covenant, wbteh bad not been ratified, smce 1t was a s ht that the nou-permaneut Members would ~e elected for a period of three years. Co~~ be dl'cided by a rule of procedure or was It necessa.r~ to amend th~ Covenant t Would~ not he better to s~ttle the question of the. amendment of the Coyenant .at the out-11

in order to deterrrune whether the Commit tee was concerned With a sunple case~ procedure or whether it was not. exceeding this limit and doing what i t did not wish

1 do, i .e., am<'nding the Covenant. 0

He thol;lght that the proposa_ls of M. S~ialoja or that of Lord Cecil could be examined in their <>n tnety when the previous questiOn of amendment of the Covenant had be~o settled.

1\L DE BROUCKEBE said that he quite agreed with Lord Cecil on the question of rotatio which should not be complete. The law of democracy consisted in enabling evervbod n, to ~e a n elec.tor ~ut to be electe?. Com~let~ rot~tion, m?reover, would ~ive to every Stat! wlnch so des1red 1t the opportumty of usmg 1ts rtgbt to s1t on the Coune1l as au instrnDlent of ohstrnctiou.

He wnR also completely in agreement with Viscount Cecil as regarded the immediate assumption of office.

He had, moreover, fouud Lord Cecil's arguments against an annual election without re-eligibility entirely to the point, and he would have been iu entire agreement with Lord Cecil rogarding the criticisms which he had made concerning the Belgian representati'l'e'' proposal on the subject if be, the Belgian r epreseutative, had presented them in tht form; but what M. de Brou<'kere had proposed was not annual election without the. rigb1 of re-election but, on the contrary, annual election with a possible renewal of office for three or even four yeat·s.

An uual elections had the advantage of increasing the rights of the Assembly or, a1 least, of main taining them as they e:\.ist~d to-day, whilst avoiding a. fur ther increa e of tht inconveniences attaching to the unanimi ty rule. The Council should be opetl to the gr~teH possible number of new elements, but tJ1is extension would inevitably be limited.

ft was, moreover, possible that in a giveu country -so quickly did political ennla ha ppen -a new situation might arise and that the cont inuance of this country on the Council might no longer be justified, as bad been the case at the time of its election. Annual election made it possible to remedy such situations. I t was also possible that it might bt found thai, the presence on the Couo~;il of a Member which, for example, abused the righ1 of veto might paralyse the action of the Council, and consequently of the Lea5ne, for a considerable time. There would be uo means of remedying this Rituation if the term ol office of this 1\1 ember was for three years. This seemed 1·ather serious. He was, however, as he ll ad said, prepared to make all coucessions if an acceptable method of avoiding these inconveniences could be indicated.

Ile must confess, however, that be bad not yet found such a method. It would, for example, by very ctangerous to give to the Assembly the right of revocation. It was quite certain that, if such a penalty were inflicted, it would be difficult to say : "We bavegiren you a. mandate for t.hree years, but we are obliged to withdraw it". The Assembly would find itRelf in a position of great embarrassment at the moment of exercising such a right.

It was also necess:try to consider the very importaut argument just put forward by .\I. Sokal ; could the Committee propose a three-year election t It had a.lready been stated tba.t it would be difficult to do so without entailing an amendment of the Covenaat, without also admitting, in a definite and legal manner, the right of re-election, which would be for three years only. It had also been sa.id that one Ass~mbly could uot bind a subsequem .Assembly, sioce there was not one Assembly but a succession of different .Assemblies. But when the texts were examined in detail, very considerable difficulties were encountered. Article 4 of the Covenant said : "The Council shall consist of representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, together with representatives of four other Members of the League. These four Members of the League shall be selected by the .Assembly ... " . Did this refer to each .Assembly or to an Assembly with successive meetin~s t The text then said : " ... from t.ime to time in its discretiou". If this referred to successire Assemblies, how would they have the right to choose the time for t'enewal, and how could they do it , since they themselves only existed for one month t Should the Article .be differently interpreted so as to mean tba,t each Assembly should retain the right to apvotnt Members to the Council without regard to previous decisions of another .Assembly ~ .But this would of course absolutely prevent the .Assembly from making three-year electiOns.

It seemed at least doubtful, in the present state of the constitutional law of the League, t.bat it was possible for an Assembly to elect Members for more than one year without running the risk of its decision being overruled by another Assembly.

The CHAIRMAN asked Lord Cecil to reply to M. Sokal, but request·ed both speak~rs not to allow the debate to wander to the question of proportional representation: wbtcb was bound up with the number of Members and which should be reserved for the present.

M. SoKAL and Viscount CECIL agreed.

Viscount CECIL said that two important questions ha{} been raised :

-37-

In the first place, M. Scialoja had expressed the view that three year· was not a long term of office, and had sugg~ste~ four years. H e also thought t hat nine

. erma.nent Members was too many. In his VI~w, .the num?er should be eight, foru· of no~c~ should be elected ev~ry two years. Lord Cecil did not think that the idea of holding .-bi tions every two years m stead of each .year would. be acceptable to the majority of the elecrnbers of the Assembly, ~or two success1ve Assemblies would not be of equal importance. Neb wever the figure of e1ght non-permanent ~!embers were accepted, two of them could 'el~ted ~cb year ~tb a four-years term of office. Lord Cec~ wo.uld b~ prepared to accept

~at view, although 1t was open, and even ;'llOre so, to the ob.Je~tlOn ra1sed by 1\f. Scia,loja to the system of a yearly renewal by one-thrrd. I~ would be diffiCul t for the Assembly, if it

ointed only two Members each year, t o take mto account all tho necessary considera­~P~ He thought therefore t hat the proposal he bad made would be likely to command tb

0e greatest support in the Assembly.

M de Brouckere thought, on the contrary, that the Assembly ought to elect all the on-p~manent Members every year, though it would be at liberty to elect them for three

~r four years in succession, and could also apply, i t seemed, the stipulations made in paragraph 2 of his (Lord Cecil's) proposals to the effect that t he Assembly could declare that an elected Member actually in office should be re-eligible for another term. M. de Bronckere's solution raised the question whether the Assembly could exercise the right of revocation, since all t he Members would t;>e re-elected every year. In this connection a question raised by M. Sokal must be considered: "Was an amendment of the Covenant necessary for any measure 'vhich might be recommended modifying the present sLate of affairs t"

Lord Cecil did not see how it was possible, without amending t he Covenant, to deprive each Assembly of full liberty to appoint such Members as it wished to sit on the Co,.mci l. It would be necessary either to adopt a new amendment, restricting that liberty, or to put into force the existing amendment to Article 4 which was already before the Governments for ratification, and which would enable the Assembly to establish rule for the elections. He did not t hink, hmvever, that this was a practical way of looking at the matt-er.

Lord Cecil though t t hat if, on the recommendation of the Committee, a series of reasonable rules was drawn up regarding the elections, adopted by an Assembly and included in i ts records, subsequent Assemblies would conform to those rules unless they aaw grave objections to them, in which case a formal motion to amend them would be made. Personally, he did not think that subsequent Assemblies would act contrary to them. If he was wrong, t he principle on which the League of Nations was founded - namely, mutual confidence and a desire to reach a common agreement - would be abolished.

M. Sokal had wondered whether, in the event of the Committee recommending that newly elected Members should assume office immediately, the next Assembly would be able to apply the rule as soon as it had completed the elections. There could be no doubt of it. The present Article 4 of the Covenant permitted it . The Assembly had an absolute right- and it should exercise that right at the proper moment- to decide at any time that it would have new elections to replace non-permanent Members actua lly in office.

One of the points which t he Committee ought to consider was the following : " Under what conditions, and subject to what reservations, should it recommend the Assembly to exercise the right of revocation '" This right should only be exercised with the greatest circumspection, but Lord Cecil would be reluctant to recommend that the Assembly should renounce a right which could be exercised in t he last resource.

· Therefore, t hough l\f. Sokal was legally right, and nothing could limit the discretionary power conferred upon t he Assembly by Article 4 of t he Covenant, the duty of the Committee was to draw up rules which it thought right and proper for governing the election of the non-permanent Members of the Council. If t he A.~sembly adopted these rule , there could be no doubt t hat, though legally they would not be absolutely binding, they would be followed by all subsequent Assemblies.

The contimtation of the cliscussion was adjourned to the next tneetin g.

FIFTH MEETING

Held on Wednesday, May 12th, 1926, at 10.30 a. nt .

Chairman : M. MOTTA.

Present: All the members of the Committee.

14. Uethod of Election and Date of Entry i.nto Office of the Non-Permanent iUembers of the t.:ouncil : Paragraph 1 of the Proposals of Viscount Cecil (continuation) .

. !he CHAIR:\IAN t hought he should remind the members tbat the Committee was more political in character t han legal. It would perhaps be desirable, with a view to the ra pid

-38-

pr?g1·ess of the. work_, and in order to r_each a ~onclusion satis~actory t~ everyone, to as1de any considerations of too theoretical a kind and to C?nfil;le the discussion to rJ:I practical questions. The Committee should not forget that 1_ts fi.I:st and essential task r to settle the crisis which bad arisen during the special sess10n of the Assembly. If 7~ Committee found it possible to settle this crisis or to show the 9ouncil how to settle~ it would have fulfilled its instructions. If, on the other band, 1t found itseU unable

1 suggest means to do so, the essential object underlying the constitution of the Cotnrnitt 0

would not have been effected. He had no need to explain in greater detail the bearing: these observations.

With regard to paragraph 1 of Lord Cecil's proposals, he thought that all the memben had ag1·eed on one point, which was that in future elected Members should assume offiee immediately after their election. Up to the moment the system had been different. The non-permanent Members of the Council had been elected by the Assembly in September and assumed office at the beginning of January of the following year .

M. MoNTARROYOS said he could not agree on this particular point. He did not deshe to raise any capital objection, but he thought that this question was connected with a whole series of questions and that it could not be settled with the rest. It was for thi! reason that, in the remarks which he had made on the previous day, he had put forward certain considerations regarding the method to be followed. He maintained his point of view.

H e thought that, if it were desired to settle the crisis, the Committee should begin by dealing with the question of the permanent Members. Nevertheless, if the Committee wished to examine first the question of the election of the non-permanent Members, he did not think, as M. de Brouckere and M. Scialoja had pointed out at the preceding meeting, that Lord Cecil's proposal could ensure a term of office of three years without an amendment to the Covenant.

If it were a question of leaving to the will of each Assembly the length ol office, proportional representation could not be guaranteed. He did not yet know in what manner the question of proportional representation would be put forward, but it bad been raised, and he felt obliged to take it into account. In hi.s view the Committee must endeavour to find constitutional and legal guarantees which would not be contrary to the Covenant. It should not be forgotten that the League of Nations was an organisation bound by a constitution. A "gentlemen's agreement" might be a very reasonable method for use in a given country for the settlement of particular points or for agreement between persons, but it could never serve as a basis for decisions of the League of Nations.

If it were desired to give a guarantee of any kind whatsoever for either continental or geogJ·apbical representation, he thought there could be but one solution without amending the Covenant, and that solution was as follows. A permanent seat should be given to any State whatever which ought to be permanently represented on the Council, or to any group of States which ought to be so represented. This was the only solution which he could discover.

H e had only touched 1ightly, moreover, on the group of questions before the Commit!~, which was we11 aware of the problem before it. Such, therefore, was the conclusion which he had reached. He could not take any decision on any point of the questions nov: under discussion except with the most formal reservations.

The CHAIRMAN wished to make an observation which he thought indispensable. Members of the Committee who had provisionally agreed to a particular system or proposal should not have the impression that they were unable to go back on their decision on .any of the proposal:; submitted. As had been noted on the previous day, all the questi?D-' were connected, and it was obviou!' that each member discussed one particular que~~on with his attention at the same time fixed on another question connected with the first. It should be cl('arly understood that, though it might be agreed to accept the ge~eral lines of Lord CeciPs first proposal, this in no way meant that members of the ComiiDt~ee who thought it necessary to revise their decision later, as the result of any solutions wbJCh might be reached, should be prevented from doing so. Such a procedure would, be thought, give complete satisfaction to M. Montarroyos.

M. SorALOJA chew the attention of the Committee to the question whether it wa~ possible to settle the time of assumption of office at the moment of the elect-ion. Any departure from the Covenant was likely to do more harm than good, and it often happened that, after having exhaustively discussed amendments, it was found tha,t in the end the 9ovenant was better than them all. So far as he could remember, the Assembly, wh.en 1t had agreed upon Januarv 1st as the date on which elected Members should assume office in the Council, had not taken any formal decision. I t was rnther in the nature of a custonl, good or bad, which had crept. in, and it was certainly not sanctioned by the Connan\ On the contrary, the Covenant gave full powers to the Assembly to choose the momen for proceeding to n~w elections and c<;msequently also the moment at. which elec~ed Me~~e~ should assume office. Tt was obVIous that if, as the result of world-mde polittca ~ircumstances,. ~he Assembly thought it its duty to proceed to new elections, ~ change m the compos1t10n of the Council became necessary. It would be strange, for UlStan<lEll

- 39 -

. ew elect.ion11 were held in June to have to wait for January J t before the new if the~ could assume office. It was t~erefore wit~n th~ spirit of the Covenant that Me; tiJDe au election was held ~h~ Council ~h.ould be rmm(>diately renewed. The proposal ei Lord Cecil was therefore Wlthm the spmt of the .covenau~.. Nevertheless, it would of h

8 be possible for the Secretary-General to explam the ongm of the present ~vstem

~~ . . The CRAIRliiAN renuuded the Co~ttee that the. first Assembly had been held in

, rober and December and naturally It had been considered that t.be new Council . hould Nore 1 t ~uroe office on Janua.ry ~ ·

.M sorALOJA desired to make a fnrther observation. Statf's which a.t the moment med part of the Council as a result of the decision of the last .Assembly had been

foclumed in their office until Janua.ry lat, 1927. It might therefore he concluded that ~ey had to a certain extent acquire~ tbe right. to sit upon the Council until Dt>cembcr 31!lt., 1926 The Italian representative did not thmk that they actually possessed this right, and it would not be against the spirit of the Covena-nt to maintain that it conferred full powers on the Assembly to proceed to new elect.ions when it thought neces!'lary to do so.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL sa.id that, with regard to the date of tho entry iuto office of the non-permanent Members, the history. of th:e quefltion was I'ather complica~ed, for it had differed at each Assembly. A document m which was summed up the pror.eedmgs which had taken place at each Assembly on the question would be distributed that day t~ tbe members of the Committee.

Viscount CECIL said that from the legal point of view he had exactly the same opinion as u. Scialoja. By whatever way the rule or custom of making the mandateR of the elected Memberll begin on January 1st had arisen, it could only have done so by the consent of the majority of the Assembly, and this rule or custom could be alterecl by the same means. If tbis were not a matter of procedure it was difficult to know what was. B e did not tbink that the representative of Brazil had offered any arguments against the proposal submitted to the Committee. He bad put. forward a doctrine concNning the only method by which an agreement could be reached on this question, and this doctrine was a scriouR one which he would not discuss for the moment. Obviolll'ly, however, the representative of Brazil had wished to say that he was not prepared to agree to a proposal of any sort or kind until another question had been settled in the manner in which he considered right. ConRequently, it did not seem to him (Lord Cecil) that his proposal had met with any real opposition in the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN wished to give briefly his own opinion, in order, if possible, to settle the first point hy means of an agreement which, thou&h provisional a11d dependci:it on the reservations which be had already made, might be considered general.

He drew the attention of the Committee to a fact which he thought, decisive. The AJ!sembly had already voted by an enormous majority a recommendation fixing the length of the mandate at three years. What was the use of dic:;cussing this point further if the Committee knew in advance that it would meet with the adhesion of all States not represented on the Committ.ee t

It was true that in the recommendation adopted by the A~sembly allowance bad been made for the renewal of a third of the non-permanent Members, and, since the number of elected Members was six, this renewal of a third was mathematically perfect, since six was a multiple of two and three. It was impossible, however, unswervingly to follow math~matical laws when it was a question of fiuding legal rulec: for goveruiug the constitution of the Council. ~opposing that the number of non-permanent seats were, for example, increased to seven or eight or nine, it would be very easy to proceed to renew ~em by a third by making the necessary distinctions. Supposing that th~ Council mcloded seven elected Members, it would be very easy to make a rule whereby the first ye~ three of those Members were renewed, the second year two, aud the third year two. Bnefiy, the Committee should not consider itself bound by the idea that the question of the number of the non-permanent Members of the Council was connected with any multiple of three.

!n. conclusion, he thought that by making an effort of mutual good will- while adiiUtt.mg that any reasons submitted for or against any proposal were of value - the ColllliUttee might now accept provisionally the three following ideas : the dUl'ation of the mandate for three years ; the renewal of the elected membei'S by a third, the I]Uestion

Tof ~he number being left on one side ; aesumption of office immediately following election.

hiS. 'vould be equivalent to adopting the suggestioua put forward in the first proposal of Vtscount Cecil, it being understood that their adoption in no way implied that a. mem~er 0: the Committee, by accepting t.hese principles, was in any way fettered in the cliscussion 0 any fut.ure solution which might be proposed.

M. SCIAT,OJA thought it his duty to insist on one poiut which appeMed essential. :_~~ ~act that the Assembly bad on one .occasion adc;>pted a recon;menda.tion had only a •.aati~e value. It would be of greater Importance If the Committee were facerl by .an :ablishe.d fact. Tt was faced, however, by a mere scheme. As the Spaoi~h t'epresentattve

d renunded the Committee, the Assembly had on several occastons adopted. a recommendation concerning continental representation, but, all the samt>, when votmg

-40-

two days after iL had va:ssed that recommendation, it had voted contrary to the Ptin . The fact, therefore. tha~ a pro~osal harl be~n vote:l by the Assembly wa.~ not of Yery ~~lt. importance. The solution which the Cha1rman bad propoRed was very reasonable ... ~ bad bim~elf made a sinUlar proposal at a previous meeting. I t was true that logic ·co~ not. alwavs be pnt into practice. 1t was, however, a force and might eYen he a wea Accouut 'should be taken psychologically of the great desire of all States represent~ the Assembly to berome Members of the Counril, and it was this feeling which would m: them to increase the numbP.l' of its Members . The Committee should be careful not It leave a door op('n, as in that ca~e it. w-ould be 'ain to plea.d that it was unnecessali

1 increase each year the number of the 1\1embert> of the CounCll. The reply might be rDad• that E'ar.b .Assembly had the same rights as the preceding Assembly, and that , if the prece~ ARs(.\mbly had appointed two or three :Members, there was uo reason why the follo · Assembly shou.ld he allowed to e~ect only one Mem~er. He would readily vote for~ proposal ~uhm1tteil to t he Comnnttee, but he had Wished to put the latter oo its guar1 against riskiug an ever-growing increase in t.he number of Members of the Council.

The CHAI1UIIA1'\ thought that it wa.s the Committee's duty in the first instance to sett~ th e present crisis.

M. SciA.LOJA. agreed. Ju doing so, however, tbf.>. Committee should not ron the riU of provoking ot.her crises, and pa.rtic.ularly of upPI.'tting the whole organisation of tbt League. H e was ready, however, to adopt the proposal if no other method was fou~

He would add a. remark of a general kind. Revera.l of the members bad expresS(Ij, either directly or indirectly, the opillion that each Assembly poRscssed a certain rigkt to proceed to elections, because there w-as no reason why the seventh Assembly, for example, should not have the same duties as the sixth. This was an error. Each .Assemhlv wu not a corporatiou. Tt wa~ merely a place and a date when States Members of the Leagut met together. The corporation was formed of the States. The Assemblies as such posses..'tl'! no rights. The States which always possessed the same rights when meeting togetl!a fulfilled duties which might differ according to the circumstances of t.Le moment. Then was therefore no reason to give the same duties to all .Assemblies. Each must perform those duties necessary for the life of the League. H, as be had proposed, elections were held every two years, this proposal ebould not he regarded as an attack on th f' Assembly, since the States Members composing it would vote every second year instead of voti~ every year. He wished to lay down this principle, for the alleged equality of the rigbtt of the .AssE'mblies could in no way he takeu as t l1e foundation for any line of reasoning.

M. MON'l'ARROYos, replying to the suggestion of the Chairman, said that he would be able to accept the first two proposals, but be could not agree : o the third, for he ha<! not yet heard any valid reason in support of the immediate assumption of office. In reminding the Committee of the tradition of the .Assembly, he would quote the re.~olutioo adopted by the third .Assembly in the following terms :

"The non-permanent Members of the Council are elected for a period of tw years commencing on the first day of January following the date of their elect.ion."

In those circumstances he preferred to adopt the tradition of the Assembly and to keep to January 1st as the date when the elected Members would assume office rather than agree to a proposal which would be, he thought, too revolut ionary. He pointed out that the Brit ish representative, who had made the above proposal, had declared, howenr, at the beginning of the Committee's work that he was not in favour of any revolutionary steps.

'M. DE BROtTCKERE did not wish to withdraw the first remark 'vbich he bad made in the Committee to the effect that he would make all possible sacrifices to reach an agreement. If it were necessary in the interests of unanimity, and if his colleagues agreed with the ~ews of the Chairman, be might finally agree with the three proposals made. He desu~, nevertheless, to make certain additional observations with the object of obtaining, if possible, an amendment.

Many members had warned the Committee against the adoption of too re~olutionary proposals. .A tradition might gradually grow, but it should not bo too abruptly altered.

If it were merely a question of a change of date, he could agree with the opinion of the Brazilian representative and consider that it was revolutionary to replace January 1st b¥ t.he month of September, but it was a question of a far greater change, consisting in repJacwg ~ yearly election by a triennial election. Three years was a long period under present condi· tions. The members of the Committee should remember the state of Europe three yea.rs ag? and compare it with what it was to-day. Each should ask himself whether, if the Council were elected to-day, he would vote for the same Members as three years ago and in three years' time if he would vote for the same as were chosen to-day. The system had been working for six. years, and, perhaps after having tried a triennial election, the .Assembly would remember the wise observations of M. Scialoja.

-41-

Tradition shou~~ pr~va.il. . Could t~e existing system be a:ccused of having int.roduced an instabilit~ mto the Counc~ ' On the contrary! 1t was the opposite criticism

was made. To mtroduce so considerable a change Without a period of preparation with no experience as a guide rnigh t be dangerous. There was anoth~r argument : M. Scialoja. ha:d _justly pointed out at the preceding

eeting that the electiOn of one ~!ember was more ~cult than the election of several, and ~at, as the number of Members mcreased, the elec~wn became ~asy ?ecause it was possible 1 only to choose th~ best 1\Iembe~s . but to pro~de for certam ~djustments even if they

merely geographical. It was difficult t~ do this when the ch<?tce wa.s limited to two or Members. The sysLem of annual electiOns, however, made tt pos~tble to achieve the and most varied combinations and to guarantee States, according to circumstances

special cases, taking account,. if ne~essary, of geographical distr~bution, either a periodic rotation or a seat on the Council whic.h would be renewable dmmg a variable period or even perhaps almost permanent.

Further, as the result of important circumstances, i t might happen that the composition of the Council would have to be r eadjusted before the expiry of a. mandate. Lawyers were not in agreement whether it would be possible to follow such a procedure. was it certain th~t in. a grav~ ca~e an .Asse~bly might de_clare that the resolu tions of preceding A!!semblies did not bmd 1t and that -1t was free to fill by moans of a new election

seat already occupied ' This would remove one of 1\'I. de Brouckere's objections, but least certainty must be established with regard to it.

He asked his colleagues to reflect on these considerations. If his opinion were not adopted, he would be compelled almost by force to agree to a theory in order not to interfere with the unanimity of the Committee.

Viscount CECIL earnestly hoped that the representative of Belgium would not insist on his view. He recalled the fact that there had always been a nry st rong and widespread feeling in the Assembly in favour of some form of rotation, and the continual re-election of the same Members to the Council had given rise to the gravest discontent. l\Iany authori­tative persons had stated that it was intolerable that such a state of affairs should continue and that the same Members should always be elected while other l\Iembers of t he .Assembly had no chance of reaching the Council. These facts were the consequence of the absence of any system of rotation, in the abseuce of which, while the Assembly had always expressed its belief in the utility of a system of rotation to be put into force the follo,ving year, it had at the same time re-elected the same Members. The most profound disappointment would be caused in the Assembly if the Committee did not recommend some system of rotation.

M. DE BitOUCKERE pointed out that he was in favour of rotation.

Viscount CEOIL referred to the difficulties caused by annual elections and the necessity for the adoption of defini te rules concerning rotation. Personally, he attached the greatest \·alue to the presence on the Council of the elected Members. They should exercise their functions as freely, as impartially and as comageously as possible, without always having before their eyes the idea that every year they would have to submit to re-election. Obviously, on occasion such re-election might be pmely formal if there was an understanding that certain Members would be re-elected, but such a system of re-election might give an oppo~tunity to some combination of States fie try to eject a par ticular l\Iember because it badgtven an unpopular vote on the Council, so that there was a 1-isk that the independence · of .t~e Council might be diminished. It would be better to giYe elected :\! embers a definite term of office for th1·ee years, after which they would not be re-eligible, and allow o~~r Members to succeed them subject to the suggestions contained in paragraph 2 of the Bntish proposals.

Oases might arise where the Assembly would not be satisfied with the way in which one or more of the elected Members was fulfilling its functions. Account should be taken ~f su~h a possibility. In his view, the As~embly should be supreme in the last. resorL, a~d Its WlShes, or even the wishes of an overwhelming majority of its Members, shonld prevail. He was, however, of opinion that provision was already made for this in the wortls of_ the C-ovena~t . to which M. Scialoja had referred. The Assembly bad a fundamental n ght ~0 ~ay, tf 1t chose to do so, that it would -re-elect all the non-pern1anent Members and that 1~ mt_ended to e:xercil'!e its rights under Article 4 freely and in it.s own discretion. Notwithstanding any regulations which might be adopted, thE»re ought always ~o be reserved the right of the Assembly to take such action in an extreme case, bu t oruy m an extreme c~se. There should always be the right w such an event to require what. would be called m England a "~eneral election"- that was to say, a complete renewal o~ the tnandates of all the elected Membert<. In that way it would be possible to have the mshes of the Assembly more accurately represented than hitherto. b _In o!der. to achieve t his, which 8eemed to be the main object which :M. de Brouckhe :d 10 llllncl, 1t was not. necessary to insist that the mandates of the non-permanen.t Members

0f the Council should all be renewed each year, even if it were understood that 1ll the case 0 two-thirds of them the renewal would be granted more or less as a formality. They ;:uld always be exposed to a possible revocation of their mandate simply because t~ey

Ppened to have done something which had created for them a temporary unpopulanty.

-42-

To sum up, he thought that in the interests not only of the elected Members b of the I1eague as a whole it would be better to adopt tbis principle, which, after all "nt one which han been repeatedly recommended by the Msembly m the past. ' as

M. CHAO-HSTN CHU agreed in principle with Viscount Cecil on paragraph 1 of his proposals. HE>. asked, however, that the length of the mandate should be six vears instead of three. The longer a Member of the Cou~cil remained in office,. the more Valuable servi<>>t~ would he be able to render. According to the proposals whtch had been mad a !'lystem of absolut-e rotation would not be adop~ed, so that the number ofeligibleStat~ was limited. A term of six years would not depnve other Members of the chance of bein .. ~c~d. ~

He was strongly opposed to the annual election of all the non-permanent Memben There was nothing to be recommended in a system whereb~ Members of the Assembly presented themselves each year for election. China was elected in 1920; sbe had run tor election in 1921 aud 1922. She lost her seab in 1923, yet in the following years she was still running for election. So far ·she had failed to obta~n again her seat on the Council. She had almost exhausted her energy and lost her pat1euce. A mandate for six yeara would make it possible for each elected Member to have a safe Reat throughoutthatperiod a,nd there would then be no need for auy Member to be r.a-elected immediately after th~ expiration of its mandate.

M. P Aur.-BoNCOUR considered that Visconnt Cecil's proposft.l-uamely, a tbree·vear mandate with an annual renewal of one-third- combined an element of permanence iii the Counril with the possibility of indicating each year, by a re-election, the tendencies current in the world. At the same time, M. de Brouckere had brought forward considerations which he felt to be just. He found, however, an element of satisfaction in the unanimon.­interpretation given to the Article of the Covonant which showed that the Assembly could, in exceptional circumstances, exercise its will and change the whole elected part of the Council, which would constitute a danger to the working of the r~eague of Nations. Perhaps the anxieties of the Belgian and French representatives might be appeaaed if, in one form or another, the Committee showed definitely what interpretation it placed upon Article 4 on this point.

M. RJoBORG considered that his task had been made easier by what Viscount Cecil and M. Paul-Boncour had just said. The question was to know whether the term of office of non-permanent Members should be fixed at one year or for a longer period. The advantages of the annual system were obvious, but they were counterbalanced by ronsiderable disadT"antages. In the first place, an annual period was much too ~hort and did not allow Members of the Council to get accustomed to their duties. There was a still greater disadvantage, to which Viscount Cecil had alluded. It was essential that non-permanent Members of the Council should feel that. they were on an equal footing with the permanent Members. The prospect of having soon to undergo a fresh re-election was such as to paralyse the activity of a new Member - to undermine, if one might put it that wa,y, its courage. This point could not be sufficiently emphasised.

Should three, four or six years be chosen t The six-year period was too long. Th.e actual object of the rotation system should be taken into consideration - i .e., the p~s..<U· bility of enabling other ~!embers of the League to serve on the Council, if not in rotation, at least, to some considerable extent, in turn . .Personally, he preferred a period of t~ee years to one of four, because, as the Chairman had pointed out, this was the period which ban been suggested by the Assembly on three different occasions. There had been numero~ discussions; all arguments in favour of the various systems had been considered. It did not seem to be useful to renew this discussion.

M. DE BROUOKERE observed that there was no chance of obtaining unanimity upon bi.l proposal. He should therefore endeavour to obtain guarantees regarding the pr?posal which would find general favour. The French representative asked whether a unarumons decision of the Committee would constitute a sufficient guarantee if the Committee stated that, in its opinion, it was always possible to proceed to a new general election. It was clear that such a statement would satisfy him to a considerable extent, and that the more definite the statement the more satisfied he would be. It remained to discuss it and to agree upon a text that could be regarded as constitutional, implying that this right was established and was no longer contested.

The CHAIRMAN wished to make one or two remarks and to draw attention to a rather delicate problem which had arisen through the intervention of M. de Brouckere and M. Paul· Boncour. .

1 In the first place, thanks to the excellent spirit ruling in the Commi~tee., . fir~ M. Scialoja and then M. de Brouckere had stated that, whilst retaining an mdiVIdut preference fo: t~eir o.wn plan.s, they would refrain from being obstructive, so as not h~ preve~~ unamnnty .be~g reached upon Lord Cecil's proposal. He. therefore thou~ht tha.~\8 oppos1tion of M. SCialoJa and M. de Brouckere to the three-year figure was not final, 3;ll the would ask them, if the other members of the Committee were agreed, not to stand Ul way of a unanimous decision.

-43-

The chinese delegate bad proposed a six-year period. Such a period would clearly ver be accepted by t~e A.ssembly, be~use ~twas obviously t?o. long. It would, moreover,

ne that :M. Chao-Hsm Chu would find his arguments suffic~ently met in paragraph 2 see;: d Cecil's proposal. Consequently, he would also ask the Chinese representative to vote ~f

1::our oi a 11naniroous pr?posal ~nd not to oppose the three-year period.

J.ll There remained a qu~st1on which had not been settled: ~he assumption of office of Members of the ~oun01L_ All the m~mbers o~ the _Committee w~o bad spoken had

the ted the idea of 1mmedtate assumption of _o_ffice, Wlt~ _the exceptiOn of the Brazilian atee~sentative, who had made not an unqualified oppos1t10n but a statement according rep which this question was bound up with all the others. If l\I. Montarroyos could to visionally and explicitly adhere to this suggest.ic;m, he would be showing an excellent P~mple. If he did not find it possible to accept this point of view, he would likewise be e:owing an excellent example in abstaining from voting and not standing in the way of :U.an.imity. The Chairman excused himself for seeming to indicate to a member of the eonunittee the course be should follow, but he did so with a feeling of the utmost sympathy towards his colleague.

It would thus be possible to obtain unanimity in the Committee on three points : (l) the term of office (thr~e year~); (2) renew~l of one~ third of the Members (qualified); and (3) a-ssumption of offi~e 1mmed1ately_ followmg ~lect10n.

A question had am en on the subJect of the nght of the Assembly to revoke the tenure of the entire Council in t he person of its elected Members. This question should be regarded in the light of certain considerations. This right of the Assembly did not now appear to be contestable, thanks to the terms of Article 4 of the Covenant. M. de Brouckere might rest lll!sured on this point. The terms of Article 4 stated definitely that the "four members -there were now six - should be selected by the Assembly from time to time in its discretion"· The Assembly bad therefore complete and unlimited authority.

It should not be forgotten that the Assembly of 1921 had voted an amendment which had not yet come into force but which would do so if the two countries which bad not yet accepted it were to ratify it . This amendment, which should be in erted between clauses 1 and 2 of Article 4, stated that "the Assembly shall fix by a two-thirds majority the rules dealing ·with the election of the non-permanent Members of the Council, and particularly such regulations as relate to their term of office and the conditions of re-eligibility".

From the legal standpoint, the question might arise whether, under this rule, it had not been intended to limit to some extent t he power of the Assembly. H e could only draw the attention of his colleagues to the point, without pretending to solve such important qneations. Moreover, as the amendment to Art icle 4 was not yet in force, discussion of such questions was perhaps out of place. For the moment the Committee was concerned with the actual legal position as it appeared from the non-amended Article.

M. DE PALAOIOS stated that, when the Chairman had announced the proposal that he wished to make in the mat ter of the programme of work, he had given him confidentially his personal opinion, informing him that i t was his intention no t to enter into the discussion of the Committee and to abstain from making any remarks on the subject of that programme. He still thought more strongly than yesterday or the day before that this programme was altogether wrong.

In these circumstances, as the Chairman had practically established unanimity upon certain points which had been discussed, he wished to say that, in order not to stand in the way of unanimity, he wouJd refrain from taking part in this debate. There 'vere certain ~ecisions which he might perhaps find acceptable, but there were other questions, rather m the natme of side issues, such as the definition of the power of the Assembly as interpreted by M. Scialoja, that he considered contrary to the Covenant.

He would, however, express no opinion on any question. H e would follow with the closest attention the debate on the subject of the procedure for the election of the non­permanent Members of the Council, while taking no part in it himself.

M:. MONTAltltOYOS wished to stand by the reservations that he had made. He preferred not to identify himself with the proposal, which he had described as rather too revolutionary, but to hold to the system which wa.s more in accord with the tradition of the Assembly. He would therefore abstain from voting, while making all reserves .

M. CHAo-HsiN Cnu stated that some time ago, after having consulted his Government , he had received instructions from it to ask for a six-year term of office. He could, however, fo!Ward a fresh report to his Government, and provisionally be was inclined to accept VIScount Cecil's proposal relative to a three-year term in order to leave the coast clear for a unanimous decision of the Committee.

The CRAIR.MA.N noted the unanimous acceptance by the Committee of the three-year t6I'm of office, renewal of one-third of the elected Members, and the principle of immediate assumption of office. This result was provisional. d In ~banking the Spanish and Brazilian representatives for abstaining, be noted the eelaration of M. de Palacios relative to his abstention on all points, and that of ~- Montarroyos on the question of the immediate assumption of office of States elected il the Council.

-44-

The Chinese statement was definitely provisional. The declaration, however not perhaps essential, since all decisions of the Committee were provisional for the rno~~~

M. SOKAL, referring to paragraph 1 of Lord Cecil's proposals, recalled that the Chairman had just summarised the views of the Committee. He understood that these lie concerned only the principle contained in that paragraph. ~rs

The CHAIRMAN replied that there was no question of actual texts for the rnolllent but of principles only.

15. System of Rotation for the Non-Permanent ~I embers of the Council and the Question of lhf He-eligibility of a Certain Proportion of those ~Iembers : Paragraph 2 of the Proposals of Viseollnt Cecil.

The 0 HA1Rl\1AN opened the discussion on the second paragraph of Lord Cecil's proposals wh ich read as follows : '

"In principle, the elected Members shall not be re-eligible for three years after the expiration of their term of office. Never theless, the Assembly lllay by resolution passed by a majority of not less than two to one, declare that a~ elected Member actually in office shall be re-eligible for another term, provided that not more than one-third of the sitting elected Members can be so declared re-eligible".

Viscount CECIL thanked the members of the Committee for the kindness 'Vith which they bad considered his first proposal, and particularly the representatives of Spain, Brazil and China for the attitude which they had been good enough to adopt with regard to it.

As regards the second paragraph, the principle embodied in the first sentence did not appear to need any comment if the idea of rotation were accepted and if it were agreed that there must be a period of non-re-eligibility after the first term. With regard to the duration of this term he had no definite opinion. A period of one year appeared to be too short. On the other band, the period must not be made too long, as in this case it would be impossible to re-elect a Member which the Assembly might desire to have frequently on the Council. What 'vas essential was that the period should be of such a length that tht majority of the Members of the Assembly might have a chance of serving on the Council. Putt.ing on one side a certain number of Members of the Assembly, who would not wish, or who were unable, to sit on the Council, a rotation should be arranged which would be sufficiently rapid to ensure that at least 30 or 35 Members of the Assembly might be able to serve. A period of non-re-eligibility of three years would necessarily entaJl that all these Members would be able to serve once in every twelve years or fifteen years if the proposal were accepted to the effect that it should be possible to re-elect certain Members immediately.

The second proposal raised a much wore serious question. The Committee was not considering the question of the permanent Members at all, and he desi.J:ed to avoid any charge of having concealed his opinion on the subject. Provisionally, subject to any new argument that might be brought forward, he was against any extension of the number of the permanent Members. It would be unreasonable to increase their number unl.es it were possible to establish a definite rule which would prevent an indefinite extenSion of this class of :Members. His Government had accordingly instructed him to oppose, so far as be wa-s at present advised, any extension of the number of the permanent Members of the Council.

Without mentioning particular examples, he felt that there 'vould probably be ca e> -it might even be said that there were cases at the moment- in which the Assembly would wish to see certain States serving on the Council for a longer period than three years. Liberty ought to be reserved to the Assembly to give effect to such a desire. .

The machinery involved by thP- Brit ish proposal was as follows : at some time clur!ng the duration of office of an elected Member, probably just before the conclusion of the firSt t~l!l' it should be open to the Assembly to decide that a particular Member who was the~ s1ttmg on the Council, or perhaps a maximum of onfl-third of the elected ~embers of the Council, should he re-eligible for another term. That would be the subJect of a resolution formally moved and accepted by the Assembly before the new election took place, a:nd in that case it would, of course, follow that the Member in question would be an~om:· tJCally re-elected. Tn order to give solemnity to such a decision, it was suggested Ill ~ e British proposal that it should be taken by a majority of two-thil"ds, but there was notbfg in the details of this machinery which was to be regarded as unalterable. Perhaps bet er suggP.stions would be put forward, and it would be for the Committee to decide upon thef·

In conclusion, he would point out that during his statement, wheu he bad said that 1e was opposed to any extension of the number of permanent Members, he was, of course~ not thinking of the case of Germany but waR considering thi~ country as being alrearlY permaneu t Member of the Council.

M. SmAT.OJA said he did not feel a.ny difficulty in regard to the first proposal. r:: period of non re-t!ligibility might be either three or four years. This question wa~ 4 ~b~ less important as the .Assembly, if it so desired, could prolong the tet·m. The bas1s 0

- (5-

os~llav in the second part. H e th?ug~t it ~o.uld be nece.ss~ry to decide upon something P~~ kind. 1 t was the o~y means, m h1s opllllo!l, of fulfilhng _the f~rst duty which bad of entrusted to the Commtt.te~ : n~mely,_to subrmt proposals wh1ch nught help in enabling beeD xt Assembly to meet rufficulttes wh1Ch could be all the more clearly foreseen as they tbf ne~d not only to the future but also to the past. bP 0~here might·, in fa.et, be States the position of which was such that it was desirable

them to remain ou the ~ouncil longer than other States. This w~s. an arrangement for JUDlended by the expenence ot the last few years. B.e had partiCipated ill all the :oentblies and bad o~servc~ t.hat t here was in fact a Rtrong desile for the system of rOtation. tn. spite o.f thts des.tre, however, the same Members. bad always been co1_1firmed . their position. Tins was owmg to the fact that there was an mfluence at work wh1Cb was ~least as grea.t as the desir~ ~or the system of_ rotatiou: namely, the d~sire to avoirl too many changes in the composttlon of the Council. It was necessary to gtve effect to both tendencies by qualifying the system of rotation, by fixing, according to a method to be det-ermined, the composition of the Conncil according t? ~he wishes 0f ~hP. A$Semhly.

He considered, however, that the formula of the Rnt1sh representative was too vague. rf the decision should be taken either at the very moment of the election or during the following period of three years the formula. s.honld be much. wider; it might ~e. stipnlat<>d that the Assembly could at any moment decide that a certalll State was re-elig1ble.

16. Publicity of the lleetings of the Committee.

The CHAffi.M,\N said he would venture to make a suggestion, excusing himsell iu advance if it should not correspond with the views of the members of the Committee or if it sbonld perhaps f;Omewbat anticipate events.

After the discuRsion which had just taken place, and particularly after the iuterveution of Viscount Cecil, he realised that between paragraphs 2 aud 3 of Lord Cecil's proposal, the latter of which concerned the number of Members, there was a very close connection. Each of the members of the Committee was to a oortain ext.ent bound by tho iustrurtions which be had received from his Government, since they all represented Sta.t<'s aud were uot attendin6 the Committee in a merely per$onal capacity. He would accordingly ask his colleagues whether they would not wish to bold in the afternoon a private meeting. The representatives of the Press, who were the representatives of public opinion, should see in this method of work, which it was proposed to adopt for some time, nothing more than a desire to reach a successful conclusion under conditions of freedom and frankness in the expression of the various views which a certain measure of discretion alone could guarantee.

The Committee had decided in principle that its meetings should be public, bnt it had nevertheless added that it might make exceptions to t·his rule when it consiclered that it was desirable that the procedure should be modified. The work douc at private meetings would not be of very long duration, and the Committee would shortly resume its public discussions. It seemed to him that, if the Committee desired to take up the burning question with which it was confronted, .a private meeting would be uece1:1sary as an experimeut. He accordingly proposed that for the discussion of paragraph 2, which was to some e:'{tent. oonnected with paragraph 3, a private meeting should be held.

Viscount CECIL said he was quite prepared to accept the views of the Committee if i t desired to follow the advice of the Chairman. Would it not, however, be possible to conclude the discussion of paragraph 2 without raising any of tLe questions which seemed likely to provoke a rather more delicate and intimate discussion Y

He had felt it necessary to express the views of his Government about permanent seats because he did not wish it to be said that be was tryir.g to conceal the opinion of his ~overnment, and also to emphasise that, whether the number of the permanent seats were mcreased or not, some such provision as waR contained ill paragraph 2 would be necessary. Tn other words, whatever might be the number of and method of filling the permauent seats, it would still be necessary to reserve to the Assembly the right to say in particular eases that this or that particular State should or should not be subject to the rule of noo­re-eligibility. That was a broad and general principle, on which he would have thought th~t a discussion might be opened at that momeut. He would add, however, that he was qbeu1te prepared to agree to a private meeting, but it should be understood that there would . only a single private meeting and t hat the Committee would resume as soon as possible lta public meetings.

The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee might that afternoon continue the discussion ~paragraph 2 at a public meet.ing. If that discussion were exhausted and paragraph 3 · en. up, the meeting might become private. If the afternoon were entirely taken up ~th :e discussion of pa,ragrapb 2, the private meeting could be postponed until the followmg 'f . . This procedure appeared to him to be essential when the most vital and delic~te

question which had arisen out of the crisis came to be considered: namely, the quest10n of the enlargement of the Council, properly speaking, either as regarded the permanent or the non-permanent Members.

The proposal of the Ohairma•n was adopted.

-46-

SIXTH MEETING

Held on Wednesday, May 12th, 1926, at 4 p.m.

Chairman : M. MOTTA.

Present : All the members of the Committee.

17. Syst11m of Rotation for the Non-Permanent Members of the Council and the Question ol ll Re-eJigibility of a Certain Proportion of those }!embers : Paragraph 2 of the Proposals of Viseoli.D.: Cecil (continuation}.

The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Committee should begin by separating the tto questions dealt with in paragraph 2. The fil'st question concerned the principle according to which elected Members of the Council would not be re-eligible for a certain period o! time. The second part of the paragraph concerned an exception to this principle. W&~ the Committee in agreement on the principle of non-re-eligibility Y

M. SOIALOJA thought that there would be no difficulty in accepting the principle of rotation, but considered it would be useful to discuss this question in privat-e. He could, however, state in public the reasons for his opinion. If a system of rotation might lead to difficulties regarding the immediate solution which the Committee desired to fin~ changes might be made in it and the Committee might abandon it to a certain extenter~ though it had approved it in theory. Since, however, the discussion on existing difficulties and the means of surmounting them was to be held in private, the Committff could also discuss at that moment the question of rotation.

The CHAIRMAN reminded the Committee that at the preceding meeting it had agreed with Lord Cecil's view to the effect that the discussion on paragraph 2 should be continued in what might be called a somewhat theoretical or abstract manner.

The question now arose whether the Committee wished to continue to follow t~e method proposed by Lord Cecil or whether it wished to modify the procedure which it appeared to have accepted.

M. PA.UL-BONCOUR, while strongly approving the desil'e of the Chairman to deal with the difficulties one by one by dividing the questions, thought that the question contained in paragraph 2 was a single whole which could scarcely be divided.

Rotation, in the sense in which most members of the Committee seemed to accept it, was only admissible with the corrective made by Lord Cecil to his own proposal to the effect that when it was in the interests of the League of Nations to retain certain countrie.~ as Members of the Council, either because of theil' geographical position or for historic-al reasons, this could be done despite the rule of rotation. Paragraph 2 appeared therefore to be one single whole. ·

Viscount CEOIL explained that, according to his scheme, the Assembly would be able to state at any moment that an elected Member then in office should be l'e-eligible. When that Member finished its term of office, it would present itself for re-election and would no doubt be immediately re-elected. Its mandate being thus renewed, a ne" propow voted by the Assembly during its term of office would suffice to make it once more re­eligible, and this procedure might be applied to the same Member any number of times. This was the proposed method of dealing with the question of re-eligibility, but it was, of course, open to amendment.

M. Scialoja proposed, it appeared, to leave it to the Assembly to declare any Member re-eligible whose mandate had expired less than three years previously. It was improbable that the Assembly would make use of this right, but it was conceivable that it might desire to do so, and he was prepared to amend his proposal in order to take account of the views of M. Scialoja. .

With regard to the question of an immediate private meeting to be held with a VJelf to approaching the most difficult part of the discussion, he was against such a course. The question on which a serious difference of opinion was most likely to arise '~as r:e incre~se ~ the nux;nber of .the perma.nent Me~bers, and he was in fa vow: of defernug ~ ~ exaiD1Dat10n of this questiOn as long as posstble. It was better to discover how a the Committee agreed rather than how fa1· it disagreed. Let the Committee assume that the permanent Members might not be increased, and let it try to solve all the ot:~ problems dealing with the composition of the Council. Whatever solution was _reac d regarding the problem of the increase in the number of the permanent Members, 1t "0~9 be necessary, he thought, to make some such provision as that contained in paragrapdeai of the proposals under discussion. This paragraph 2 was not designed merely to, with the particular cases in regard to which difficulty had arisen. It constituted a n~ce~s~ part of any sch~me of rotation. The Assembly must, he thought, be able in certalll_~Je to make except10ns to any scheme of rotation implying that a State was not re-eligt

-47 -

erta.in period of time. This question was quite independent of that of the increase for; 0 p~manent Members of the Council, concerning which an agreement must be sought. oft ~e would even propose that, before discussing the problem of the permanent

the Committee should dea~ with the questi?n c?nce!ning the non-permanent inclucliJ;lg that of prop~rtional_ represen~ation ~ his _colleagues thought it

to discuss 1t. If the Comnuttee did not desrre to discuss 1t, he would not press

~:ttberefore hoJ?ed that his colle~gues W?uld! in accordance with the decision adopted the previous meetmg, conclU;de therr ~x~nunat10n o~ ~aragr~~h 2. He _would, moreover, eat that there was no quest10n of arriym~ at a d~finite dec~s10n on th1~ subject ; it was

:~ly a matter of a~ acceptance ~f prmmple subJe~t to ult~ate det_ailed examination f the paragraph. If h1s colleagues Wished to hold a pnvate meetmg to discuss the question

0f the number of non-permanent Members of the Council, he was quite willing, although ~e was personally of opinion that the difficul~ies raiRed by _this question wer~ not very

eat He proposed, however, that the Committee should discuss afterwai·d~ m a public greeting those proposals concerning the non-permanent Members which had not already :en examined. After that would come the question of permanent Members.

The CHAIRMAN, in order to take into considerat-ion the comments of M. Paul-Boncour and M. Scialoja on the one hand and of Viscount Cecil on the other, proposed an immediate discussion of paragraph 2 in the hope of arriving at an agreement and, if such agreement were realised, to take up the question of increasing the number of Members of the Council in a private meeting.

This proposal wag adopted.

M. DE B&ouc:KERE expressed complete agreement with Viscount Cecil, if not upon the t-ext, at least upon the principles contained in paragraph 2. These principles appeared to him to be three :

(1) A Member after three years of office would not be eligible for re-election until the eipiry of a similar period ;

(2) Departure from this rule was allowed, subject to certain conditions which perhaps remained to be defined ;

(3) The number of elected Members coming into this category could not exceed one-third of the total number of elected Members.

There was some doubt as to the method to be employed in the selection of Members to be excepted from the rule of non-re-eligibility. If he understood the system proposed, the Assembly could at any time during the three years of office of a Member decide by a two­thirds majority that he was re-eligible. This assumed, it would seem : (1) application by the Member concerned; (2) a public or private discussion; (3) a vote.

Should the vote be against the Member, it would appea1· that there wa:s not.}Jing, nnder the terms of the proposal, to prevent him from standing agalli later, so long as he was in office. Was there not reason to fear that this procedure might lead to a large number of candidates and a large number of discussions, which might give rise to difficul ties '

This procedure would in effect differ from that generally adopted for the election of non-permanent Members, in which there was no geuera.l discussion but simply a vote. Would it not be desirable to adhere as closely as possible to this latter procedure Y It would be difficult to conceive of a debate in which the delegate of a. given State had to how why such and such a Member should be declared re-eligible, explaining the impo1·tanre of that State, and in which, on the other hand, another delegat-e said : "But this country is, perhaps, no~ as important as you suggest". Delicate discussions might arise, a frequent recurrence of which should be avoided.

M. IAE BRETON considered the principles contained in paragraph 2 of Viscount Cecil's proposal <Jf grE'a.t advantage for the organisation of the League of Nations. He considered the~ of such advantage that he thought any exceptions absolutely valueless. .As the Belgian representative had just pointed out, the difficulties of their application were very great. It would be difficult to decide who should be eligible for re-election. On the other hand, the Covenant, in Article 41 paragraph 6, presented a clear and definite solution. This Paragraph was framed as follows :

"Any Member of the League not represented on the Council shall b~ invi~ed to send a representative to sit as a member at any meeting of the Council durmg the consideration of matters specially affecting the interests of the Members of the League."

~ this way, rotation could be applied more regularly and strictly, and there would be no disappointment. h But,_ as he had already pointed out, he was not making aJ?Y fun~a.meuta~ o~s~ryation; e ~a~ Sl.Dlply indicating his view, and he would feel no serious difficulty m JOlDIUg the

lila Jon ty.

48

The CHAIRMAN wished to say that the remark just made by M. Le Breton was" true anrl that no doubt the syE:tem proposed involved cert.ain complications and dif.l'itult~~ The Argeutino representative had, moreover, stated that, t.hou~h he felt his obserra~b. to be just, be wa!! n<'vertb<>less ready to join the majority and would raise no oppo~itioo~ 'I'hi!! was tho right way to deliberat;c in this committee, and th~ Chairman thank~ t: Ar_gentine representn.tive for the ex~elleut <"~nmple whieb he had shown. t

· ~1. de n rouckere had said that, i n bi>: view. the system c·on tuinel th rel· pa·t. (1) application on tbe part of the Member; (2\ discus8ion upon tl•e subject of , uch ca~~ dature: (~) clesignatiou by vote. Was not the first of these quite useless ' It was true tha; Viscount Cecil had given as an example of the working of this system the possibilitv tba each year, by means of a motion, a given Sta.te might be indieait>d as one of those to 'wbo~ thP. principle or non-rc-eligihility would uot apply. R c himself bad an easier conception of the matter. 1 t, had occurred to him that the question wonlrl only a.rise at the timE' of the elections and for the country represented on the Council at the moment of the expirr of its term of office, if it desii·ed that it should be prolonged. Consequently th<' danaeroll! proc<•CltU'e of a.pplication would not arise, and t lwre would remaiu in reality on I~ th; thin! act, that of clesignation.

M. S.TOBORG saw no disa.clvantagc:s in the relax-ations of thP rigid pri11ciplo o£ rotation suggested by Viscount Cecil in paragraph 2 of his proposal. [t was undoub tedly in tbt direction ii.~aicaterl in thi~ p::na~raph that snch relaxations could be iotrvduced. But ht wished to say t.hat he had the same :scruplE-s as :l\1. de Brouck~,re. He was not iu farom of application for re-eligibility beiilg made at times other than t,ha.t wben it was a question of rc-electillg a Mem her whose mandate had expired. W O\tld it tJOt be possible tr: ex pre·, ibis irlea in tlH~ text ? Subjeet to this, he was prepared to accept paragraph 2.

Viscount CECIL thought that the criticisms of M. de Brouckere, the Chairman, and M. Sjoborg concerning the process of re-eligibility were well founded. He had only wish&! to put forward a suggestion, and it was quite possible that the object that be bad in mind could be realised in a different way ; the declaration of re-eligilibity could be made eitb~ at the election or immediately before re-election.

If the Committee approved the principle, they might perhaps appoint a sub-committee. limited, say, to th ree members, to formulate a m()re careful text upon the procedure, which the Committee could adopt on a second reading.

H e would add that be quite appreciated the point of view of the Argentine representative, but experience seemed to show that the question under discussion could not be solved uy the application of paragraph 5 o( Article 4 of the Covenant. It would not be practicable continually to invite to a seat on the Council a Member whose pres~nce on it was constantly essentiaL I t would appear necessary to go further and to prondr in certain cases for exceptions to the rule of non-re-e.Ugibility. Theoretically, the Al'gentine representative was certainly right, but , actually, there was a practical question to be solved, and, without in any way creating a new category of States, certain situatiolh had to be borne in mind. "God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb. ,

The CHAIR::IrA N thought it. possible to note the following points :

(1 ) .Acceptance of the principle pf the non-re-eligibility of a State; (2) With regard to the period i>t"noil-re-eligibllity, a period of three year;

sanctioned by a recommendation of the .Assembly might be proYisionally adopted, with the reservation that the matter could be re-examined ; .

(3) Exceptions to the principle of non-re-eligibility, the .Assembly b~g able, by a formal manifestation of its desire in a form which it still remawed to settle more definitely, to depart from this principle and declare that a Statt was re-eligible. This manifestation of the desire of the Assembly could tate ])lace an indefinite number of times ;

(4) Nevertheless, the Assembly should not show its desire to ru~e an exception to this principle if that exeept ion exceeded a certain proportiOn (one-third of the Members elected by it).

If the Committee were ready. to conside1· that these results had provisionally ~een reached, the discussion of paragraph 2 might be regarded as at an end, and the Comnutte~ might appoint, as Lord Cecil bad proposed, a sub-committee of three or four ruemb.er~ to draft an exact text. The Committee would res~rve the right to discuss t he quest~on again in order to give a more definite character to the principles of paragraph :!, wluth liad been provisionally adopted.

M. SOKAL did not think that it had yet been settled that the proportion of i\Ie111beN elected who might be declared re-eligible shottld not exceed one-third.

The CHAIR?.fAN agreed that this question also should be submitted to the Sub· Committee.

It was agreed to appoi11t a sub-committee in, accordance with the proposal of ViSC011111

Cecil a·nd the Chairman.

-49-

estion of Geographieal or Continental Representation in relation to Paragraph 3 of the 18. ~posals of Viscount Cecil : Statement by M. Guani.

M. GuaNI reminde~ the Commit~e that, :when h~ had ~ead the proposals of Lord Cecil, e had wished immediately t? subm1t certa.m. constderat10~s concerning the rules to be

!dopted regarding ~he questiOn. of geograph_ical or con.trnental r~presentation in the d,iitribntion of seats m the Council. Lord Ce?il had then mformed htm that the question

. bt ii necessary, be more or less settled m paragraph 3. Now that the Committee W: about to discuss paragraph 3, M. Guani would desire to put forward the following 1f • coDSidera.tions. . .

Be was not well acquamted w1th the system proposed by Lord Cecil regarding roport.iona.l repres~ta.tion, and he. w?nde! ed whether this system, on~e adopted, would ~ve effect to the prmc1ple of the distnbut10n of seats from a. geographiCal or continental oint of view in co~ormity with the desU:e persiste_ntly expressed by t?e Assembly. He ~ould reserve the n ght, th~ref~re, to sub~t s~ggestions when the que~tlOn.of proportional representation was dealt mth ill connectwn mth the proposals contamed rn paragraph 3.

l9. Bat.Ufcatioa lly France of the Amendment to Article 4 of the Covenant.

M. PAUL-BONCOUR reminded the Committee that, on several occasions when it had wondered whethe1· its present efforts would prove effectively beneficial, certain members had pointed out, with a discretion for which he thanked them, the difficulty which might be encountered in proposing a definite system of r ules and had shown how useful, in oowection with the work of the Committee, the amendment of AI·ticle 4 of the Covena.nt would be. It was for this reason that he thought that the moment had now come to put before the Committee a communication from his Government.

He had informed his Government of the impression made on him during the earlier d.iaenssions of the Committee and of the desire which many of its members seemed to have that the amendment should be ratified with a view to facilitating future work.

The French Government, in its desire always to co-operate in the closest possible m&nner in the work of the League of Nations, had authomed its rep1'eseutative to say that it would ratify the amendment to Article 4 of the Covenant.

The CHAIRMAN said that there was no need for him to emphasise the importance of the statement which had just heen made. He thought that it was a very good omen for the success of the Committee's work. He welcomed this news with the same joyful surprise as the rest of his colleagues. He congratulated, first, the League, and then, very warmly, in the name of his colleagues, the French representative.

The Committee went into private session.

20. Appointment of a Sub-Conu:nittee to draft the Text of Paragraph 2 of the ProposaJs of Viscount ~il.

The Committee appointed the following Sub-Committee instructed to draft a text of paragraph 2 of Viscount Cecil's proposal: M. SCIALOJA, M. DE BROUCICERE, M. SOKAL, M. SJOBOR.G, M. GUANI.

It was understood. that members of the Sub-Committee bad the right to send their subst·itutes to replar.e them on the Sub-Committee.

31. Question of tlae Number of the Members of the Connell.

The CHAIRMAN read paragraph 3 of Viscount Cecil's proposal:

"The elected MemberR shall be increased to nine in number and shall in future 1x> elected by proportional reprooentation. ''

. He said that the quest iou of the number of the permanent. Members was also open for discussion in connection with the number of elerted Members.

M. DE PALACIO!) wished to know in what manner the Committee would discusfl the question. Wasthenumber of the Members of theCouncil to bediscussed-thatwas to say, wa.s the question whethel' the Coru1cil should not. be composed of more than twenty Members to be disou.~sed, or would the Committee deal wit.h the question of the appointment of permanent Membert~ and with the increase in the number of the non-permanent Members Y Was the Committee to examine tht' composition of the Council in conformity with Articl£' 4 of the Covenant t

'Viscount CEciL said that there were at least three separate questions involved : first, whether the permanent Members should be increa8ed; secondly, whether the non-permanent ~embers should be increased; thirdly, a question which could not be avoided, which States, if the permanent M(>mbers were to be increased, should be recommeuded as additional permanent Members.

Re thought it would be very desirable first to discnss the two qucr-tio~s or principle ana to reach some conclusion on them, al!d then to approach the very delicate questiOn

-50-

of the appointment of the individual States - a question which it might or might not be necessary for the Committee to discuss.

M. DE P ALA<'rm: thought with Lord Cecil that the increase in the number of the no permanent Members might be considered as a question of principle without it being necessa:; to choose the actual States.

On the other hand, this was not the ca-se with regard to the increase in the number of permanent Members. During the general discusflion, it had beeu pointed out by a certain Rpeaker that the number of permanent Members could not exceed seven, so that the Council would include, in a{}dition to th~ present per~anent M~m~ers, representativ('s of the United States, Germany and Russ1a. The quest10n of prmC1ple could not be examined without mention being made of the countries concerned. It would, moreover, be contrary to the Covenant to state that there was _no longer any need to in_c~e~se the number of permanent Members. The Covenant proVIded for the constant poss1bihty of making such an increase. It stipulated that, "with the approval of the majority of the Assembly the Council may name additional Members of the League whose representative shall always be Members of the Council". It could not, therefore, be merely stated that the permanent seats should be increased; the States which it was proposed to elect as permanent Members should be clearly chosen by name, and this question could not, therefore, be usefullv dealt with as though i t were a matter of general principle. '

He had already reminded the Committee that several States had dema.nded admission to the Council as permanent Members; each of these demanns must be individually examined.

He concluded therefore that the Committee could not and ought never to settle a. priori the number of permaneut Members. The Council would comprise those Members posses.W1a sufficient qualifi<'.ations to be permanently r_epresented upon it, and the Committee could not say that i t was impossible to increase the number of the permanent Members of the Council. The number of those Members depended on circumstances and the position of each State.

Viscount. CECTL said that nothing would be further from his desire than to prevent any member of the Committee from presenting his case, and, if M. de Palacios thought that he could only present his case satisfactorily by referring to the claims of some particnlar State, it would be impossible for the Committee to refuse to hear him.

It appeared to him that there were two quite separate questions with regard to the increase in the number of the permanent Members of the Council. There wa.s the question of principle whether some rule should be laid down regarding their number, and there was the question whether, having laid down that principle, it should be applied to any particular State. If, however, M. de Palacios thought that thisimcthod of procedure would hamper him, he was fully prepa1·ed to abandon it.

Since M. de Palacios, however, thought that the question of the number of the non· permanent Membel'S could be taken separately and r~garded as a question of principle, it might be well for the Committee to begin to discuss that question and adjourn the question of the permanent Members to a later stage. Paragraph 3 of his proposals did not deal with permanent Members at all but onl~ with the non-permanent Members.

M. SOIALOJ A thought that M. de Palacios was quite correct in saying that, according to the Covenant, the question of the increase in the number of the permanent Members was connected with the naming of certain States. It was not pos11ible to decide that the number of permanent Members should be increased by one ; it would be necessary immediately to name the State to which the new seat should be given. Tf this were s~, however, the Committee was not competent, for it was not the Council, and the Council possessed the exclusive right to make propo!lals on this point to the Assembly. The Committee, not being the Council, could not deal with the matter.

What, then, could the Committee do ! 1 t was called upon to put forward a prop?sal to the Council, hut this proposal might contain a certain number of unknown quantittes: it was not necessary that it should be absolutely complete. The Committee could sugg~t to the Council that the number of seats be increased or not iucreased. Thi8 would tlOt

prevent the Couucil from doillg what it liked, since the Committee could only give it advice. Artificially, it could separate th~ q_uestions which were within its own competence from those which were within the competence of the Council. It was aware that reference had been made to the question of allotting to certain States a permanent seat on tlJ_e Council, and it coulrl indicate to the Council that it approved or did not approve of this increas~. It was only within these limits that it could study the problem.

The CHAmMAN remarked that it wa.s perfectly evident that the Committee was ~ot the Council and that it neither could nor wished to be. It was a committee or enqUll'Y, and the fundamental difference which existed between it and the Council was obvious; if it were the Council, each of its me.mbers would be armed with a right of veto and it would suffice for this veto to be used for the work to be stopped. The Council, however, had empowered the Committee to put forwarrl , if necessary, majority and minority repor_ts.

In these circumstances, he thought that the task of the Committee was to give adVIce to the Council, such as would assist it in the solution of the crisis, when the Council came

- 51 -

amine it. C~nsequently, whilst admit~ing tha~ ~· S~ialoja,, .U·om a legal standpoint, to ex. ht in his VleW of the problem and ill the distillctiOn which he drew between the .-as ~nee of the Col;illcil and that o~ the C~:Hnmitte~, ~t co~d at the same time be comptted that its adVlce to tho Counc:1l, particularly if It achieved unanimity might sdDll

8 have a deci.<1ive influence on the future deliberations. '

perh;be Con:unittee could not therefore entirely diyest ~tself of its political chara<'ter, ther it wished to ~o s~ Ol' not. If. M . de PaJaews WIS}_led to present a test case, it

::~d be well to e~aJ:?ille 1t: The Chairman at the same tm~e t.hought that it would be tt r to avoid this if possible. It was preferable to remaill ill the serene domain of

berin~iples and avoid giying the impression: that the Committe~ was biased in favour of ~given State or otherWISe. At the same trme he would leave his colleagues entirely free.

M. DE PALACIOR eaid that, if it were true that it was for the Council to appoint new ermanent Members and to.pro~ose them for the approv~l of the A:sfle~~ly, i~ shoul~ be ~ded that it was the Council whtch h~d asked the Committee to ~md~ 1t m thts quest10n, and that this could not be regarded ill a. gene1·al ~anner. In facL It was necessary to consider that there. was .at least one candidature ; if th.ere w~r~ none. the question could not have ari.seu, smce ill that case would the questiOn of wcreasmg the number of erma.nent .Members have arisen spontaneous1y ¥ Obviously not. The question had ~en because certain requests had been formulated. I t was, therefore, with concrete cases that the Committee had to deal. It could not . study . the gen~r~l question of an increase in the number of the permanent Members With the Idea of g1vwg pE-rmanence to a country which had never thought of it .

Since the Chairman considered, very wisely, that the question should be dealt with at once as a whole and in detail. ho thought it would be .necessary to study very closely specific cases.

The CHAIR:I1AN wished to add that the mandate given to the Committee contained this characteristic phrase : "This Committee will give particular attention to the claims up to now put forward by or on behalf of any Members of the League . . . " The Committee conld not therefore avoid this discussion.

Viscount Cecil had suggested that a start should be made with the question of the nomber of non-permanent Members ; he agreed to make a. trial o£ this procedure, and opened the discussion on the poiilt.

Viscount CECIL explained that he had proposed that the number of elected Members should be raised to nine, principally for arithmetical reasons. In view of the generally expressed desire of the Assembly for some additional elected Members and in view of the general course of recent events, particularly those which had occurred at the special session of the Assembly in March 1926 it would be very difficult for the Committee to report that no addition to the non-permanent Members should be made.

!!'rom a theoretical point of view, it could be maintained that any increase was undesirable, and some of his colleagues might be of that opinion. In view of the fact, however, that the Committee had agreed in principle that the non-permanent Members should be divided into those which should be re-eligible and those which should not, and that it had also been decided in principle that the re-eligible Members should not ex.ceed one-third of t.he elected Membe1·s, the following conclusions were inevitable. If the present number of non-permanent Members were retained, two of which would be re·eligible, there wou1d only be four seats available for ensuring the desired general rotation between the Members of the Assembly. Purther, since one-third of the Members were to.be elected every three years, thi~; would mean that mathematically only one .a.nd one­third seats would be available for the armual elections. This meant that, in practice, two Members would be elected in one year and ouly one in the two following years. Assume, therefore, that thirty-five Members of the League would deRire and would be suitable to serve oo the Council; their turn would come each every twenty-seven or twenty-eight years. He did not think that that solutiou would respond to the desire which the ~sembly had expressed to be more largely represented on the Council. :Keitber would It appease the sense of dissatisfaction which undoubtedly existed at the moment iu the Assembly, nor would it allay a certain je&lousy which was growing up between the Assembly and the Council. Everyone who had served in the Assembly knew . perfectly well ~hat such a feeling existed. It might perhaps be very slight, but it could uot be denied and 1t was very unfortunate. . It would have to be appeased by an endeavour to make the Assembly reali~e that ~twas closely connected with the "'ork of the Council and that there was no occasiOn for Jealousy or misuuderstandin<• between the two bodies. To achieve this, it was impo~sible mere!~ to give to those Me~bers of .the Assembly who desired it a right to serve ou the Council at best only once every twenty-seven or twenty-eight years. It would be necessary for the Com;mittee to be bold and to propose that the numb.er of non-p~rmanent Mem~ers should be mne, which meant tha.t there would be at least su: seats avatl~ble for rotat1?n, the ~hree remaining Members being re-eligible. If the system of rotatiOn were apphed to SLX. MeiD:bers elected for three years, one-third of them. being elect~d every year, the thirty-five Members who mioht wish to sit on the Council wouJ<.l obta10 a seat every seven~en years, and he did n"ot think that that was too rapid a rate of rotation.

Per~ooally, be would be glad if it were possible to proceed more rapidly, not by increasi the number of elected Members but by holding t.he electious more frequently. 'rb~ however. unfortunately did not appear possible. U.

These were the reasons w~y he p~oposed that the n~ber of elected Members sholll be nine rather than seven or etght,. which ~ad been ment10ne~, for the former figure wo d make it possible to institute a frurly ra~nd system ~f rotat1~n b~t':~en the :\!embers~ the Assembly desiring to sit o~ the C?~n.cil. Such a fignr~, berng div1s1b~e by three, wollld render much easier than a figure diV1s1ble by two, elect10ns for a per1od of three Year appli~ble each year to a third of .the elected Members according to the Princip~ provisionally adopted by the Comnnttee.

While proposing the fi~ure nine, be ~as ready to agree with the vie~s of ~s colleagu~ if they preferred seven or etght or even 1f they recommended that t.be ftgure s1x should bt: retained.

M. MoN~ARRoYOS said that the <?bairman h~ ~mself po.inted. out that it would be difficult to dtscuss the proposal of VIscount Ceml Without disoussmg the question of permanent Members. He agreed with that view. He was ready to accept, however, {or the purpose of argument, the pFoposal of Lord Cecil that the number of non-permanent Member~ should be increased to nine. The Committee, however, should not lose sight of the question of the proportion to be maintained between the number of permanent and non-permanent Members, in virtue of the proposal of the Council to the third Assembly and of the resolution adopted by that Assembly when it had increased the number of non·permanent Members to six. The proposal of the Council said that the change then proposed could 0111 be considered as prejudicial to the re-establishment of the principle of which Article 4 was the application. If, however, the number nine were adopted, it would mean that the number of permanent Members on the Council would have to be increased to ten, since the proportion had originally been five permanent to foW' non-permanent. Members. On this condition, M. Montarroyos was ready to accept Lord Cecil's proposal.

M. DE BROUCKER.E thought that it was very difficult to read texts in the same way, as he had given to the text in question a meaning exactly contrary to that which the representative of Brazil had just given. What had been done in 1922 Y The Co"\'enant said that there would be five permanent Members of the Council as compared with four temporary Members, and that the Council bad the right to increase the number of permanent Members by proposing for the approval of the Assembly new permanent Members by name and also to propose for the approval of the Assembly an increase in the number of non· permanent Members.

The Council had availed itself of this latter provision and bad increased the number of non-permanent Members from foUl' to six. Why 'f Some of those who had supported the proposal had argued that it was necessary fo1· the non-permanent Members of the Council to be more numerous than the permanent M.embers. Others, however, had been somewhat disturbed at the idea that when the number of permanent Members came to be ' increaRed, the opportunity might be taken to increase still further the number of non· permanent Members. A reservation had therefore been made by the terms of which it waa laid down that a fu ture increase of the permanent Members should not be regarded as sufficient motive in i tself to cause it to be agreed immediately that there should be a corresponding increase in the number of the non-permanent Members. Consequently, when it bad been said in 1922 that the proposal to increase the non-permanent Members could not be considered as prejudicial to the re-establishment of the principle of which Article 4 was the application, what had been meant was that, if the number of permanent ~lemberb exceeded the number of non-permanent Members, the necessity for increasing the number of non-permanent Members would not, i pso facto, result .

M. MON'l'ARROYOS said be would venture to read the following paragraph of the proposal of the Council, which would give him, he was sorry to say, too easy a victory o'er M. de Brouckere.

This paragraph was couched in the following terms :

"The first paragraph of Article 4 is based on a certain principle concer~g the number of the permanent and of the non-permanent Members of the Council. The proposed augmentation of the number of non-permanent Members produce~ a c?nsiderable modification in this principle. N evertbeless, a subsequent. au.gmenr tatwn of the number of permanent Members would re-establish the pnnClple 0

which Article 4 is the application, without it being possible to consider that the change proposed to-day prejudiced such re-establishment."

Consequently, taking this resolution as a basis, it was possible to re-es.tab~h .the principle of which Article 4 was the application. and the re-establishment of this pnnClple co.D.Bisted in r~ to ten the number of pernia.nent Members if the number of non· permanent Members were raised to nine.

M. PAUL-BONCOUR did not wish to enter into these discussions of the iuterpretation of texts. What was clear to him was that the League of Nations, or at least the Assembly -

-53-

. b for him consliituted the most direct expression of it- wished to see the number ot lf~ed Members of the Council always greater than that of the permanent Member& 50 t:t the guiding principles which it_ expr~ssed ~gh~ be ~ore completely effective. This I . no way opposed - he had defined his pos1t1on m th1s matter - to an increase in the .-aslil · ifh dth · ber of permanent seats, Sillce, e ap_Prov_e · at m~rease, he 'vas taking his stand upon n~et.e ground - the only ground poSSible ill a questwn concerning permanent seats -co~he Spanish representative had pointed out. 88 But at the moment the Committee was studying the question of the increase in the

UJDber of the eleeted Members, and he considered that this shottld be examined ~dependently of_ t~e increase in the number of permanent Members, because the two uestions were distinct.

q On the subject of the increase in the number of elected Members, he identified himself completely, and after reflection more strongly than ever, with Viscount Cecil's proposal. The increase in the number of elected Members appeared to him to be necessary in the actual proportion indicated by Lord Cecil, because, at the previous meeting, the Committee had on the one hand adopted th~ principle of rotation, the result of whicti was to accommodate on the Council the lf~:rges~ poss1bl~ num~~r of_ States Mem?ers of the League of Nations, and, on the other band, JUdgmg that mstability ill the Council was extremely undesirable and that moreover, a certain apprenticeship was necessary, it had wished that the term of offi~ of Members of the Council should be sufficiently long and had fixed it at three years. That constituted an established point.

Moreover, whilst it was understood that each reserved to himself the right to reconsider even established decisions, the Committee had admitted that it wa advisable- in the interests of the proper working of the League of Nations and in the interests of an exact representation on the Council of all the political interests concerned, the Assembly retaining at the same time full authority with regard to each renewal-that certain nations might remain on the Council indefinitely.

The only way of reconciling these two principles was to increase the number of elected Yembers. If a three-year period of rotation was desired and if i t was also desired that a certain number of nations should be exempted from this periodicity, it was necessary to have rotation to the extent indicated by Lord Cecil.

M. ScrALOJA stated that what he had foreseen was coming to pass, i.e., that because a vote had been taken concerning rotation in respect of one-third of the non-permanent llembers each year, t he last paragraphs of _Lord Cecil's proposals being reserved, this vote ns becoming an argument for the settlement of those paragraphs, the reservations being ignored. One preliminM'y questio-n must, however, be considered first of all by the Committee; how would the new Council work and what was the total number of Members to be recommended t

The problem of the proportion between the permanent and non-permanent .Members arose after the consideration of the question whether there was not a disa.dvantage in too peat an increase in the number of Council Members. On tbis point he had already given his opinion; he was convinced that, if the number of Council Members became too la.rge, the only effect of the increase would be to make the Council unworkable, and this would mean the dea.th of tbe League or its transformation into a super-State - which was perhaps desirable in a distant future, but to-day would certainly constitute an ~onism. This latter might also amount to the death of the League, because an inlant put on the bed of Procustes would become larger but 'vould die in the process.

He had heard references to the increa-se in the number of the permanent Members of the Council and to the increase in the number of non-permanent Members and to the proportion between the permanent and non-permanent Members, but all this had nothing I~ do with the real problem, viz., the total number which should not be exceeded. In his new, the present number could be slightly increased, although even the slightest increase Would be a disadvantage. It would be folly to take nine for the number of non-permanent ~e~bers just because this was the number of the Muses and of many other good things ; a dis~cti~n should be drawn between the meeting of the Muses on Parna.ssus and the meeting m the plain of Geneva which called itself the Council of the League. All the laws 0~ ~athematics and rotation were useless. It was necessary to overcome mathematical ~c~ties, but it was not possible to discuss the question of the composition of the ounmt of the League on a mathematical basis.

After having established the total number of Members which should not be exceeded, ~e Committee could settle the proportion between the perma.nent and non-permanent _em~ers. There was a tendency to suppose that, if the number of permanent Members ~ere mcreased, it would be necessary also to increas~ that of the n()n-pe~·man~nt Members. t Would, on the contrary, be necessary to balance an mcrease on the one Slde w1th a decrease

on the other in order not to exceed the total number.

0 This waa t.he true position of the problem ; the whole ~hould be determined in o1·de1'

ext to settle tho prop01·tion betwee n the parts. f The first queRtion ought to be as follows : What w-as the total number best suited b: the proper working of the Connfil ! Personally, he would say immedi~tely that the

t Dumber was the smaJJest and, though at the moment circnmstanees nnght force the

- 54 -

Committee to go a lit tle beyond the present number, the smallost i.ucrt-ase in that DutnbtJ was the most preferable. He thou~h t that it would perhaps be an error to go beyoJl4 twelve.

M. CHAO-H~TN CHU wished to support the proposal of the Brazilian representa. to the effe<'t that the non-permanent Members should be increased to nine and the perman~ Members to ten.

With regard. to the perma?ent Members, the number ten would make it possible to obtain a very sat1sfactory solutiOn. At the moment there were four permanent Memhe and there were represented on the Committee four other States who had asked for permane~ seats, and the number t-en would be attained when tho :United States of America.andSotiet Rn~11ia entered the League. Why should not th1s number be adopted t Erer; application for a seat was based on very strong reasons, either geographical, political 01 economic. If th~se applications were considered one after another by the Committee, it would have, he thought, to end by granting them.

Further, the Committee seemed constan tly to have in miud two States ont~ide the League which were to become permanent Members of the Council. Why did the Committee favour these st rangers to the League and show itself unfavourable to Statf! Members ! The latter were not inferior to the former. Two seats were reserved for States outeide the League while the Committee seemed to be a.gainst granting the d~s~ of Members of the JJeague which were working for it and for the good of the world.

The idea had often been put. forward that tho Members of the tJeague were on a foonag of equality. Why should not those who made appJication be put on a footing of equality if their application deserved to be taken into consideration ' Why should nol these applications be submitted for consideration one by one '

Since the Committ,ee was sitting in private he would be very frank. He asked his colleagues to excuse him if he spoke too mdically or too truculently. The Press referred to the fear which the Soviet Union in Russia inspired. In all couutries Soviet Rns_;ia was rE-garded ns an enemy, but she was not the enemy of China, with which she ha~ friendly relations. Why should Russia apparently be treated as an enemy while at the same time the League constantly bore in mind the day on which Soviet Rn ria would become a permanent Member of the Council! Was it because it feared Soviet Russia' No! For what reason, then ! Because Russia was a great Power. But why not, then, r egard as great PowerR the other four States rE-presented on the Committee which had made an application ! I n a-ny case those Rtates ought to be allowed an opportunity of putting their case.

It had constantly been said that, if the number of the Members of the Council were increased, the Council would be unworkable. He did not think so. At the present moment, the Committee had practically agreed on the proposal of Lord Cecil to increase to rune the number of the non-permanent MembE-rs. Nine non-pE-rmanent :Membe~, four existing permanent M('mbers, Germany and the two States outside the Le:lgue whose cldms were being considered made a total of Rixteen. If tha.t total were increast>d by three, the problem might be solved. As a mat ter of fact, Rince no one knew when the United States and Russia would become Members of the League, there would only be eight permanent Members on the Council and nine non-permanent Members. This would be a. very satidactory solution. If the Committee did not yield to the a,pplications now made, how could the problem be solved !

Further, the present four permanent Members bad seats on the Council by virt~e of the Treaty of Versailles. No one could deny that, from a political, econoiDJc and geographical point of view, they were qualified to hold permanent seats, hut ."'as the speaker not right in fearing that public opinion might think that they had been wnn permanent seats because of their military strength and because they had won the wa~! Would it not increase the prestige of the League to give permanent seats to certain couutn~ which were not military countries ! Would not the world be encouraged to work for peace!

These were the reasons why be thought it advisable to increase the number of permanent Members to ten. If the Committee accepted this figure, it would submit a very satisfactory report to the Council and to the Assembly, to which no broad-minded person could raise any objection. The problem would be solved and everyone would be happy.

M. SJoBORG entirely agreed with the views of M. Scialoja concerning the procedure to be followed. He did not see bow it would be possible to separate the question of the permanent from that of the non-permanent Members.

He wondered in the first place whether or not the Council should be increased. If t~e ~eply was in the affirmative, the question would then, but only then, arise whether this mcrease should be made according to one of the methods which had been indicated. The starting-point of all discussions, however, ought, as be had already pointed out, to be:~ consi~era.tion of '':bat could be done for the good of the League. The Committee sho ., exa.mme the question whether an increase in the Council was or was not desirable from tbis point of view.

~e would abstain .for the moment from discussing the principles involved in the 9-uestion: It was bu_t Just to hear the reasons which might be brought forward for an mcrease m the Council before renewing the serious arguments against such a course.

-55-

It bad been said that the Assembly ha-d desired to see the Council enlarged. He had ad with the grea~est attention the recom~enda~ons and desires expressed by the

re embly on this pomt, and he. had found ~othing which ~bowed any desire on the part of ~Assembly to see the Council enlarged smce the date m 1922 on which the number of ~- ermanent States h~d been slightly increased.

00 ~he first urgent ~esl!e of the Assembly, expresse_d on several occasions, was that the tem of rotation which 1t ha-d adopted should be put mto force, and there was considerable

~ys e that this system might be applied. H e had been very happy to hear that one of the · ~Ptacles had just been removed. 0 5The second desire e~pressed by the Assembly had been that seats should be distributed on a more equitable baS18. In 1925 the ~ssembly bad renewed the following recommendation adopted unanimously by the Assemblies of 1922, 1923 and 1924:

"I t is desirable that the Assembly, in electing the six non-permanent Members of the Council, should make its choice with due consideration for the main geographical divisions of the world, the great ethnical groups . "

Neither of these considerations implied a request for an increase in the number of seats on the Council.

The CnAmliiAN, before closing the meeting, drew his colleagues' attention to the aspect presented by some of the questions to which reference so far had been made.

1\f. Scialoja had raised the following question: What number was it desirable to adopt for the composition of the Council t What was the number which, ii it were exceeded, would make the working of t he Council difficult, if not impossible, which would strike not only the Council but also the existence of the whole League a mortal blow '

The question ba-d also another aspect. Ii the Council were composed of a very large number of Members- permanent Members, non-permanent :Members in favour of which an exception had been made to the rule according to which retiring Members would not be re-eligible for a definite period, and finally non-re-eligible Members - would it not contain all the most active and important forces in international liie, and what, then, would be the position of the Assembly ' In view of the bet that the Assembly only met once a year while the Council- quite naturally, as it was smaller, and because certain questions were within its own special competence - was convened at least four times a year, sometimes more, what would be the effect, on the dignity, prestige and authority of the Assembly, of an excessive number of Members in the Council t

He felt obliged to make these observations in view of their capital importance. The Council had appointed as a member of the Committee the State represented very modestly by M. Motta, because it had considered that State to be absolutely impartial, because it bad no ambition to enter the Council and was principally concerned with defending the rights of the Assembly.

SEVENTH MEETING

H eld on Th?traday, May 13th, 1926, at 4 p.m .

Ohairmatn: M. MOTTA.

Present : All the members of the Committee.

22. Publicity of the Meeti.ogs of the Committee.

Viscount CECJL proposed that the Committee should sit in public.

M. DE :BROUCKERE feared that certain members of the Committee would be unable to express themselvt>s with the necessary freedom in public and that as a result the Committee would only be able to submit a report without solving the present crisis.

M. FROMAGEOT observed that public opinion could not be considered as a court called upon ~o deliver judgment on the arguments brought forward br each mef!lber ?f the Comnuttee. He thought, too, that private meetings would posl!tbly make 1t easter for representatives to be convinced by the observations of their colleagues.

Viscount CEon., referring to the arguments brought forward by M. d_e Brouckere an~ M. Fromageot agai.nst publicity, said that, while he did not in the_ least w!sh to u.r;tder­eatit:nate the force of their arguments, he had never known a case, 10 all h1S expen ence of League meetings, in which private meetings had been of advantage.

-56--

Referring to the point rai~ed by M. Fromageot, he said that, though feeling th greatest respect for M. Fromageot's vi~ws, ~e could not agree that delegates were Ill e ready to withdraw opinions put forward m pnvate tbau those expressed at a public meet~re If the opinion were a purely intellectual .one, any deleg~te would ~e a.s ready to withdrag. it in a public as in a private mP.eting: If 1t were a qu~st10n of se~timent or deep feeling~ would be unready to withdraw hlS statement at either meetmg.

On the other ban~, there was a cer~ain _restraint ab~~t t_he way in which opinions were expressed in public, aud that restramt, m Lord Cecil s VIew, was an advantage (o moderation helped in reaching an agreement. ' 1

There could be no ~oubt tha:t the League must ~epend _ou J?Ublic opinion and on public opinion alone in reachiDg solutions of problems With which 1t haci t·o deal. Tt was

00 longer true that. international questions could be settled by individuals, however eminent or highly skilled, ~eet~n~ in one roo~. The people~< themselves must support the views expressed by those wdiVJduals, and this could only be done by an li:Ppeal to public opinion.

Viscount Cecil was certain that, even though there were disadvantages attendant upon public meetings, the advantages were much greater, and that publicity was the only safe meaus for avoiding miscoustruction and misunderstanding.

The Ootnmittee decided to sit in public, M. Fromageot and M . de Brouckere t•oting agaimt the nwtion.

23. Question of the Number of the l\lembers of the Council (continuation) : S~ecial Requests 00 the Part of Particular States : Statement by M. de Palacios on the Case of Spam.

The Ootnmittee decided to discuss simultaneously aU questions concerning the number of the Members of the Council, including the special requests of any particular State with regard to this question, since all these points appeared, aR the result of the preceding discussions, to be closely connected.

The Committee went into publir session.

M. DE P ALAC'IOS thought that it would be unnece~sary to explain again at anr great length the considerations which he had already put forward during the general discussion and to restate bow desirable he considered it to be, from the point of view of principle and in the general interest of the League, to increase the number of the permanent Members of the Council. Such increase did not, in his view, exclucle increasing the number of the non-permauent Members.

During a previous meeting, he had demonstrated how desirable it appeared to him to be for the Council to include among its Mem hers a Power which by its history and it! situation was capable of assuming a conciliatory role in connection with the work of the Council and the establishment of peace on a final ba.sis.

Opposition had been raised during the last few day8 against increasing the size of the Council on the ground that such an increa,se might diminish t he prestige of the Assembly. He was unable to underst-and the force of this argument. If the Committee or the Council had the right to create a new Member themselve;:;, such an argument would obviously be valid. Since, however, any increase could only be made with the approval of the majority of the Members of the Assembly, he was unable to understand how the prestige of that body would be lessened. On the contrary, from a democratic point of vie" ~nd from the point of view of general feeling he could only see advantages in the creatiOn, with the approval of the Assembly, of new permanent t<eats on the Council. It wo~d be the first time that the Assembly would be permanently represented on the Coun~.

In addition to these general considerations on the increase of the number of seats_m the Council, he desired to put forwa.rd the definite demand of Spain. He would do so mth perfect clearness and frankness in the firm conviction that be would be 'vounding no susceptibilities. If, however, he should happen to do so and if one of his colleagues held different views from his own, he offered to him his excuses in advance.

He did not think it necessary to expatiate at any length on the question of Spain. Her history, her traditions, her present condition, her prospects for the future, m tb the development of her enormous agricultural, industrial and mineral wealth, etc., were ""ell known. It would be sufficient for him to recall that Spain as a nation was a "complet~ economic whole", to borrow the words of a distinguished German statesman. She was a country placed geographically and morally between Europe and .America, and she had res~o~ded to the providential mission which had been assigned to her, and by m~ans of untmng efforts she had been able, up to the moment, to combine her interests with her friendships on both sides of the .Atlantic.

As a ~uropean Power, Spain maintained friendly relations with all the coun_tries of that contment ; a founder of peoples, she preserved with the deepest affectiOn the relationship and feelings which bound her to the .American continent - ties which no other country of Europe could surpass in intensity nor even reach in extent.

Spain, filled with a spirit of international co-operation upon which no one could casd a. doubt, had supported from the beginning the scheme to create a League of Nations!~ she had shown so much interest in the scheme that scarcely had it appeared on the political horizon than she began to concern herself with its development and had assembl~ t,o study the problem a Committee com,posed of the IQO&t prominent persons in the va.nous

-57 -

political partie~. When this work had been done, inspired both by her national international mterests, as :was natural, she had given her aid to the future

ln~aD1.5<~u•'"' of peace and h~d deterf:IUDed to en.ter the L~ue and support it a.a strongly as 'bl provided that the ll?-ternat10nal standing. of Spam should suffer no ill-effect.

possl.At\hat time, the Spamsh Gover~ent, which, because of the exclusive spirit then ailing and which was to be explamed only by passing psychological circumstances

prev ot been called upon to collaborate directly in the drafting of the Covenant had1

b~:ut waiting for the putting into force of that instrument, expressed to the' most ~tly inter~sted States its desire to be a Member of the League and to be represented

the Council. OD At that moment, it had been impossible to achieve complete agreement, and the difficulty of the general political situation had caused Spain to determine not to set up bstaoles provided her primary interests were safeguarded, and, an amendment having

~ust bee~ made in the Covenant .which. opened the way to the futru·e appointment of 1 ermanent Members of the Councll, Sparn had postponed her demand for an immediate P anent seat in the loyal assurance that she would be granted it in the near future. permSpain therefore, had been the fi1·st country to respond to the invitation put forward in .Article i of the Covenant, and in doing so she had accomplished an act of transcendant importance by assuring, by her action, the nascent life of the League. No one would be prepared to deny that, without the example of Spain, it would at least have been doubtful whether other countries, invited to agree to the Covenant, would have decided to do so. Had the League of Nations been reduced only to the States which bad signed the Treaties of Peace, perhaps the Committee now sitting would never have met.

Spain alone among the non-signatory countries had therefore entered the League of Nations as a non-permanent or provisional Member of the Council, but with the chance of belonging to the Council on a permanent basis. In conformity with this principle, when the first .Assembly had met, Spain had shown herself opposed to any restriction of the above possibility and had been a successful candidate at the elections of the non-permanent Members of the Council. N evertbeless, in order to bring her own point of view into line with that of the majority of the Members of the League, she had renewed her demands for a permanent seat, and in 1921 the Governments of France, Great Britain, Japan, Italy, Belgium and China had supported this request by their votes. Though the Brazilian representative had opposed it, he bad not done so because he had considered the demand to be without foundation. The attitude of Brazil bad compelled Spain to remain in the position which she occupied. Her term of office on the Council had been renewed, but she bad not relinquished her desire to obtain a permanent seat. She had, however, on several oeca&ons been asked to postpone her demand until Germany had entered the League, lor on that date it would be necessary to proceed to an enlargement of the Council. Always moved by a spiiit of conciliation, Spain bad continued to wait; but nobody, whether in the League of Nations or outside it, could be sru·prised if, that moment having arrived, she renewed her demand, since it was one which had been recognised for a long time.

Her demand was so public and so well known that on March 4th, 1926, Mr. Macdonald, in the House of Commons, had refeued to it in the following terms :

"The Spanish claiffi#'- I have bad to go into it. I think the right bon. gentleman knows it. Spain has not been asleep all these years, since 1921 or 1922 I think be said, when she first preferred a claim for a permanent seat . . . Spain ba-s been at it all the time, and it is a gTave injustice to the Spanish claim if that claim is going to be used as part of a bargain . . . "

Mr. Baldwin said, in his turn:

"I will tell the House perfectly plainly what is our position in regard to Spain. We believe in continuity of foreign policy. We believe it is a good thing that a change of Government should not necessarily mean a change in our foreign policy. I have renewed that support of Spain which was given to her under the Government of my right honourable friend the member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George). There is no condition attaching to that as to time or occasion. We have given no pledge apart from that to any country . . . ", etc.

After these very categorical statements, the Spanish representative on the Council of the League had raised the question in March last, and from the very first he had obtained general consent to his request, except from the Swedish delegation. all Nevertheless, some days afterwards, the rumour spread that Germany would not

1 ow the permanent entry of Spain into the Council at the same time as bet· own entry.

~dhad. been said even that she would not accept the admission of any other Memb.er. He not, however, desire to speak except on the case of Spain. The Spanish delegatiOn had

~sed to believe this rumour. Unhappily, it was confirmed, and the British representative, ~ery kind and cordial terms, bad informed the Spanish delegation that he w~s bound ' v~.aJ.l to do nothing which could prevent the entry of Germany, and that m those ~~on.s he could not continue to support the Spanish claim for a permanent seat on the

llllcil.

-58 -

Certain negotiations bad taken place with a view to achieving a compromise b t decision bad been reached, and a crisis bad arisen, as a result of which the present Co~ttno was established. H e would, however, emphasise the fact that Spain, whose qualificati Et had already been appreciated - though be in no way wished to claim such qualificati o~a for Spain alone - bad stated through the mouth of her representative on the Co~lli that, despite this unforeseen situation, she would re~ain f~ithful to her undertakings a~ would not oppose the entry of Germany to the Council. Still more, the Spanish delegati would raise no obsta.cle which might compromise the success of any of the contemplat: combinations to which Spain was a complete stranger.

In these circumstances he would submit the demand which he had just explained and the Committee would decide whether it was well founded or not, but in any case it ~ould not but recognise that it was the logical result of the fa,cts as he had just stated them

As regards the attitude of his country to the amendment of Article 4 of the Cove~ant be would explain that it was almost certain that, had Spain not been able to sit without intermission on the Council, she would never have adhered to the qovenant. It had been io order to retain that position on the Council that she had not ratified the amendment to Article 4. The case of Spain was therefore entirely different from that of France and the other States possessing a permanent seat on the Council. The attitude of his country waa in no way intransigent. Spain was filled with gratitude to those who had voted for her and that gratitude was all the stronger in view of the fact that those States which hJ voted for her had done so freely. Spain had never claimed that anybody was obliged to vote for her. The Assembly could choose what State i t wished to sit on the Council. It had shown that it bad that power and he could give several concrete examples. The non­ratification of the amendment did not therefore prevent any Member of the Assemblr from exercising its rights, and it was perfectly compatible with the system of a "gentlemen:s agreement" of which Lord Cecil had spoken and which had already been employed in fad on the eve of the elections. I t left members who were in favour of the principle of non-re-eligibility and had therefore ratified the amendment perfectly free to abstain from putting forward its candidature a second time. The non-ratification of the amendment therefore in no way attacked any interest. The Assembly had always complete liberty.

Jn ord(>r not to prolong his statement, he would return to tbP demand of '"paiu to obtain a permanent seat on the Council. He would confine himself to entrusting this demand to the political conscience of his colleagues. He felt sure that they wonld yire it all the attention it merited in view of the importance of the question, and that er~n those members who were opposed in principle to an increase in the m1mber of prrma~~nt seats, when they examined the concrete example bt'fore them~ would wish to gire satisfaction to Spain. The;v would thus work for the good of the League and bear witneil that the preseuce of Spain on the Council could not. justly be considered as a matter of indifference.

He asked the Cbn.irman to put to the Committee the que~:~tion of the increase of the membership of the Council by the allotment of a seat to Rpain . . When this question had been settled, other concrete cases could be examined and the Spanish delegation would explain its point of view, if neceRsary, regarding each of them.

The CHAIRMAN asked "M. de Palacios not to modify once more the order of the discussion. Jt was understood that, when th(> various questions concerning the inc~ in the number of sea.t.s on the Council ha<t been dealt with, this question, if the Sp~b representative so desired, might then be examined. The Committee would then deCJde whether the demand put forward by Spain was or was not acceptable. For tbe moment it was essential that the general discussion on the question of the increase in the number of seats should be continued.

He would point out also that the Chinese representative at the preceding meetine had raised a similar question to that raised by M. de Palacios, and it was obvious that. from tbo point of view of procedure, the request of the Chinese representati-re IDU51

receive the same treatment as that put forward by the Spanish representative.

M. D"E P .ALA<'IOS did not wish to hinder the work of the Committee, but he would point out that he bad put forward the definite demand of Spain· because he had tbou~ht that it was impossible to discuss· the question of the increase in the number of perman~nt Members in a general and abstract manner. He thought that this question, in conforDlltY with the Covenant, ought to be dealt with by t~king account of concrete cases .. After the .re~uest which he had submitted, the Committee would, he thought, admi~ that, Wltbou~ preJudice to the statements of other delegates, the question of the increase 111 the nuJ!lbe of the permanent Members could not be examined by any member of the Comrntttee without having in view the request of Spain.

M. CHAO-HSIN 0Hu reminded the Committee that he had spoken o.t tbe preceding meeting in a general manner on the question of the permanent Members, and he had ~01 discussed the special case of China, which he would lay before the Committee at a meetlllg on the following day.

M. MONTARR.OYOS said that he would also submit on the following day the cone!~ ca,ge of Brazil, which, as far as Brazil was concerned, was the case for the AmerlC continent.

-59

Tbe CHAIRMAN noted these declarations.

Viscount CECTL d~sired . to reserve h.is observations on the question of the permanent

1 bers of the Council nntll the Committee had beard the special cases which were to be

~ :0orward. He t~ought,. however, that the Co~ttee migb t, in order n~t to lose. time, P turn to the question, which ba.d already bee~ ~cussed at length, of the mcreasc m the re bcr of the non-permancllt Members, and 1t nngbt perhaps reach a solution. nnJll Since the Commit.tee was of opinion that the examination of this question should be

ntinued be would recall that at tb0 precediug meeting two very opposed views had been co ressed~ What had been said was approximately to the following effect. If a Member :r~be League d.e~ired an increase in the number ~f Me~bers,,permanent or non-permanent, of the Council, 1t ou.ght to be gr:mted, the essential pomt. bemg to cont.e~t the Members of the Leagne by mal>~g whatever c~anges were necessary.m the eompostt10u of the Council. The other extreme VIew was that 1t would be a great nnstake to ma.ke any increase at all, that the only point to b~ considered was the proper working of the League,.that ~he.~malle1· the Council t.he better It could work, that therefore there ought to be m prmmple no increa~e and that, if it were absolutely necessary to ma.ke such an increase, it should be as small all possible.

Tbe truth lay between these two extreme views. It was impossible entil'ely to disregard the de8ires and expectations, whether legitimate or not, which existed regarding the composit.ion of the Council. Tt was essential for the proper working of the League that. there should be complete confidence between the Council a.nd the Assembly and mutual good will. u therefore there was a current of opinion in the Assembly which indicateil tbat certain chanues ought to be made in the composition of the Couneil which could not. effectively be m~de without an increase in the number of its Members, then it was a perfectly legitimate matter to comider t.his question, aud it was essential, in the interests of the proper working of the League, to do what was necessary in order to satisfy the general opinion of the .Assembly. It was for that reason that he was in favour of the rotation of the non·permanE>nt Members, and of a rea.l rotation which would give a real satisfaction to the Members (,f t he .Assembly who undoubtedly desired it. It was not enough merely to give them a chance to sit on the Council every thirty or forty years.

It was in this sense that he had maintained, though his view had be,en contested, that there was a desire in the .Assembly for an increase in the number of the Members of the Council. A real system of rotation implied such an increaf<e by an increase in the non·permanent Members, since it wa-s essential, and no one had denied it, that a certain number of non-permanent Members ought to be re-eligible, and in consequence the number of other non-permanent Membere should be sufficient to make a real system of rotation possible. Tt was not therefore for a merely arithmetical reason and because nine was a mnltiple of three, but in order to produce that really effective collaboration between the Council and the Assembly that he bad proposed to increase by three the number of electecl Members of the Council.

On the other hand, he very h1lly agreed with those who thought that there was a limit beyond which, if t he numbE>rs of the Members of the Council were increased, it wonld cease to be a.ble to discharge its duties effectively. It might perhaps be worth wbHe asking the officials of the League who had the greatelilt experience of the work of the Couneil to give an expert opinion. In any ('ase, however, he thought tba.t it would be difficult to maintain that a Coun.eil of fourteen Members, for example, would he unable to work properly. Tn tbe original French scheme submitted to the Peace Conference the figure had been fifteen and the French delegation bad been of opinion that a Council of fifteen members would be wor~able. Moreover, a Cabinet composed of a similar number of members- the British Cabmet, for example - was able t.o accomplish its task.

Although he admitted that an indefinite enlargement of the Council was to be avoided and that the Committee must propose a final settlement of the question - since it would b~ a had thing for the number of Members of the Ooundl to be changed continually - he did not think it inadmissible to increase the number by two or t.hree provided that in this way the problem could be settled finally or at least for a considerable nnmber of years.

M. S•nALOJA reminded the Committee that be had already drawn attention to the fact that, before speaking of the number of permanent and non-permanent Members, it was necessary, in his opinion, to get a clear idea regarding the total number of Council Members. ~he had already remarked, that number should not be too large. Experience bad shown, m fact, that even with ten Members there was considerable difficulty in arriving at ~animity. He did not wish to suggest that the number ten should be obligatory; but, Without. wishing t o be exacting on the point, he nevertheless thought that it might be a good thing to retain it, with the exception of an extra seat for Germauy. be Moreover, t his increase by one seat had more in it than mig~t .aPI?~ar at first sight,

cause only a small body was concerned. One in ten was not an rns1gnificant number. th ~e fE>lt a little uneasy in discussing this point with IJord Cecil, becaus.e be remembered fat 1ll 1919, in a case somewhat similar to the present one - the quest10n then was one

0 establishing rules for the constitution of the Council. Lo1·d Cecil had wanted two ~ected members, whilst he himself had wanted four. It was only after a long discussion a~ Lord Cecil had agreed to four. M. Scialoja emphasised this point, so that all migbt

realise that he had no wish to under-rate the importance of a sufficient number of elected

-66-

Members, since be had thought from the first that a. certain number of introduced into the Council.

~ow, what ~hould be t~e maximu~ number of ~uuoil Members t This was not quest10n of physiCs or chem1stry, and 1t was not poss1ble to carry out experiment~ a t.honght it evident that., since Germany would make the number eleven, it. might j~tiU well be fixed at twelve. But every a{idition to this number involved a risk of incre~ t he dHficulties of the Council in its work. ~

The proportion to be established bet ween the number of permanent and non-permaoe 1 Members was not t he theoretical proportion according to which, if the nnmber o1 permane~'

Members were increased, it would a1<\0 be necessary to increase that of the non-permanenl Members, and vi"e -rer.~a. He considered Lhat precisely the reverse should hold. Th ~ssentift.l point was the total, and, if one part were increased, t he other would have to~ diminished in order not to alter this total.

There would, with Germany, be five permanent Members on the Council. In hi! opinion, if this number were increased, the number of non-pexmanent Members shonld be reduced. This w:1 s not ~.s serious as might appear at first sigh t , if the proposal of exempting certain States from what he had called the purgatory of election were adopted

For example, if Spain, which wa.s already a non-permanen t Member of the Ooun.c~ obtained a '{>ermanent sea.t, it would be necessary to reduce by one the total number of non-permanent Members, or such of them as would not be eligible for re-election, so that the composition of the Council would remain the same. I t was, therefore, essential to determine, in th~ first instance, the total number of Council Members a.nd the question of fixing maximum numbers for permanent and non-permanent !\lembers; the proportion hetween them would emerge afterwards.

Lord ('ceil's proposal implied no increa-se in the number of permanent Members: it provided for the maximum number of non-permanent Members, and if t he number of permanent Members were increased by one only, it would logically be nece!>~ary to reducE> by one the number of new non-permanent Members that Lord Cecil had sug~ested. Tn effect, in taking five as a ba~is for the number of perma.nent ~-;eats, Lord Cecil propo3ed nine non-permanent seats ; but if to-morrow there were seven permanent seats, Lord Cecil, to arrive at the same total, would have to propose se,,en non-permanent seat~.

What criteria should, therefore~ be adopte<l for the determination of the numbEr of non-permanent Members t

It had been sa.id yesterday that the first consideration should be to give satisfartion to the Assembly, because there existed iu. the .A 11sembly a certain spirit of jealousy and ill-feeling t.owa.rdR the Council. M. Scialoja did not agree with this view. Tha.t there should have been a certain amount of ill-feeling amongst the Members of the As~<emhly which bad not entered the Council was ouly nat.ural and human, but the ill-will wa.q not directed by the Assembly towards the Couucil but by colllltries not on the Council towards those who were serving upon it, for the As~embly also eomprised countries which were on the Council and which therefore bad no ill-feelin g-.

Tn these circumstanees, to admit a few extra Members of the .Assembly to the Council would not hi! an adequat.e measure to sooth~ such resentmeut. Such a mea.sur~ would tend, on the contrary, to aggravate it, b~cause every State wanting a seat on the Council considered that it should be t he fin;t to ~ret it .

As soon aa more Members were admitted to the Council, the standard of qualific.ation for a.dmil!sion to the Council would drop and the number o[ candidates which were, or ('.Onsidered that they were, on tht> same level, wonld increase. R ach Membt>r would .ask the question, "Why not T, who am on the same level as the others '" And the ill-feeling, f!\l from being reduced by increasin~ the number of candidates, would be increased.

Finally, to look at t he matter clo~ly, an increase in the number of Members would not tend towards the suppression of such discontt-nt. The proper working of the ~erent parts of the League o£ Nations must, above an, he con~idered. This point of v1e,v, he repeated, was essential. .

Then came the mathematical argument. Tt was nec<>.ssary to find a nnmber which made rotation possible, siuce rotation was an established principle ; moreover, he provisionally accepted this principle, since he had voted in favour of it. At. !he same time, whilst admitting the principle, the Committ.ee detracted from it by gtn?l! the Assembly the power partially to block rotat.ion. Thus, this rotation was not qwte what it Rhould be. Furthermore, it had been agreed that this 1·otation should not he a rigid system acCQrding to which all the other Members of the Assembly would have b~ to Rit on the Council before a country could re-en ter it. Jf a cotwt.rv leaving the Coun were not covered by 3in exception, it must defer for three years only any further c~Lndid:tture. This, again, was a limitation of the principlo of complete rotation.

Tt bad been argued that the Assembly had voted in favou.r of rota.tion several :vws ago. The speaker had already pointed out that he did not rflgard these old vot~s of the Ass.embly as vt>ry strong arguments-· perhaps because he himself had taken part m th~~· Tf, however, historical facts had a.ny value, they should be taken as they were. e rotation voted by the Assembly related to the number of t~ix; each year two Membgs were to be re-elected. r..onsequently, if the Committee wished to accept what t Assembly bad alrea-dy voted, it should retain the number of six and apply the sys: ?f rotation to. it. T~ did not mean that he insisted upon the figure six, but s~ply .t by if the Comm1itee Wl.Shed to respect the :resolution of the Assembly, to modify 1t

-91 - -

. creaaillg or deerea.sing the present number of non-permanent Members was not t he way IJI •t to do 1 • L d C il · Nine, according to or ee., was a _very convc;ruent number for rotation .

. usly it was even more converuent than SIX. But thlS number was born a cripple ~bVJ\ b~d been admitted that there would be countries exempt from rotation and that ~~~n, therefore, would be apJ?lied to a ~umber other than nin~. If one co~ntry were ro pted nine would become etght, and if two were exempted I t would become seven. ~e:uch for the mathe!fiatical principle! which wars_ to per~t of a regular rotation with

three-year term of office. Such rotatiOn could ex1st only m theory hut uot in practice. 8 Fiually, any argument based otherwis~ than on reality h~d little value, and the only

int to be conside~e~ - he must repeat t,hts --: was the followm~ : What was the number poecessa.ry and suff1c1ent to enable the CounCil to work T Th1s was the number ~which ~ad 1'0 be determined, independently of all other considerations, which disappeared before

11 somewhat deepel' analysis of the facts. He would accordingly present his proposal

in this form : the s~aller the increase the be~ter ; best. of. all would be no. increase at all. Since, however, 1t was necessary to ~odify the ex1stmg state of. affairs by enlarging

the Council, the least that could be a-dmitted was one Member. W1th the admif!sion of Germany, the number already amounted to eleven; with an increase of one non-permanent Member it became twelve ; beyond this came the number thirteen.

:M. MATSUDA observed that M. S(lialoja had said, with considerable justification, that the total number of permanent and non-periiU~>nent Members should first of all be determined. The question of the limit of the total number o£ MembCI'S was very important. Obviously, the number could be increased indefinit.ely ; but this was impossible, and, moreover, was not in accordance with the views of all the members of the Committee.

The Japanese Government's point of view had long been known. It was opposed, in principle, to any increase in the number of Council Members. But, o·wing to tho ever­changing nature or world politics, it would not always be possible to retain the present number, and to-day there were considerations which should be borne in mind, since the object wa!l to solve the crisis which had arisen at the time of the special session of the Assembly.

The various proposals made tended, on the one hand, to raise the number of non-permanent Members to nine - this was Lord Cecil's proposal - and, on the other, to increase it to seven, or perhaps to eight, according to the proposal of M. Scialoja. These two proposals should be examined with an eye to the proper working of the Council. The correct number for this had to be establ.iahed, and to this end it was better to choose a limited number.

In these circumstances, if, after d~ep study, the machinery proposed by Lord Cecil appeared adequate to solve the present crisis, he waf'! ready to vote with 'the majori ty of his colleagues.

M. VEVERKA thought he had heard at the end of Lord Cecil's proposal a fairly concrete suggestion which be would like to support, viz., that of referring to the Secretariat authorities, who could give thror opinion upon the possibility of the Council carrying out its work according to the two suppositions which had beeu outlined : first, I1ord Cecil's, which allowed for fourteen Members ; and, secondly, M. Sci.aloja's, which allowed for twelve, or, as a maximum, the fatal thirteeu.

It might be very useful to ask the Secretary-General whether the difference betweeu ~elve, thirteen and fourteen might be such as seriously to affect the working of the CounciL

. The CRAI1'WAN said that the Secretary-General, after having consulted, if necessary, his collaborators, might later be able to give an opiniou ou the subject. Personn.lly, ho.wever, the Chairman did not believe that any final argument in favour of twelve, thirreen, or fourteen could ever be found.

M. DE PALACIOS asked that the Secretary-General should not limit his consideration to these figures. Fifteen and sixteen had also been suggested.

The CHAnUUN asked the Secretary-General to give his tecbttioal opinion broadly on any possible number. Even eighteen, it appeared, had been proposed by the Chinese repr<~aentative.

M. Cno-Harn CHU did not see much difference between the present number of Members on the Council (ten) and the number proposed by M. Scialoja (twelve,) and th~t proposed by Lord Cecil, which was fow·teen. He would quote in this COIInectlon the Chinese ·classical adage: "It is better to have one member only, because ~n opinion is always uuanimoua". If there were two members,. opinion _was p~rha~s

d ded, but it was still possible to persuade the other pa-rty to gtve up h1s opunon m :Uer to obtain unanimity. But it was alwa.ys d,a,ngerous to have three members. The . eren~ between three aud nine was not great, beca118e there could not be m~m:l than

:Ue OPWlous, even though a matter might have mo1·e aspects than that. 'rbe dtfference tween ten and nineteen members was not grea-t.

1

-62-

The Council very much resembled a committee. There were many Collllnitt ni the League of Nations, some of which had even more than twenty mE'mbers but t~ were nll workable. It had never been complained that they did not work. If 'a Coun ey composed of ten Members wa~ not workabl~, the number should be ~ecreas~d. The ~ solution would be to reduce 1ts member~hip to one. If that were rmposs1ble, the nex best would be to have two Members. To have three was dangerous. If three Memhez! were dangerous, a greater number would be no better. If the number exceeded t~ there was no guarantee that the Council would work properly.

M. Scu..LOJA wished to comment on the remarks just made by M. Veverka. 'Then there was an idea of making a change, it must be proved that the change would be useful lf to the number ten one were added, it must be proved that this addition was of ~e. If one were added to eleven it would be necessary to prove again thap this addition .,.

33 useful, and so on. The addition of one to a number was not therefore a, matter of indifference, for the time would come when there would be no advantage in such an increase but even disadva.ntages. M. Veverka thought, on the contrary, that a number could always be increased by one; the adoption of this system would lead to the same conclusion as that of the Chinese representative, who saw no difference between the numben three and twenty and, probably, between fifty, one buudred, etc.

M. VEVERKA replied that, without expressing an opinion on a number, he had mereb wished that the Secretary-General should be asked the following question: "Would th~ difference between the numbers thirteen and fourteen hamper the proper working of the Council !"

The continuation of the dismM8ion wa~ adjo1,rned.

EIGHTH MEETING

Reid on lhiday, May 14th, 1926, at 10.30 a.m.

Chairman : M. MOTTA.

Present: AU the members of the Committee.

24. Quest.ion of the Number of the Members of the Council (continuation) : Statement by t.he Chairman.

1'he CHAIRMAN wished to dis£ipate the confusion which the discussion might ha~e caused in the minds of the members of the Committee and oi the public, and to explain once more the conditions under which the Committee was continuing its discussjons.

The question under consideration was the enlargemt>nt of the Council, or, to be more accurate, the question of the increase in the number of the Members of the Council.

There were other questions connected with this general question which appe~ed to the Committee to be indissolubly linked together. First there was the dominant question of the number of MemberR of the Council. What was t.he number of Members which would allow of rational discussion within the Council ' Connected with this question wa-s t~at of the maximum number of Members which should not be exceeded if proper discussto1

were to remain possible. Next to tbe dominant question of the number, ther.e wa& the question of the increase in tbe numbe1· of the permanent Members of the Council, an~ connected with this the question of the special demaudR which had been put for':ard b~ certain States: Spain, Brazil, Chiua, Poland and Persia; the last-named bem~ not repreRented on the Committee. This qnest.ion was also conuected with the questwu. of the increase of the number of non-permanent Members, aud, apart from the questiOn of principle whether t he latter should not be increased, there was the question of the amount of that increase. During preceding meetings the most divergent views bad been put forward on the subject.

Jn theory, the Chairman might have pro1losed that each question should be discuss~ separately . this was scarcely possible in practice, because every time a delega·te referr~ to one questiou he touched upon another, as each question exercised an influence on~ ~ other. lt was for this reason that the Committee, on the advice of its Chairman, ~ unanimously agreed that it would be a wise procedure to begin first of all a. gen~ n discussion of the various questions. It was understood that when the general discussto was terminated each question would be discussed separately. the

When the various statements which remained to be made had been presented, h t Chairman would decide in what order the discussion should be continued. He hoped t ;e by the end of the afternoon meeting the main outline of an agreement wou.ld beco. h apparent and that on the following day the Committee might take up quest10ns whtc were no longer general but questions of drafting.

-63 -

aesdon of the Num~er of the Members of. the Council ( rontinuation) : Reply from the Seeretary­~neral to the QuestiOn put by the Com.nnttee.

The CaA!l!.MI\1' read the follo.wing le.ttert which .had been se~t to him by the Secretary­in reply to the. ques~10n ratsed by _YIScount Ceml con~erning the number

of the Councli whlCh the Secretanat thought compat1ble with the proper of that body ·

"I fear that , after discussion with my colleagues on the Secretariat, it is not possible for me to e~press an o~i~on on the question which was put to me this eveniuf!. The quest10n of unanumty does not appear to us to be oue on which it is possible to offer any technical advice which would be of service to the committee in its discussiou of the problem of the number of Members on the Council. I trust that the Committee will realise that it is not from auy lack of good will that T feel bound to send you this answer."

Question of the Number of the Members of the Council (continuation) .

M. S.ToBORO said that the most important task of the Committee "Was to find a method solving thE' crisis which had arisen in the Council. This crisis was due priucipa.Uy to a

of view regarding the number of permanent seats. Efforts marle in the [)ommn;u:t: to obtain a resul t had already given rise to an agreement, provisioual it was

providing for certain modifications and exceptions to the rigid system of rotation. was to be hoped that these modifications or exceptions might result in a solution of problem. In any case, he thought that in the mind of each member of the Committee

was a close connection between these measures and the causes which had provoked events which had occurred at the last session of the Council. On the other band, he

that there was only an indirect connection between that crisis and the .question number of non-permanent seats. This being so, he thought it possible to discuss

last question with a tranquil. mind and apart from any burning question of the day. Although certain representatives ba-d put forward arguments in favour of an increase

tht> number of the non-permanent seatR, aud although there might be other arguments of this view which had not yet been developedt he was not convinced of the

of an increase, and the Italian representative appeared to be of the same view the sense that t legally speaking, his principal conclusions involved the maintenance the status quo. The Belgian representative bad emphasised the fact that the number non-permanent Members ought to be superior to the number of permanent Members.

theory might be a very good onet but he would confine himself to pointing out that the moment the number of non-permanent Members was in actual fact superior· to the

of permanent Members. If Germany, considered already as a permanent were counted, there were five permanent Members and six non-permanent

. I t was true that the number of permanent Members might be increased, since demands to that effect had been made. He in no way wished to prejudge the

of any of these demands. Nevertheless, for the sake of his calculationt he would take into account the present number of five permanent Members. Tt was possible the number of permanent seats would be increased in the fu tw·et but there would

always be time to make provision for that increase should occasion arise. The British representative had poiuted out on the previous day that the Committee

bd provisionally adopted certain amendments and certain modification. to the rigid nles goverlling the system of rotation. From this the British representative reduced lie n~sity of increasing the number of non-permanent seats, although such a request bd never been ma,de by the Assembly. He (the Swedish representative) personally liought that, even with such modifications, the system of rotation would give satisfactory ftlnlta and would make it possible to realise the hope expressed by the Assembly that it tould be more completely represented on the Council. In any case, it would be wise lo pr~ed in stages. Jft in the futuret the system of rotation did not give the hoped-fm· lfJUI~, It would always be possible to remedy that state of affairs by contemplating t1te ee&tion of new non-permanent seats . . In support of the increase of the number of non-permanent Members, it had been ~that it was necessary for the Council to reflect the va1·ious aspirations and interests

t~e States Members of the League. This desiret however, could not in any case be Jealiaed by increasing the Council by only a few Members. It was to be supposed that there was no question of a larger increase than that already proposed, that was to say, two • three seats. If it were possible to classify the States Members of the League in a small ltln~r of groups the desired result could certainly be achievedt but such was not the Q8e. • It was true that mention had been made of cert:lln groups : the countries of Latin ~en':ll, the countries of the Little E ntentet the Scandinaviau countries. But the other

1111lltries, which numbered twenty-three, or at least most of them, could not be put into wl ~oup. These desires therefore were beyond the field of practical politics. The

~Eetion might be made thatt though it was impossible to realise the ideal, it was possible, tons ~eless, to make a certain improvem~nt in the. present situation. ~be Co~nc~ as lad ~tuted at the moment did not reflect lll the dcsrred measure the vanous a.spuat10ns

lllttrests. The reply to this objection, supposing that it was well foundedt had already

-64 -

been made by the Italian representative. Tf satisfaction were given to certain and certain aspirations, the result would be an inerease of discontent and jealoully those countries which remained not represented on the Council, and this would in new cla.ims and the necessity, in order to satisfy them, of creating new seats. 'Yh would the matter end t !!t

The Belgian repr~seutative, referrin~ to ~he increase in th? uumhe~ of permau Members, had emphasised the same cous1derat10n, as was shown m the Mmut.es reco d~rt the disc:nssion. "ff the Committee be€,an", he had said, "to increase the nu~~ of permanent seats, there wa::; no means of stopping and even no reason whJ· it sb llli stop, since at each new appointmeot it would be more difficult to put. aside 0

1bt

other demands". Should not the same J'easoning he applied to the nu~ber li nou-permancnt. Reats ~

The representative of Belgium had at the same time pointed out, as an arl!um against the increase of the number of permanent seats. the fact that the Assemlily ~ passed no recommendation on ~he point. A f~rti(Jri a P!evious recommendation of lbt Assembly would h:we been delma.blf> for the mcrease of the number of uou-perman~ot seats. Although a number of recommenda-tions had been made on other questio!ll concerning the composition of the Council, at no time since the Cl'eatiou in 1922 of two ~eau had the Assembly demanded the increase of the number of non-permanent seats:

The creation of each new non-permanent seat would provoke further claims for the creat.i.on of more new seats.

What would happen to the prestige of the Assembly after these successive incr~ and, above all, how could the Council work ~ Mo1·e particularly, how could the rule ~ unanimity be safeguarded t .All members of the Committee agreed that this rule shouH be respected in principle. The representative of Spain had said that it would be applicable even with an enlarged Council, for those who did not agree with the views of the majority could merely abstain. The representative of Italy had replied with truth that, tboup such an attitude might be conceivable in the Assembly, it could not be admitted iD tie Council. He would add that everyone should have the comage of his own opinion .

.Another member of the Committee had said that to achieve unanimity it would be sufficient for everyone to be animated with good will and had explained that in the Traruil Committee, of which he was a member, thanks to the good will shown by all, everytq always succeeded. M. Sjoborg was glad to hear that that was what happened in the Tran.il Committee. In the Council, however, he thought that, :ct.espite good will, agreement was not always rea,ched. If the case had been otherwise there was no reason for the presence i1 Geneva of the members of the present Committee.

M. MONTARROYos, observing that his colleague the Swedish delegate had just refel!H to him, his name having been actually mentioned during the interpretation of the speeea into English, wished to make one observation. If it were not possible to obtain unanil:nit)' in a Council composed of ten members, as the Swedish delegate had just said, the conclusiol of the latter's argument ought to be that the Committee should endeavour to reduce anti not to increase the present number of Members of the Council.

27. Question of the Number of the l\lembers of the Council (continuatio-n) : Special Requests on 1M Part of Particular States ( continuatio1~): Statements by M. Montarroyos, M. Chao-Hsin Cbu o4 If. Sokal on the Cases of Brazil, China and Poland respectively.

M . MONTAR.ROYOS made the following statement :

I have already had the honour, in the course of our discussions, to express my view on the subject of the right granted by the Covenant to the competent bodies of the Lea~ of Nations to inCI'ease the number of the permanent Members of the Council. On seve~ occasions I have ventured to submit to you this view in such forms as circumstances and the turn of the discussion caused me to adopt - somewhat vivaciously at times, but alwayt with the courtesy which I feel to be due to you.

I shall not return to the principle laid down in the second paragraph of .Articl~ 4 of the Covenant. If I refer to that principle now it is merely to be able to note in the fU'st place that the demand of Brazil which I am t o put forward is a constitutional demand. .

My only duty now is to lay before you as briefly as possible the :reasons sbo~ng t: why the demand of BTazil is legitimate, opportune and not only compatible w1th favom-able to the interests of the League of N$tions. . __ .:t

You will call to mind the conditions under which Brazil entered the Coun~il. Brau; counts it an honour to have helped the founders of the League of Natioas. Mmdful t.l!al it was among the 'builders of the structure of Versailles, one of the most humble but ro~ devoted of those workers, Brazil is conscious of her responsibilities and ha,s never left 1 path laid down for her by her continual regard for her duty t'Owa1'ds ·the Leagne. 't 111 Chosen by the Covenant Itself, when the organisation of Geneva was created, ~o s1•

001 one of the non-permanent Members of the Council, Brazil so well fulfilled her obligatl nd that even in 1921 the first de1egate of Chile, M. Agustin Edwards, proposed to the seeo 01 Assembly the establishment of a permanent sea.t for Brazil at ·the same time as a permsne seat for Spain. I t was thus that the candidature of Brazil was irrevocably initiated.

- 6()

During the fourth Assembly t.he same Chili~n delegate, .M. Edwards, whose prest:lg6 ad been increased by the authonty he had gamed as President of the third A.ssembly ~newed his proposal that Brazil should be admitted as a permanent Member of th;

Q6uncil. f d b h · Among the reasons pu~ orwar ot m 1921 and 192? ~y M. Edwa1·d~ to justify his-ropoeal there was one. which may ~e regarded as .th~ prmc1pal, because 1t characterises

rbe foundations on wh1ch the candidature of Brazil 1s based : namely, the necessity of ensuring the representation in the Council of . all the great politic~! currents of opinion etisting in the Assembly. The League of N ~~Ions, M. Edwar~s said, would lose its true character if it neglected to adapt the compositiOn of the CounCil to that of the Assembly, The two organisations of the League ought to work in perfect harmony and agreement. Their duties were ~omplementary, and, M. Edwar?s added, the day on which the composition of the Assembly ~f~red from that of the Counc~, t?e League would run ~~e risk of seeing serious disputes ansmg between the two orgamsations. One of the political currents of opinion to whic~ M·. 'Edwards refe~red was that represented by the who!e body of Latin· American countries. Hence the claim for a permanent seat for the Amencan continent.

It was in this manner that the candidature of Brazil was connected from the very first with the necessity of securing the representation on the Council of the American continent.

In what sense has Brazil understood its candidature ! It did not lightly accept its responsibility. First its candidature was the concrete form

given, by the initiative of M. Edwards, to the claim for a permanent seat for the American continent. The Government of the Republic of Cuba, whose memorandum is before you, bas expressed a similar view.

Brazil did not lightly accept her responsibility for still other reasons. She has been seeking since that time to find the criterion according to which States capable of being permanent Members of the Council should be chosen. Various attempts have been made to do this. This is not the moment for me to cri~icise the suggestions which have been put forward. I will merely explain to you the Brazilian conception of the matter.

The Brazilian conception is founded on the fundamental principle of the universality of the League of Nations, which is the essential condition for its existence. Universality is not merely obtained by the number of States constituting the League. It is necessary for those States to be permeated by a spirit of interdependence, though they are free at the same time as they are permeated with a spirit of fraternity which should govern their relations.

It will be seen that the Brazilian conception of the permanent composition of the Council is a consequence of this principle of universality, if consideration is given to the manner in which that universality should be expressed, and, accordingly, the reasons why Brazil determined to put forward her candidature can be understood. In order to give decisive proof that the League of Nations has become really universal, it is necessary- and this is almost a truism - that its beneficent action should be felt throughout the world. This action, however, can only be effectively exercised if it assumes different forms compatible with the needs and particular tendencies of the various groups into which the peoples of the world have been divided according to their affinities. For that, therefore, it is necessary to divide the world into parts each composed of States practically homogeneous as regards their relationship to the League of Nations. It is obvious that to define these spheres of influence a purely geographical standard is insufficient. It is a question of arriving at a kind of sociological delimitation. This principle being established, the problem of the composition of the Council, that is to say, the composition of the supreme body which initiates and directs the universal action of the League, will be solved.

When it is asked how the permanent element in the Council should be formed, it can ~e seen at once, in the light of the preceding considerations, that the .question ~hich arises 18 what States can best assure the permanent interests of the League m the various spheres of infiuence or groups of peoples to which I have just referred.

And in conformity with the rules of the Covenant, this would be the decisive criteri~n for choosing those States which should be called upon to sit permanently on the CouncLl.

If it is admitted - and I do not see how it can fail to be admitted - that South America, or, if you like Latin America, constitutes one of the spheres of influence of which I have just spoken, it 'must be recognised that Brazil is the State which there can best assure the permanent interests of the League of Nations.

M. Edwards, in 1923, said that the permanent place which it was necessary to find for America might be given to Brazil, bt>cause Bra.zil - I quote the exact words of M:. Edwards - waR the most important State of South America. . In support of the candidature of Brazil and of the reasons on ~hich this ca~dida~ure 18 based there must now be added the considerations connected With the meanmg g1ven as r_egards the question now under exa~nation to. the expression "t~e Ameri?an contment''. When we consider the AmeriCan contment from the pomt of VIew of the request of Brazil for a permanent seat, we are not only confronted with the concrete geographical fact nor are we considering the groups of States which are the outcome of the sole fact of r~ce : we have in view a community of nations having common traditions and real affinities explained by the same legal tendencies, directed to~ar?-s universal peace and representing from this aspect the most advanced legal tendencies m the world to-day.

-66-

.. You are a ware that in the sociological American group th~e are three tYPes: th

.A.oglo-Sa~on, the Spanish-American and the Portuguese-AmeriCan type. It was the honour of Port.uguese America to h.ave been proposed for ~he o~ly _Permaueut place on tb: Council which wn.s :ud<ed for by Clule. I llaYe already briefly mdicated the causes of tb· choice ao<l I will n.ot for the momeut insist. any further upon the matter. 1

. Such are the reasons which cau!3ed Brazil to agree to put fo~ward its candidature and from that moment Brazil naturally became one of the champ1onR of the pcrmaneni repro..;eutatiou of the A:merican co~tinent on the Council. I~ accepting_ this mle of champio~; of the American contment, Brazil has no ueed for a specwl delegat10n of power by anv of the States of tl1at continent. ·

In acc_orclan~c with the legal arguments whi_ch M. de. ~ello-~ranco h~s explained iu terms w1t~1 wlnclt all the l\Iembers of th~ CounCil M'f\ fam1liar, t~n~ .delcgn.~10n of power would be qmte unnecessary to enable Brazil to assume the respons1b1lity for 1ts initiati1·e I will briefly indicate wb::tt,exaetly were th<' legal reasons puL fol'ward hy M. de Mello-Franco. Brazil, as an in tegral part of the territory of the American coutiuent, has the right, like a01:

other of her American rolleagues, to present a claim on behalf of the New World jus·t ai' on its own account it has the right to pre~eut its candidature for a seat the cr~ation of. wliich is fuUy just.ificd.

1 t cannot be mnintn,incd that tbe previous n.uthorisation of all the America.n States is necessa.r.v for the exercise of the first of these rights, for, as Brazil has the same iuterest~ as these States, each of the associated com1tries is authorised to defend those interests a~ though they were the priYate interests of a single one of them ; ret~ S?ta p1·opria ayitur.

As I have already said, "Brazil has accepted the role of champion on behalf of the permanent reprN;euta.tion of t.he .American continent ou th~ Couucil. Yon will remember that the <lclegate of Chile, M. Edwards, bad all'eady claimed a permanent seat. After the obserYat.ions, considerations and claim. put forward hy M. Edwards at a time when the League of Nations comprised ouly forty-eight members, Brazil, examining the position agaiu, when this number had considerably increased, arrived at the condusiou, based 011 considerations of p1·oportion, that, in view of the legal equality o.f the natioM in Lhe JJeague and the necessity of having the various political curre11ts of opinion represented on the Council, it was necessary Lo claim for Latin America not one but two permanent seat. on the Council.

IL is easy to show how this proportion was obtained. The League of Nations includes tw('nty-six Entopean and nineteen Americau Member~. If :1 proportion is established between these two numbers and the total number, the conclusion is reached that Latin America has aright to two permanent seats on the Council. Moreover, the Council include~ ten Mcn1berl', of which seven are European, two American a.nd one Asiatic. On the entr)' of Germany ca.ch group of seven European States will have &nc permanent I'epresentative on the Council, and each group of three European Stn.Les will have a. representn.tiYe on the C'ouncil, whe1·eas the nineteen American States are· only represented by two non-permanent Members.

Jn theso circumstances. Brazil claims for the American continent two permanent seats ou the Council. It goes without saying that Brazil in no WU~'y claims the right to represent the American continent, and for these two seats the States of Latin America which desire to do so can put forward theh· candida.tur<>. The right which :Rrazil exercises, hecaui'e she possesses it, is that of defending the claim conceming the permanent represeutation of the AmericaH continent on tlle Council; to this end, Brazil has only employed, up f o the present, the constitutional methods imposed hy this duty. ft wa~ in order to carry out this duty that Brazil acted in the wa.y which is known to everybody during the Asf'embly of last :March - a fact to which I beg to refer since 1·eferenre bas often beon made here to the events which took place at that time.

M. Aristidc Briand, Pre. ideut of the French Council, bas decla.red before the French Parliament that the attitude adopted by Brazil during the :March Assemb,ly was wrongly accused of being egotistical. We were happy to note that the President of t11e Fren~h <'onucil in thi~ way did justice to the attitude of Brazil. But it is not sufficient to rccog!U8e that Brazil had defended a continental cause ; it is necessary to add that, e-ren when Brazil pnt forward her candidature, her attitude was not egotistical, for it must be admitted for the reasons of which l\1. Edwards gave the substance that Brazil's candidature is of international interest : it is for that reason that Brazil mainta,ins it .

I might further develop before you in a more extensive manner the qualifications of Brazil for a permanent seat, but I prefer to indicate them briefly, persuaded as I am that you wiU be able yourselves to develop my arguments in the way which is due to thc~l. M. de Mello-Franco has already, on several occasions, explained these qualifica.tions. I wdl refer only to the more essential. . In the group of the American nations, considered as representing the most advanced legal cmrent in the direction of universal peace, Brazil has always played a part which can be described by the expression "international devotion" . In her dealings with .the Republics of South America the policy of Brazil has always been marked by this quality . . Each of its sister and .neighbour Republics will bear witness to the fact.

There is another qualification. Brazil is the pioneer of arbitration between ·the nations. I am happy in this connection to recall the words which I have heard recently, which I even have heard spoken on several occasions by om· distinguished Chairman, M. )fott:l: "Brazil, the country of arbitration .. . " Brazil has always been the champion of disarmament,

-61-

this is a further qualification justifyin~ it~ ~andidature. ~he traditional policy of and . is not a policy of. wo~ds nor even of mdiVIdual undertakings ; it is a policy firmly B~ on the legal orgamsat10n of our country. You know that recourse to arbitration for baS ttlement of international disputes is obligatory for Brazil according to the terms of these .

constitution. ber II you will permit me to show you what is and has been and may always be the role of

razi1 in the League, I w~ refer to certain examples. You will r~member the Conference of Barcelona in 1921. J:.. c~atm .was put forward for freed?m of trans1t: Two cu.rrents of opinion B einto conflict wtthin thts Confe:ence OJ?- tb~ questiOn of the po~nt to whtch such freedom ~bt be recognised. I spoke on thiS questwn m the name of Brazil - for I bad the honour ~·;present my coun try ot;t tha.t o~asion as m~mber of the d.elegation of which my famous

ntry-fellow M. Demetrio Rtbeuo was Ohauma.n- I satd: "The freedom for which ~~ask to-day has b~en granted to you by Brazil ~or .a very long time". In 1921, freedom !r transit had for thtrty years been one of the prmetples guaranteed by the Brazilian Constitution. In fact, ~or. three-quarters of a ce~t~y, Brazil has ensure~ on her territory tbeapplication of the pl'llletple of freedom of transit smce she had already gtven free access to tbe Atlantic Ocean to the neighbouring States. The freedom which the League of Nations, was demanding in 1921 had already been granted by Brazil to all the countries of the world. For these reasons, at the Conierence of Barcelona, Brazil played the part of a mediator, and this is the par t which it may continue to play in many cases within the League of Nations and, above a ll , in the Council.

As a. collaborator in the work of the League of Nations, Brazil can boast that it has never impeded the regular progress of its proceedings. It has always, on the contrary, facilitated the development of the League. Whatever may be said, Brazil has always defended the superior interests of the League of Nations without exception. As a non­permanent Member of the Council, Brazil has facilitated the entry of other nations as non-permanent Members, and it has not hesitated to rat ify spontaneously, as one of the first States to do so, the amendment to Article 4 of the Covenant- au amendment which many States might believe to be contrary to its special interest.s.

Brazil is concerned in no international dispute. If the Committee will look at the frontiers of Brazil - I am thinking at this moment of a document which has been distributed by the delegation of Austria - it will realise the international importance of Brazil. Around it are grouped almost all the countries of South America. The trade of some of these countries crosses Brazil, and depends, to a large extent, on th~ facilities which the large Brazilian rive1·s, as, for example, the Amazon, afford them.

Brazil is conscious of the ut ility of its action for the development of the League, though it does not forget its modest position in the international concert. In any case, it is certain that the League of Nations can do nothing in South America without the assistance of Brazil. Naturally, it is always disposed to help the League in any circumstances, bu t it is necessary, however, to emphasise the indisputable fact that the assistance of Brazil in South America is necessary for the League.

I do not wish to assert that Brazil imposes her candidature. She bas never dreamt of doing so. It goes without saying that the Assembly is free and that Brazil holds that it should always do its work in complete freedom. As a summary and conclusion of the considerations which I have just put before you, I must repeat that .Brazil claims two permanent seats for Latin America. The necessity of increasing the number of permanent Members is evident, as M. Edwards has said, in order to secure the utmost harmony between the Council and the Assembly. The increase is also necessary for the better working of the Council- a consideration which disposes of the misgivings of our distinguished colleagues ill!. Scialoja and Matsuda, since, without harmonious relations between the Council and the Assembly, the Council cannot possibly work as it should . . In these circumstances, the Government of Brazil hopes that the reform of the Council

w_ill meet the need for the permanent representation of the American continent within this directing organ of the League of Nations. Moreover, convinced that it is impossible to regard the motives which have determined Brazp to ask for a permanent seat on the Council as having any other source than its desire to contribute to the utmost of its power ~o the universality of the League, and convinced that the candidature of Brazil is of ~ternational interest, the Brazilian Government hopes that the League of Nations will not mcrease the numbers of the permanent Members of t he Council without agreeing to the request which I have the honour to present.

!'I: CnAo-HsiN Cau explained that the request presented by China w~th a view to obtauung a permanent seat was based on various considerations. It was qU1te clear that the case of China was well founded and be hoped that his colleagues would receive his statement with broadness of mind a~d would decide the question in the Light of justice.

F.rom a geographical point of view the qualificat ions of China were i~disputable .. China OCCupied a considerable portion of the Asiatic continent and a cons1~erable J?Ortwn. of the part of the world which was under the influence of the League. China was, m reality, almost as large as the whole of Europe, and a single one of its provinces was as extensive as any country in Europe. The population of China was larger t han that of any other country and comprised one-quarter of the total population of .the worl~ ... These peo_Ple were human beings in t he real acceptance of the term, peace-lovmg and ctvlhsed. In v1ew

-68-

of the size of the country and the number of its inhabitants, no nation in the world better qualified than China to claim a permanent seat on the Council. ..-.,

From an economic point of view, the request of China was not less justified resources of the country were very great and almost unlimited. According to a dis tin ·uia The geologist, the province of Shansi could alone supply the world with coal for 4,000 ye:r• h~ China had many other economic potentialities of a similar character. Furthermore ~h!a was a great international market. Her doors were kept open for commercial inte;cou and her consumption of a very large quantity of foreign goods had benefited a large num~ of industrial nations. Could anyone deny China's claim to be treated as a great Power . view of her economic potentialities ~ Ill

The request of China for a permanent seat was also justified by reason of her ancient civilisatiou. The his tory of China could be clearly traced for 4,000 years. She was proud of having prodnced one of the greatest teachers of morality, namely : Confucius. 8ht had hundreds of other philosophers whose teaching covered the whole field of moden philosophy. She was proud of possessing the largest encyclopredia in the world Which attained hundreds of thousands of volumes. Tbi-; encyclopredia, compiled under th~ CLin• dynasty, still existed in manuscript, of which there were only four copies. It was no; in course of being reproduced, and when the work was finished he would propose to hi& Goverumeut that it would constitute one of the most useful gifts which China might make to the League of Nat ions for the pUl'pose of international intellectual co-opemtion. Could a nation with RO rich a literature, with a history so ancient, and with so immemorial a cultme be refused the place to which she laid claim among the great Powers of the world a.nd on equa.l footing with them ~

China, n·om eve1·y point of view, was in no way inferior to the great Power~, ex~.ept perhaps in respect of military foi'ce. Her deficiency in this respect was, however, only momentary. China had to-day modern arms and ammunition, and one aud a·half million of her citizens were at present soldi<>rs. When they la.id down their arms, which they wert now using fur interual politics, China would at once he dassificd in the category o[ the great military Powers. 1\forPover, according to the saying of Confuei.uf.l, "Brothers may fight each other within the wall, yet they slHl.Il be united for external defen ce: :. Rm now, though their soldiers were fighting for political supremacy, the menta.lity of the poople held that there was not much disadvantage in such fighting, which was but a manreuvre of the inexperieltced soldjers who were being trained for national 1lefence iu the ncar fu tun'. Some day, to the astonishment of t.he world, China would claim her right to be on an equal footing with the great military Powe.rs, but the Chinese intellE'<>.tual cla.ss held that militarif.lm should be discouraged. China h::td her own national characteristic,~, whi~b had enabled her to live for many thousands of years, and she did not depend on military force a.s a means of existence.

From the point of view of international politics, Chinrc occupied in the Far Rast a very important geographical position. She held the key to the peace of the world.

According to paragraph 6 of Article 4- of the Covenant, the Council might deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of the world. l f this were so, a permanent sea.t on t.he Council should be giYcn to any nation whose international posit ion might he developed to such an extent as to endanger the peace of the world.

Tn conclusion, he would a~k his colleagues for the favourable consideration of the application of China. Chinese co-operation was very important for the world, and ber co-operation with the League was therefOl'e most deflirahle.

China did not claim mel'ely the honour of heing in a position to play an important part in the activity of the League, which was maintaining the peace of t.he worlfl. When China was a permanent Member of the Conneil, the sc:ope of the activity of the Leagu~ would be enlarged and it.s prestige increased. The Council had nothing to lose and everything to gain by electing a great country like Chiua as a permanent :Member.

Finally, he would point out that Chiua bad put forward her claim for a perman.ent seat on the Council following the e~ample of othe1· Powers which had put forward claw~s for similar reasons. Acting on the instructions which he had received from hls Government, h~ had to declare that, if the Commit.tee unanimously decided that o1~ly one permaneut seat wa~; to be given for the benefit of Germn,ny, China would be qmt: willing to withdraw her request in order to preserve the harmony which should prev1ul in au internat ional gathering, provided that the similar claims of other Powers were also withdrawn.

M. SOKAL thought that, if the Committee desired to formulate a concrete suggestiou during its present session, it was indispensable to give special attention to one of t.he priucipal aspects of the problem. .

It wa.s the task of the Committee to submit to a thorough study the questiOns concerning the composition of the Council, together with the number and the method of election of those Members, t.aking into account the requests which had so fn,r been formulated by the various Members of the League. . . a

The problem of the enla.rgement of the Council by the addition of new Members s1tt~nt> as of l'ight had been studied in detail and in a very careful and thorough manner .dunng the months preceding the special session of the Assembly in March, as well as durwg . th~ whole period of that Assembly. The requests by the various countries, aud among others

-69-

nest of Poland, wa.s perfec~ly we!l known. He did not think that it would be possiblt> the~ by taking part m the discusston o~ the probl~m, to add many new factors which for hi ~t common knowledge. Be accordmgly felt 1t necessa1·y to devote his attention ,.~ !Iarlr to the 11uestion which he considered to be essential, namely: what must be the var;;cnomber of the l\!embers of the Council which would enable the crisis which had existed 1~1 the month of l\!arch to be settled. StDC8Above all, account must be take~ of th.e real reason "~hich had giYen rise to this cl'isi::. Tbes& reasons must not be sought etthcr m the proportJon between the permanent and

. rmanent Members nor in the discontent manifested by any particular State. As ~rfnand had justly Baid in a speeC'~ .which he ba~ made at the historic meeting of the ~erobly on March 17th, 192(), the cns1~ tbrou~h wh10h the ~eague of Nations was passing

88 a disease incident to growth. Th1s explamed cverythmg. The task of the League

;{Nations contin.ued to grow .larger. The !Je~gue assumed new ~urdens and responsibilities bich were contmuaUy beav1e~. The Counc~ o~ the League, m order to deal with these

~ponsibilities, must necessanly, as t he. prmmpal regul~tor of intcrna,tiomtl activity, develop and become a complete representatiOn of the forces, mterests and grca,t international robleros on which t he maintenance of peace depended.

P He was sure that no one, and particularly no one among his colleagues who had ooUaborated in founding the League of Nations, would contradict him when he stated that the composition of the Council at the moment of its constitution, as well as during its aobsequent evolution, had always been determined by political neces ities arising out of the international situation. Neither the total number of the l\Iembers of the Council nor the number of permanent or non-permanent Members bad been regarded as questions of principle. In these circumstances, it was necessary in the first place to set aside any possibility of maintaining the stattts quo in considering what should be at present the total number of the l\fembers of t he Council. It was clear that if the stat1ts quo could be maintained, the present Committee would never have been appointed. It would be easy to show that it was not by any particular system of rotation that t he crisis could be settled. The proof of this was that the Assembly, in spite of its keen desire to establish a system of rotation, bad, guided by a remarkable political wisdom, been led regularly to re-elect almost all the non-permanent Members, being unable to ensure a just representation from the political point of view in default of a sufficient number of seats.

There was therefore no other means available except by increasing the number of seats on the Council, adding, of course, an a1)propriate system of rotation. Almost all the members of the Committee bad agreed that an enlargement of the Council was indispensable. The question was to determine the exact number of seats \vbich were necessary in order that the Council might work usefully and effectively. It was, however, necessary not to look at the question merely from the point of view of the technical organisation of the Council. It was quite clear that a too large Council would become a machine so cumbersome and so difficult to work that it would be unable to act at all. On the other hand, if, in t he desire to attain the maximum of technical perfection for the Council, the Committee put on one side t he particular task for which the League of Nations and its Council had been created, it would, by the paths of prudence, be running to an extreme of imprudence. By saving the mechanism of the Council it would run the risk of compromising its mission.

There could be no question of examining in the Committee whether the Council, for its good working, should have fourteen, fifteen or sixteen Members. He had already drawn the attention of his colleagues to t he fact that the unanimity of the Council depended not on the number of its Members but on the divergence of their interests . When examining the composition of the Council from the point of view of its working and, in the first place, from the point of view of its political necessities, Viscount Cecil had arrived at the figure fourteen. M. Paul-Boncour had already stated that be would propose the same figure, on the understanding that it could not be considered indispensable, and he had evidently only done so after a very careful examination of the matter. It seemed that the representatives of Belgium, Japan and Czechoslovakia bad arrived at the same conclusion. Personally, af~ much reflection, he also considered that the figure fourteen \Vould enable the crisi8 to be settled without impairing the good working of the Council.

It was not necessary to define more clearly the reasons in favour of the figm·e fourteen ~ the total number of the Members of the Council. It was, of course, understood that this figure did not include the United States of America and Russia. ~ conclusion, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, by

~optmg the figure fourteen, it would probably be able to meet all the requirements which ad emerged during the recent crisis. The experience acquired during the seven years

0.f the history of the League bad shown that it was necessary to have on the Council, by the ~d~ of the permanent Members, a continuous representation of the States which were mdiapensably bound up with the great international problems on which the maintenance and consolidation of peace depended. .

The same experience had shown the necessity of ensuring by a system of rotatwn ~representation for the geographical groups or for other States, as \Veil as for particular ,t~tes whose temporary presence on the Council might be deemed necessary by the ~embiy.

~t :vas the figure fourteen which, without doubt, would make it possible, by ~he application of the principles contained in the draft of Viscount Cecil, to meet all reqwre­ments. Another system might, however, be devised which, within the limits of the figure

-70-

fom·teen, would achieve by some other means the same results. Finally, it was clear tb by a-dopting this figure there would be a possibility of carefully safeguarding the autho _at of the Assembly as well as that of the Council of the League. nty

T he contimwti<m of the cliscntssion ·zoas adjo·un~d to the following meeting.

NINTH MEETING

Held on Friday, May 14th, 1926, at 4 p.m.

Chairman : l\{. MOTTA.

P1·esent : All the member~ of the Committee,

28. Question of tbe Number of the Members of the Council ( contin·uation).

M. FROMAGEOT said that the Committee had heard general obl3ervations and that special observations bad been made by the Spanish, Brazilian, Chinese and Polish representatives. None would be more pleased than the French Government to see theu countries receive satisfaction as regards the wishes they had expressed, but these special questions were perhaps of a nature to be decided a little later on, and his present observations would refer particularly to those made by t he Swedish delegate at the last meeting.

First of all, with what difficulties did the Commi ttee find itself confronted ' \\"hat was the problem which it had to solve ?

On many sides a desire had been expressed that the number of Council Members should be increased, A number of countries had expressed a desire to be represented upon the Council. On the other hand, a considerable number of Powers had expressed appreheruion at seeing the Council grow in number. Arguments had been put forward on both sides, and these merited the deepest consideration. At fu·st sight it would seem that the two points of view were irreconcilable. Nevertheless, it was necessary to find means of reconciling them, and, as always in such cases, a solution was only to be reached by modifying each proposal a little in such a way that it was possible to approach a solution which would be acceptable to everybody.

In the second place, he would ru·aw the Committee's attention to t he essential character of the Council.

The Council bad often been defined as emanating from the Assembly and as a kind or representation of it. This would not seem to be the correct idea if reference were made to the text of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 2 of the Covenant was, in fact, couched in these terms : "The action of the League under this Covenant shall be effected through the instrumentality of an Assembly and of a Council with a permanent Secretariat". The Council should not therefore really be looked upon as a real representation of the Assembly, but both should be regarded as parallel bodies, although the Assembly participated in the composition of the Council.

The first scheme originally presented, which served as a. basis for the development of the Covenant , said : "According to the clauses of the present Covenant, the functio~ of the High Contracting Parties will be exercised by meetings of their delegates, by meetmgs at closer intervals of an executive committee representing countries particularly inter~ ted in questions under discussion, and by an international Secretariat permanently established in the League capital" . What the founders of the League apparently had in view "~s that the Council should be composed of countries "specially interested". How was it posSJble_to determine this ' Apart from the special interests which were possessed by the Powers ~h1rb founded the League, the special responsibility of certain Powers, from the standpotnt of world peace, should be taken into consideration. .

There w~re, in fact, Powers, nations and peoples which had commercial, econom:c and financial interests in all pa1·ts of the world a.nd which accordingly partkipated m the economic life of thEe\ whole world. Ry the very fa(lt of the extension oi their int.ere~t~ thr(\ughout the world, th~re was a risk of a confli<'t of interests, and a confhct 0

interestR might- unfort-unately, history made this only too clear- result in wa.rs. Tbde object of the League was es~entially to avoid :umed conflicts, :wd, consequently, 1t coul not be contested tha,t such Powers were mainly .interested and that their presence on the Couucil was justified and even necessary. .

Beside these PowerE;, there wm·e other States, other nat-ions, which, withou t lutvt~g interests so widely spread in all conn tries, vet indirer.tly bad one intere~t, viz., that .\ ~ Powettt the interests of which extended over the whole face of the world should not ligld one another, so that the less-important States- if one could describe t.bem t-hus -_cuu1. live quietly and realise peacefully their social, economic and other progress, so senous) imperilled when conilicts raged between what were called the great Powers. There ""as therefore reason to take into consideration the indirect interest of this secondary catego~ of PowP.rs, and of the right that this interest gave them to representation on the Coun of the League.

-71-

Bow was the solution of this problem approacht>d wht>n the Covenant wa~ prepared ~ efereuce were made to the work which was done in 1919, it would he sc<'n that France,

If rL rd Cecil had already recalled. proposed that the Council of t he League shoulcl be as 0

0sed of fifteen Members. It would ::..I so be ~een. that the Scaudina,i:l n <.'ounLl'ies had

:pasked for fifteen Memb~rs au~ that the Swedi~h GovernmeL~, in pnrtic.ular- he uued M. Sjoborg to fo.rgtve ~his re~erence, which was not mtended to con test

~"observations -had wtshed, If poss1ble, that the number of rcpre '!•nta,tives of

1~ Eecondary Powers <?n t he E xecu tive ~ouncil should he incrcas<'d. These States llarl th reforo eviuced a deslfe- States to which be could only refer to as secondary because th: swedish OoYc:n·nmeut bad thus referred to t hem - to participate iu t he work of t,lle Council of the League, it being in their interests that t he other nations should not go to war.

Without returning to t he detailR of the. subsequent discussions to which refereuce bad already been made, such 'Yere the conditions under whi.ch A~ticle 1 of t~1e <'ownn.n t bad been framed and under whwb had bee11 set up the CouHctl wh1<:h wns <lc~I'Ht<'<l to meet ror the first time in 1920 and whi?h was later· increased hy two MemrJcr,-, ir1 1922.

What had been proposecl for tho solution of the present crish:, tho ugh the word crisis was perhaps unnecessarily strong '

Lord Cecil had proposed a. system which, whilst limiting in certain respects the cbanres of each State to sit on t he Council, i ncreased them in other wny:;. Thi~ sy~t<'m consisted in making partial elections while increasing the . 11 mnb('J' of rcprcK<'nt::ttives elected by the Assembly. The number of these representatives was thereby incre~H:;e<l to nine, but, on the other hand, they were to be elected by thirds.

The 11ystem of part ial rotation aml the figmc nine were intimately bounu up ouc '"ith another and he could not do better than recall the expressions which .M. Scialoja had used a.t a previous m eeting.

"Paragraph 1 (of t he proposals of Lord Cecil), whic.h reierrcu to a tet·m of three years and assumed one-third of the Members to he elected each year, presupposed t he unmber ni ue. No one was actually t·hiukinp: (If reducing the number of elected Members to three, these being at present ~ix. Thi~ actual figure appearing insufficient, it had been nece~sary in Lord Cecil's proposal to increase it to nine, if not to t welve. Consequently, the fourth parap:mph of Lord Cecil's prO})Osals, according to which three Members wou ld be elected for a term of three years, wa.s implicit in paragraph 1. :'

It would be unbecoming to repea.t the arguments so elearly atlva1weti IJy !Jord Cecil at one of the last meetings when he had shown how necesRary the number nino was to Sl'Cure effective representation of the M~mbers of the r.eaguc.

M. Soialoja had 1·emarked that, in increasing the number of l\Ioml>crs elected by the Assembly, the risk of cliscontent was also increased. · Rut did not l'>UCh di:;contenL actually exist at tlle presAnL time"' The Committee would not creatt' it. TL \vas, on Lhc eontnuy, asked to remove it , and it would appear that the system propo;ed by Lo1·d Cecil was best able, so far as it was humanly possible to remoYe human discontent, to mccL this desit·e.

An objection had also been made that, in effect, if nine were adopted as the number, rotation would no longer be effective, since for every nine members cle<:t eel three would be re·eligible. The argument had been to the effect tllat with six the ~<y~tem would be equally satisfacto1·y. Bnt. i! exception were taken to the fignre nine llf'causr thrf'c n~u·permanent Members were re-eligible, t he system of rotation would work ~ti ll worse WJt.h only six elected Members.

Another objection had been made that each time a l\Iembcr wn~> add<'d to l he Council a n~w change was made and that it was necessary to prove each lim<' thr necesRity of adding another unit. Could it not, however, be maintained that, in I't•alit~· , the problem wa~. ~ot to make a. first change by t he addition of a new l\femiJcr, a 8c<·OJHl chauge by the additiOn of a second 1\fember, and a third cbanf!e by the addition of ~ third, but to discover whether there was any need to make a change and ill what. conditions that change shuuld be ma.de ? The necessity for snch a change was the resnlt of thP. siluation in which the Counc.il found itself. Tf that situation did not exist, t he preseHt Commit.tce wonld not b~ve met and would not. l1ave been asked to discover how a. clm.ngc should be effected.

. A.uother objection had been made that unanimity was already difficult, to obtaill WJt,h a. small number of Members, aud that it wonld be far more <liificult if th<' memberRhip of the. Council were increased. Theoretically, it conlrl be admitted thaL there waR some trut.h In that objection, bnt should not it also be consid<>red that, politica.U)' speaking, when tbree. Powers were in dispute, or even only two, they were each on a footiug of verfect ~ua.~ty whf'n they tried to convince each other mutua~ly, but t hat, . w~1en there was a arger number of Powers ·- if, for e:k.ample: ten were of the same optmon aud opposed

to o~e or two who were Qf a different opinion -· the balance was no longer 0<1 ual and ~mmity could therefore more easily be obtained. From the a r.i t_hmet icnl J:?Oint of view

wa.s, perhaps, a somewhat singu1ar proposal, but the politiCal expenence Of the :mb~rs of the Committee ought, he thought, to convince them thn.t there was some

th m this contention.

-72-

. Further, in view of the fact that for the fnture all the States which now had a eb of entering the Council would only have that chanee every three ye:us, would it not be ~ce in order to re-establish the present situation as far as they were concernE'ls~ counterbalance, by increasing the numher of seats, this reduction of their chance' ~~ entering the Council ' ~ 0

Did it not, then, appear, if the proposal of Viscount Cecil were accepted, provisionaJJ at least, by most of the members of the Committee - each having the right, however

1Y

make any reservations regarding t he results thus obtained - that this proposal provision~U 0

adopted might usefully be taken for the purpose of a fh·st reading ' It would seem that thy Committee would _thus achieve sol'!lethin~ usef~, that it w~:mld acquire a p_relinunary b~ise a result recorded m black and white, which nugbt be re-d1scussed and re-mvestigated at~ second reading. The complexity of the problems faced by the Committee justified the utmost prudence, before each member, so far as he was concerned, agreed to provisions which were of grave import for his Government.

:M. Fromageot, speaking personally, could do no more than expresti a warm hope that the Committee, subject to individual reservations, would retain the proposals of Viscount Cecil as proposals admitted for the purposes of a first reading.

l\f. GUANI said that the Committee was faced with a problem which concerned the future working of the League of Nations and of which the gravity was not open to doubt. The problem 'vas both constitut-ional and political in character. Much good will, which he personally hoped and desired would be forthcoming, was therefore necessary, if a solution were to be fotmd giving satisfaction both to the principles at stake and to the actual faets.

What bad been said by some of the preceding speakers was perfectly true. There was no formal recommendation adopted by the .Assembly regarding the increase in the number of the non-permanent Members of the Council, and apart from the amendment introduced in 1922 no definite recommendation of that kind had been made by the .Assembly. Did this, however, mean that at the present moment, especially after the gra,·e crisis of March, such an increase would be inopportune or not particularly desirable t

He did not wish to examine the complex question whether it was preferable to harea very small or a large Council. I t would be weLl for t he Committee, however, to note that even those who supported proposals for a small Council, which would obviously be more easily workable and which would more easily achieve unanimity, bad also admitted tbe possibility of an increase. Some of them had even adopted almost the same figure as that contained in the proposal of Viscount Cecil; the difference was only one.

He wondered therefore whether so small a difference could so modify the problem as to make it impossible to adopt a solution which, politically, seemed very opportune and very desirable, and he was therefore in agreement with the proposal of Viscount Cecil to the effect that the Council should be increased by raising the number of non-permanent Membei'S to nine.

Further, be desired to recall the fact that in the resolution adopted in March last by the Council, which indicated approximately the various subjects which would have to be discussed by the Committee, it was laid down that "the Committee shall bear in mind the various proposals on the subject which have been previously discussed by the Council or the .Assembly and, in particular, the resolution regarding geographical and other considerations repeatedly adopted by the latter body" .

.At the last ordinary Assembly, one of the recommendations adopted which repeated recommendations adopted by preceding .Assemblies was as follows :

"The Assembly reiterates the following recommendation adopted unanimously by the .Assemblies of 1922, 1923, 1924 :

"'It is desirable that the .Assembly, in electing the six non-permanent Members of the Council, should make its choice with due consideration for the main geographical divisions of the world, the great ethnical groups, the different religious tra{titions, the various types of civilisation and the chief sources of wealth.'''

Further, it was apparent fl·om other documents that, both in the Assembly and in the Committees, numerous opinions bad been expressed concerning the necessity, in or~er to achieve a just organisation of the Council, to have represented upon it the tendenmes of the various types of civilisation and the various parts of the world represented in the .Assembly. .

He would venture to explain his views in regard to the .American continent, of which his country formed a part.

He thought that the fundamental object of the Council of the League was ~~st. to maintain the peace of the world. Its next duty was to perform the mission of conciliat~on which had been entrusted to it. Finally, it had to use all possible means of pres~rvtng humanity from the disaster of war. He believed that the appointment on the Cou~Cll of a definite number of representatives of .American States would contribute very effectively to the realisation of this programme. .

What, indeed, a~rding to the Preamble of the Covenant, were the considerations which had governed the constitution of the League of Nations after the terrible catastroj~e of 1914 ' It bad been the desire, first, to develop co-operation between nations an :o

-- 73-

abroad a feeling o~ international solidaritY_; secon.dly, to make the greatest effort to t war and to purush attempts at agg~·ess1on; thirdly, to observe and cause to be

prtveD ed by the peoples of the world the precepts of international law. obse;om these vari?us poin~s o~ view, Latin Ame~ca could b?th usefully and effectively

. ~te. Internattonal solid~r1ty was .at the ~a~1s of th~ policy o~ the whole continent. co 0m the time when the countn es of L~tm Amenca had en}oye.d an m~ependent existence, Fro bad always been moved by a. feeling ~£ m.utual co-opera~wn, which was essential for tbey reser>ation of peace, and he dtd not thmk 1t an exaggeratwn to say that the principles th1~?b served as the basis of the present constitution of the League had been more or less ,.. t~ned almost a century ago, in the countries of Latin America. He recalled the fact that, ?° Conv~ntions adopted at. the Congre~s of ~anama in 1823, provisions were to be found ~roilar in spirit and wording to certam articles of the present Covenant of the League. ~be Pan-American Congress of 1888 had formally emphasised the miseries attendant upon wars of aggression and bad conde~ned theJ?. It had laid down that the right ~f conquest bould be withdrawn from Amencan public law and had stated that the cessiOn of any ~erritory would be null and void when such cession had been made under the pressure of armed forces.

Further, all the Pan-American Congresses had always been anxious to draw up the rinciples of international law, and the American Institute of Interna.tional Law was

~eating with the problem of spreading abroad among all South-American nations conceptions of international law capable of forming public opinion in each of those countries. I t was, moreover the countries of Latin America \vhich perhaps had signed the greatest number of arbitr~tion treaties, seeking always peacCeful solutions of all conflicts of an international kind. These arbitration treaties already constituted in South America an obstacle over which it was very difficult for war to enter.

In dra.wing up the Covenant, it ha{} been desired to establish certain methods of conciliation in order to avoid wars. In America also there were treaties of conciliation. The last Pan-American Conference at Santiago ha{} succeeded in obtaining the signa.ture of a.ll the American States to a Covenant instituting a system of international enquiries and providing for a preliminary procedure of conciliation.

Should not such a group of peoples, such a collection of nationalities, filled with the love of justice, whose customs in international procedure were so far advanced, be represented on the Council of the League, where it could bring its influence usefully to bear and where it could contribute, little by little, to that true international spirit without which the League of Nations could have no real existence ,

He accepted, therefore, the scheme proposed by Lord Cecil to the effect that the non-permanent Members of the Council should be increased to nine, but he would add a proposal drafted somewhat as follows :

"When the Assembly proceeds to the appointment of the nine non-perma.nent Members, three at least of them should be chosen from among the States of Latin America."

Viscount CECIL said that his object in proposing a system of proportional representation was precisely in order to give to large and important groups, such as the American group, a representation in accordance with its numbers. The American group represented about one-third of the Members of the League, and he thought that, in principle, among the elected Members there ought to be about one-third which would represent that group. Whether it would be possible to put that in the form of a regulation v.-~, he thought, a little doubtful, because evidently, if it were done for one group, there !~Ugh~ be a demand to do it for others. While, therefore, it might bG difficult to put that Idea~ the form of a regulation, he thought there wa~ a good deal to be said for it, and he v.-as himself favourably disposed towards the claim which had been put forward on behalf of America by M. Guani.

~!: Fromageot had suggested that the whole of t hese discussions should be treated as Pf0"1Stonal, and that at the end of them, whatever other proposals might be brought before the Co~mittee, there should be an adjournment, possibly for !lOme weeks, in order that the ~llllil!ttee might be in a stronger position to make definite recommendations to the wuncll.

He certainly did not wish to reject that idea; on the contrary, he thought there was a goo~ deal that was attractive in it. He confessed, however, that he would be glad if it were rslble for the Committee to arrive rather definitely at certain conclusions - those which dad been discu.ssed with, he thought, a very large m~asure of agreement during ~h~ last ay. or so. If 1t were possible to say that the Comnuttee had agreed on those pnnmples,

811bJect to revision and drafting alterations, he thought that public opinion would to some extent be satisfied, as definite results would have been achieved. Should it unhappily turn ~t th~t on the question, for instance, of permanent Members, it was impossible for the

lllnuttee to reach an agreement at the present moment, then he quite agreed that there " 0.u.J.d be a good deal to be said for treating the discussion as only provisional and adJourning the final decision of that matter until there had been fur ther time for reflection upon it. However, that was a matter which could be discussed later.

-74:-

The gist of what he ·wished to say now was as follows : He thought it was of im importance that the Committee, if possible, should reach fail·ly definite conclusions ~e~~~t at that session, at least before it reported to the Council. He could not conceh-e that~ continuance of the discussion on the composition of the Council would not produce J. were to be prolonged, great evils for the League. It was not only that the questio~ h U produced the so-called crisis of March last. On this point he was rather disposed to ~ with M. Briand : the present difficulty was what would be called in England a arowin . . rather than a serious illness for the League. But pain, whether it 'vere of one kind or an~t~aJJI if prolonged in a living body, was apt to produce very serious results, and he felt that 1~ prolongation of the crisis would in fact produce serious results, or might do 80•

He further felt profound!~ that the a.ttention of ~he Members ?f t~e League, and 01 the League as a whole, was dtverted, dunng the contmuance of thiS discussion from iu proper object, which was the maintenance of peace and the improvement of good relatiom between the countries of the world. Discussion as to what exactly should be the compo8itio~ of the Council - important as he quite recognised it to be - was necessarily not the objet! for which the League was brought into existence. It was for that reason that he venturoo to make his proposals about the method of election and the number of the non-permanent Members. .

He had said all be wished to say except this: that in making those proposals he'"&! not aiming at complete perfection, not at an ideal - because ideals were frequentlr unrealisable in this world, a.nd perfection \vas not often to be attained - but at a propos~ which he thought would reconcile the greatest number of legitimate arguments and aspirations in the matter. He had believed, and he still believed, that the broa{}. linP.l of that proposal afforded the possibility of a solution of the whole of the difficulty, and it was a-s a transactional proposal, a compromise proposal, that he recommended it to the Committee, quite recognising the force of the objections so amply and effectively raisoo yesterday by M. Scialoja to the increa-se in the number of Members of the Council, an1 quite recognising the force of the arguments made on the other side. He hoped that, if the Committee could agree on that point, it would really reach a solution of that part, at any rate, of the difficulty.

Turning to the question of the permanent Members, Lord Cecil felt that the Commiltet ought to start from the same conception. It must, if possible, avoid a renewal of the evants of last l\farch; and it was for that reason- though he recognised very clearly the force of much that had been said by the representatives of Spain, Brazil, China and, to some extent, Poland - tha.t he felt it ought to try to adopt or to maintain a definite principle in 1:egard to the allocation of the permanent seats -a principle which was likely to endure and which would not be the subject of continual discussion in the future.

What was the existi~g principle t He did not propose to repeat what was contained in the note which he had distributed to the Committee. He hoped that an impartial reading of that paper would convince everyone that there really could be no doubt at all that at the Peace Conference it had been intended that the permanent Members should be what are ordinarily -if inacc.urately - called the great Powers. They were to be the five great Powers, which were named in all the drafts of the Covenant to the very last one, in which a change was made to the present phraseology, for some reason of which he w.as not aware- it was not made by the League of Nations Commission itseli- and it was distinctly understood (at least, he had been able to find a contemporary document .which sa,id it was distinctly understood) that to those five great Powers, Germany and Russia should be added if and when they entered the League.

He did not want to discuss at length whether the principle of permanence for the great Po,vers was a reasonable principle or not. M. Fromageot had given an cxceUenl exposition, if he would allow him to say so, of the idea which was in the minds of the framers of the Covenant, namely: that the great Powers were those which were alway5

interested in every subject that was likely to be discussed by the League and t~erefo~ ought always to be present at the Council. There was the other argument, whtch h been very admirably put by :i\1. Paul-Boncour, that so long as force played a part in international relations - and it was foolish, indeed exceedingly foolish, to deny th~t force did still play a part in international relations - it was important to haYe on I e Council those Powers which were best able to assist in realising the decisions, or rather the objects, of the Covenant and carrying out the provisions contained in it, such as those of Article 16. f

Those two arguments - the argument of world-wide interest and the a.rg.nment 01 material strength- seemed to him to be arguments of practical value in chooslllg great Powers as the pe1·manent Members of the Council. For the purposes of the al'guru~~ which he was now laying before the Committee, however, it was more important to obse~H that, at any rate, this consideration provided a clear and definite rule by which the quest~~~ who were to be permanent Members could be settled. No one doubted which were n so-called great Powers. It was a matter of common knowledge ; there had ne~er. beer any dispute about it, and if that principle were adopted there could be no ambiguitY 0

·question on the subject. . ual If it were right to say that a principle ought to be established in order to avotd perpet·pie

discussion, he ventured to point out to the Committee that no other general pnnCla , ha{} been suggested. It was true that M. Guani, and he thought M. LeBreton and ~erb ru one or two others, had suggested that in theory at any rate all the Members of the oun

-75-

t to be elected, and he did not wish to cross swords with them on the theory of the oogh Some day it might be possible to have that arrangement, but the above speakers lllitt~ed and he thought i t would be generally recognised, that it was not a practical recog sal ~t present, nor was ~t bein~ pressed. . pro~ben there was the very m_teresting scheme subrm~te~ by the .Au~trian Government.

t esting as it was, however, 1t was open to the preliminary obJeCtlOn that it was far Ill 6 complicated and drastic for present use. too No other general p~nciple had ther~fore be~~ su~gested. What h~ been suggested

that certain countnes had very spec1al qualifications for membership on the Council w~ tba.t in consequence, they ought to be included as permanent :Members. That an roed t~ him rather a dangerous principle. see Since the representative of Spain had referred to the British Government in biB argument, he would ask permission to discuss the Spanish thesis and he would say jromediately and in the frankest way that M. de Palacios had, in his opinion, made a very -trong case. The argument based on the services rendered by Spain to the League, the !rururable work that had been done by Spain as a Member of the Council, and the whole history of her application for permanent membership, was an argument which certainly excited in his mind great sympathy, and he believed it would excite sympathy in. the minds of many others. The sympathy of the British Government was so great that, as was well known, it was at one time prepared to support Spain's candidature for the Council. Then came the events of March last, and it was found that the moment the door was opened to permanent membership, the moment the general principle was set aside on which permanent membership had hitherto been based, there came at once a large number of applications, none of them frivolous or absurd, all based on important considerations, personal or group qualifications. All these applications ought to be very seriously considered if once the permanent membership of the Council were thrown open.

It therefore became necessary for the British Government to consider very carefully lfhether it was really possible to submit the future of the League to so grave a risk, and whether these special considerations, important and valuable as they were, might not be, to some extent at any rate, matters of opinion on which people's ideas would differ, and on which there would be very undesirable controversies which might well impede the good working of the League in the future.

He would take for a moment, as an example, the kind of difficulties inherent in the case of Brazil- a most important case, admirably put. Broadly, it was argued that Brazil should be given a permanent seat- indeed, that two South American States should be given permanent seats -as I'epresentative of South America. He would not discuss bow far that was the desire of the South American States, because, evidently, he was not qualified to do so. He would only say that, as far as the discussions han gone in the Committee, there was not any very great evidence that such was theil· desire. But evidently, if the Committee were to admit the above claim as being a proper claim, similar claims could be put f01·ward by other groups of nations. Take, for example, the Scandinavian group. The Scandinavian countries had rendered great services to the world. They had contributed in no common degree to the progress of mankind and to tbe advancement of humanity. He was not sure that the mere fact that they were less in number than another group made an important distinction from the point of view of permanent representation. H e was afraid there would be no end to such arguments. lf the argument of mere numbers were taken, it seemed to him that it would be better met by enabling a suitable representation to be accorded to non-permanent Members. The election of non-permanent Members depended on numbers and met the difficulty more effectively than the creation of new permanent seats, which ought to be, he thought, allotted on other grounds than mere numerical representation.

~e did not wish to argue at length, because he was contending not that the case of Brazil was absurd 01· improper or wrong but simply that once claims w·ere admitted on the basis of special qualifications the1·e was really no end to the claims that might be made. Take the case so very attractively put forward by China- almost the converse of the caae put forward on behalf of Brazil. Brazil was a new country ; China's claim was based ~gely on the fact that she had one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest, civilil!ation existing m the world. The case of Brazil was put forward on the ground that she represented a large number of States. The case of China, on the other hand, was put forward on the ground that she was a single State, concentrating an immense population within her borders. The two cases were really almost the converse of one another, and both were very admil·able and important arguments which might be well sustained. If, however, both were admitted, it was evident that any State intermediate between the two would be .able to incite a little of one principle or a little of the other as a ground on which to chum permanent membership of the Council.

The other cases might be examined in like manner. Whether the Committee took th.e cases which he had mentioned or the cases of Poland or Persia, or any others that ~ht be put forward, it would be found that, important and serious as they might b~,

ey could be paralleled in a number of instances more or less exactly. Once 1t •as .ad~tted that the permanent seats on the Council were to be open to countries with 1t>ecial. mdividual qualifications, one was really forced into a most disagreeable and deleterious examination of, so to speak, the merits of each application. He was convinced

-76-

that, if these difficulties were entered into now, it would be very difficult to extricat• the League from them in the future. '

The representative of China han finished his admirable speech with an ex~1 interesting sentence. He had said that, as far as his country was concerned he did n J wish to press his claim to a permanent seat unless other permanent seats, apa~t from 1~01 for Germany (which was out of the question in all these discussions) were created ;1

other words, be did not wish to press his claim unless there was some excursion beyo ~ the limits of the great Powers. This remark showed exactly what Lord Cecil had fear~ Once the permanent membership of the Council exceeded the limits of the great Polie · other count ries would feel, and not unjustly, that their claims ought also to be conside~

He was therefore driven to the conclusion, which he wished to state iu th. most moderate and conciliat.ory way possible, that there seemed to be no alterna,tive ex~p~ to ma.inta.in the principle on which t.he present permanent Membe1·s were undoubted! crea,ted , namely: the principle that the permanent seats should be confiued to the so-c.aU~ great Powert:~.

He did not on that a.ccount put aside t hf.\ VE'ry important a rguments which had been presented by various Powers tending to show tha.t it was desira ble that they should have a sen.t on the Council for a longer period than that of the three yea~s which w:u contE'mplated for the ordinary elected Members. Those arguments were very strong He rlid not conceal from himself, or wish to conceal, that there were P owers which. though they bad no permanent scats, it was desirable to see ou the Council for long, indeed' indefinitely long, periods. He bad for that reason inserted in his scheme, which was befor: the Committee, the suggestion that certain of the elected Members ~honld be re-eligible, notwitbRtanding the ord inary rule of rotation.

Tt might be asked how those that were to be re-eligible were to be selectrd. Tt seemed to him there was only one satisfactory way of selecting them, and that was by asking the Assembly to do so. When the question was before the Assembly either publicly or iu private, all the con~;iderations which had been put before the Committee so powerfnlls would be considered by the Assembly, and if they carried the \Voight which some of them certainly seemed to him to carry, they would undoubtedly induce the Assembly to con.qider whether the country which put them forward ought not to be retained on the Council for a longer period than the three years whirh would be tho ordinary term of office.

He ventured earnestly to ask his colleagues to consider whether t.bis was not a possible solut ion of the difficulty. He did feel that there wa~ grave danger to the League in the continuance of the present crisis or its renewal in September ne.xt, and that it was worth a great effort on the part of all to seeure some solution before the next Assembly. That was why be ventured to appeal to his Swedish colleague not to press the theoretical argument of efficiency too far. Concessions must be made if a solution of this difficulty were to be reached. He made no appeal to his other colleague~: they might not feel that he was the person to make them : he would only say that he earnestly hoped that they wonld consider, devoted adherents of the League as he knew them to be, whether some solution on the lines he ha,d indicated could not be reached. He was quite sure that a satisfactory solution could only be reached by agreement, and that reliance must be pla.c('d on tllil.t spirit of compromise and conciliation which had so far never failed the League of Nations in the greatest difficulties to which it had been subjected.

M. D F· BROUCKERE said that the moment had come, he thought, when it was po~sible aud when it was the duty of every member of tbe Committee to form an opinion at least provisional and to give expresf!' ion to that opinion.

The Committee had heard the speeches of the representatives of the various coUIJtrie~ which bad submitted their candidature for a permanent seat, and it had noted the eleva.t.ion of thought and the tone of conciliation with which they had put their. cas~ Their great affection for the League of Nations and the spirit of international solidanty with which they were all in~pired made it reasouable to hope that, after perhaps some difficulties had been overcome, a solution by common consent would be reached.

Tt was neCE"ssary, however, tha.t the Committee should reply to the questions which had been submitted to it. At the moment of stating t.he views of his country, be .was fee1ing a very real embarrassment and some little emotion. Belgium fostered relati~~ of complete friendship 'vith all Members of the League and with all the natioD:s wh1~ aspired to enter the League. He would not say that there were degrees in the fnendshlp of Belgium, but he would venture to observe that there were perhaps varying shades, andil as it happened, the four States which were asking for a permanent seat on th;e Coun~ were among those which were attached to Belgium by the most cordial relat.I?us. e could not refrain from evoking certain memories and feeling the emotions wbtch these mcm01ies necessarily brought with them.

How wns it possible for him to forget that, at on<> of the most painful epochs in th~ history of his country, when it wa~; passing tbrough a terrible crisis, there were two gr~~ nations, both then neutral, which had supplied it wi th :'II legal mea.ns of ensuring ~he supp~e of its popnlat.ion, and t hat hundreds of thousand~ of Belgians owed t.heir lives t~ the courageous act.ion of the Spanish Government ! How C()uld be forget that one o . of most justly popular names in Belgium was that of the great Ambassador the MarquiS Villalobar t

-77-

now could he forget that the bo:r;td::l which un!-ted Belgium with Brazil, and whiC'h were articularly close,.had been fw'ther t1ghteoe~ dunng. the last ye~rs by exchanges, by visits, ~Y Jl)issi~ns, by mtcllectual and commercial relatwns and fr1endly commnuications of

aU 8~nfug to China, he ~ould not sa~ that Belgi~ had very confliderable iuterests . China but be would remmd the Comnuttee that B elgmm had for China the friendlies1

f111 lin"~ 'which it had recently h ad occasion t o indicnte by its actions. t>e t> ' •

Finally, he would refer to ~oland, he wa.<~ gomg to ~ay Y ~ung Poland, wishing only to remember bet: recent re~toratwn, though he was J?Ot forgettmg her grE>at and glorious

t and the rcs1sta~ce wh1ch she had. opp~sed to nnsfortnne an~1 t he triumph which she :won over ~er m1sfortune. Poland m th~ re~pect. called t? mmd so mauy fa cts in the history of Belgn~m that. he could not help th1~kmg t~u.t,. makmg al.l nU?wance for t.he siz~ of the populat10M. a ad the exten t of t heu .terntor1es, the h1stonC' rol~ ?f Poland and Belgium, one m the ea~:>t and t he ot her m t h e west, had been 110 ~1m1lar i1. all circumst.ances t~uough ~he centuries tha~ the a11:alogy must necessarily produce between the two cou~tr1e1:> a ~t1ll closer and q rute ~pec1a.l sy~pathy. .

rf therefore, he li~tened only t o t he vo1ce of sentlmE>nt an d the (lesu·e to please his friend~ he would give an affirmative ans wer t o the very clea.r question which had bee11 submitted to the Committee. He coul<l not, however , forget that his cou11try was not sitting on the Council of t h e League of Nations of its own right but in virtue of an election six times renewed and in fulfilment of a mission of trust which had been conferred upon it by the Assembly. Belgium sa t on the Council as a mandatory, holdi ng a kind of trust, and' she could not take advantage of her position eit her to profit her friends or herself.

He could and must con~ider only the general interests of the League of Nations and the welfare of the League, and consequen tly thE> interests of peace. To llis great regret and disappointment, be could do no other t h an maintain what hE> had a lready said on his previous intervent ion, and be could do no other than associate himself with the arguments which Vi!lcount Cecil had just deveJopt>d with so mucb force and loft int>ss of view. H e eoold only repeat t hat be considered it would not be in the interests of the League nor in the il1terests of th e peace of t he ~orld to increase the number of the perma nent Members on the Council. H e now dE'sired to add that he had reached this conclu. ion, which a solemn dut.y obliged him to maintain, no t b ecause he had failed to feel the force of the arguments submitted by t.hose who had presented theil' cases, nor because he wished to set aside their requestR, bnt because he t hought it was po!:lsible to satisfy their legitimate desire by another means more compatible with respect for the Covenant of the League of Nations, a means which would avoid the creation of a Fltate of t hings which would l<>ad to a new crisis still mm·e formidable than the present one.

When Spain m ain tained that ~he ough t to ~it on the CO\wcil, not because she had the right to do so but because her pre~ence was in the interests uf the !Jeagne, he believed that this content ion was just. Spaiu represented one of the essential a~pects of the

· European community, and h er eivilisation covered a lmost an entire continent. When Brazil said that her presence was desirable on the Council he was tempted to admit the justice of this coutention. He was at any !'ate tempted to say, in order not to encourage the discussion of nn over-delicate pt'oblem which i t was not for bim to settle, that it would be well for Latin America to be represented on the Council by a sufficient number of delegates, though it was not in his power to decide exaC'tly whose these delegatE'S should be.or whether they would obtain their status subject to re-eligibi1ity or to a t·otat ion, t hese ~mg questions which must b e set.tled by the nations of Lat.in America themselve~:. In vtew of the excellence of the relations existing between the Lat in-American nations - a ~act which had always struck Europeans, and which might. even excite in them a litt le jealousy - it would be only, he thought, in the very improbable case that t hey were unable to ~lYfee that i t would be suitable for Europeans to t ry to cledde between them.

When China said that it was advisable fo1· a great Asiatic State to sit on the Council, he was also prepared to agree. The case of China had been admiru.bly presentect, and only one reproach could be u.ddressed to the Chinese representative, which was to tho effect lbat be had said that his conntry lacked military forces, whereas he had shown t he eon.trary by revenling that she bad an army of one and a-half million men now being trained according to the most effective methods, and whose strength might well a larm an apprehensive EUl'opeau. China represented a very great past, and it was to be hoped and believed that she represented also a very grea-t future. The crisis through which she ~as passing m~ght, 1ike that of the League of Nations, be a crisis incideut to gr.o'~~h .. Tn

e ease of Chma, it was a question of one of the most importan t aspects of CIVIlisatiOn, tbe representation of wl1ich on the Council was desirable for a period t he durat.ion of which COuld only be determined later by historic circumstances. b. ~he case of Poland appeared to hE' similar. The Polish rt?presentative would pardon liD ~ .he did not indulge in any superfluous ~nlogy of his con ntry. He wo~d ll·Sk

!lel'lllisston, however, to refer, in favour of the Polish thesis, to a u a rgument whteh was n~~ perhaps a n argument for t he happinesfl of Poland. Like the majority of new St~tes ~ ~ch nec~ed to adjust their situation in the world, Poland ~ad a gr~at number of ~uestt?n~ h l;ettle With her neighbotn s and t he O'reat number of the mternat10ual problems 10 whtcb

1 h was interested was a n i~portant ~rgument in favom of her presence on the Council " en the quest ions in which she was interested were being discussed. H e recognised

-78-

this fact very clearly. Was it not, indeed, p1·ecisely the recognition of this fact l'hich had given rise to th(' present crisis 'f

To what exactly was the present c~~s in the League of Nations due Y Was it n due to the suddeu appearance and recogrut10n by everyone of a new need which had ar· 01

at the moment when the question of the entry of Germany was raised but which :o existed latently for some tim(' 'f Tb(' crisis arose from a twofold necessity whicb was

0 ad

apparent. On the one hand, there was the need to maintrun on the Council, for proba~l~ prolonged periods, a certain number of States, and, on the other hand, to enable tht> great! possible number of States to sit successively on the Council, so that. each might at a gir~~~ momeut play its part and leav(' upon the League a trace of its passag.-, thus adding itb contribution t.o the inheritance of the League. 'l'hese two n('ce~sities were equaU 1

inevitablt•. The first, involving the necessity for rotation, had been adequately shown bi the successive recommendations of the Asst>mblies. The second was showu by tile Present crisis anrl by the fact that, after having declared in former rcsolut.ions that it was necessary to establiflh rotation, the Assemb1ics had never obse1·ved the system of rotation beca.use it had found it impossible to eliminate State:; which st.ill had a part to play.

These two necessities might app~ar to be contradictory. A procedme mu.st, howeY~r be found which would enable both of them to be met. Everyone bad this vrocednre mo~ or less vaguely in mind. Everyone bad imagined rules accordiug to which the two necessities mi~ht be recon~iled. It was to the great me1·it of Viscount. Cecil that he had aubmitted a precise formula which wafl contained iu paragraph 2 of his proposals · and it was to b~ observed that, the question of form being reserved, a matter which could ~asilv he settled, opinions as a whole were in favour of this formula to a marked decrree, and were even, as it seemerl, unanimous. o

The problem was now to establish a political machinery which would help to settk the crisis, and this politica,l machinery could only come into real and concrete e.x istene:t when the question at present under discussion, namely: the question of the number of Statei to be 1·epresented ou the Council, bad been successfully settled. So long as the number was not fixed, the idea, excellent as it was, could not take shape. It could uot come imo concreto existence until the spaces in Viscount Cecil's proposals had been filled up by figw·es, and it was here that there arose a whole series of difficulties in regard to whict he would make a few observations.

How many non-permanent Members should the Council iuclude 't On this point very different ideas had been put forward. 1\f. Sjoborg desired that the uumber of non-permanent seats should not be increased, and he has refened, in justificatiou of bu argument, to an observation in one of the last spe<>ches which he (the Belgian represeutatire) had made. He had said t.hat, if satisfaction were given and if the requests actually before the Committee for the increase of the number of per·manent seats were gt·ant.ed, resistance would be more difficult when new 1·equests were formulated. It seemed necessary, according to 1\f. Sjoborg, to conclude, in order to rE>main logical, that an increase in the number o! non-permanent seats would render it more difficult not to increas~ them yet agaiu. He would venture to observe that he was not propos~ng to yield to the requests of States whir.h were asking for non-permanent seats. Thet·e was no questiou of s~tisfying the ambitio~ or soothing the bad humom of any particular country. The question was whether, 10

t.he interests of the League, it was advisable that a certain number of Powers should be represented on the Council.

He had accordingly proposed first of all an increase in the number of non-permanent Members in order that it might remain superior to that of the permanent Members. As the number of permanent Members ntight, in accordance with certrun hypotheses, be increased to seven, he ha.d propos('d that there should be at least eight nou-perman~nt Members. M. Sjoborg had observed- a.nd in this be was right- that six would suif!et in order to ensure at present a majority of the non-permanent Members. The Swedi!b representative had added that. the total number of the Members of the Council s~o~d not be t.oo high. M. de Brollckere was ready to ag1·ee to this view and was williu~ provisionally to accept the number six provided it could be shown that this number wo~ld solve the crisis. The Committee was not called upon to find an ideal method, by follon:ng which it might hope that the crisis would be solved, but to achieve an agreemeJ.tt which would in actual fact solve that crisis. The crisis arose, however, not because certa lll States asked to be made Members of the Council for a considerable length of time but froro the fact that it was useful and even indispensable for the life of the League that the:~e Stat.es should be Members of the Council for a conside1·able time. Everyone agreed 1~ recognising this fact, and the Swedish representative had been one of those who ha submitted some of the most pertinent arguments in suppo1·t of this conten tion.

On the other hn.nd, the Assembly had five times expressed its desire to see a method of rotation established. If it were demonstrated that the two problems would be sol~ed by granting two seats to States whose pr~seuce on the Council for a considerable tllll~ was necessary, and four seats to States which could follow each other upon the Cou.ncif more rapidly, he agreed with M. Sjoborg. This, however, bad not been proved, andlled the Committee reflected on the concrete problem before i t, it would be con1pe to recognise that a solution was impossible on the basis of sh non-permanent Me~be~ a.nd that the crisis still remained. The Committf>.e might recommend the Cou ncil, 3 . the Council . might recomm~nd the Assembly, not to increase the uumber of :.'lfenlbets,

-79-

the position in which the Lea~ue h~d f?und itself during the Assembly of March 1926 be repeated in September w1th thLc; difference : that the second cri~is would be worse

the first. . A brae uumber of the Members of the Comnnttee appeare•J to agree on the necessity

. reas'ina the number of Members of the Council. The que. tiou wa , thcrer,,r,~ what we should be adopted ' M. Scialoja had propose? seven, but he had ot·igiually p1·~posed ;,."1~P.rule of eight i\fembe!'S1 that was to say tWlce four, and he had proved, with that

>noPwu•"' precision w~ich commanded t:he ~~·a~ion .of all, that it would bP, i~dispensable the figure to be twu•c four, because, m his op1mon, 1t wa-ti ll<'cessary to e. Lablish a re{!ula1·

of alternation, and that to achjeve this it would Le necessa1·y to have more thau seats available at each election. The CI'itieism which ho had ma.de of Lord Cecil's

was that three available seats at each election were insufficient. M. Scialoja tbel'efore conch~dcd by proposing the. figure eigh t, w.hile L01·d Ce<>il ha<l pl'?PO~ect nine.

de Brouckcre lumself, he would rennnd the Commtttee, bad propoM~d e1ght, ami as figure was a compromise betwe~n the tw.o figure~ pr~pose~ by t'Yo of the experienced member~ of the Committee, he might, at first s1ght, n a t,ter htmself that

bad found a solution. This was not tbe case, however, for he now pel'ccivcd that he wrong, aud that onl¥ the num~er nine would en.able the crisis to ?~ ~olved. P1·oof

this had just been ndmll'ably furmshed by LOI·d Ceetl. H would be sufftcteut, Lherefon~, sum up very oriefly two or th1'ef\ arguments, begitming with that which had t.he lt>ast

in M. de Brouckerc·s view : the arithmetic-al argument. Nine was three t.imes three. 'l'his was very useful since it bad been decid<'d that t he

should take place in three years and t hat the three Rer ies of Members should equaL M. Scialoja had shown, when eight members bad been proposed with n rot.:1l.ion three ilt the first year, three in the t:econd and two in the third, that an unstable. itua tion

be cre.ated, since the Ast<embly of the third year wouJd de~ire to have the ns its two predec~ssors. An irresistible tendency towards a new increase

ore manifest itself, and M. Scialoja had been right ia stating this. '£he would have been under the illueion that it had voted for the figure eigh t; in would have voted f01· tht' fignre rune. A<, however, it was of importance,

to attempt to make not a final reform - for to legislate for eternity was IIWIJU~aJ•u•c - but a stable reform, nnd as it was importaut to reach a position on which

League could stand firm and to adopt a. rule which wou ld mako it possible to resist. new increase, account should be taken of the argument that t he figure eight. would give that ret~ult which the figure nine would give. The second argument wn.s the rotation argument. A smaller number than nine would leave enough seats available for a sufficient rotation, aud the result would be that;

actual fact rotation would not take place. Experience furnished evidence in support thiB. The Assembly had always shown it:;; desire to esta.blish a system of rotation, it had never been able to achieve it because it had desired to maintain on the Council

number of 1viembe1·s which i t recognised it was necessary to place tlHu·e fo1· a "'"""""''·" length of time. In 01·der, therefore, that it should be possible to put in practice

system of rotation, tho number of non-permanent Members must be raised to nine. The third argument was more delicatE!. He had firs t decided not to raise i t, but. since

immense majorit:y of his colleagues bad declared themselves ill favour of discussions pnblic, he would ask to be a llowed to make some refe1·ence to it. The essential argument was the political argument. Here he would have to quote

bllle.<~, figures and facts. Tt was necessa1·y to have three additional non-permanent seats losolve the crisis, because the representati-ve of Uruguay had ju. t pointed out that Latin

must be adequately represented on the Council. Two seats for LaLin America sufficient ; three must be created in order to satisfy the neces i ty of achieving

-"''L-·. in the Council. The representative of Brazil had said that a much larger representation was necessary

Lhe American continent, and he had made a calculation of proportions to demonstrate M. de Brouckere did not desire to base his ar~ument on the fact that the

n of Europe was higher, for if he did so, he would he compelled to say that, if Members were granted to South America, eight or nine ought to be giveu to Europe

five to Asia. He certainly did not desire to claim he knew not what superiority Be hoped that he might be allowed to refer - and this in no sense -to the inferiority of Europe. Europe was that vart of the world in which,

moment, disputes a,rose. The object of th e League of Nations was to settle dispute<~ , for that it was necessary that its Council should contain a certain number of impa1·tial

but it was necessary that it should also contain representatives of States which The mot·e political difficulties arose in one cor!lel' of the world the more

to recognise in principle that a particular group of nations, an<l even a , ...• ,~lil"'' sub-group, must be represented on the Council. He hoped that the day wonld

Europe would enjoy more stable conditions and wheu it would no longer be to put forward such an argument. If, therefore, Europe could give a certain

of the seats in its possession to t.he .American continent, it was warmly to be hoped the reason for this cession was not to be found in the fact that the present situation reversed. Three seats were necessary for the countries of Latin America, and to ma~e t.bic:;

the total number must be increased by one. There must a lso be a seat for .Asia,

-80-

not necessarily for China, although he would be tempted to believe that it Would often be China that would occupy it because of her importance. It was not uecessar:f!J him to plead the cause of this arlditionnl seat for Asia. The Assembly had manv ~ maintained that, in addition to its permanent seat, a temporary seat should bf \ that continent, and though satisfact.ion had not up to the present been given fo ~/' this had not been because the Assembly had forgotten it but because it had been f '!a. with a contradiction. On the one hand, it had desired to grant a non-permanent sea~ Asia and, on the other hand, at the last moment, had been obliged to reco~nise that

1 ~

was impossible, bE'cause there was no ,racant pl~tce. This proved completelv that it b~t impossible in reality to give complete satisfaction to Af)ia except by addin" anot~ll additional seat on the Council. ~ 11

.An additional seat for Europe was necessary. What had been the first inciden though not the cause, of the present crisis t : the necessity for Poland to occupy a seat~ the Council. He was one of those who thought that it would be good for the Learroe of Nations if Poland were on the Council, and that it should remain there as lona :s the questions concerning it had not been settled. It might be possible, perhaps, to achieve this without increasing the number of seats by one, but the Committee should reflect on tilt insecurity of a certain number of other seats and on the difficulties which the applicatiot of the system of rotation would in practice encounter in that case.

If the problem were put in these terms - an additional seat for Sout h America O!it for Asia and one for Europe- nine non-permanent seats appeared to be necessary.' T1lt figure eight would not solve the problem; seven would solve it to an even less degree ani if the Committee retained the number six, it ran the risk of seeing a kind of collap3e il September -- an eventuality which must at all costs be avoided.

He well understood the value of all the arguments put forward to show that a Ia'!t Council would with difficulty achieve unanimity. Such arguments, however, could 1101 prevail over the argument of political necessity, which was in the mind of e\7 eryone andtt which he had wished to give concrete and public form.

It was for t his reason that he would vote for the resolution of Lord Cecil and fort~ number nine. By adopting this figure, a system would be established which might mffi with unanimous agreement, for all would desire the presence on the Council of those States which had urged the importance of their presence, and all, also, desired the adoption ola system of rotation.

Being filled with the same desires, the members of the Committee might, perhaps, encounter great difficulties in finding a method of giving effect to them, but it could nOI be said that, between men of good will, it was impossible for such a method to be found. The discussion at the morning meeting had increased his confidence. Some little time was still necessary, perhaps, to settle points of detail, as so many divergent interests must taken into account and the work of adjustment was so delicate and difficult that it might not be possible to do it all at once. He was, however, convinced that the Committee would succeed.

With regard to the question of procedure, M:. Fromageot had said that a second . would be indispensable. M. de Brouckere was Unite ready to agree to this, but he desu~ in order that the Committee might, at least, acfiieve something definite, that it should not remain content, during the present session, with giving adherence in principle to rbt proposals of Lord Cecil, but that it should examine them in detail, more especially that ol the two amendments proposed, one emphasising the right of the .Assembly to proceed general elections when it desired to do so, and the other meeting certain objections of de~aB concerning the method of choice by the Assembly of States in whose favour the regulatiOI concerning non-re-eligibility should be suspended. The Committee should reach if not. 1

unanimous agreement at lea-st as general an agreement as possible on decisions whili should be as precise as possible. Then the Committee might have time to reflect. members would see whether the arguments of one side or the other side could con1mauu agreement, and they could hold a second session to reach tha t unanimity which he 'fa.! quite certain would then be achieved.

M. VEVERKA said he had not yet ventured to adopt a definite at titude towar~~ scheme of Viscount Cecil because of democratic scruples dictated, if he might so put Jt, his conscience.

Taking as a starting-point the view that any limitation of free choice made that less free, he had reached the conclusion that non-re-eligibiJity must necessarily, .bY uufu ·-••• the number of Members which could be chosen, attack the democratic prinmple 0

election in the sense given to it in the Covenant. Despite his scruples, how_ever, be decided to accept in its entirety t he scheme of Viscount Cecil for reasons wbwh he like briefly to put before the Committee.

The first reason was that paragraph 2 of the scheme contained an ingenious and a practical corrective. Above all, however, the scheme provided in paragraph 3 increase in the number of non-permanent Members, which would make it posstble f~r Council to reflect all aspects of the political world which might, at the . mome~d' represented in the League. Thi.s fact was of capital importance, because 1t won ' thought, make it possible to obtain a practical solution of the problem. .

What were the political duties of the Council ! According to the Covenant, .tts 11 duty was to watch over the maintenance of peace, that was to ,say : to direct a

-81-

. . al currents of the political world towards that end. What was the best method to Jl1l!l~to achieve that end, respecting., at the same time, the sarrosanct rule of unanimity t folio Must complete~y homo.ge~eous ~ews be represen~ed in ~he Council, in order to achieve

Imost automatic unannmty whteh would make 1t posstble to apply to countrie not Ill :esented on the COU??il the. ~rovisions laid down in the Co~·m~ant ~ 0 1• hould the rt'~ cipal currents of p~litical opm10n be re~resen~ed on the Council m ord<>r to co-ordinate r:ro nnd eYCD subor~nate the~ tO the h1gher mterests Of the COmmunity by means of discussion and persuasiOn! Tbi~ _was the whole pro?lem. . .

In the first case-that reqmrmg homogeneous vtew:::-unammtty was much eaAier to btain but the Council wou~d _assume the political. duties of an OYerseer. In the second

0 se t:nanimity was more dlfrteult, but the Council would as.·mne the duties of a justice ~the peace. Personally, he had no hesitation in choosing bet\\'een these two aspects. He woulcl accordingly ventm·c to say that the number nine provided for in Viscount Cecil's scheme was the only one which, in his opinion, would make iL possible t·o take account of the geographic~! situat ion of St~tes, a~d of the other fact~rs and 1 hus ft~lfil the very definite resolu twn of the Col:nml._ This number also con!ltttuted au essenttal p~wt of t.be scheme which could not be dlssomated from the other paragraphs, or chan~ed, because it provided the only practical F~Olntion of the present difficulties.

i\f. MoNTARROYOS desil'ed to give an explanation to M. de Brouckere. Before doing so, however be wished, first, to thank the Belgian representative for his kind words in referring 10 Brazil and for having recalled the good !'elations which had always ex isted bet.ween Belgians and Brazilians, r elaLions of which he had a happy I'ecotlection.

The statement wbich he had made had concerned only the quest.ion of the permanent !femberi! of the Council. I t was well to be sure on this point, in order that. conful)iou migbL bea,·oided. Up to the moment he bad refrained from making any detailed comment on the very ingenious proposal of Lord Cecil, not out of neglect but for the two following real'lons. First, it was a question of method. From the moment when he l1ad made bi fit·st speech, }l. Montanoyos had considered that the best method would be to examine the question of the m1mber of the permanent seats first. The problem was how many permanent and bow many non-permanent Members there should be on the Council. When a total figure was suggested, it was not said what should be the proportion between the permanent and non-permanent Members, and in discussing first the question of the non-permanent . . \:Lembers, the question of the permanent Members was left quite in the shade.

His second reason for abstaining- from examining the scheme of Lord ceil was that of prudence. As a fo1·mer sapper, M. Montarroyos would describe the scheme as a sapping operation calculated to destroy the whole question of the permanent seats, without even seeming to discuss it. If he had no t known Lord Cecil's history, he would have believed him also to have been a sapper.

He would now examine the question of the disputes to which M. de Brouckcre had just referred. 1.1. de Brouckere had thought that Europe should have the larger number of representatives on the Council, precisely because Europe had the privilege of being the continent of disputes. The Committee, however, knew perfectly well that there was an argument which led to exactly the opposite conclusion. According to certain well-authorised views, in particular, a very worthy British opinion, it would be necessary to increase the number of Members on the Council precisely because of the Locarno agreements, fo r if a dispute arose between the signatories of these agreements, the Council would not be able to settle it if it did not include a sufficient number of representatb·es of States which were not parties to these Agreements.

In those circumstances, the argument concerning European disputes used by l\1. de Bronckere could only apply to States not belonging to the continent which those disputes concerned, and it considerably reinforced the views which l\I. ::\lontarroyos had presented ll'hen he had asked for two permanent seats for America.

Tbe OHAmMAN desil'ed to submit certain short reflections which concerned partly the Principle under discussion and partly the procedure of the Oonunittee.

B.e wished to emphasise the fact that never, he thought, had any organisation of the League of Nations, which had to deal with such delicate and com~licated problems, _given ~example of publicity equal to that given by the present Comtmttec. Generally, 1t had bithert;Q been the custom to hold private meetings and to reach agreements by means of nego~iations conducted wi th a good deal of discretion, and it was no~ the cus~om t? have_ a public discussion until it might be hoped that , in regard to esseuttal quest10ns, if not m regard to questions of form, an agreement bad already been virtually established .

. The _Committee had given a very different example, a ve~·y i~portant exam.ple! and one ~hich m1ght, he thought, without exaggeration be caUed b1~to_ncal. ~be Commtttee ~ad Ill fact conducted in public what was really a process of negotta.tton. ~b1s had been possible because each of its members was animated solely with a desire to ach1eve a good result, and bec~use, though they held different ·dews as to the ways in _which su.ch a .result .migh~ be achieved, they were all endeavouring to attain the same o_bJect. Tbis obJ ~Ct ffilght, m a word, be defined as the welfare of the League. The Commtttee ~ad accordingly been ab~e to .conduct its discussions in public because i ts members had nothmg to conceal. . F1·om this llOmt ?f view he ,vas happy, and felt it a great honoul', to have been the Cbatrm~n of a Co~Dl.lttee which had given so high an example of political loyalty, frankness and confidence, Which deserved to be remembered as an example.

-82-

He was persuaded that those who had attended the discussions of the Committee, who would inform the much greater number of people who for material reasons could ani be represented there of what ha~ taken place, would say that these discussions : increased the prestige of the League. This was the first observation which he desired m~& ~

On the question of the substance, it would be his duty f,o endeavoW' to 8urn u t essential results of the two meetings which had been held that day. He was extr:'m; conscious, however, of the difficulty of the task. _He was the Chairma:'l of the Conunitt 1 He bad of coW'se, on the other hand, personal VIews on n.ll the questiOns which had ~ discussed, though he wa~ ready to associate himsell with any view when he hear: arguments in favour of an opinion other than his own. If now he endeavoured to

8 up the results of the two meetings, he would do so in a spirit of absolute impartiality 1llll He would take first of all the qnestion of the number of the Memhers of the Co~cil.

This was t.he question which, at t.he morning meeting, he had ventW'ed to describe as the dominant question-tl1e question under which all the others might, in one way or another be ranked. ·HE'> did not think that it was pO$Sible to succeed at that moment in describwg the final results attained in regard to that question. Argument$ .had been put fonan~ for the uumber fifteen, for the number foW'teen, for the number thirteen, and even lor the number twelve. Some memhers had even argued for preserving the stahts qtw which meant tba.t they were arguing for the number eleven, since the Council was at. pre ent composed of ten, but Germany would sbort.ly be a Member.

Tt seemed, howenr, that a.t least a principle bad emerged. Everyone agreed that there should be a maximum limit. which should not be exceeded, particularly in vie-r Ill the fact that the hope must not be abandoned of one day welcoming the United Statea into the League, the country which bad been the founder, and it might even be said thf principal founder, of the League, or of seeing R.nssia also one day a Member of the Leagut. When the problem of fixing a maximum number was considered, regard must be had te the future, and it was necessary to adopt a policy of the utmost reeerve and thl' utmo-t prudence. He would merely note in rega.rd to this the point that a limit was nece sary, though he would not define it.

Secondly, he would take up the question whether it was necessary t0 increase the numoo of permanent Memben;. He did not wish, in touching upon this delicate question, to ~ay anything which might offend the views of anyoue concerned. All the members of the Committee were his friends, not only so far as he personally was concerned but because the States which they represented were the friends of his country.

He ventured to say, however, that the provisional opinions which had been expressed that day within the Committee, and which it would be possible some day to reconsider if this were felt to be uecessary, had been against the idea of increasing the number of permanent Members. He would apologise once more to the Committee if, in making this summary and in interpreting the work which had been done, he should, in spite of hi! good will, fail to be entirely faithful to the ideas I.Jf all the members.

He understood t.hat China had declared, through her representative, that she claimed a pe1·manent seat but that klhe proposeil to aba.ndon this claim ii all the other States which ha:d asked for permanent seats did likewise.

The Brazilian representative had defended the cause of his country - a great and noble cause, as the Chairman wa.-, the first to recognise. The Brazilian representative bad, above all, appeared to be defending the rights of his continent. There was, perhaps, in the solntionR which were at present contemplated, a means of meeting the legitimate desires of the great and generous continent represented by M. Montarroyos. . .

The Polish representative had abstained from repeating the arguments which, llllm opinion, were in favour of the request presented by his country, though h~ baJ not abandoned t.he claim of Poland. He (the Chairman) would ask to be e~cused for thus endeavouring to elicit the views of the representative of Poland, hut the latter ~ad appeared to be ready, if necessary, in the interests of a solution, to obtain what he des1red by some other method than that of increasing the number of perma.nent Members of the Council.

The Spanish representative, whom the Chairman had particular reason to esteem, since be represented his country in Switzerland, had defended the cause of Spain, nnd ho had defended it with the chivalrous spirit which was characteristic of that country, and he had not, in conclusion, said anything which might close the door to further negotiations. '

Tf he declared that at present the general tendency would appear to be rather in the direction be had indicated, he was merely stating the truth as it appeared to emerge from the discussiona. He again insi~ted that this declaration was only provisional and that it could not be regarded as in any way final and irrevocable.

AR regards the increase in the number of the non-permanent seat.s, it seemed t.h~t thge was already almost unanimity on the poiut. that it wonld be necessary to raise 1t. . e recognised that the Swedish representative had been of the opinion that the best solutJ~D would be to maintain the status quo, and here be would observe that his own country 10

this matter had an opinion which coincided with that of Sweden. He had no reason to conceal this fact since it already appeared from the instructions which it was the custo:l of his country to publish. He would note that M. Sjoborg, in defending the idea of t. e statUA 'luo, had defended a cause which had at one moment been that of the SWISS

_,__ 83 --

Be could make this observation in a spirit of complete serenity since the IWifeat:lll'"'v-· bad if not for all time at least for a long period, renounce(l tb~ ambition

terlng the C~uncil of the J1eague. ~t ppeared that the large majority of States wished to increase the number of the per~anent eeats to an extent which he could not examine in detail but which might d fined as follows. ~nee the Committee had a~re~d provisionall~ t~a,~ th.e system ~f rotation must

rendered more supple a~~ elastic~ It must necessarily, if It w1sbed to ~am~ain the system tstion subject to conditions which were at least. equal to those which hitherto existed

'&eory increase the number of non-permanent seats. The question was whether the should be increased by one, or two, or three. No one had proposed to exceed

ntiiDber three. . . . . He would not submtt to the Comm1ttee the arguments wluch might be made in favour

the number two or those in favour of tho number oue. He would note, however, that the present meeting the i~eA. of increasing the. number of n~u-permauent 1\fembcrs

won acceptance, and he d1d not fear to make this statement With the greatest reRpect the representative of Sweden, who might adhere at another meeting to the idea of an

the question of its ex-tent being reserved. were t.he resultEt so far obtained. He would not entet· into other detailo:;, as he

tonld run the risk of distorting in one direction or another the spirit of the deliberations. would abstain from doing so, because he knew that ihe best ally or the Committee

,as time, and that the States represented on the Committee mu. t be giveu timP. for reflection.

For thjs reason, he came now to the question of procedure. 'l'he idea of having a aeeond reading seemed to him, in pt•inciple, a very happy one, but only on condition that the second reading should be taken on a complete and precise text, e.·tabli bed wi th all the n>serv~tions which each.¢ the members might wi~h to make. This text woultl provide a ba.sis of discussion at the $econd reading, and it would make it impossible to say that lbe Committee had separated leaving the l'!risis completely unsettled and without being able to indicate what; wf>r~ the means which would ultimately lead to its settlement.

The Committee would discuss at its next meeting the quest ion of a second reading. In this connection, the Committee would have also tu decide what amount of t ime should M devot~d to it. For the moment, however, the matter was premature.

There was one urgent questioJt which remain(>d to be e::(amined. Did the Committee lhi.ok it necessary to hold a meetin~ ou the following day T It would perhaps be preferable lor memberR to reflect and turn over in their minds the results a lready a.cbieved, aucl he uted the Sub-Committee wbich had been appointed at a. previous m<>eting, the terms of referenee of which were to embody in a text cet·tain ideas which bacl been accepted in principle but: which had not yet received tbeii· final form, to sit during the morning otthe next day in order that the Committee might in t he afternoon have a more complete text 11ubmitted to it.

Viscount CEon, hoped that the Commit.t ee would accept the Chairman's proposal. It was desirable that the Suh-Committee should be able to meet on the following morning to drnft the decisions of the Committ.ee. H e would, however, makt> t-wo reservations regariling this point : First, he thought that the Committee wa~ very n<'arly ag1·eed on the aumber nine, and if that agreement cou1d be registered it would give very great preciRiou to the discussions of the Committee, because, as had just been pointed out, until a number was fixed nothin~ had really been achieved. . Secondly, he did not think that the Committee should make any attempt to put even mto a provisional form any decision as to the permanent Members, because it did not appear to him that the Committee bad really arrived at a stage at which even a provisional decision or a provisonal unanimity on this question had been reached. He would suggest, therefore, that, at least for the purposes of the next meeting, nothing hould be said in t he tert to be prepared on the question of the permanent seats but that the draft should be tonfined to the question of the non-permanent seats and to the point which M. de Brouckere had raised regarding what had been called the "general election".

M. LE BRETON asked the Chairman for an explanation concerning the natu1·e of t he (lroposal which be had just made. The Chaii·man appeared to consider the discussion at an end. !!!. Le Breton, however, has still something to say, and he hoped that there were o~er members of the Committee in a similar position. He did not wish, therefore, that the discllSsion should be considered as closed.

The CHAlRMAN said that he had thought it clear that the discussion should continue. Be had merely desired to outline the provisional results achieved. After reflection, however, lnd since several members of the Committee still desi1·ed to speak, he thought it migh t be Preferable to meet on the following morning.

Viscount CECIL hoped that the Committee would agree not to meet on the following 11101'1ling. The moment had come, he thought, to try to gather up the fragments of what bel been achieved and put them in order, .not with a view to closing the di. cussion but, 011 t.h~ contrary, to making it possible to see more exactly w~at results had been PlOl'l810naUy achieved. In that manner the members of the Committee who had not yet

~ 84-

taken part in the discussion would be able to ascertain exactly what was the ae~ proposal before t he Com~ttee .

.M. SCIALOJA thought the Committee should merely have submitted to it in 'I;Jiti •• tbe speech of the Chairman, in which he had summed up the discussion in an impartial ·'i precise manner. If the Committee went beyond what had been expressed by the Chairmand it wou ld go beyond the results which the Committee had that . day reached. Redid a., think that the moment was come to submit a definite draft. The Minutes, which wono:. contain the speech of the Chail·man, would thus, so to speak, contain a. summal'y of~ dlscw;sion. There were obviously certain questions wh.ich bad to be examined but th could IJe examined by a Sub-Committee either in tbe afternoon of the next day 'or at so: future <late.

'J'hr ('nmrn:ttee def"ic7cd to continue the discussion on the following clay.

TENTH MEETING

Reld on Sat111'llay, May 15th~ 1926, at 10.30 a .. m.

Chainnan: i\I. :Mo·rTA.

Present: .All t he members of the Committee.

29. Qul.'stion or tbe Number of the Members of tbe Council (continuation).

M. LE BRETON wished to make certain remarks in order t hat the Draft.ing Committt\e might under. tand the reasons and scope of the adhesion of the Argentine delegation. The Argentine delegation had already pointed out that the principles underlying its news on the object of tiH' present discussion were the same as bad been put forward by the Argentine delegation at the first Assembly; that was to say : that the Council should be as democratir as possible and that the widest possible system of l'Otation among its Members should be adopted. 'l'he delegation would accept the restriction imposed by the rule of re-eligibility for which provision had been made and would agree to any amendment consonant with it! principles.

Faithful to this view, and despite the serious C)bjections against enlarging the Council, as long n,s the fi ystem of unanimity had to be maintained, the Argentine delegation was prepared to accept the British plan, which consisted of an increase in the number of the elect.ed members, bringing the Council to a tota.l of fouTteen. I t was also prepared to accept, in order to give proof of its desire to facilitate any solution which would achieve a compromise, the system of rotation proposed because of the special majority which was laid down as being indispensable.

Its principles, which were in favour of malting the League more democratic, caused the Argentine delegation to express the hope that one day all privileges would be removed and that the political and legal equality desired by all would finally be achieved. It wa· none the less true, however, that, called upon to decide in all sincerity on the adoption of just ~nd equitable solutions, the Argentine delegation felt compelled to keep to the undertak~~ which it had assumed before the Assembly at the beginning of the League and in a spmt of complete impartiality long before the presen t circumstances had arisen.

The Argentine representati\e desired to allude synthetically to certain gen~l considerations in order to avoid any misunderstanding as to the attitude of the A.rgent_ine. He did not think that zones of influence could be created in the community of natJO~, which formed the League. His country made no claim to special importance in La~LD America, but, logically following its faith in democracy and conscious of its own indinduabt~ as a State, the Argentine could not in any way agree to abandoning its position in favour o any other State.

As a consequence of this view, it would not be possible for the Argentine to assume the duty of I'eprescnting or defending any State withou t having been expressly instructed r~ do so, and, as a natural consequence, neither could she agree that any other State shou take the responsibility of representing Argentine interests directly or indirectly. .

1'he Argentine had shown the greatest spirit of freedom in her international relatt?nsj She bad submitted all her disputes to arbit1·ation and bad loyally accepted the arbttra decisionR. As far as the reduction of armaments was concerned, she bad many years previously signed regional agreements reducing bel' naval forces, and she had always b~~n ready to accept any agreement of this kind b~sed on the principle of absolute equa Y which characterised both her internal and external relations.

With such views, it was easy for the Argentine delegation to adhere, without reserv~ to any solution which would make for greater harmony, and, in the present case, she "~cb make no objection to the dominant views of the CommitteE.> concerning the reform w

-85 -

an important step towa,rds arriving at the s~stem of 1·otation, wit.h a limiLcd. pos:sil>iliLy re-election, which · had been proposed by President .Alvear at the first A.;:cmbly of the

M. vo~ RoESCH, after lis~ening wi~h th~ greatest interest and attcnt~on Lo the Yarious . ts of view develope~ durmg the discussiOn and to the summary whU;h the Chairman :t made on the preceding day, t hought that the moment had come to ~ummarisc briefly

<rerman attitu~e at the present stage of th~ negotiations. The event~ w_hiCh bad occllrTed a~ Geneva ill ~Iarch 19Z? were well ~uown. .A crisis

bad occurred w1thin the League of NatiOns at th~t t1me regardmg t.he question of iucrcasintr the number of permanent Members of the_ Council: ,He us_ed th~ \>Ord crisis1 wl1ich was that. used by several members of the Comnnttee, Witn no mtent10n of ma.ldng any implied criticism. This crisis had preven ted Germany from accepting the invitation to cntet• the

~=~ed with this situation, the German representative felt that he wonld not be in ord<'r in speaking on the question of the p_ermanent seats whic~ ha~ been the cause of the crisis. On the contrary, ~e though t that h1s duty was one of discret10n all:d that the :VIembers of the League of Natwns should be left t o sol ve t he problem and to fmd a t;olution which he hoped would be such as to remove those obstacles which had made, and would still make, it impossible for Germany to enter the League. H e would therefore put on one side the problem of the permanent seats. In doing so, however, he felt compelled to point out that, 0 long as the crisis had not been solved in the manner hoped for, his obscnaLions coulu

only be of a. theoretical nat ure a nd obviously could not definitely bind bls Go...-ernmeut. With this reservation he would explain his views regarding the question of the non­permanent seats.

The British representative had submitted a scheme the object of which was to define the rules concerning t he number and method of election of the non-permanent )!embers of the Council. Two fundamental ideas underlay this proposal; one was a system of rotation; the other a restriction of t his Totation to overcome the clifCiculties of its rigid form. These two ideas were, in the view of the German representative, based on a ~olid foundation. The Assembly of t he League had on several occasions ...-oted in favour of the introduction of a system of rotation, and t he scheme of Viscount Cecil only followed the dames of the Assembly in providing for such a principle. The second idea also appea,red to him to be well founded. He could well imagine that the Assembly of the League might feel very real regret when a country or distinguished statesman, at the end of the three­years mandate, was obliged to relinquish its or his seat on the Council. In such cases it •ould be possible for the Assembly , according t o Viscount Cecil, to de<'laro the ~[ember re-eligible and thus to assure the benefit of its services for a further pctiocl. 1'he German representative could therefore agree in principle with the fundamental ide~ts underlying the scheme of Viscount Cecil, a ll the more so as the British representaLive had informed

. lhe Committee that, in making these proposals, he had been gwded solely hy the general interests of the League and that they were t he result of his sole desire to put the working of the League on a more satisfactory basis.

The German representative added, however, that, in expressing agl'ecment with the British scheme, he thought that he was in order in interpreting it to mean that the freedom of the General Assembly, which was the sup1·eme organ of the League, would in no way be curtailed ; that was to say, t hat the choice, if i t were nece ·sary to make one, of those Members \vhich should be exempted for a period of three years from the opemtion of the system of rotation must lie with the Assembly in the free exercise of il~ duties and possessing absolute liberty of action. He would be most grateful to Yiscoun L Cecil if he would confirm this interpretation and would inform M. von Roesch whether he had properly mderstood Viscount Cecil's proposals con<'erning the maintenance of the prin<'iple of the absolute freedom of the General Assembly regarding elections.

As far as the question of t he number of non-permanent scat:; was concerned, the German representative stated first t hat the arguments put forwru·d in support of the necessity of an increase in the number of these seats had not completely convinced him. The arguments put forward in favour of maintaining t he present number of non-permanent !eats had appeared to him to be much stronger and more eonvincillg. The ,-arious aspects of the question favouring the maintenance of the present figure had been brilliantl.Y developed principally by the representatives of Italy, Sweden and the Argentine Republic. M. von Roesch would not have much to add to their statemen ts. Nevertheless he would not ado~t an intt·ansigen t attitude on this point in View of the strong cmTenL o~ opi~io_n manifested in t he Committee in favour of an increase, but would ask the Comnnt tee, 1f 1L thought it necessary to increase the numbe1· of seats in question, to do so in as small a measure a& possible. Never theless, he realised that he lacked practical experience in this question, While his colleagues possessed the greatest competence in speaking on all matte~·s J)erta:ir~g to the work of the League. Taking account -of this fact, he would be re3:dy, tf. unamm1ty ~uld be achieved in favour of one of tbe figures put forward during the dH;cusston, to bow

fore t he greater experience of the other members of the Commi ttee. . The German represen tative, in conclusion, desired to point out once .more that t~e ~_expressed by the representative of Uruguay to the effect _that the :::;taLes of Lat';ll GA!161'lea should be assured a just representation on the Council were very sympathetic

-86-

to him and that his sympathy was, he knew, shared by the Government and publico .. in Germany. PUUot

Viscount CECIL, in reply to the German r·epresentative, said that he could gir J.; .. without hesitation, the most positive a-ssurance that the Assembly would be left com;!~ free to decide wha t Member should be elected to non-re-eligible or re-eligible seats 0: ~ Council. In his view, nothing would be more disastrous to the League of Nations than 1

suggestion that there could be any possibility of exercising pressme on the free choice~ the Assembly in this matter, or indeed in any other mat ter. In his experience, any atte

111 to put pressure on the Assembly merely provoked extreme resistance on the part of 1~ body and defeated its own ends. Consequently,. there .'~as no doubt whatever that the Assembly would be left perfectly free to take Its decisron, naturally weighing aU the arguments for and against election to either kind of seat of any Member of the League tb presented itself for election. The British representative was at the disposal of his coueagu" to reply to his question with even greater precision if necessary. e

M. voN ROESCH thanked Viscount Cecil for his statement, which gave him con1plett I!Rtitlfaction.

The CHAIRMAN was pleaserl to hear Viscount Cecil's cxplana,tions a nd thanked the German repreRcntative for having asked for them. He wns convinced tllat Rueb "" the real feeling of the Committee regarding the liberty of the Assembly, which was, an4 always must remain, absolute.

M. DE PAr.ACIOS thought it his duty to make wme observations conceruiug ex elu~iveiJ the question of the permanent seats. The :British repre~entative had justly cmph~ the absolute necessity of settling the question of the composition of the Council in gu~ a manner as not to prolong the very grave crisis which had occurred iu March last, aod to settle it definitely in ot·der t.hat the question should not arise oncA more in some indefinite future.

The Rpanish Government fully agreed, on this point, with the British representatire. It was for this reason that it had put its demand for a permanent seat so categorically,and it was for this reason that the Spanish representative had previously appealed to lht political conscience of t,be members of the preRent Commit.tee. The British representatire, in giving his general views on the question of the permauent Members, had particularly referred to the antecedents of the question contained in Lor·d Cecil's note (Appendii lll (e)), which bad been distributed to the Committee. These antecedents, which w~re -very interesting, had an historical value, but it was obvious that they could not biud the action of Spain. They concerned the negotiations which had taken place between other countries but which, as far as the Covenant was concerned, had achieved no definite result. Among the facts quoted, mention was made of a very highly authorised llrit,isb commentary, but it was obvious that this commentary could only bind the British Government. Spain had agreed with the terms of the Covenant as it was drafted. W.hen a contract was signed, the person signing it bound himseJf to fulfil only what was contamed in that contract. All previous drafts of the contract were without any value. ln the do(lument mentioned above it was recognised that the final wording of t.he Covenant ~IV quite different from the var·ious texts which had preceded it. The British represenlatn·e had thought that the principle of the permanent representation of the great Powers ~~ly should ho maintained. That principle obviously existed. According to the ~nt~h commentary, the clause of the Covenant in question made possible the admissi.on of Germany and Russia in th~ future, but the British commentary left the way open, m the same way as Article 4 of the Covenant, for the admission of other permanent. Members without any conditions. .

There was a further obecrvation which ought to be n1ade. The Spanish represent~Un was not aware of tho above antecedent~ of the question. At the meeting of the Comouttee on t.he Amendments to the Covenant , be had asked, in order tha t he Rhould be able het.ter to interpret the scope of certain articles, that th~se antecedents shonld be la.id before hiJll. He had been informed that this was impossible. Lord Cecil's note mentioned minutes, but he had been informed on the above occasion that, p.roperly speaking, no minutes h~ been taken of theP.e meetings and that each delegation h~d made its own record for Its own purpose.

M. SoiA.LO.TA explained that minutes had been ta.ken towards t.he end but that they were not very authentic.

M. DE PALACIOS noted that his remarks appeare<Lcorrect. The antecedents a.vailab~ and the authenticity of which he would not contest, were not complete. The Fren representative, M. Fromageot, had referred to other antecedents, but these could not make it possible to exanrlne tho question a~ a whole since they were not complete. h

Briefly, there could be no question of preserTI.ng the principle defended by t ~ British representative. Spain had had the satisfaction of finding support for her ~e~ar from 1921 until March 1926. If this demand had not been compatible with that priDCIP ~~ the Spanish Government, in common with the other Governments which met at P~ and belonged to the Council, would have laid aside this principle which in actual fact di

-87-

eJigt. u the Corumit~ee desired to appl~ it .now, the Spanish l'Cpre::;eutath•e would that d<"sire, but to mtroduce the prmmple mto the CoYenaul would be, in his view,

end the Coven.ant. . . . . . to ~he representative of ~pam had .listened With gratitude to the. expressions of

pnt forward by VIscount Cecil a~d M,. de ~rouck~re conccrnmg hi country, 110t been able to feel t.he same satisfaction With regard to the attitude of their

oroents towa1·ds the concrete case raised by Spain, for that attiturlc was not t.be GoTer~ it bad been some years and eYen perhaps some weeks pre,iously. He could not ~e- a.ncl be said this with the ~ame n:otiv~s as had _justly b.eeu tho8e of Lord Cecil on hid renous occasion - that a solut10n which did not satisfy Spam would bt' gret>ted in that 1 P otry with the greatest respect, but at the same time Spain would he couvinced tha t r: co-operation in auy other form would be of no use to the League.

M FROMAGEO'J' explained that, when he had spoken at a prl.'vions me(•ting, he had uatnrally uot yet heard the remarks of M. Guani. ~e thought t.hat he could a.Rsure the C-ommittee that t.be propoRal that thn South Amt'\rxcau ~ta.tes should he appropt·iately represented on the Couucil woulrl be v<>ry favourably regarded by th tl Government of the French Repu b1ic.

M. n E BROUCKl~:RF. desired to refer to the historical remmtsceoecs of the Spanish representative which did llOt seem to be quite accurate. On two Ollcasions M. de Palacios bad said that the Relgian Government or the Belgian representative had changed the attitude which they bad held towards the question of a permanent seat for Spain several vears and even several weeks, previously. · He would not lay much emphasis on the history of the first occasiou on which Spain bad put forward her candidature. If his memory were good, events had pas~ed somewhat hastily at a meeting when no minutes had been kept ; without authentic documents he would not like to comment on what had occurred. On the other band, aR regards eveut~ which had taken place a few weeks previously, he was in a pof!ition to say that the Belgian representative had not at that moment concealed his opinion, which waR the ~arne a.s that which he himself bad pnt forward on the previous day. The Belgian represt>ntative, wbilo allowing his sympathy for Spaiu and his desire to see it a .Member of the Council, for a long time had realised the difficulty to whirl1 the CI'eation of a new permanent seat would give rise. In hiR desire to leave the Assembly completely free on this point, and since he did not wish to exercise his righ t of veto in the Council, the Belgian repre•entativc had takeu refuge in abstention which, in those r.ircumstauce~, could have a perfectly clear meaning.

The representative of Belgium wished to assure M. de Palacio::; that the a ttitude of hi8 Government bad not changed, and, if unanimous agreement could be reached granting • permanent seat to Spain, the Belgian Government would show a spirit of conciliation and would not stand alone against the desires of everybody.

M. DE PALACIOS paid a tribute to the courtesy of the Belgian rcpre~:~eu t;ati vo. 'I' here might obYionsly be a divergence of view::; as to what had actually happened on au occasion when neither M. de B1·ouckere nor himself had been present. He was convinced, however, that a private conversation between them would clear up the matter.

M. DE BROUCKERE t hank ed the Spanish delegate for his statement .

l\1. MATSUDA said that be had already stated at a preceding meeting in what manner, according to the Japanese delegation, it would be possible to solve the present crisis. He 11'38 very happy to see that the majority, if not everyone, bad been able to agree with the Japanese point of view. As be bad already pointed out, the various countries, as )!embers of the League of Nations, were all friends and brothers. Japan considered with great 5}'ID.pathy the claims submitted during the last few days by the 1·epresentative::; of China, Sp~, Brazil, Poland and even Persia. He bad listened with the greatest interest to the ~etailed statements made by the representatives of those countries. Belgium was not alone m her sympathy for those countries. Japan in particular felt the greatest sympathy for them. Unfortunately, it seemed necessary to be in favour of I'e:t.ricting the increase in the nnm~er of Members on the Council. The Council was a body having hea-vy responsibilities, and 1t often had to meet very quickly in order to settle pressing quesLions.

Without laying too much emphasis on the point, the J apanese delegate desired to raise a question on which he had not yet touched, foi' it was of quite another kind. It was connected with geographical, ethnical and other considerations on which the Assembly had on several occasions passed a recommendation. M. Guani had submitted his views regarding South America. The J apanese delegation sympathetically considered them and thought that they would be sympathetically considered by all the States Members of the League. ~t should be pointed out, however, that such considerations bad already been provided for tn the resolution of the Council which fixed the terms of reference of the present Committee, 80 ~hat it was the Committee's duty to examine them with every sympathy in order to fulfil the terms of the Council's resolution.

li M:. CHAo-HsiN CHU supported the proposal of Lord Cecil regarding the non-permanent .Lembers of the Council. He agreed that the total number of the non-permanent seats IUIOuld be nine. There was no absolute reason why increasing the number of seats on the

-· 88-

Council by a small number should make it impracticable. In the view of the ('J· representative, if the number of permanent seats could be increaseu, greater satisf~~-~~ would ~~ given to _the 1Iembers of the ~eague which had shown g:reat anxiety ~0 be aeto~~on the pnvllege of s1ttmg on the Coun~il. ~~would, however, YI~ld to the Bntil;h propo,~ H e also supported the proposal of his Bntlsh colleague concerrung the system of rotati at with exceptions providing for re-eligibility. on

M. SciALOJA said th~t, while ~e still thou_ght that nine non-per_manent seat. wast many, he was ready to w1tbdraw his proposal m favour of t.hat of VIscount Cecil proYid~ that the figm·e nine should be a maximum which could neYer be exceeded and that i[ nation which for the moment could not receive a permanent seat obtained one late; tba number of non-permanent seats should by that fact be decreaseu by one ~o that tbf maximum number of fourteen forming the total number of Members of the Council shouJ~ not be changed.

If the Committee accepted this point of view, he was ready, for his part, to vote •01 thi~ figure without regrets, for the attitude which he had adopted might perhaps b~ve influenced t.be decision that the number of seats in the Council should not exceed fourteen He yielded all the more willingly since this number, which from certain points of vie~ apvearcd to him too large, had certain a-dvantages, more part,icularly because it made it ea~;ier to adopt the system of proportional representation of continents on the Council so as to sat.isfy t-he representatiYes from South America w11o ·were well aware of the sympathv of Italy towards their countries and who knew how much their co-operation wa~ appreciated. This solution would also !';atisfy the Chinese representative as repre~entatire of Asia, who knew also that Italy, when Yoting in the elections, had always been inspired by her desire for Asia to be represented.

Viscount CEcn , proposed that the discu sion at the pre. ent stage should be adjourned until tho afternoon. In the inten·al the Drafting Committee would prepare for submission to the Committee a new text of the proposal ~> which bad been dhscus. ed for the last three days with reference to the non-permanent .:\!embers of the Council. Doubt less it wa still possible to discuss these que. tions, but it seemed that mo<t of the members of the Committee had now arrived at a fairly clear idea of their wi~be, in the matter, and there appeared to be a general a.greement, not as to the wording but as to the principles involYed in the first two paragraphs of the draft which he bad submitted.

With regard to the question of the non-permanent Members, he had also the impression that there was a very considerable majority, if not absolute unanimity as yet, in favour of the figure nine. 1'his question, however, if there were still any doubt on the subject, could be discussed more thonmgbly when the new text ca.me to he examined. The Committee might even wait until the afternoon meeting before deciding whether the new t.ext should mention the figme eight or nine. In any case, the discussion would ga.in in clearne~s if the Committee had before i t a precise text for discussion. There was st.iJl, of cour~e, the proposal of tbc Belgian repl'esent.at-i ve, wbich had been called the "g-eneral election" proposal, which seemed to have been admitted in principle, and regarding which it might be useful to present a draft t.ext.

A::; regards the question of the permanent :;\>!embers, he very m uch hoped tha.t the Committee would at once adjourn that discu::;sion, without prejudice to its fim1l ded~ion. II was the most important and the most difficult of the questions :mbmitted to the Committee.. Per~onally, he wouJd like to be able to read very carefully the Yario~t~ declaration.· which bad been made on the subject and, in particular, those contained Ill the two speeches of the representative of Spain. If the Commi ttee de(·ided to adjourn tbi ::; discussion, and if it fixed the number of non-p('rmanent. Members, for example, at nine. this decision 'vould only be pro,isional, because, if an agreement were not reached on the question of Lhe number of permanent :Members. it would perhaps be nccessar~' also f•) reYise the number of non-pe1·manent Members.

To sum up, he would ask that the Drafting Committee should 1>repar e a new <t:art of his origina.l text, except for the que. t ion of pro port ionalrepresentation, which he de~ed to l'eserve for the moment and to \vithdraw from the discussion, though be was of opm~on that, this special proposal de~:>crved to have further attention, a~:~ it would perhaps p~ol'lde the best. meanl-! of meeting the desires of M. Guani for an appropriate representatwn of the Stat-es of Latin America.

Be was proposing to adjomn the que~;iion of the permanent l\fember:) because he wa~ convinced that. all the members of the CommiLtee, as well as their Governments,_ wo~t lc~ realise t he extreme importance of not taking a hast.y decision on this quest.ion, m ne" of the great influence which it might have, not on the de:;t.iny or existence of the Lcagn~ but on its good working and the comfort of it::; Members and on the good will and goo feeling which had hitherto preva.iled between them.

The CHAIRMAN said he did not ::;ee that there was any real uWit.y in begiJmiug orer again, on the basil:i of a new draft, the discussion on the question of the numbCI: ~~ non-permanent Members. He would prefer that those among his colleagues who ~~~\ bad some declaration to make on the subject should do so immediately. H e noted th: the majority of the members of the Committee had accepted t.he figure nine . f?r t ~ non-permanent Members. The Italian representative had said that he was willing

-89 -

t this figure in spite of his doubts on the matter, :;ubjcN to the l'<.'liervatiun ac~~ver, that the total number of the ~fembers of the Council c~<l uot exceed fo tu·Lecn: bod that if later on, when the number of permanent seata was thscusi.iell, the possibility :~increasing that number were admi ttecl, the number of non-permanE-nt aeats would be

ortionately decreased. . . proP The Swedish representat1 ve, on the other hand, had declared h1mself in {avour of

. taining the status quo. NeYertheless, he Tentured to hope that the Swedish maLn 'entatiYe would associate himself with the view-s of the Committee. repr~inally, the Committee bad h~~rd the ~l~cl~ration of th~ German representative, who ghing proof of a remarkable sp1r1t of conciliatiOn and agrccmg to accept, if 11eec. sary, tb 'figure nine for the non-permanent Members, had ncYerthelci.i..; expressed the hope tb~t the increase wo~ld be. as small and mo_d~st as po:;sib~c. H ace~l'din~~Y seemed useless

10 open agaJn a d1scuss•on upon a . defuute draft, smce the Comnuttee could now,

provisiona.Uy at least, settle t he quest.1on.

~L SJono&G persisted in believing that any increase in the number oC tho Members of the Council would involve seriou~ inconveniences in t.bc direction which he had alrcadv indicated on several occasions. The qllestion whether IJe could, iu lipit.c of this 1 Q~{ Ol Yiew, accep t a prOpOSal fOI' an increase in the nu mber Of llOn·pCrtnanent .i\letnben; ~epeuded on the possibility of such a proposal b eing accepted unanimously and, in particular, of finally settling the present crisis. Neither of t hese points had been set tied, and until they were, he could not give a fina l and explicit opinion.

M. MOKTA.RR.OYOS t hought that, after his various inter--.;-ention~ in the dii\CUSiiion::; of the Committee, the Com mittee was well aware of his point of Yie\c He had hitherto abstained from discussing the draft of Viscount Cecil . This, however, did not mean tbat tbe draft might not gi--.;-e satisfaction. The question of the proportion bet ween the number of the permanent and non-permanent :\Iembers was inYoh·ed, and the question of the number of permanent )!embers was fundamental. According to the British repre entati--.;-e, this question should be adjom·ned. "Gp to what time should it be adjourned ? If i t were understood that the question would again be discussed upon a 8ccond reading of the draft, or at any time during the w·ork of the pre:;ent Committee, he felt bound to obsene that the question of the non-permanent )!embers would necessarily be raised at that moment, as the proportion hetween the number of the permanent and non-permanent )Iembers was a question to which the Committee could not fail to giYe a good deal of attention.

The CaAIR~IAN said be wished to submit, as the representathe of Switzerland, certain considerations on the qu e:; tion of t he number of the non-permanent Members .

He had a.ll·eady had occasion to say t hat he bad interpreted the choice of Switzerland to ~it on the Committee as the choice of a State which did not in any way aspire to sit on t.he Council and which, moreoYer, had the honour to be the State in which the headquarters of th e League of Nations , .. ,-ere si t uated. These facts ga.ve her a twofold interest in the question : on the oue hand, a desire f or absolute impartiality, and, on the other, a desire to ~af<'guard, perhaps more th an any other State, the prosperity of the Lea,«rne of Nationfl, which had ~Jtrnck itil root~> d eeply into t he . oil of the Confederation. Among the State~> which had neen al)J)Ointecl, outside the :;\ [emb~rs of the C'onncil, were Germany, the Argentine (whose ::~pecial circumstances were "·ell known) and, finally, Poland and China, who bad presented requests for perma,ncnt :seal:; on definite ronditions. S"itzcrlan<l was accordingly the one State which might he rct.{anlerl as being­absoluteiy exempt from any preoccupation~ other tlLan tlLo:se counected with the work or the League of :N"atiom; in itself.

~e had also had occasion to say i.Jt a p re \'ions declamtion I hat ho l'Ottld not ~tbaudon lhe 1dea that Switzerland had an obligation to defend within the Commit tee l!ertaiu prerog~~i,· e::; of the As:;embly, so far a:; her resources permitted, alHl in <H'L'OJ'<lan1·e with the Spll'lt of conciliation which characterised her policy. \Ybat. was Lo be uuden;tood from lhi !

Certain member:; of the Commit tee bad said that i t wa..; <L matter of indift:ercncc to the Assembly whether the Coundl shouhl be eompusefl of (ew OJ' mnu,v .;\f<:'mbcn;. lie ~adeYen heard H said tbat, ai"i the As~Jemhly appointed the eled<'d Mcmhcrx o( the Council, tl was a matter of indilfercnce to it whether the latter was compo:-;cd of tbis or t.hn.t number of Members ; it was even contended tha.t the more l\fcmbel's there wtrc in the Council lbe ~ore completely wou ld the vrel'0gativc1'5 of t.he Assembly be :;afe.~lHtrdcd. 'l'his ~;ecmed to hllll to be a very great mis t.ake.

Th? Assembly , as such, could derive uo achanta.ge from a, Counc il whic:h was too ~rge, ~mce tb~ Council, fro m itil Ycry natme, had already a. nat untl prcpon~et·~nc~ ? ''er

e Assembly 1tself. The Council met at least fotu time:; n. year. H dealt wtth mf1mtely lllore questions than tl1e Asf!embly . It was clear that, if t.be Conneit included all the re~t Powers as well ati a ll the States which, as members o.f a .IJO_liti(·al g-roup, i ~ 'yas ~a?le to have repre ·en ted on the Council, it would comprtse m 1t.:elf all the ex1stmg ~enhal interests, and that the role of the Asiiembly would e,·entually suffer, a lthougl1, ? co~s.e, there was no intention on the prot of the Council to do anything whic·h might ~P:u.r Its friendly relations with the Assembly. The Assembly would run the risk -1 ~as to be hoped that futu1·e experience would show that these apprehen:sions w-ere

-90-

ill founded- of beco~g the body in which speeches were o;aad~ but in which nothin was done except to reg1ster what had already happened outside Itself. He accordin g felt compelled to draw the attention of the Committee to the necessity of remaining Wit~ the most modest limits in r~gai'd t? the 9.uestion o~ in~reasing the size of Council.

He had explained .that 1t was rmposstble ~o mamt~n .the status quo. Since the had been admitted whwh rendered more elru:tiC the prmc1ple of the nou-re-eli!!ibilit;w~ Members after the expiration of their term of office, it was natural and reason:ble th ~ so far as S~ates which were subje~t ti? the normal and regular systen;a ~f rotation \r~ concerned, 1t was uecessary to mamta.rn at least the status quo, and th1s m itself implied the idea of an increase. It was for this reason that he personally bad been brouabt 1 accept the idea of the increase, and. he .would add that, if the incr~ase were to a~oun~ to two Members, he would probably fmd 1t necessary to bow before th1s necessity in a spirit of couciliat.ion.

If, however, the number were raised to three, his scruples would begin to be fair( · considerable. He had listened on the previous day with great pleasure to the speerh of M. de Brouckere, which, both as regards form and matter, was inspired with a spirit which he was happy to see present in that. Committee. He must, however, confess to his colleague that on one point iu his speech he had felt some doubt.

The Belgian representative had defended the desire of Latin America t.o have ill iufluence within the Council increased, and had for thi!'l reason justified the necessitv for an increase in the number of Members. Speaking as Swiss rP.pres~ntative, he accepted thit> idea. Jf regard were had to the total number of the Connell and to the representation of Latin America, in view of the spirit which Latin Ame1ica could and must bring to tht work of the Council, it might be admitted that its present representation, which amounted to two Members only, deserved to be inf'.reased. The observations of M. de Brouckere were also decisive when, looking towards the great. continent of Asia, the cradle o1 civilisation, he had shown the ne<'e!'sity of a fUither increase of one Member iu order to include thi~ coutinent, for the Belgian representat ive had justly noted that more than once the delegations, when they were appointing the Members of the Council, had felt :\ certain unea-siness because, at the moment of voting, they were under the impre~ion that the geographical ctistrihut.iou of the Bf.>at:; had not been effected in conformity with j ustice.

This increase of two seats had accordingly seemed to the Swiss represeutative to be justified. He bad begun to feel douhtful, however, when the figure three was suggested, aud for the following reason : there were at present a.s permanent Member~ of the Collllcil three great European Powers, and there would he four when Germany bad entered the Council. There would accordingly be five permanent Members wit.h J apan, which represented the continent of Asia. There were also six elected Members. Tt bad bet>n seen that, by the addition of two non-permanent seats, the representation of Latin America might be increased, and the legitimate wishes of the continent of Asia or of any other continent might be met. Of the six elected Members, two already belonged, in fact, to Latin America ; the fom others belongerl to Euro1>e. Was there not a possibility of sa-tisfying a ll legitimate aspirations by means of the foUl' seats which still remained at the disposal of Europe T He did not wish to go into detail, ns he was touching here upon very delicate gronnd. He did not wish to mention any State or delegation by name, but he had a very clear in1pressiou that, with eight non-permanent Members, all the legitimate desires or t·ht> various continents, and particularly of Europe, co1lld be satisfied.

This was the reason for which he fonnd it necessary to make the most formal reservations in regard to the possibility of exceeding the 'number eight, :::;o far as the non-pt-rmanent Members were concerned, though he would make no declaration of .an uncompromising chamcter which might run the risk of disturbing the harmony which he so keenly desired to attain, not only so far as he personally was concerued but also as the representative of the Swiss Confedemtiou.

30. Draft Proposals by Viscount Cecil regarding the Number and Method of Election of tbe Non-Permanent ~lembers of the Council : Reference to the Drafting Committee.

The CBAllt~LAN invi ted his colleagues to decide on the qu('stion of procedur~ raised ~Y the suggestion of Yiscouu.t Cecil, w~o asked that tho ~scussion might he adJourJ~e~ m order to enable the Draftrng ComiDJttee, already constituted, to frame a text whlc would be .tliklcussed. t'itber in .the aft-t>rnoon or at a later met>ting. Personally, I~<' wo~tld accept. th1s suggestiOn, and, tf the Committee were agref.>d on the point, the d1scussw~ regardmg ~he perm~nent M~mbers would he adjourned until the text ~arne .to ~~ r~al a second t1me. T~1s would 1mpJy that the Committee had already adrmtt.ed Ul pnump e that a secoud readmg should be taken, the date of which would be fixed l:tter after the tell l1ad been disoussed. h

T~e D~·aftin~. Committee, wb~ch would :mbmit the re:::;ult of it:::; di~cussions to t ~ Comilllttee 10 wntmg, would examme the question, subject to the following rules approv by the Commit.tee :

(1) Duration of the te.rm of offie.e for three years; (2) Annual renewal of one-third of the non-permanent Members i (3) I mmediat-e entry into offiee of the elected Members;

- 91 - -

(4) The principle of rotation for elected States; accoruiug to this the elected States, after the expiration of the term of office, would not be re-eligible during a period of three years ;

(5) The ARsembly, however, b y a sovereign declarat.ion of i t1-1 wishes in the matter and by a qualified majority, might make exceptions to rule 4.

(6) The Committee had already admitted the principle tbat the number of non-permanent Members must be increased, aud, as Chairman, he felt bound to record that the majority of the Committee had admitted that the number of the non-permanent Members might be fixed at nine - a figure which Lad moreover, been declared to be provisional. '

As 1·egards the permanent Members, the question remained intact and wa~S l'eserved for the second reading. . .

The Chairman thought he should confme himself to the above sununary. The Drafting Committee might, _however, in a~plying these principles! ~!so draw up detailed provisions in regard to whtch the Comrmttee would take a decunon.

Viscount CECIL, replying to the Brazilian representative, said that, in his opinion, the question of the permanent Members should be discussed at another sell~Sion of the Committee. The question of the date of this session would have to be examined. It might be held within two or three weeks, or perhaps within four or five weeks, but in any case at a time which would enable the members to reflect at leis me on this important and serious question.

M. GUANI thanked the representatives of Germany, France and Italy for theit· declarations in favour of the considerations which he had put forward on the preYiOUil day concerning the continental representation of the States of Latin America. Be also thanked Viscount Cecil and M. de Brouckere, who had adhered to this same principle. Generally speaking, although certain opinions bad not yet been publicly expressed, agreement appeared to be established in regard to the proposals which he had submitted to his colleagues. This, then, was anothe1· point which had been agreed in principle, though the Chairman did not seem to have taken express account of it in his statement. B.e would urge tllat the agreement as to the continental representation of Latin America in the sense which be bad indicated on the previous day should be recorded in order that the Drafting Committee in the report to the Council might mention the fact that there was an agreement on the subject.

The CHAIR111AN said in reply that his own words had shown that he wa~S entii·ely in agreement with the wishes and ideas of M. Guani. The only reason why he had omitted to ment.iou formally the question of the continental representation of Sout.h America was that he felt some doubt as to the possibility of finding a formula in which this idea could be embodied, though he considered that it should be followed up. H e would ask the members of the Drafting Committee, however, to exam.ine this question from the poinL of view of form, and he noted with 11atisfaction that, in substance, all the members of the Committee were in complete agreement.

M. DE BROUOKERE, in order to leave the Drafting Commiptee lhe time necessat·y for their work, proposed that the Committee should adjourn unt.il Monday, 'May 17th .

. The Chairman, in his clear and impartial summary, J1ad drawn attent-ion, anwug t.he pomts which were settled, to t.he nece:;sity of increasing t he number of Member;; of the Council, and had noted \>;rttb a n impartiality to which all the member8 of the C'ommit.tee ..-ould pay a tribute, that there appeared to be a majority in favour of the figure nine. If the Drafting Committee prepared a scheme, it would have to inser t a number, as the whole of the machinery depended upon the number adopted. It should be understood, in order tbat the Drafting Commit tee might not be reproached with having prejudged the decision of the Committee, that it was the Committee itself which bad indicated the figure nine.

The CHAIRMAN replied in the affirmative.

M. MONTARROYOS, alluding to an observation made by the represent.ative of Uruguay co~~rning certain member~ of the Committee who had not yet publicly expressed theil' 0Pl1Uon on his proposal, said that the Brazilian delegation had L>een for a long time aware of the .desire to have the non-permanent representation of Latin America on the Oouncil

Tnumertcall~ inc~·eased, and t~at it had ~lways s~own _itself p1:epared l.o support this claim. here was m ex1stence a public declaratiOn on thts subJect, whlCb mol'eover wa~:~ well known, m~e by M. de Mello-Franco. The p1·oposal of :M:. Guani, therefore, contained nothing ~hich ~as new to the Brazilian representative. If the latter had not taken the initiative : lll~!ting a proposal in this sense it was merely owing to considerations of method. The L~zili~n representative, from the beginning of the meetings and in each of his interventions, llliQ affirmed that the Commi ttee must first of a ll deal with the question of t.be permanent l!em~ers and take subsequently the question of the non-permanent Members, since the question of the number should only be considered after the question of the na.ture of the eomposition of the Council. This question of number was therefore, in his view, twice Pl'elnature.

-92-

M. DE PALACios, referring to the requests for an adjournment of any solution in reg to the permanent Members, reminded the Committee that he had previously em ha .ard how urgent it was to shorten the duration of the present crisis. H e ought acc~r~d to in. ist that this question should be settled without delay, bu t this would be con~ to the spirit of conciliation which his Government and he himself desired to obsen·e ll accordingly accepted the adjournment of the question to the date which the Com~tt e would decide, proTided the Committee did not in any way prejudge the que-r ee either of the number of the permanent Members or of the total number of the Mern~n of the Council. The Italian representative had agreed to a certain number of non-perman r• )!embers, subject to the reservation that any increase of the number of permanent se~~t would inYolve a corresponding decrease in the number of non-permanent seats. If th g

number of non-permanent seats were provisionally fixed, there might be certaie misunderstandings. It must accordingly be understood that the adjournment did no~ prejudice this question.

The CHAIRMAN said that the question remained intact and that the fixing of the number of non-permanent seats was provisional.

M. DE PALACIOS further reminded the Committee that, at the beginnina of the discussions, he had declared that he would not participate in the discussion of the oquestion of the non-permanent Members. When the Chairman had summarised the various point$ which were settled and had proceeded to the appointment of a Drafting Committee he had abstained. He felt obliged to act in this way in order to enable unanimity t~ 1Jf achieved. The Swedish representative had said on the previous day, referring to abstentious, that a Member should have the courage of his opinion. He himself claimed to have this courage, but he believed that it was necessary also sometimes to gi•e proof of the political wisdom which counselled conciliation.

Spain had not ratified the amendment to the Covenan t , and he should therefore rote against the proposal which had been made. If, however, the various member~ of t he Committee thought that. he should abstain, he \vould act in conformity '"ith their desires. H e had no need to say what the feeling of Spain was in regard to tbe I bero-Americau countries and in regard to the repre.-en tation of Portuguese and Spaniib America, which Spain wonld always regard with favour.

The CHAIRMAN replied that there were several kinds of courage and that all depended on l he quality of their inspiration. There was, in particular, such a thing as the courage of moderation.

1.'he Co1nmittee dcci(led that its next 1neeting should be held on Monda:y, MaJt 17th.

ELEVENTH :MEETING

H eld on iJi onday, 11iay 17th, 1926, at 10.30 ct.m.

Chair'man: M. 1\IOT'l'A.

Present : All the members of the Committee.

31. Observations of the Norwegian Government on the Question of the Composition and Numbtr of :!Uembers of the Council: Communication by the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN informed the Committee that, since the last meeting, the observation, of the Norwegian Qo,~erumeut on the que ·tion concerning the composition and number of the Members of the Council had arrived (Appendix II, p. 140).

32. Dralt llules regarding the Number and Method of Election of the Non-Permanent Members of the Council : Text proposed by t.hc Drafting Committee.

The CHAIR::IIAN said that the Drafting Committee had met and drawn UJ? the report which was before the Committee. M. Se.ialoja, representative of Italy, would, if necessar6, act ~ts R-apporteur of the Drafting Committee. The Ohainnan hoped that the task 0~ 1 : Rapporteur would be limited to strict necessities, since many questions had a~·eady ~ g discussed at length. He proposed, therefore, that the Committee should avo1d enter~e upon any new general di:;cussion, since that appeared useless in view of the ~act tha~ ud general discu. siou had been a s full as could be desired. The Comnntt~e s 01ge immediately begin the discussion of the text submitted by the Drafting Committee. proposed that this draft should be examined article by article.

The Chairman's proposal was adopt-ed.

- 93

Article 1.

The 0JIAI1tMAN called upon the Committee to discuss Article 1, the terms of which were follows :

as "The non-permanent Members of the Council shall be elected for a term of three years. Tbey shall assume office immediately on election. One-thiru of their number shall be elected eacb year. "

M. i\IONTARROYOS pointed out that, as he had already said on several occasions, tht-roposal that the non-pe~·manent Members should enter upon their duties immeclia,tely

~0 elect.ion appeared to_ h1m. t? be unsound. Consequently, any rema.~ks which he might b:lve to ma.ke on a.ny }lOl~t ansmg from t.he a:boYe text woul~ b_e made With that reservation. He could not accept Article 1 of the draft With that clause m It, because, as he bad already explained, the p1·oposal was .too revolutio~ary and beca:u~e the Assembly had by tradi t.ioil adopted anoth~r procedure. He agreed w1th that t~·adtti_on, and h~ refused t.o accept any unduly revolutiOnary propo~al. He thought that m thiS he was m agreement with the principal membe~·s of the Committee, especiallY: with the Brit ish represent.ative, who had urged the Comnuttee not to adopt measures wluch were too revolutwnary.

As M. Scialoja (Rapporteur) did not desire to speak for the moment, Viscount CECIL said he would simply point out, in answer to M. Montarroyos, that he did not think the proposal was revolutionary. It had merely been put forward in order to make the procedure of the League conform with the procedure which, with very rare exceptions, prevailed, as far as he knew, in all democratic countries. He thought it would be difficult to sustain Lhe argument that, after a Member's mandate had been su11erseded by the mandate of another .Member, the former should still continue to exercise functions which evidently would be more appropriately exercised by the Member which had been elected to succeed it ..

The CHAIRMAN desired to put a definite question to M. Montarroyos. The Brazilian representative made a reservation regarding the sentence : "they (non-permanent Members) shall assume office immediately on election". Did he vote formally against this proposa.l or wotlld he abstain in order that the Committee might take its decision unanimo1.1sly ~

M. MONTARROYOS replied that he could immediately inform the Committee tha,t he would abstain from voting on the dmft as a whole. When, however, the actual vote took place, he would explain the meaning of his abstention, for he did not desire that it should be given a meaning which it did not possess . As the Chairman had asked him whether he would abstain in order not to interfere wi th the unanimity of the Committee, he would like to know definitely whether unanimity on this clause had in actual fact been obtained.

The CHA.IRh'LAN asked the members in favour of the clause : "They shall ass ume office immediately on election", to raise their hands.

He noted that eleven members of the Committee we1'e in favour of the clause. The other members, if the Chairman had properly understood their views, had, he though t., abstained in order not to interfere with the unanimity of the Committee.

M. MONTARlWYOS pointed out that unanimity of the Committee was not complete, and he would be glad to have the meaning of t.he abstentions explained, as he had explained his own.

The CHAIRMAN thought that, without ta,king upon himself to explain the views of members who had abstained, i t appeared obvious that in any vote t hose who abstained did so because they made mental reservations. They did not, however, desiL·e to go so far as categorically to oppose a proposal since they dcsiL·ed that unanimity should be obtained.

Viscount CECIL hoped that the right of all members of the Committee to vote fo1· or a~ainst any proposal or to abstain would be preserved. The members were not bound to g1ve reaRon~ for a.ny of their votes. They might prefer uot to give rea.sous, ancl it_ would be a monstrous inquisition to ask them to do so, or to ask them to expla.in thou vote or their abstention, or thereby to put members in a difficult position. They might prefer not fully to explain their attitude and to rema.in silellt.

It was perfectly clear that the rule of the Lea.gue was that abstention did uo t. affect unanimity. Thn.t rule had been established in a number of cases, and he hoped that the Committee would do nothing that would infringe the full right of auy member to act ~ccording to his conscience without being questioned as to the action which be bad though t tt right to take. ·

M. DE P ALAOIOS fully agreed with Lord Cecil in the sense that uo body could be compelled to explain the reasons for his abstention.

M. MoNTARROYOS was also of that opinion.

M. DE PALACIOS added that; with a view to achieving a compromise, be would refer ~0 t,he explanations which he batt already given conceruing his general abst.ention which ad the same meaniug as his abstentiou in this concrete case.

-94-

The CnAmMAN noted that the phrase under discussion bad heeu adopted 1tnanimoml 10ith fo1lr abstentions. J

Atiicle 1 was adopted.

Article 2, Paragraph 1.

The CHAIRMAN read the first paragraph of Article 2:

"A retiring Member may no t be re-elected for three :vears comm('nciug With ihe date of expiration of its mandate unless the Assembly shall decide otherwi~e either at that date or in the COUl'Se of thr('e years, by a majority of ... ~ ibe n11mber of Members thus re-elected shall not, however, exceed one-third of the total number of the non-permanent Members of the Council."

M. SOIAJ,OJA (Rapporteur) said that the Drafting- Committee proposed either a three. fifth s or two-thirds majority a.R the requiRite majority for any deci11ion of the Assembly concerning re-eligibility. ·

M. ORAo- RsiN CHu thought that both majorities were too high. He wonld pref~r a simple majority. That would be fmfficient, because it did not imply election but w113 merely the expression of the desire of the Assembly that a Mflmher should be eligible for re-t>lection.

M. SJoBORO pr01)0sed a majority of two-thirds.

Viscoun t CECIL proposed three-fifths as a compromise between a simple majority and t,wo-ihirds majority . He did not think that t.he questiott was very important .. Io the last elections, if he were rightly informed, every canclidate who had been elected had obtained more than a two-thirds majority.

M. SCIALOJA (Rapporteur) said that ~ clP-ar distinction Rhould be made rrgarding a vote on the re-eligibility of a Member and the vote for its re-elect.ion. The art.icle under discm~sion concerned the vote on re-eligibility ; that was to say on the exception to the rule of rotation which would be applied to a particular State. The Drafting Commit!~ had excluded the simple majority because such a system would give very little support to a State which would thus be re-eligible. A State only obtaining a simple majority would be defeated by thre~ States at the moment. of re-election, a.s wa,'i provfd by the statistics of previous elect.ions. Consequently, re-eligibility voted by a simple majority would mean nothing in favour of the State concernE-d. Personally, he would uot like very much to find himself in the poRition of having been declared I'e-digible and then of failing to be elected. To give a certain amount of support to a candidat.e for re-election, the vote on hil'l re-eligibility should obtain a fairly large majority. He agreed with M. Sjoborg in thinking that a two-t.hirrls majority was best. As Lord Cecil had just pointed out, a very large number of States which bad beeu elected bad obtained a majority greater than two-thirds. It would, therefore, be quite natural and reasonable t.o require a two-thirds majority for l'e-eligibility. .

If the Committee desired to adopt a three-fifths majority, he bad no objechon, for there was very little difference between two-thirds and three-fifth s. When the uumber of voters wa-s forty-eight, as was nearly always the case in the Assembly, the difference between a two-thirds and three-fifths majority would be fotll' votes. H e thought, thrrefore, there wa-s no necessity to discuss the question at any great length.

M. DE BROUOKERE would like to insist that the idea of a simple majority should be discorded. In actual fact this would ruin the whole system proposed in the draft. and would be contrary to the spirit of the Covenan t, which, generally speaking, required a bi~h~r majority for ordinary decisions. Moreover, in this case it was a question of an excepllon, and consequently the necessity for obtaining a substantial majority appeared still greater.

The question was really that of settling the procedure of voting, and the Ass~n1bly had on several occasions, especially when adopting the amendment to Article 4 of the Covenant, shown that it thought that procedures of vot.ing should be settled ~r a two-thirds majority. If the Comniittee adopted any other majority it would, to a certalll extent, upset the balance of everything that it was now constructing. What advant~ge could be obtained from this coUI·se 1 M. Scialoja bad clearly shown that a State which only obtained a simple majority when the vote concerning its re-eligibility took place. woubld have very small chances of being re-elected. If instead of the two- thirds majonty t e Committee adopted three-fifths, the result of the votes would be as follows : .

If the number of voters was 55, a two-thirds majority would be 37 and a three-f~t~ majority 34-a difference of three votes. If the number of voters were 48, a tw.o-thir majority would be 33, a three-fift~s majority 29- a difference of four votes. Was It w~r~h while, in view of the very small difference between them, to upset the logic of t.he w 0 e series of rules '

M. LE B&ETON said that he merely wished to state that be associated himself entire~~· with the opinion of the Belgian representative. All the discussiollS had taken place out

-95-

. of 1\ draft which cout~mplated a m!l'jority of t wo-thirds: In _the final dt•aft the figure bsrbeen left blank, and Jt, was for t h1s reason that t he discu11s10n had been re-opened. h& er one, bowe:ve~, ~ad in fact agree~ about _this majority> whic~~ mor(>over, wa~ Er !rdinary maJonty m the case ?f spemal v_otes ill all all8em~hes, political or otherwise, tbethe world. There was no spemal reason ill f_avow· of the 1~ea of a simple majority, ~bich would rnin tb~ ~hole schemf'. The Argentine representative was therefore in fuvonr of 11 two-thirds maJonty.

M. CRAo-HsrN 0Bu sai~ t~at he would_ not insist on ~he vote by a simple majority, but be thought that t_he ~aJOrtty of two:thuds was too h1gh. If he were n~t miRtaken, be State which came s1xth m t.he last elect10n of the non-permanen t Members did not obtai11 ~ 013;ority of two-thirds, siuc(' only 32 out af 49 vote!' were cast for it, in cludin~ a blank paper.

The CuAI&MAN 1·eminded t he Committee that the righ t of being re-elected was a n advantage wl1ich migh t legally be described as a privilege. Such a right. muf>t be sanct.ioned b a qualified majority; so rn ucb appea.red to be absolutely clen.r. If the mf~jot·ity requit·ed tJconfer this right were too small, there would he a risk at t he moment of vot.ing of collision~ between the State which had been d eclared re-eligible by a small majority and t he St.ate 11.bich would be elected because it had obtained more votes t han t he fot·met·.

The Committee would be setting a good example by settling by a majority the question ll"hether it would adop t t he proposal for a two-thirds or a th1·ee-fiftus majority. Perhaps those who would be in t he miuority would now decln.re t hat, in order to obtain unanimit y, they were ready to accept t he figure which was desired by the major it r.

M. SJoBORG reminded the Committee that M. Scialoja had said that, in the immense majority of cases, t he States so far elected had obtained the majority of two- thirds. This ns quite true. In 1920 and 1921 the Assembly hn.d been asked to vote for four non­permanent seats. Since 1923 the number of t hose seats was six. The elect ions of the Assembly had therefore been held on t hirty-two differen~ cases. Out of the. e thirty­tll"o ca es the majority of three-fourths had been exceeded in eighteen ea. es. In ten cases the majority which was inferior to three-fourt hs had, nevertheless, exreeded two-third . . Only in four casf's had St.ates been elected by a majority inferior to two-th irds. Out of ~birty-two cases t here had been twenty-eight ca. es in which the majol'ity had exceeded !To-thirds.

M. GcANI said he bad nothing to add in support of the prO])OSal for a majority of t.wo­tbirds. In the Drafting Committee he had himself ~mbmitted the calculat.ion which had just been made by M. Sjoborg, and if the Committee did not a bide by the proportion of two­thirds he would himself be in favour of a st.ill higher proportion. If a lower proportion were adopted it was to be fen.red that other StateR might obtain a vote superiol' to that of a ~tate which was declared to be re-eligible .

.M. SoKAL confessed that on the Drafting Committee he had been in faYom· of a three­fifths majority. The difference between two-thirds and three-fift.h F~ was. however, so slight, and the arguments of M:. Scia loja were so convincing, that he would i10t any longer oppose the proposal for a two-thirds majority bu t would feel justified in abstaining.

Viscount CECIL withdrew, so far as he was responsible, his propoRal that the propor t ion of three-fifths &hould be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN noted that tl!f proposal for a 11Utj01·ity of llt•o-thirds was luloptecl t111animo1tsly tcith some ttbstfntions.

A.1·ticle 2, P aragra,ph 2.

The second paragraph of Article 2 was read, as follows :

" As a transit.ional measure, the decision provided for in the preceding paragraph may, at the elections of 1927, be taken not only with respect to the Members whose mandates expire at that time but also with respect to those whose mandates expire in 1928 and 1929."

M. SOKAL found himself to be in a somewhat delicate position in view of t he fact that he ha~ been a member of the Drafting Committee and that he had made certain reservat.ions at tts meetings regarding Article 2 and particularly regarding the last paragraph.

hi He thought it was not necessary for him to put before t he Commi ttee all t he argumen ts i ch he had submitted to the Drafting Committee. H e would confine himself to poin ting out t~at in his view the Drafting Committee had provided a somewhat incomplete lllac~UJ:tery for dealing wit h the procedure of re-eligibility. It was the Assembly's duty to deal With the question of re-eligibility and of t he procedure governing it, and it was doubtful ~hether it 'vas necessary for the Committee to take any decision concerning t his procedure, ~ ~ny decision it would take would be incomplete and it would be for t he Assembly to be h 1t. For example, Article 2 made no mention of t he manner in which the choice should

made.

- 9G-

He would therefore feel obliged to abstain from voting on Article 2.

Yiscount CEcil, thought that the Committee was undet· a debt of gratitude to th Polish representative for the attitude he had taken- not for the fu·dt time dur· . ~ debates. IL was a n attitude of conciliation, and, ii be might be allowed to say so, of stat~~ like moderation. H e was sme that neither the Polish l'epre$CUtatiYe nor his countq· ha~d lo · anything by thai attit ude. The members of l11e Committee woult.l certainly ha~-e a ,.c d lively recollection of the Polish representath·e's attitude throughout the discu'\sions. ; had shown the true League spirit. - the kind oC spirit which would always se;eure tiJ: good will of a ll ~tatcs Members of t.bc League.

1\f. SOKAL tllanked Lord Cecil for his Yery kind remarkR, for which he was mo:;t grateful.

1\L SciALOJA added that, if it had been possible for him to include in the J·eport ~ome such remarks !LS tl.Jose wllich Lord Cecil had just made, i hey woulu certainly han: rceeiwd unanimous approval.

The CUAIRl\IAN said that, in view of t.l1e impoRsibilil;y of making any such referenre in t.be t•eport, he conld perhapil emphasise as Cha.irma.n I he words of Lord Cecil.

A1·ticle 2 was alloz)ted. A:rticle 3.

The CHAIRMAN reatl Article 3, as follows :

" Notwithstanding the above proYisions, t.he Assembly may at any time, by 3 t.wo-thirds major ity, decide, in application of Art.icle ·1 of the Cownant. to pro(·e(ld to a new election of all the non-perma nent ,\Iembers of the Council. fn this c·a'f the Assembly shall return to t.he rules a.pplic·n.ble to the new election."

:l'lli.~ art irlr wa~ atlopt eel without obser11ation.

A1·ticle 4.

The CRAIR:UAN read Article 4, as follows :

"The elected Members shall be increased to nine in number."

He asked t.lmt the word "non-permanent" be substituted for the word "elected" in order to preserve tho phraseology which the Commit tee had adopted.

M. S.TOHORO reminded the Committee that at one of the previous meetings he had said that no proposal concerning an increa,se in t.hc number of non-permanent State~ could in his view be taken into consideration before the Committee hau decided that such a proposal would acllieve unanimous a.greement and wou ld solve the crisis in all its aspects. He a ·ked t hat this statement should be inserted in the report, an(l, with that reservation: he would abstain from voting.

'l'be CHAIRMAN thought that the Committee would agree to take account in the re~ort of this reservation. He bad himself made 1·eservations with rega.rd to the number m~e. He had no need to add that the Committee had nothing to fear from him or from the~"''' Confederation. The Committee was aware that tlte ~ Confcdcrat ion would alwap do eYerytbing it could to respect the unanimity rule.

Article 4 was adoptetl with the above reserV(ttion .

.A1·ticle 5.

The CuAIRl\rAN read .A1·ticle 5, as follows :

"In order to bring the above system into operation there shall be elected nine Members as soon as possible in the nex t Assembly ; three of them shall be electNI for a term of three years, three for two years a.nd three for one year."

A1·ticle 5 ·was adopted without observation.

33. Question of Geographical and Continental Representation : Proposal by M. Guani.

M . GUANI regretted that he was compelled to delay the discussion for a. W.tle. Be hoped, however, that, in view of the spirit of conciliation which presided over all tb1~ discussions, t he proposal which be was about to put would merely amount to a sro:t addition and would meet with the approval of his colleagues.

With regard to the work of the Committee, one of the recommendations made by ~be Council had concerned geographical and continental representation. This recommend~ttou appe.ared to h~ve encou~tered a kind of general approval \\~hen he bad propo~e~ durffb~ prev1ous meetrng that 1t should be understood that, in the future compositiOn o

-97 -

three of the non-perman~t seats should ~e se_t _aside for States of Latin America. had on several occas10ns shown a dispos1t10n to acquiesce in this desu·e.

understood the.,.difficult.ieR of a constitutional kind against iuserting such an in the draft before the Committee. H e thought, however, that something could

. t:rodnced into it to the effect that, as far a-s geographical representation was concerned Jll WM a general concordance of views in the_ Commi~tee to tbe effect that the Assembly

be recommended to choose three Latin-American States when it proceeded to U~eeleCtion of nine non-per~a.nent Members. H~ would not dwell an:y longer on the reasons of all kinds which had led ~ to put for~ard _thlS proposal. He desued merely to add that

Government was very anXIous that thi.q pomt should be clearly a.ud precisely mentioned ill the scheme which would be submitted to the Council.

M PAUL·BONCOUR said he would merely poiut out that this recommendation appeared be~ natural consequence of the recommendation annually adopted by tbe As£:embly to

:eeffect that acc?unt should b~ ta~en of geogra~hical consi~eratious. As he had emphasised this recom~enda~10n at the b~gmrung of th~ sessiOn, and as It ':as one. of the reas.ous wllich had detern:uned him and th~ E rench delegation ~o pre~s for the figure ~ne, he felt 1t his duty to say that, under reservat10n of the form wh1ch this recommendat10n should take either in the te~t of the draft itself or in the Committee's report, he considered t.hat it would be folly legitimate to a.cquiesce in the desire expressed by M. Guani.

M. Sou.LOJ.A. said that, if M. Guani had not spoken on this question, he, as Rapporteur, "Jonld have done so in the name of the Drafting Committee, which had been unanimously of the opinion that the Rapporteur should make a statement in favour of the continental representation of South America. It had been decided that a special paragraph should be introduced into the report of the Drafting Committee to the Committee and in the Committee's report to the Council and to the Assembly stipulating t.hat in the system of rotation the rule should always be observed that three Members from South America should have seats on the Council.

There was a difficulty, however, which was not easily overcome. I t concerned the .-ording of the formula, should the Committee desire to insert it in the proposals to be rubmitted to the Council. This difficnlt.y was due to the Covenant, ~ince it had been definit~ly decided that, as long as the amendment to Article 4 bad not been ratified, nothing should be changed. The Covenant provided tha.t the election of the non-permanent Members should be made freely, and therefore limitations of the freedom of each Member of the League to vote in the manner be thought best could not be introduced into the rules for election.

He was not ready to propose a formula giving more definite e:xpression to the recommendation put forward by M. Guani, but he was already in agreement with that formula if it were possible to find one.

M. MATSUDA said he had already on several occa.sions dl·awn the attention of the Committee to the fact that account should be taken not o,nly of geog1·aphical but also of ethnic.al and other consideratiou..s. The Assembly had already on several occasions adopted a recommendation in this sense. He thought it his duty, now that a proposal was to be lllAde that the number of non-permanent Members should be inct·eased, to emphasise the very special importauce of these considerations at the moment.

Viscount CECIL shared the views of M. Scialoja. It would be very desirable to fuld a means of expressing the unanilnous feeling of the Committee in favour of the proposal of the representative of Uruguay. M. Guani would, however, ag1·ee with him in thinking that it was impossible to include i t in the proposed regulat.ions. To do so would be to brea.k the pledge, given by the Committee in answer to a question put by the representative of G~many, that the Assembly should not be under pr.essu.re of any kind and should remain entirely free to take any decision it wished.

This did not preveut the Committee from stating in its report - and Lord Cecil hoped ~t it would do so - that, having cousidered the question of geographicalrept·esentation, It was of undoubted opinion that this consideration ought to be borne ill mind in any elections to the Council, and that the suggestion put forward dw·ing the discussi~u ou behalf of the Latin-American States, t-o the effect that they should be allotted one-third of the non-permanent seats, was one with which the Committee had unanimously been in sympathy and had accepted. A statement of that kind in the report to the effert that such ap~op~sal was reasonable would be right. To go further a.nd to make a definite recommeu­dation m the regulations which dealt with more general questions would be to go too far and lllight even de'feat ·the very object which all had in view in this matter.

The CRAIR.liUN thought that M. Guaui would recognise the good will shown b~ every member of the Committee. As it was very difficult to find a legal formula, M. Guam would ~rha;~s accept the proposal that a senteuce should be inse~ted in t_he report of tbe ~ttee to the CoURcil sta.ting that members were unammou!'lly m favour of the

eon~e~tal representation of South America and that one of the eon~equeneeB of t~at ~ty was that at least three sea,ts should be giveu to South Amer1ca-!l. procoodmg "hich would oompletely sa.tisfy Uruguay and the whole South American continent.

-98 -

M. GuANI warmly thanked the French, British, ItaJia.n and Japanese representati as well as the Ohairman, for their statements. H e had himself mentioned the diff.i lll~~ of a constitutional kind which would be encountered if hi<:J_ pr~posal were put forwardc as~ express or categorical recommendation. He felt bound to pomt out, however, that 80111 a. the present proposals would also run counter to tho provisions of Article 4 of the Coven e~

The Committee h ad discussed at length the possibility of establishing some fonn:ilit regulation governing a three-ye~s system _of rotat10_n. If the word" libremettlt" in Ani ol 4 were interpreted (though he did not so mterpret lt·). to mean. that the Assembly must t absolutely free to elect at any moment any States 1t so. de~ll'ed, the Committee Would certainly restrict the a~solute freedom of t~e Ass~mbly if 1t recommended a manda~e of tlu:ee years and a penod of three years dunng which the State should not be re-eligiblt, The argument of principle did not, therefore, appear quite conclusive. If the Collllllittet had adopted a regulation affecting the freedom of the Assembly so far as re-eligibility and the length of the mandate of a uon-permanent Member were concerned, he did not~ what objection there could be to making a simila~· restriction of the Assembly's freedom io favour of geog1·aphical representation on the Council.

The question was not, indeed, a new one. Certain members of former Committees had claimed that geographical representation would be oontra.ry to the spiii.t of the Covenant while others had thought that a.n equitable representation of such a character was entire!; in hai·mony with the spirit of the Covenant, that it would not constitute a limitation o1 the discretionary power given to the Assembly by the Covenant but that it might rather be regarded as a.n enlightened exercise of that power. ~ He would not go into the more critical points of this discussion, for it was somewhat delicate. He would, however, point out that the Committee had not reached una.nimou agreement on certain questions but had achieved a unanimity of a l!pecial kind. The questions on which the agreement achieved had only been partial would be submitted by the Committee to the Council in a draft, and be did not understand why, in view of tht express, categorical and sympathetic unanimity of all concerning thfl continental representation of South America, some kind of proposal r.ould not be adopted, in some form of words to be decided, which would enable this unanimity to be explicit-ly recorded.

It had been said that the Committee might perhaps be able to agree on a formula. M. Scialoja had said that he was ready to agree to any adequate draft. He thought, therefore, that the Committee might try to establish one. He did not ask that a special paragrapb should be inserted in the regulations, but he proposed, as a compromise, some kind of addition to the draft, recording the unanimity of the Committee on this question .

.M. PAUL-BONCOUR said that, as he had foreseen, the proposal of .M. Guani, though quite legitimate and one with which the French representative had been the first to associate himself, raised an important question. The proposal concerned the legal nature of the present regulations. .Moreover, it was not the proposal of M. Guani alone but the regulations now in process of being drawn up by the Committee which would have a very different meaning aecording to the legal force given to them.

At the moment it was quite obvious that these regulations had only the force of a recommendation. As long as the amendment to Article 4 of the Covenant bad not been unanimously ratified by the Members of the Council, the Committee was in actual fact recommending a kind of legal practice which the Council should propose to the .Assembly. It was precisely because he had been so well aware of the importance of the amendment to Article 4 and of its direct effect on the force of the Committee's decisions that he had urged his Government to ratify that amendment. His Government had followed the suggestions of its representative and had ratified it.

He was further convinced that the Assembly would follow the recommendatioru oi the Committee, that it would adopt the legal practice suggested in them by means of a simple "gentlemen's agreement". This, however, did not affect, the fact that tho regulations put forward by the Committee would uot have the force of a definite system of nlles on the question.

Starting from this argument, .M. Guani considered that, since these regulations only bad the force of a recommendation, there was no reason why any distinction should be dra~ between those which had been put forward by the Committee and that which l\1. Gu~m himself had just proposed. He had added that his own recommendation bad met mth unallimou.s agreement, while the others had only been agreed to with a number of abstentions.

M. Paul-Boncour would, however, point out to M. Guani that there wa.s a certaiu difference between his proposal and the regulations which the Committee had just adopted. ~he~e regulation~ would not. refer concretely to any particular category of nations,. a~d It m1gh~ very _easily be conceived that the_Assembly would, either in the form of a defimt~ regulation - if the amendment to ArtiCle 4 were ratified by all the Members . 0

the Council-or in the form of a "gentlemen's agreement", adopt these regulations, "hiJ~ were of a. general nature not affecting any one particular category of Powers. It wo be dangerous to introduce a sixth regulation affecting one category of Powers.

He asked ll. Guani, therefore, if be would not be satisfied if, at the end of th~ recommendations which would constitute rules of procedure for the Assembly the ~oment the amendment to Article 4 had been ratified, a paragraph were introduced into tbe repor

in the clearest manner that t_he Committee had b~en unanimously in agreP-ment proposal of the representat1ve of Uruguay. Thlll pa-ragraph might be put in

following terms :

"T~e Co~ttec has :unanimously express~d the hope that, in the system of rotatton pronded for m the above regulatwns, account should invariablv be taken of the necessity for reserving three seats for the States of Latin .America. It will be for the Council to submit a special recommendation on this point to the Assembly."

lie thought that this wording, which made a clear reference to the unanimity of the eouunittee, defined the only legaJ. for~e which t.he C?mmittee. could ~ive to the proposal.

formula also appeared to reconcile the two pomts of VIew whteb appeared at first Bight to be somewhat difficult t o combine.

The CHAIRMAN said he thought that M . Guani had given up the idea that his proposal should be ma.de an integral part of the regulations which had just been examined by the Conunittee. The repres~ntative of Uruguay had expressed_ the hope ~hat, either i~ the report. or in another form, 1t should be noted that the Comnnttee unammously admitted that a. more just application of the principle of geographical allocation must uecess!\I'ily inrolve, among other consequences, the grant of three non-permanent seats to the States of Latin America. There was unauimous agreement therefore regarding the pl'inciplc of tht> question.

Further, M. Paul-Boncolll', in order to satisfy M. Guani, had drafted a formula stating Ulat the Committee had unanimously expressed the view that the application of the re:2111ations w question ~hould have tlJe effect of giving three non-permanent seats to t.be St~t~ of Latin America. The lallt sentence of the formula, however, appeared dangerous. The sentence: "It will b~ for the Council to submit a special recommendation on this point to the Assembly", ought, it seemed, to be omitted. The Committee should uot ask the C-ouncil to make any recommendation to the Assembly regarding the election of the Members of the Council. •

M. Pa.ul-Boncour having stated that he was in full agreement with the Chairman, the latter noted that there was accordingly no longer auy differe.o ce of opinion on the point. The only question for the Committee now to settle was the manner in which the desire of H. Guani should be fulfilled. He would submit a formula for consideration in a. moment, but before he did so be would raise the question of the report to be submitted to the Council.

In spite of the provisional character of the results achieved by the Committee, it was ita duty to submit a report to the Council to be considered at its ne1..t session, which would begin on June 7th. Two methods of procedure were possible. A detailed report, summing up all the discussions which ha,d taken place in the Committee, could be submitted. He did not think, however, that this would be satisfactory, nor that it would he in keepwg with the character of a. provisional report. .A short report, however, could be submitted, which would only contain the essential points, anrl he thought that this second method should be adopted by the Committee.

If the Committee agreed with him, the Chairma.n would propose that the following formula should be adopted for M. Guani18 proposal:

"The Committee has considered that the increase of the number of non­permanent seat8 on the Council ought to make it possible for the Assembly to take account in as wide a degree as possible of the principle of geographical representation in conformity with the recommendat ions a.dopted by the t.hiru, fourth, fifth and sixth sessions of the .Assembly.

"The Committee is unanimou~ly of opinion that the application of this principle should involve, among other consequences, the grant of three non­permanent. seats to the States of Latin America."

hL DE P ALAOIOS said that the remarks of the Chairman made it incumbent upon him ro raise a point of order.

When the Oommittee had discussed several days previously the method of its work, M. de Palacios, in a spirit of conciliation, had agreed to adjoum the question of the non­pe!ID&nent Members. It had been understood that the decisions of the Committee on this pomt_would be regarded as provisional aud that they woulc.l in no wa.y prejudge either the :uestion o~ the permanent Members or that of the total composition of th~ Coun_cil. He h~d, owever, JUSt learned that a report would be submitted to the Council. H1s own new

!~_.._t~at it would be natural to expres's the regrets of the Committ~e at being unable to ~ 1ts task before the June session of the Council but that noth1.ng further should be

To communicate the r~sult of the discussions which took place in the Committee when the~gutations concerning the number of non-p~rmanent ~emb~r~ was sub~tted to a first reading would be quite useless and could only mlSlead public opmwu concernmg the results

-100-

achieved during the present session. Such a communication would further be at 'Varianct with the decision adopte<l some days previo~sly. He wished to state his opinion on . subject quite frankly in order to avoid any nusunderstanding and to prevent himself t~ placed in an emba,rrassing situation at the following meeting, if, when the report bein& before the Committee, he were to find himself compelled to make remarks which Iniu~ considered by the Committee to be submitted somewba,t late in the day. "

To sum up, he thought t.he Committee ought to expr~s its regx:et to the Council that . had not been able to subnut a report for the June sess10n, that 1t should finish the m:! readiug of the regulations regarding the question of the non-permanent Members and th it should adjourn to a date which remained to be fixed. ' 81

M. CHAO-HSIN Onu was .very glad that the principl~ regarding the geographical allO<;a. tion of seats had been unammously approved. Followmg the example of South America, however, he desil:ed, in the name of his country and in the name of the other Asiati countries, Lo propose that the question of the allocation of non-permanent seats to~ should be recorded in the Minutes. It had just been decided that the number of non. permanent seats should be raised to nine. South America had asked for three; why should Asia not have two Y Four would remain for Europe.

The reason why two seats should be given to Asia was that, although there were not mauy countries in that continent, its size should be taken into account. If the Collllllittt'e thought that two non-permanent seats would be too much for Asia, she was ready to share them with other countries in other parts of the world, with Lhe exception of Em·ope and America.

Viscount CECIL felt the force of the proposal of the Chinese representative and waafar from saying that some such allocation was unreasonable or unjust. The Committee should not forget the enormous population of Asia or its gigantic resources, but Lord Cecil hoped that it would not go any further along the road of allocating or attemptiug tQ alloc.'\tethe exact. number of seats which the Assembly was to allot to ea-ch part of the globe. To do so would be to usurp the functions of the Assembly, and the Committee should be very careful not to go any further than was absolutely essential in that direction. He would further point out - and M. Guani would realise that he did so from no want of sympathy for hi! poinL of view - that he was very doubtful as to the advisability of making too definite a statement about South America in the regulations. The formula proposed by the Chairman apperu:ed to him to meet the whole case, for it contained the general acceptance of the geographical principle and a record of the fact that the Committee had been unanimoW!lJ in favour of the South American proposal. lf the Committee went further than that, it would risk beiug accused of trying to usurp the functions oi the Assembly, with the result that all kiuds of unforeseeu difficult.ies might easily arise.

He had been much impressed by the arguments of the Spanish representative. He understood the great difficulty of making a definite report to the Council embodying the recommendations adopted. These recommendations were necessarily provisional because the Committee had agreed that, at its next session, they should be subject to review; and because, in so fa.r as they might have any direct or indirect effect on the question of the permanent Members, the Committee desired them to be reviewed without prejudice or parti pris.

The proposal of the Spanish rep1·esentative was probably the right one. The report. should be confined to a very short statement that the Committee bad been unable t~ complete its work, that it had, notwithstanding, achieved certain results, and that It attached to its report full Minutes of its discussions {the Minutes being verbatim, since the discussion had been practically all in public). The Council would thereby see to what extent the Committee had reached its provisional conclusions. .

Some quite general phrases of that kind would perhaps avoid all the difficulties.raised at the moment, and he thought that, for the present, they would suffice. He wasmdeed exceedingly afraid that the Committee might be going too far along a very dangerous course in allocating or appearing to allocate seats on the Council.

M. CHAo-HsiN Cau thought that a definite allocation of seats according ~0 the geographical p1·inciple was very necessary. The case of China was a proof of this. China had obtained a seat on the Council in 1921, but that seat, which had been allott.ed to Asia, was lost in 1923 and abso1·bed by Ew·ope, which had already at that time three non-permanent seats. .

Owing to the political importance and activities of the European States he was a~d that the nine non-permanent seats would all be absorbed by Europe if a definite allocatlOll of them was not established. If the Committee thought that it would be dangero~ ~ embody any such allocation in a regulation, he would not insist upon it, but he ~be to point out tbat a mere statement of the geographical principle was not suffiCient. Past experience proved that. Every year the Chinese delegation had propo~ed a recommendation that the geographical principle should be followed in the allocatwn ~ the non-permanent seats. Nearly every year that recommendation had been pass in the morning and the election had taken place in the aftel'Doon. The Members of th~ Assembly had so soon forgotten what they had adopted in the inorning that they had ~d acted upon it in the afternoon. He would make no complaint on th.is subject .but wo d point out that the mere mention by the Committee of the geographical principle woul

- 101-

suffice. A guarante~ ~as neces~ary. No matter what n:umber of seats was allocated cb continent, ~ defimte allocation must be. made, a~d 1f the South American claim

~.o find a place m the report, he asked that his own cla1m should also be included in it.

The CHAIRMAN pointed ~mt that from t~e discussion wh~ch had taken place it appeared one of the reasons wh1ch had deternnned the Comrmttee to propose an increase in

the number ~f non-tl!ermtanent seats had been precisely the necessity 'of having closer regard

10 the Asiatic con men . .

3{. Character of the Report of the Committee to the Council.

M. PAUL-BONCOUR des!red immediately to make a reservation, or rather to express certain feeling of uneasmess.

8 He thought that too much emphasis was laid on the provisional character of the discussions-~ c~ara_cter which, in his opinio?-, ought not to ~xist. The Committee had made 11

very clear distinctiOn between two questiOns. On one 1t hacl completely reserved its news. That was t~e.question of the pe~manen~ seats. It had not even attempted to reach 31lV provisional declSlon on them. This questiOn had not been taken up, and those who bad any claims to submit and those who would have t o examine them were perfectly free. On tbe other band, everything connected with the non-permanent seats had been settled, or at any rate the Committee bad just submitted proposa.ls which were of such a nature as to result in a settlement of this question. Whatever the future decision might be regarding the increase in the number of permanent seats, all the regulations which the Committee bad just adopted, except those concerning t.he number, remained good and sufficient in themselves. The increase or the non-increase of the permanent seats was a question which had been entirely reserved, but it could have no effect except on the figures. n could not a.ffect the question of the method of electing non-permanent Members nor the length of their mandate. At a moment therefore when the Committee had just made a very important attempt which might solve many of the difficulties encountered in March last., was it judicious to emphasise the provisional character of t.he whole discussiou ~

The CRAIRJ\IAN asked leave of M. P aul-Boncour to make an observation. D1u·ing the period when very urgent business bad compelled the French representative to return to Paris, his colleagues had discussed at length, among other questions, tha,t of the permanent Uembers. States possessing claims had put them forwaTd and had partly justified them. Certain members of the Committee had indeed expressed opinions on the genera.! aspects of the question of the increase of the permanent Members. The members of the Committee bad further agreed to take account of every situation and to admit that throughout the work they would consider all results achieved as provisional until they had been submitted to a second reading. Among other things it had been said by one or other of his colleagues that any solution proposed for the question of the permanent Members would have an inevitable effect on the question of the non-permanent 1\fembers. It was true that this fact would only concern the number, bu t the number was the crux of the problem. Everything else was to a certain extent of secondary importance.

It was for this r eason that the Committee could, he thought, emphasise without danger the provisional character of its present conclusions. A word of hope might be added that these provisional conclusions might become final, but the moment to express that hope had not yet come. I t was during the second reading of its recommendations that the Committee would have to take its final decisions.

M. DE PALACIOS desired very sincerely to thank the Oha.irman for the statement which he had just made and which made any observation on the remarks of M. Paul-Boncour superfluous. The Chairman had emphasised the meaning and scope of the Committee's dec~sion concerning the provisional character of the resolutions which it would adopt dunng the present session. It was because of this provisional character that he would say .a~ this meeting that, in his view, the report of the Committee ought to be confined to glVlng information to the Council regarding the present state of the work. His proposal bad been completed in a happy manner by Lord Cecil, who had proposed that the 1\finutc::s sb_ould be submitted at the same time as the Committee's report in order that the Counc1l nught be informed of the discussion and of the provisional results achieved. . If the majority of the Committee wished to go somewhat further in the drafting of ~Is report - with every reservation, since only the first reading had been concluded, and tt was not possible to take any binding decision - M. de Pa.lacios said that he was ready lo acc~pt the draft report provided that two points were inserted : . . . ~st, with regard to the provisional character of the proposals, ment~on should, m

his Vlew, be made of the precise moment when the discussions of the Comll1lttee had been of that character - that was to say the moment when the first reading had taken place.

Secondly, the Committee Rhould add that tbe results thus achieverl did not prejudice the quest.io11 of the perma.nent Members nor that of the total number of the Members of the Council. w ~f these two points, which were not new, were added, he could more easily agree to the ording of the draft report .

. M. DE BROUCKERE said that it was obvious that the Committee could not in its repor t lllatntain that the results achieved were entirely final. Nevertheless, he shared to a certain

- 102 -

extent the uneasiness of M. Paul-Ronconr, and wondered whether the Committee . be wise in laying too great insi.<;t,ence on the provisional chara<'ter of its proposal.'! ~~d it not to confine itself merely to noting the facts ! Should it not state that its Propo g I had been read a first time and that they would be read a. second time at a future da:ala Neither the words "final" nor "provisional" should be used, and the Committee sh e! coniine itself to a statement of the exact legal position in wbich it found itself. ' On!d

Viscount 0F.CIL and tbe CHAIRMAN pointed out that the discussion on the defin·t text of the report would make it easier to achieve agrt>emcnt. 1 e

The Committee instructed its Chairmarn and the Secretariat to draw 1tp the text of a Tt1JOrt which 1vouUt be discussed at its next meeti1~g.

TWELFTH MEETING

Held on Monday, May 17th, 1926, tlt 5.30 p.m.

Chairman : M. MOT'l'A.

Present : All the members of the Committee.

35. Date of the Next Session of the Committee.

The Committee decided to meet on June 28th after the sessum of the Oounolt.

36. Consideration of the Draft Report of the Committee to the Council.

The Ca.uutAN read the following report:

"In accordance with the Council's resolution of March 18th, 1926, the Committee me~ on May lOth, 1926, a.nd, having elected M. Motta, the representative of Switzerland, as Chairman and M. Le Breton, the:- representative of the Argentine as Vice-Chairman, proceeded immediately to consider the question referred to it, taking as its basis the Council's resolution and the various considerations put forward in the report made by the acting President of the Council, Viscount I shii.

"The Committee had also at its disposal a number of documents containing suggestio01 which various Governments had thought desirable to send to it in respome to the invitation addressed by the Council to all the Members of the League.

"Such communications were received from the following Governments : Australia, Austria, Cuba, Estbonia, Norway, Persia, and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

"The Committee has held twelve meetings whicb, with a single exception, ha>e been public. The Committee bas not, yet completed it.c; task, and in these circumstances the present report must be confined to giving an account of the present position of the work.

"The Committee bas accepted the principle of an increa.se of tbe non-perm~nent Members of the Couucil. As regards their number and the metbod of their election, 1t has adopted at a. first reading the following draft regulations :

"1. The non-permanent Members of the Council shall be elected for a te!m of three yearl'l. They shall assume office immediately on their election. One-third of their number shall be elected each year. .

"2. A retiring Member may not be re-elected for th1·ee years commen~JDg with the date of expiration of its mandate unless the Assembly shall so de~1de, either at that date or in the course of the three years, by a majority of two-t~irdsj the number of Members thu8 re-elected shall not, however, exceed one-thud 0

the total number of the non-permanent Members of the Council. . "AR a transitional measure, the decision provided for in the preceding

paragraph may at the elections of 1927 be taken not only with respect to the Members whose mandates expire at that time but also with respect to those whose mandates expire in 1928 and 1929. .

"3. Notwithstanding the above provisions, the A~sembly may at any t.une by a two-thirds majority decide to proceed, in application of Article 4 of ~e Covenant, to a uew election of all the non-permanent Members of the Cou~ · In this case the Assembly shall determine the rules applicable to the new electJOn.

"4. The non-permanent Members shall b~ increased to nine in number. d "5. In order to bring the above system into operation, there shall be elf~t~

nine Members as soon as possible in the next Assembly. Three of them sha!, elected for a term of three years, three for two years and three for one year.

-103 -

"The above dra;ft is adopted subject to any ~odifications w~ich may be made iu it at econd reading m consequence of the conclus1on13 reached Wlth regard to the number

6 ermauent Members of the Council. ~~The Committe~ has i~ f~ct .resolved to proceed to the s.econd reading of the draft

a ~erond sess10n, wh1cb I R fixed for June 2~tb. It has adJourned to this later session decU:ions as to ~ucrea.se of th~ perma:oent seats and as to the claimR made in this

ail oection by Rrazil, Chma, Spam, Pers1a and Poland. Tt has therefore also adjourned its to~cJnsions regarding the totlll ~umber of .the M~mbers ~f ~he Council. . to "The Minutes of th e Comm~ttee show 1.n deta.ll the opm10ns ~xprefl$ed by 1ts members, th T"otes ¢ve11 and the reservatiOns made, mrludmg the reservatJOn8 of the reprP .. seutatives !Brazil and Spain in regard to the whole draft, of the representative o£ Poland regarding

0 ragral)b 2 and of the representative of Sweden on paragraph ~. pa "The Committee considers that the increase of the number of tbc non-permanent seats

0 the council will permit the Assembly to take account in a more comprehensive and

~nitable measure of the principle of geographical distribution of seata, in accordance with the recommendations adopted at the third, fourth, fifth and sixth sessions of tho Assembly.

"Tbe considered opinion of the Committee is, further, that applicn.t.ion of this principle, onder tbe rules set out above, such application being a matter to which the Committee attaches the greatest importance, shoulo have as one of its consequences the attribution of three non-permanent seats to the States of Latin America.''

The Committee decided to disc1tss the report paragraph by pamgraph. The first six paragraphs were adopted 1oithout obsermtions.

Paragraph 7 (paragraph 2 of the Draft Regulations).

M. CHAO·HSIN Onu wished to make a reservation concerning the majority of two­tbil'W provided for in parag:raph 2 of th~ draft reooulations. As he had pointed out that morning, be con~idered that that majority was too high. H e nesircd that mention should bt made of this reservation.

The Contmittee decided to add the name of China to paragraph 14, where mention was made of the express reservations made hy certain members of the C-ommittee.

The Cm1tmittee aiU>pted paragraph 2 of the dmft reg1tlations. The Committee adopted the other paragraphs of the draft regulations (paragraphs 9 to

11 of the report).

Paragraph 12 ot the Report.

The CnAmMAN called on the Committ·ee to discuss paragraph 12 of the report iu the following terms :

"The above draft is adopted subject to any modifica.tious which may be made in it at the second reading in consequence of conclusions reached with regard to the number of permanent Members of the Council."

M. MoNTARROYOS pointed out that, as drafted, the paragraph seemed to him to mean that only the question of the number of permanent Members on the Council was to be reronsidered, aud t1.tat the other questions had been finally settled. I n his view, however, and ac<'ording to the repeated declarations of the Chairman, all the draft regulations were only provisional and wonld have to be discussed afresh during the second reading.

The CHAIRMAN proposed that the sentence should read :

"The conclusions reached with regard to the number of permanent l\lemberf! on the Council and with regard to its CQmposition."

M. MONTARR.OYOS repeated that in his view no question could be definitely settled. Everything would ha>e to be adopted provisionally. There was, however, another point upon which he had not had an opportunity of giving his opinion. This was the method of election.

In his view the essential defect in the draft regulations arose from the fact that they were open to criticism from the point of view of their legal force. All the members of the CoiDmittee were aware that those who had drafted the regulations bad themselves referred to the difficulties encountered in harmonising the draft regulations with the provisions ~i the Covenant. In particular, ~he fact of fixing numerically the majority, of deciding

at that majority should be two-thirds or some other number was dil·ectly opposed ~o t~e constitutional principles of the League. The Assembly bad already. exp~essed this new by the manner in which i t bad proceeded up to the moment m thts matter. It c:on_sidered that, to make any change in the method of election concerning the requisite lllaJonty, it would be necessary to amend the Covenant. This was the meaning of the wording of the amendment to Article 4, which was precisely connected 'vith t~s qu~stion. lie thought, therefore, that it would be difficult to change the method of electiOn Wlthout amending the Covenant.

-104-

How should the problem be approached ' To solve the crisis the Colillnittee 0 on the one hand, to conform to the spirit of the Council's resolution, and, on the otb~h~

the letter of Article 4 of the Covenant. By introducing, however, into the draft reguJati'to the amendment regarding the two-thirds majority, it followed neither the

8 ?~

of the Council's resolution nor the letter of Article 4, sin~- and M. Montarroyos ""~~ repe~t. it-it_ w~mld be necessary to amend the Covenant m order to fix numerically the reqws1te maJonty.

He would point out that, if the Committee adopted the rule of a two-thirds majoritr there was no reason why the principle contained in the proposal of the representatite ·; Uruguay should not be introduced into the draft regulations. He did not see whv t~ principle of the representation of Latin America among the non-permanent ~Iembert of the Council should not be introduced into the draft regulations.

Brazil had claimed for Latin America, thr?ugh the mouth o~ her Ambassador, )I. de Mello-Franco, a larger and juster representat10n on the Counc1l. That representation ought to be, in the Brazilian view, permanent and non-permanent. If non-permanent representation were already admitted, the Brazilian representative would be able to aceept the draft regulations without objection, always with the reserve which be ha.d made concerning the legal force of those regulations.

Brazil 'visbed above all to co-operate with the Committee. Though it might have adopted an attitude of abstention, this was not because she feared to assume responsibilitiEe resulting from her .views, nor were her motives dictated by indifference. Her attitude bad been in no way a negative one. On the contrary, she desired to co-operate, but &be asked that the Committee should follow a rational procedure, and the procedure which M. Monta.rroyos had proposed seemed the best, both from a logical and a political point of view. Brazil wished to safeguard sound legal practice. Brazil had taken her stand upon principles and bad invoked nothing of direct interest to herself. M. Montarroy01 would give an example which would make clearer Brazil's position in this respect. Though he bad disputed, when the first part of the regulations bad been discussed, the proposal that the non-permanent Members should enter upon their duties immediately, he had done so always from the point of view of principle. Brazil was in no way anxious about the consequences resulting from the introduction of a clause to the effect that the non-permanent Members should assume office immediately, which might, as some seemed to think, have somewhat unfortunate consequences for Brazil.

It was, moreover, because she had taken her stand solely on principles that Brazil in March last had adopted the attitude which was known to all. She had desired, in adopting it, that ~he general problem of the composition of the Council should definitely be examined. Two classes of interest were at stake : on the one hand, interests which it was thought, in the event of their not being respected, might trouble the peace of the world, and, on the other, the interests of the League of Nations in the fundamental problem of the composition of the Council. In choosing between these two classes of interests, Brazil bad decided in .favour of the interests of the League. The Committee would realise that Brazil had been right, since the peace of the 'vorld had not been upset, and, further, Brazil had obtained what she bad wanted, as the existence of the present Committee sho,ved.

M. Montarroyos asked his colleagues therefore not to depart from the proper method of procedure. Tt was true that the Committee was only at the beginning of its work and that much remained to be said. The Committee would have to meet once more to find a solution for the present crisis, bnt it should seek that solution by basing its decisions ~n the terms of the Council's resolution so as to avoicl running counter to the principles latd down by Article 4 of the Covenant.

For Brazil, therefore, the question was only one of principle, and she was c.o-operating with the Committe~>, having before her the highest interests of the League of Nations and being ready to crea~ no difficulties for that organisation.

In particular, his colleagues were perfectly aware that Brazil bad ueve1· opposed the entry of Germany. On the contrary, she ardently hoped for the entry into the Leagne of all countries which did not yet belong to it, and especially Germa.ny. This was pro\"'ed b.v the notes sent by the Brazilian Government to the German Government. Conseque~t.ly, the attitude arlopted in March last by Brazil bad not been an attitude assumed in oppos1t~on to Germany, and she was quite prepared to examine, with a view t.o finding a solutii.ln in conformity with the Council's resolution and the letter of Article 4 of the Covenant, all queRUons awaiting a solution with a view to settling the crisis so that Germany might. enter the League without any difficulty. Rrazil would always colJahorate, in the most smcere and effective manner, in the achievement of this object.

The CHAIRl\UN thanked M. Monta.rroyos for the etatement which be bad made, in whieL be had expressed the desire of his r.ountry to co-operate with all the other Memhers of the League.

He thought that M. Montarroyos would be satisfied if the paragraph were drafted as follows:

"The above dra.ft is adopted subjE'>ct to any modifications which may b~ made in it a.t the second reading in consequence of the conclusions reached, parttcttlllrl~ with regard to the number of the permanent Members of the Council."

-105-

M. :MON'l'ARROYOS said t.hat lle would be satisfied with the introduction of the wonl "particularly"·

The CHAIRMAN ~aid that the paragraph in que~tion had been one which had given rise the closest reflectwn. The Secretary-General, hiS collaborators, and the Chairman had ~d it after m?-ch t~ought and after having made 9.uite sure that it expressed exactly be result of the discussiOn. Consequently, he thou~ht It wa~ dangerous to amend it unless

~t waa absolute~y necessary to ~o so, ~nd ~hat the mt~oduc~IO~ of the word "particularly" ,bich be had JUSt p~oposed might, g1ve. r1se to ~ertam ObJectiOns. He had put thi<~ text forward as a suggestiOn and he would like the VIews of other members o£ the Committee 00 the point.

Visco1mt CECIL was sure that all the members of the Committee had listened with ~t· pleasure to t~~ last obs~rvations ma~e by the Bra.~iliau representative, which showed :friendlY a.nd conciliatory att.Jt,ude concermng the questwns now before the Committee and which had been brought before the Council and the .Assembly last March.

With regard to the special diffic.ulty felt by the Brazilian representative concerning a two-thirds majority, Lord Cecil confessed that he could not see that any greater difficulty was raised by the suggestion that the rule agaiust re-eligibility sh011ld be relaxed by a. two­thirds majority vote than was raised by the establi<;bment of a rule against. re-eligibility, which, according to one iuterpretation of the Covemmt, migb t be considere<l to be inapplic­able without an amendment to the Covenant, such as the one now in course of ratification. Personally, be thought there was no great distinction betweE-n tl1e first difficulty and the second.

He would further point out that tt,e Con1mittee was reading for the first liimc a report on a scheme to be submitted to the Council. The Council would be able to review th*Lt scheme if it so desired and to make any recommenda.tions thereon before it forwarded it to the .Assembly or at the same time. When the scheme wa.s before tho Assembly it would oo doubt, according to the rules of procedure, be sent to one or more committees, who would examine it, and any amendment or suggestion could then be made and considered by every Member of the Assembly a.11d inespective of any decision which the preRent Committee might ta.ke. The scheme would then, of course, return to the Assembly for approval. There was therefore plenty of opportuuity left for amendment and suggestion even after t·he present Committee had made its report. Lord Cecil had been very much struck by the observations ma.de at the preceding meeting by M. Paul-Boncour, who had emphasised the importance of making definite prog1·ess during the present meeting.

Lord Cecil had read the present draft of the report with great pleasure because he had found in it the definite proposal that the draft should be adopted subject to reconsideration. It was stn.ted in paragraph 12 :

"The above draft i~ adopted subject t.C\ any modifications which may be made in it at the second reading in consequence of the conclusions reached with regard to the number of the permanent Members of the Council."

This mea.nt that the dra.ft should be t·eg:uded as provisional to this extent : that, if the decisions regarding the permanent Members of the Council l'equired it, any paragraph of the report might be reconsidered in th~ light of those deciRions. This wea,kened very considerably any definite conclusions which the Committee had so far reached. It was now mggested, however, that the Committee should still fmther weaken them by adding the •o!d "particularly", which really meant that the whole report was to be subject to revision. Tlrls was true, particularly with regard to the question of the permanent Members of the Oouncil, but the formula proposed meant that it would be subject to general revision lffecting it as a whole. This would weaken the substance of the report ve1·y materially.

Lord Cecil would add that the Brazilian representative had made a specific reservation regaCo rding the whole report and that his Government would therefore be perfectly free at the

uncil aud at the .Assembly to put forward any suggestions or amendments it might desire to ~~e. It seemed that this reserve would leave the representative of Brazil quite lllffiment liberty and would give him an adequate sa.fegua.rd against anything in the nature of a hasty decision. In those circumstances, Lord Cecil hoped that it would not be thought necessary to insert the word "particularly".

M. DE PALACIOS reminded the Committee that he had expressed his intention of &~staining from making any objection if the draft report had been adopted without dis~ussion. He would not have been responsible for initiating a discussion but unhappily a diScussion had arise.n and there was a possible danger that certain theories and ideas Would be put forward which might not prove acceptable without express reservation. . . M. de Palacios had accepted the wording of the paragraph under discussion beca.use Ius ~rpretation of it was somewhat different from that which had just been put forward.

en once a different interpretation had been given he was obliged to give his own. B:e was under the impressiou that the!Committee was unanimously agreed to hold a

lecond ~ession, and it was precisely because of this adjournment that he had thought that :eryt~I~g had been adopted provisionally. This fact was mentioned in the proposal of

6 Bnt1sh representative.

-106 -

At the preceding meeting he had pressed for the insertion in the report of the" rdt "at a first reading". His proposal had been adopted. 'l'he words "at a first rE-ading'' 0

to be found in the report. In hil:> view, however, a propoRal adopted at a fir~t reading ~ere be .euthely re.-discussed .at a s~cond rea~ng. Th.e w~olE' repor~ was . thE-refore proVisio: 'l'h1s was the mterpretat10n which he desrred to giVe m conform1t~· With the attitude wlllcb he had adopted throughout.

ThE' CBAmMA.N wished to m~ke a remar~ which he thought it. was.obviously necessarv to put forward. Smce the Committee had dec1ded on a second reading, I t was quite obnon that it still preserve.d its full freedom to. ra.ise at that tim~ such q~estious as it thooah: useful. Tn those cucumst.an<'es, auything pass<'d at a first readmg a,nd subjected ~~

8 aecond reading was provisional. There were, however, different sl1ades of meaning to be attached to the conception of provisionaL Some thought that the firm results had beeJ~ achieved. Others thought that these resultR were still open to much dispute.

Since, however, paragraph 14 of the draft contained a mention of all the formal reservations made hy the members of the Committee, and, abo\'e all, since it was express! stated that the representatives of Brazil and Spain had made reservations conceming th! whole scheme, both the Brazilian and Spanish representat.ives could, he thought feel completely satiefied in accepting the formula included in paraf,'l'aph 12 as at present dr~ted.

M. MON'l'ARR.OYOS wished first to thank JJord Cecil for his kind words. He woulcl have been perfectly satisfied by the introduction of the word "particularlY"

which the Chail'man had at first proposed, but he would raise no objection to the form~ in the present text, with the obvious reservation resuJt.ing from the presen t dtscm<~ion.

M. Montarroyos was doubtful whether be had quite understood a point in the statement made by JJord Cecil. Had Lorn Cenil really saiil that the report was to a certain ox tent final and that it would he sent to the Council and to the Assembly ' M. Montarroyos thought, on tlie contrary, that it was just this report which would not be sent to the Assembly.

If the Committee met again it would have to draw up another report, and the Council would have to take this second report into account wheu drafting its own report for submission to the Assembly.

The CHAIRMAN said that there would be a second report of the Committee. lt would in all probability be accompanied by a Rtatement of the Comlnittee's reasons, of which the contents remained to be discussed. The present report was a purely summary report containing only the facts without any reference. to the reasons for those facts.

M. MONTARROYOS asked Lord Cecil if he agreed with this interpretation of the point.

Tht> CHAIRMAN said that Lord Cecil agreed with him and that he would therefore be in agreement with M. Montarroyos.

Paragraph 12 was adopted as well as paragraph 13.

Paragraph 14.

'.rhe CHAIRMAN proposed, as a result of the remarks of the ChineRe reprE>~entative, to complete paragraph 14 as follows :

"The Minutes . . . show in detail . . . the reservations made, including the r6$!ervations of the representati>es of Brazil and Spain in regard to the whole draft, of the representatives of China and Poland regarding paragra,ph 2, and of the representative of Sweden regardmg paragraph 4."

M. S.TO'RORO pointed out tha,t the reservation made by him was not definitely concerned with paragraph 4. It concerned the principle of the increase of the number of non·permanent 'Members of the Council.

He would therefore propose that the following words should be Rubstitutcd for the last phrase of the paragraph :

"In regard to the principle of an increase of the non-permanent 1\'Iemberg of the Council."

Paragraph 14 was adopted with these two amendment$.

Paragraph 15.

M. DE BROUOKEHE proposed that for the last wordR of this paragraph - "third, fourth, fifth and sixth sessions of the Assemblv" - the words "thud, fourth, fifth and sixth Assemblies" should be subRtituted. •

M. SOIA.LOJA bad no objection to the new formula proposed by M. de Brouckere. Be would not oppose it, because it was to a certain extent a matter of tradition to speak of the "fifth or snth Assemblies". He pointed out, however, that it would be much more accurate to say "fifth or sixth session~ of the Assembly". The amendment moved by M. de Brouekere would therefore be in accordance with traditional phraseology.

- 107

The CnAJRMAN said that the original fo~·mula ~ontaincd in t1~e paragraph wa.s a legal ul" The second was a popular expre~s10n which the Committee might aO'ree to use

(orlll ... · ~ "' • The paragraph ·was adopted with the above a.mendment.

Paragraph 16.

Th£' CnAJRMAN read paragraph 16 as follows :

"The cousidered ()pinion of the Committee is, fnrther, that application of this principle, under the rules set out above, such application being a matter to which tha Committee attaches the greatest importance, should have as one of its consequences the attribution of three non-permanent seats to the States of Latin .America."

M. GuANI regretted t o be compelled to return t o what he had said a.t the precedinu meeting. The report gave a great deal of sat.isfaction to the desire which M. Guani had expressed during the :variou~ meetin~s of the Committee, but be would wish to. have ins~rted in theMinut.es the pomt of VIew of his Government to the effect that he saw no mconveruence iD accepting the "gentlemen's agreement" mentioned in the report, but with the following 81press reservation :

"The Governme11t of Uruguay expreRses the wish that guarantees for the attribution of three non-permanent seats on the Council to be allocated to the States of Latin Ameri<>a may be ass1rrefl by introducing, into the Covenant if need be, any amendments which may prove necessary."

Viscount CECIJJ said that he had some doubts reg-arding the preseut wording of the paragraph. If it had been accepted as a final settleme.nt of the question, he would have said nothing, but as i t was not so accepted he must reserve the right to his Government to ask forafurt.her amendment at a future date, if necessary. It was merely a question of drafting.

The CHAmMAN felt that. he must point ont that there was one point on which an agrremeiJt, which he might call cordial, had been reached, namely: the prop01;;al that the States of Latin .America should be given three non-permanent seats on the Council by virtue of a "gentlemen's agreement". For this reason he thought it would be impossible to amend at the last moment a point which had been settled a.11d which he considered to bve been unanimously adopted by the members or the Committee.

Obviously, if Lord Cer.il thought. good to make a reservation regarding the wording of the para.oll'l'aph, Ruch reservation would be noted.

Viscount CECIL repeated that it wa~ only a question of drafting. He fully accepted the statement of the Chairman a.nd was in favonr of the "gentlemen's ag1·eement" to the effect that there should be three seats given to South .America as a consequence of the application of the principle which had been adopted.

M. CHAO-HSIN CHu (China) reminded the Committee of the request which be had made at the preceding meeting. He had asked that, if the request regarding the allocation of three non-permanent seats to Latin America was included in the report, that the report ahonld also mention the claim put forwaril by the ChinE>se representative for two non­permanent seat.s to be granted to Asia and to other parts of the world excluding Europe and America.. He very much regretted to note t.ha.t this claim had been omitted and he asked tha.t the final sentence of the report should be changed to read as .follows : "the attribution of three non-permanent sea.ts to the Statei> of La.tin America a.nd two non­Pe11Mnent seats to Asia and other part.~ of the world excluding TiJu1·ope and America" .

. ~en the Chinese representa.tive had made that request at the preceding meeting, no Ob]~tton bad been raised. He was very much surprised to find now that the request of Latin . .America had been accepted but not his own. Why had the representative of Latin Amenca insisted upon having a definite allocation of three non-permauent seats ! Tt was for~b~same reason as that put forward by the Chinese representative. The States of ~atin Ame~ca felt somewhat anxious at the keen competition shown at the times of tP,c ele(~t10ns, and 1t was for this reason that they desired a safe number of non-permanent seats to be allocated to them. . The Chinese representative felt the same amdety owing to t.he European competitiou !D the. election~~, if h e might be allowed to refer to it in that ma.nner. China had experienced ttd~g the last few years. One seat had been allotted to Asia in the first Assembly in l 920, ~d 1t had been understood ·that that seat had been allotted to .Asia and to other parts of De worl~, excluding .America and Europe. The records of the first Assembly showed that

r. Wellington Koo, at that time representative of China, hail asked that one seat out ~ ~n.r should be given to .Asia and to the other parts of the world, wi th the exception

J)Jurope and .America . .At that time there had been only four non-permanent seats, and Bne seat had ther~fore been Rufficient for Asia and the other parts of the world, ~xcluding b nrope and .Amenca. Then in 1922 the number of non-permanent seats had been mcreased ~two, and now it was proposed that it sho·uld be increased by t.bree. Why should not

a ask for an additional seat ! Asia was not selfish, because she was quite w11ling to

- 108-

divide the two seats between A.8iatic States and the other Stat~ of the world excludin Europe and .America. Europe had four non-permanent seats, and this numbe~ ap g quite Pufficient in compnrison with the number allotted to the other pal'ts of the~ Why should Europe still requue one or two more seats t H e thought that the inc~. of the non-permanent seats should be made fol' t he benefit not of Europe hut of the ot~ parts of the world, because the other parts of the world were not adequately repr~sente: Jt was for this reason that the Committee was now studying the question of the composin of the Council. The Committee was proposing to increase the- Council by th ~ addition~ three non-pe-rmanent seats, one of which, there was no question, would go to South America, and the other two ought certainly, be thought, to be given to other parts of th world excluding Europe and .America. e

Some membe-rs of the Committee had privately informed the Chinese representatir that four Aea.tR would not be sufficient. for Europe and that that continent hoped to hat: another which only left one seat, for Asia. If, however, Europe really required an additional seat, why was it uot. proposed to raise the number of non-permanent seats to ten or even eleven or twelve' There was very litt le difference betwe~n nine, teu, eleven and twelve a& he had explained some days previously. Why Rhould the Committee limit the numbe; to nine and allocate to Europe seats which ought to be granted to other parts of the world 1

The members of the Committee were stl.'ong supporters of the J1eague, and they desired~~ make it world-wide. To achieve t.his they should give tho world adequate representation. The present proposal was to give only one seat to A~da and no seat to the other parts of the world. No objection wot1ld be ma.Oe if one seat were sufficient for that vast portion of the world, but to allocate hut one seat would lead to dissatisfaction in Asiatic States, and in addit ion, thc.re \vere the other part-s of t.he world to he considered. Tn proposing, theref~re that two seats should be allocated to Asia and other parts of the world excluding Euro~ and America, the 0hinese representative was in rea.lity spealting on behalf of the other countries not roprcseuted on the Committee. Tf the Committee doubted this, the que~tion could be submitted to a vote of the As<>emhly. The Chinese representative wa~; sure that h e would be able to appeal to the Members of the Ass<>mbly and that ho would win his caSf, hecanso the Members to which he was referring were not represented at all on the Council.

His Government had instructed him to take part in the meetings of the Committee. H e had kept on good terms with tho members of the Committee when discussing the question of the non-permanent seats. He felt sure that he bad done hiR best to keep in harmony 'lfith them, but now that be saw that his request bad been omitted from the report , he considered that the majority of the Committee was not in harmony with himself. He wa.~; not opposi~ them ; why were they opposiug him ' He th.erefore felt tha t he must insist that hiR propo at should be men tioned in the rt\port.

Further, if one Reat were to be given to Asia, tba.t seat might be allotted for two yean or one seat for one year. It would he very regrettable if it were one seat for one year, for it would be impossible to obtain re-election. Fust of all, it would be very difficult to obtain a two-thuds majority for re-eligibility, a.nd, secondly, it would be impossible to obtain re-election.

It would not be easy to obtain a two-thuds majority for re-eligibility, because there would be other Asia,tic countries in competition. The count ry first elected would not even be able to complete it~ mandat E' of three years. It would be removed from the Council at the end of a year. The reason waR very obvious, because, in order to defeat t.he votE> for re· eligibility, it would he very easy to obtarn a one-thud majority of the votes plus one. For the same reason it would be easy to defeat re-eligibility at the end of two years.

Further, if there were no definite allocation of non-permanent seats to Asia and the other parts of the world excluding Europe and America, she would find herself in a Tery difficult position, because she would certainly be unable to compete with Enropc in tbe elections. If the members of the Committee were not convinced of this, the Chln~P representative could quote the difficulties encountered by his count1·y during the threl' last years. China'R 8eat, which had been allotted to it in 1920, had been taken from it in 1923 and absorbed by Europe. At the moment, Latin America bad obtained a guarantee; why should not a sirrular guarantee be given to ARia and the other parts of the world '

The CHATRMAN was perfE'ctly willing to think that the fact of having accepted a proposal to s~ttle a fixed number of non-permanent seats which the Committee thought could ~ allotted to Latin America necest~arily meant the reception of similM requests from other continents.

The Chinese representative was well aware of the feelings of sincere friendship whic~ the Ohauman bad towards him. The Cbauman bad informed him of the attit,ude 0

Switzerland towards China during the preceding Assemblies. He would try in a fi:iendly and concilia.tory spirit to ask the representative of China if it would not be poss1ble to reach a.n agreement and whether China would not be satisfied if the last paragraph of the report wore amended to read as follows :

"The considered opinion of the Committee is further that the application of this principle under the rules set out above, such application being a matter to which the Committee attaches the greatest importance, should have, amo~ other consequences, the attribution of three non-permanent seats to the Stat.RS of Latin-America and an adequate representation for A.si:l>."

-109-

The Chairman. realised th~t there was no ~igure mentioned for Asia and that it would t completely sat1~fy the Chmese, representative. Tt wo~d, how~ver, be difficult, at the

00 !Sent time, to decide on s~ch. a figure. The States of JJatm Amenca had not such a large pit ulation as the great Asiatw States but they were more numerous, and this was an pOP roent of which acc_ount must ~e taken. . . . . argo To put forward a figur~ for As1a and to .fu on two, for example, llllght perhaps give rise

eomplica.tions. The Cb~ese representative could, he thought, have confidence in the ~ ndshiP of all States, partiCularly of those represented on the Committee, and in this case .:

6 proof of a spirit of conciliat~on ?n the understanding that be. coulU return to the

gJ estion Jater at the second reading 1f be thought good to do so, m order to assure an ~:equate representation of .Asia.

Viscount CECIL urged the Chinese representative to consider that there would be serious danger ~ in.sistiu~ at the moment on fi:riug the figur~ ~f two seats. If the representative of Chma reflected carefully on the consequences of Jus pi'Oposal, he would see th~~>t it would lead to serious complications not affecting his own COlllltry in the least. u the formula p~·oposed by the .Chairman were adopted,. the question w.as left entirely open and the Chmese representative could at the next sessiOn of the Committee ask that it sboJd go further and insert a more explicit formula. The question would remain open a.nd would not be closed against him on the present occasion.

Lord Cecil would not put forward his personal views on the danger of allotting seats in this way, but if such a procedure were carried too far, very se1·ious dilliculties would arise.

:M. CH.ao-HsiN Cau said that in 1920, when China had asked for one seat to be allotted to .Asia, the Chi..uese delegatiou had been informed that such a definite allocation of seats was not ill harmony with the spirit of the Covenant. By definitely allocating three seats to South America, the Committee was disregarding the spirit of the Covenant. He could not understand therefore why there had been this change. of opinion since 1920. If it were the inteution of the Committee to add the words proposed by the Chairman at the end of the report, why should not the figure be added also and mention made of two seats 'f If the Committee thought that this figure was too high for Asia and if it were understood that one seat would be absorbed by Europe, why could not the total number of non-permanent seats be increased ! In those circumstances, the representative of China would be obliged to re-open the whole question of the non-permanent seats at the next session of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN desired to give a friendly piece of advice to the Chinese· representative. The attitude which M .. Chao-Hsin Chu had adopted should not have the appearance of striking a false note in the harmony of the Committee. The Chairman hoped that all appearance of discord would be avoided. He asked the Chinese representative to agree that the interesting remarks which he had just made should for the present be recorden in the Minute8. The question might be re-discussed at the second reading.

M. MA'£SUDA wished to point out that, in view of the fact that Japan was a part of Asia, he had listened with much sympathy to the proposal which had just been made by his friend M. Chao-Hsin Chu. M. Matsuda had always desired that a spirit of harmony should preside over the working of the League, and, as he had pointed out at the preceding meeting when the number of non-pei'manent seats was being increased, the Committee &hould not lose sight of geographical confliderations. He also thought that it would not be possible to fix a definite figure for certain continents and to refuse to do so for others. He thought, in fact, that to fix a figure was somewhat unfortunate. As Viscount Cecil had thought it his duty to make a reservation regarding the wording of the paragraph, M. Matsuda wished in his turn to state that he also would make a reservation conceming the figure contained in tb.e I'eport. ~le renewing his sympathy for the Chinese representative, he asked him whether

the msertion of his statements in the report or in the Miuutcs would not give him S&tisfa.ctio n.

Viscount CECIL wished that there should be no misunderstanding regarding his own attitude. He was quite in favoru' of recording that the Committee was unanimously in fa;~rour of allocating three non-permanent seats to Latin Ameri~a. That was. a fact. He did not think that the Commit.tee should go further, because 1t seemed to him that to do. so would amount to an attempt to put pressure on the Assembly and to usurp jts funct1ons.

If the phrase in the report had completely satisfied M. Guani, Lord Cecil, who was 80 anxious to satisfy him, would not have raised any question about it: But ~ . be ~erstood that M. Guani was not in a position to say that the phrase entrrely sat1shed &lUll' Lord Cecil thought that it would be much better to include in the report merely a short statement such as the following :

"It is right to record that the Committee was unanimously in.favour of an allocation of three of the non-permanent seats to South .Amenca and that adequate representation should be given to Asia."

-110-

M. Guani and the Chinese represeutative could then raise the question at the session of the Committee with a view to making more definite the statement in the r next which represented actually and literally what line the Committee had followed. epon

Lord Cecil thought that the Committee would be wiser to confine itself to such statement rather than to try at the very last moment to concoct a completely satisfacto 1

formula. ry

Indeed, it would seem to be impossible _to find a formula which would entirely satisf both M. Guani and the Chinese representative. He would therefore urge them to acce; as the best solution of the difficulty a general formula in the terms which he had i~t suggested.

M. CHAo-HsiN CHU thanked the Chairman for his friendly remarks regarding China. He also thanked Lord Cecil for his statement. The Chinese representative was al~o in principle against the insertion of any figures in the report. If, however, one figure were mentioned, why should not others be mentioned also? What harm was there in sue~ a procedure, and where was the danger Y .Some members of the Committee had express~ the view that it would be dangerous to mention the figure of two non-permanent seate for Asia and for the other parts of the world excluding Europe and America. Whe~ wafl the danger if it were not thought dangerous to mention the figure of three non-permanent scats for Latin America' ·While, therefore, in -principle, being opposed to the insertion of figures in the report, and although the Chinese were always peaceful and conciliatory, the Chinese representative felt himself bound to insist on his llropo~al if other figures were mentioned. If the proposal were not adopted, China would not be put on an equal footing eve~ during the discussions of the present Committee.

The CHAIRMAN asked M. Guani to allow him to make a new proposal. The whole difficulty arose from the fact that the Qommit.tee ha.d thought it its duty to determiJJe the figure for Latin America while being of the view that it could not do so in so defi nite a manner for Asia. From an impartial point of view, the Chairman felt bound to poin~ out that be was not surprised that the 1·epresentative of China should protest against this differentiatiou. He thought, however, that the difficulty could be met in the following manner, and hoped that M. Guani and the other representatives of Latin America would agree to accept his solut ion. Latin America was at the moment represented by two Members. The Committee considered it just that this representation should be increased. Even if a definite. figure were not stated, Latin America would be satisfied, since to iucrease it at all would mean that the minimum.representation obtained by Latin America would be three Members. The Chairman proposed, therefore, that no mention should be ma~e of the number of seats to be given to La tin America, and that, so far as Asia was concerned, the Committee should recommend adequate representation.

The report could state :

"ft is· right to record that the 'Committee was uuanimously of the view that the number of seats held at the moment by Latin America should be increased and that adequate representation should be given to Asia."

M. Gu.A.NI pointed out that he had accepted the report as at present drafted but that he had asked that his reservation should be recorded in the Minutes. He accepted the rep?rt all the more so as it did no more than record what had actually happened dunng the discussions of the Commit.tee.

Viscount CEOIL veutured to propose the following draft as a compromise, which he understood the Chinese representative would be ready ~o accept :

"It is right to record that the Committee was unanimously favourable to an allocation of three non-permanent seats to Latin America and that adequat~ representation should be given to Asia. The Chinese delegate strongly urge th~t at least two seats should be allotted to Asia and the otht'r parts of the world out~ide America and Europe."

The .wording proposed by Viscount Oecilfor the last paragraph, ancl the report a8awhole, w~e a.Mpt~. . . .

37. Possible Adjournment of the Next Session of the Committee.

M. SoiALOJA pointed out that the date of the .next session had been fixed for June 2rtb. ll_no change in the situation had occurred by that date, to meet then would b~ use ess. That date; however, could be decided upon in principle, but it should be constdered I1B open to change.

-111-

The CHAIRMAN asked who would take the responsibility of ('hnngiug the date.

AI. SciALOJA re_Plied that that would be the duty _of_ the Council, which would be in . until approxunately Juve 15th. It would do so If 1t found that there was no chan(J'e

~;: ~jtnation. In any ca~;e, the Committee could authorise the C'hahmau to follo"'w :e co~se of eveuts and (lecide, if uecessary, to postpoue the session to a date later than June 28th.

The proposal of M. Bcialoja 1oas adopted.

38_ ColllDlunieation of the Report and Uinutes of the Committee to the Members of the League.

Viscount CEO~ x·emin~ed the Committee that the Council could, if it tho_ught good, distribute for the mformatiOu of the Members of the League, even before the fmal session of the Committee, the report which had just been adopted.

The CIIAJRMAN thought that no pos~ible objection could be made to this, a.nd that M. Moutarroyos himself, who had raised the question, had not desix·ed to exp1·ess the view that the Council should be prevented from distributing the Committee's report to Members of the League of Nations.

M. MONTAEROYOS replied that he had never wished to contest the right of the Council ill thiQ matter but that the document to be distributed must be complete. Tt should also include the Minutes.

The CJumMAN and Viscount CECIL entirely agreed with this view.

The Committee agreecl that the M itlutr,s sho1ud be distribu~~ul with the 1·eport.

39. Close of the Session.

The OrrAIRMAN "ished to thank his colleagues most warmly for the very great indulgence shown to him and for their unfailing support. Be reminded them that, at the beginning of the session, he bad expressed much hesitation in accepting the d11ty with which they had desired to entrust him. Be would now wish to record at the end of the aeasion that their kindness had greatly facilitated the fulfilment of his delicate and, he would add, his grave task.

The work of the Committee had consisted and did consist in finding the best means for the Council and the Assembly to solve the crisis which had arisen in March last and which had prevented the special Assembly of the League from fulfilling the object for which it had been convened. The Committee could not yet congratulate itself on having found an ixifalJible and final method for the solution of all these difficulties. Moreover, ~e.end of the discussion which had just taken place had given still fw-ther proof of these difficulties. The Committee had been able to realise how many interests were at stake and how necessary was a spirit of harmony in all endeavours to conciliate the views of everyone. Nevertheless, the Chairman thought that he could state with a clear conscience that the Committee had done useful work, that it had completed au ixnportant stage, and that it was much closer to the object which should be achieved.

This result ha~ been obtained tha.nks to two factors : the first was the spix·it of compreheusion and harmony which had presided over the Committee. The latter bad P1118ued its discussions in an atmosphere of complete calm. No word had been spoken by any of its members which had not shown that all realised the higher interests of the ~e.

The second factor had, he thought, been the publicity of the discussions. The Obahma.u IOU!d especially thank the representatives of the Press for the help which they had given to the Committee, and he asked them to assist in the effort made by it, which was iudeed ~effort made by the League, to attain in September the object which the Assembly must •old ever in view - the universal nature of the League of N a tiona. . lie also thanked the Secretary·General and his assistants for the help which they had

Clven to the Committee. . He would summon his colleagues, he hoped, to meet again on June 28th. In the IDiervaJ, they would be able to inform their Governments of the decisions taken, and he ~~sure that those Governments specially concerned would examine the solutions which qq, been adopted in a spirit of the greate~t calm and highest justi('e. He felt sure that all G?vernments of ali States without any exception would be ready to subordinate theix· ~ mterests, however legitimate and powerful they might be, to the still greater and "'6llet interests of the League of Nations. Salm civitMum suprema lex.

-112-

M. P AUL-BONCOUR said that the session could not be considered at an end until his col~eaguel'> had. added to the. two fact.ors w~ich had m.ade for. success a nd to the value of wh1ch the Chauman had so JUStly pru.d a tnbnte, a thll'd, wh1ch was the manner in which the Swiss rep1·csentative had presided over the discussions. By a happy chance the seat of the French representative bad been immediately next to tbe Chairman, and bis colleaoues had thought that it would be for that representative to express their unanimous th;nk~ to M. Motta. It. was with special satisfaction that M. P aul-Roncour assumed that ta"k.

The CnAmMAN thanked l\1. Paul-Boucour for his k ind words and declared the first session of th(' Committee closed.

-113-

APPENDIX I

C.207.1926 (1)

REPORT BY VISCOUNT ISHII AND RESOLUTION

.Adopted by the Council on March 18th, 1926.

With the consent of my colleagues on the Council, I informed the plenary meeting of the Assembly that it was intended to set up, during our present session, a Committee to study the problems connected with the composition of the Council and the number and the method of election of its Members.

This proposal met with a favourable reception from subsequent speakers at the meeting of the Assembly.

The grounds on which the creation of such a Committee is proposed are well known to us, and I think it is unnecessa1·y that I should revert to them in any way in the present report. I shall therefore confine myself to putting before you as a basis of discussion certain suggestions in connection with the composition of the Committee and the instructions to be given to it by the Council.

In regard to its composition, it will have been observed that a number of speakers in the Assembly expressed very strongly the view that its members should include represen­t-atives of countries not at present Members of the Council, and that it should be of an impartial character.

It was further agreed that the "geographical principle", i.e., the principle that the different continents of the world should be represented on the Committee, should also be borne in mind in composing it.

We cannot forget that, under the Covenant, the responsibility for taking any initiative in these matters rests formally with the Council. This constitutional fact, however, would not in any way be controverted by the inclusion in the Committee of States not represented on the Council, inasmuch as the Committee will report to the Council, and it is the Council which will, in the first place, discuss the action to be taken on that report.

As regards the instructions to be given to the Committee, I think that the draft resolution which appears at the end of the present report may serve as a basis tor discussion without its being necessary for me to add much in the way of comment. I would, however, draw attention in particular to the reference to majority and minority l'eports. This provision, combined with the fact that the Committee will meet at a very eal'ly date, will, I think, give satisfaction to the Members of the League inasmuch as it renders it certain that the necessary material for a fully informed consideration of the whole matter will be in their hands before the Assembly opens in September.

Resolution. The Council,

Considering that it is desirable that a thorough study should be made of the problems connected with the composition of the Council and the number and the method of election of its Mem hers,

Decides to appoint a Committee for the purpose. This Committee shall give particular attention to the claims up to now put

forward by, or on behalf ~f, any Members of the League and shall be authorised to invite the Governments of any Members of the League which so desire to lay before it any statement, whether in writing or through an official representative, in support of their case, or containing their views on any of the problems falling within the competence of the Committee. It shall bear in mind the various proposals on the subject which have been previously discussed by the Council or the Assembly, and in particular the resolution regarding "geographical and other considerations" repeatedly adopted by the latter body.

The Committee shall consist of representatives of the Members of the Council and ()f the following States: the Argentine Republic, China, Germany, Poland and Switzerland. The names of these Tepresentatives shall be communicated to the Secretary-General as soon as possible.

The Committee shall meet on May lOth, 1926, and shall prepal'e a report to the Council which shall be communicated to the Members of the League for information as soon as possible. In case it is not able to make a unanimous report, it shall make such majority and minority reports as may be necessary in order to acquaint the Members of the League with the full results of its deliberations.

-114-

APPENDIX II

COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNMENTS CIRCULATED TO THE COMMITTEE

C.248.1926.r.

[Translation.]

LETTER DATED APRIL 12TH, 1926, FROM THE GERMAN MINI STER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL.

, In acknowledging the receipt of your letter dated March 20th, I have the honour to

inform you that the German Government is prepared to send a delegate to take pa.rt in the discussions of the Committee set up by the resolution of the Council of the League of Nations, dated March 18th, to study the problems connected with the composition of thr: Council and the number and method of election of its members. The German delegate v.iJI be appointed subsequently.

I would venture to observe that, Germany not being a member of the League of Nations, the position of the German delegate on the Committee will for that reason be different from that of t he representatives of the other participating Powers. The German delegate will take account of this special position of Germany, and for the same reason I must lay stress on the fact that the participation of the German delegate in the discussions of rhe Committee cannot prejudice the German Government's freedom of decision regarding Germany's entry into the League.

[Translation.)

(Signed) STRESEMANX.

C.249.M.94.1926.Y. (C.C.C.2. )

LETTER DATED .APRIL 12TH, 1926, ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY­GENERAL BY THE FIRST DELEGATE OF PERSIA TO THE LEAGUE OF

NATIONS.

In view of the fact that the Council has set up a Committee to examine the questions connected with its composi tion and the number and the method of election of its Members, I venture to give you a brief statement of the Persian delegation's views on this thorny subject and to communicate to the Council the instructions which this delegation has received from its Government.

I t is my opinion that, if the Assembly had from the outset adopted the system of rotation, the present difficulty would never have arisen.

The non-permanent Members of the Council cannot be blamed for wishing to consolidate their positions and remain Members for ever. Anybody who has held a coveted position for five or six years grows accustomed to it and finds it very difficult to surrender. )foreoT~r, a pertinent point is this : Why do almost all the Members of the League desire to obtrun seats on the Council 't

Unless I am much mistaken, the reason is that powers are not equally divided betw~en the Assembly and the Council ; at times it seems as though the latter were endeM~ounng to impose its will on the former. The Council, moreover, frequently neglects the Assembly by keeping it in ignorance of its discussions. During the recent Extraordinary Assembly whole days passed without our knowing what was being discussed at the private meetings of the Council, and we did not know what to say to our Governments. Several of my colleagues spoke of protesting against this procedure. I think that, in the interests of the League, it is the duty of us all to keep nothing back from the Committee and to state our opinions with complete impartiality. _

During the last Assembly I often heard this said: "Would it not be better to mainta.lll the status quo as regards the composition of the Council and adopt a system of rotation 1 That is to say, each year six non-permanent Members of the Council would be chosen, regard being paid to the geographical, racial, and commercial situation of the various Members and the civilisations they represent; and in the following year these Members would retire in favoUI' of others" . In that case, it was urged, there would be no rivalry, and everyone would be satisfied.

Suppose that this year one or two new seats were created on the Council; next year there would be other applications, and the number of candidates would be endless.

In concluding this impa.rt~al statement, I have the honour to inform you of the instructions I have received from my Government. Persia is not in any way opposed to t~e admission of Germany to membership of the League, with a. permanent seat on the Council.

- 115-

But if a.ny permanent seats are created besides the one accorded to Germany Persia will also deman~ a permanent ~eat, and she trusts that the Council and Assembly' will do ber justice in this matter. P~rsta, t~~ cra:dle of the Aryan ~ace,. has rendered great services to civilisation. Her geograp.hical :po.s~tlO~ ill the centre of ~sta, With an area of over 1,600,000 square kilometers, her ancient. myilis~twn, hei: art and literatme, give her the right to a place among the. ma~y other distillgrushe~ nat10ns represented on the Council. She is the onlY representative ill the League of N atwns of the world of Islam, with its 400 million members all over the globe. .

Persia .has loyall! and honourably fl:llfilled all her engage~ents towards the League ever since 1ts formatiOn. Moreover, Pers1a alone, by her negattve vote, saved Article 10 of the Covenant - the very corner-stone of the League.

(Signed) Prince ARFA, First Delegate of Persia.

C.C.C. 4.

MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 20TH, 1926, FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA.

[Translation.]

1. The Cuban Government, faithful to the principles of Ame1·ican solidarity which form one of the most venerable and essential traditions of its foreign policy, is of opinion that, if the League of Nations desires and accepts the co-operation of America, that co·operation must rest upon equality between the two continents on which civilisation and the peace of the world mainly depend to-day. Accordingly, the Cuban Government upholds the legitimate aspirations of any American Power which, with the support of the rest, seeks election to a permanent seat on the Council. The Cuban Government further considers that two other American countries should be given non-permanent seats, these two seats being so allotted as t o ensm·e that two groups - which may for this purpose be ca.lled the Northern group (comprising the republics of Central America and the West Indies) and the Southern group (composed of the South American republics) - shall always be I'epre~ented.

2. The Cuban Republic would not oppose - provided that it were carried out on this ba-sis - a reorganisation of the Council permitt ing any other non-American Power to be elected to a permanent seat in accordance with the provisions of .Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Nor would it object to the election of any other Power to another non-permanent seat on geographical and political grounds, since the Government is of opinion that, in order to attain the aims of the League, it is most important to secure the co-operation of all the best civilising forces among mankind.

3. With a view to the attainment of these aims, the Cuban Government does not desire to fix in advance any limit to the number of permanent or non-permanent Members other than the limit imposed by a reasoned and equitable consideration of the geographical and political factors mentioned above.

4. The Cuban Government considers that all elections should be determined by a majority of the votes cast, and that the term of office of non-permanent Members should be four years, without any possibility of extension of their term of office ; at the close of that period, a system of rotation should be instituted, in order to prevent rivalry and to maintain the principle of the absolute equality of all States.

5. In any event, the Cuban Government is of opinion that the American countries should be so represented as to be able to influence effectively the decisions of the Council - not by dominating that body but by giving it the benefit of their sincere co-operation and complete confidence in the success of the universal movement for peace, civilisation and progress which every nation has at heart.

C.C.C. 5.

COMMUNICATION, DATED MAY .5TH, 1926, FRO~ THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA.

T elegram.

You1· telegram, March 20th. Composition Council ?f th~ League ?f N ati~ns. Commonwealth Government has given careful consideratiOn to this questiOn and

avails itself of the opportunity' to lay its views before Committee that has been appointed by Council to investigate it. . .

1. Commonwealth Government is of the opinion that Council should contmue to consist of permanent and non-permanent Members. .

2. As some principle must therefore be laid down to deternune what States shall be permanent Members, the only one that appears to the OQmmonwealth G.overnment

l

116-

practicable and desirable to adopt in the present circumstances is to restrict the permane t seats to recognised Great Powers. n

3 . Desirable that a permanent seat on the Council should be given to German when that country becomes Member of League. Y

4. In order that Council may carry out the duties imposed on it by Covenant of the League of Nations, the number of it s Members must necessarily be small in comparison with number of the Members of League. Commonwealth Government therefore feels that body cannot with advantage be increased very much beyond its present size.

5 . It is recognised that all the Members of the League not permanently represented on the Council should have an opportunity of participating in work of the Council Commonwealth Government therefore supports the principle of rotation being adopted as far as it is possible to do so, but at the same time it appears undesimble that a too­rigid system should be laid down as for special reasons it may be advantageous for a State to continue to sit on the Council as a non-permanent Member for a period more or less long according to circumstances.

6. Commonwealth Government, while of the opinion that as far as possible consideration should be given to geographical divisions in appointment of non-permanent Members of the Council, has grave doubts as to whether any advantage would be oained by a fixed number of the non-permanent Members being allocated in that way.o

7 . Should any discussion as to rule of unanimity in respect of decisions of Council be raised in the course of the Committee's enquiries, Commonwealth Government desires to indicate that it is opposed to any modification of this rule.

s. M. B&UCE,

P1·ime Minister.

C .C.C.6 .

LETTER, DATED MAY 7TH, 1926, FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF THE SERBS, CROATS AND SLOVENES TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL.

[Tmnslation. J In your letter No. C. L. 41, of March 29th, you were good enough to ask me to forward

any observations which the Royal Government might desire to lay before the Committee appointed to study the problems connected with the composition of the Council and the number and method of election of its Members. ·

The Royal Government does not propose to go into these questions in detail; its remarks will be confined t o certain general ideas which it has the honour to put before the Committee.

1. The importance which the Royal Government may attach to the method of election of the non-permanent Members of the Council depends upon the relations which will exist in the future between the Assembly and the Council. If the work of this Committee should result in changes which would bring about an increase in the Assembly's authority and would place the Council more or less in the position of an executive organ of the .Assembly, the Royal Government would regard the question of election as of lesser importance.

2. If, on the other hand, the Committee refrained from recommending any change in the relative positions of the Assembly and the Council- that is to say, if the relations between the two bodies were to remain as defined in the Covenant and confirmed by subsequent practice - the question of the elected Members of the Council would be one of the highest importance.

3. The Royal Government is of opinion that it would be extremely desirable to ensure that every country should be represented, either dll·ectly or indirectly, on the Council. This could be arranged if, in addition to the permanent Members, whose numbers should only be increased so far as may be absolutely essential, a number of semi-permanent seats, which might be slightly greater than the p1·esent number of elective seats, were establish~d, and if these wer-e allotted to groups of countries. Countries might be grouped according to their political or geographical affinities (there might, for instance, be groups of Little Entente States, a group of Scandinavian States, groups of South .American States, and so on). If any country could not be grouped with others on the ground of polit ical interests or geographical situation, special groups could be formed of :

(a) States of medium importance, which would be classified either accordi?g to population or according to special political, economic Ol' industnal importance ;

(b) Small States, comprising those not included in the above categories.

The elective seats would be allotted to these groups for a fairly long period (say six to eight years), and the individual States members of each group would sit as Members of the Council in rotation, for two years in the case of States of medium importance and for one year in the case of other States.

-117 -

For each group there would be a substitute member, which would sit as a Member of the council if some constitutional impediment prevented the State which was actually

3 Member of the Council from sitting.

The Royal ~over~ent considers that it would thus be possible to satisfy the desires of all the countnes. which have not permanent_ seats on the Council by giYing them the opportunity of bemg represented thereon, Sillce the States members elected would represent not merely themselves but the groups in which they '~ere placed.

The Royal Government does not desire to put forward hard-and-fast proposals· its object is to help the Co~mitt~e in its v~ry difficult_ task of solving the problem or' the composition of the Connell, and 1t has nothing but the rnterests and the future of the League of Nations at heart.

(Signed) :M:. NINTCHITCH.

c.c.c.n.

MEMORANDUM, DATED MAY 11TH, 1926, FROl\l THE AUSTRIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Preface.

The memorandum here submitted to the Committee of Enquiry which is to discuss the composition of the Council of the League of ~ations is intended merely as a modest contti­bution to the search for a technical solution of the problem. The suggestion put forward may perhaps interest those whose duty it will be to seek a just, practicable and final settlement.

The present proposal is simple : to apply, mutatis mutandis, to the Council of the League a method which has already proved its value in the case of the composition of the Government Group in the Governing Body of the International Labour Office. Anyone familiar with this precedent would naturally call to mind a method which stood the test in the constitution of an international body belonging to the League. The J 01'1·nal de Geneve has made kindly a llusions to our scheme in its numbers of March 16th and April 4th, 1926. A similar proposal had previously been made by M. Backlund, former deputy member of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation, in the Swedish Social-Democratic paper Ny 1'id. Others, too, have already discussed the system of criteria and indices here put forward. Among them may be mentioned M. Fernand ~Iaurette, Chief of the Research Division of the Labow· Office, in his prize essay on the establishment of peace in Europe (Filene Foundation 1924).

The technical scheme worked out here keeps to the terms of the Covenant of the League since, at least for the present, it is considered quite impossible to depart from these. Thus the adoption of the scheme would meet with no insurmountable political obstacles and no treacherous legal pitfalls. On the contrary, any just solutio!:! sought and ultimately found along diplomatic lines cannot but be strengthened if the moral principles involved are supported by objective data obtained automatically by classification based on statistics.

The difficulties to be overcome in carrying out the present scheme are not invincible, and t~ere need be no troublesome delays. It has the advantage of absolute impartiality, both m the principle on which it is based and in the methods on which it is worked; and a further guarantee may be obtained by relying on experts (geographical, statistical, etc.) for the technical work.

The sole aim in view has been to find a just and peaceful settlemen.t of a ques~i?n which may produce international disagreement, an aim which is at one \Vlth the spm t of the League in the highest sense of the term .

. S~p_Porters of the League may perhaps look with favour o~ a scheme whic~ . by its ?bJecttvtty should conciliate the more uncompromising elements I ll the present cr1s1s and, m the more distant futuxe, remove hitherto unsuspected stumbling-blocks from the path of the Lea.gue of Nations.

-118-

P ART I. - THE FACTS AND THE PROBLEM

I ntrodruction.

At the historic closing session of the Special Assembly of the League of Nations in March 1926, Viscount I shii, the President of the Council, proposed the institution of a special Committee to st~dy the pro?Iem _of the <?ouncil. This ~roposal was adopted at the seventeenth meetmg of the Thirty-nmth Sesswn of the Council on March 18th, 1926, in the following resolution :

"The Council, "Considering that it is desirable that a thorough study should be made of

the problems connected with the composition of the Council and the number and the method of election of its Members,

"Decides to appoint a Committee for the purpose. "This Committee shall give particular attention to the claims up to now put

forward by or on behalf of any Members of the League and shall be authorised to invite the Governments of any Members of the League which so desire to lay before it any statement, whether in writing or through an official representath·e in support of their case, or containing their views on any of the problems falling within the competence of the Committee. It shall bear in mind the Yarions proposals on the subject which have been previously discussed by the Council or the Assembly, and, in particular, the resolution regarding "geographical and other considerations" repeatedly adopted by the latter body.

"The Committee shall consist of representatives of the Members of the Council and of the following States: Argentine Republic, Germany, China, Poland and Switzerland. The names of these representatives shall be communicated to the Secretary-General as soon as possible.

"The Committee shall meet on May lOth, 1926, and shall prepare a report to the Council, which shall be communicated to the Members of the League for information as soon as possible. In case it is not able to make a unanimous report, it shall make such majority and minority reports as may be necessary in order to acquaint the Members of the League with the full results of its deliberati(.'lnS "

The subjects to be examined by the Committee are as follows :

The composition of the Council ; The number of Members thereon; The procedure of election.

The material available for the Committee comprises :

Claims already put forward by certain States; Proposals relating to organisation already made, notably the resolutions

adopted by the League Assembly regarding geographical and other considerations.

The con~position of the Committee is as follows :

{a) The ten States represented on the Council, i.e., those with permanent seats :

1. British Empire ; 2. France; 3. Italy; 4. Japan.

Those with non-permanent seats:

5. Belgium; 6. Brazil (claiming a permanent seat) ; 7. Spain (claiming a permanent seat) ; 8. Sweden; 9. Czechoslovakia;

10. Uruguay.

{b) Five States not represented on the Council, i.e.,

11. Germany (has applied for admission to the League and is promised a, permanent seat) ;

12. Argentine {formally a 1\fember of the League, actually takes no part in its work; represents "geographical considerations");

119

13. China (Member of the League, claiming seat on the Council; represents "geographical considerations") ;

14. Poland (Member of the League, claiming a permanent seat on the Council);

15. Switzerland (Member of the League; on principle, declines at present a seat on the Council).

The Committee will meet for the first time on May lOth, 1926. It has to submit its report, with a minority report if necessary, to the Council of the

League, which will transmit it to the Members of the League for t heir information as soon a~ possible and in any cas~ well.before the regular As~em~ly to meet in September 1926.

The task of the Comnnttee 1s extremely onerous, m VIew of the decisive importance for the settlement of the crisis and the continued existence of the League, of the questio~ put before it , of the complexity and subtlety of the problem to be considered, and of the relatively short. time in which its work must be completed.

I t will be faced with the imperative necessity of considering the composition of the council, the number of Members, and the system of election not merely in their political and diplomatic aspects but also as technical probleiD:S of organisation. As either of these two aspects may be decisive in solving the general problem, the Committee might eventually arrive at a synthesis of the two :

Technical methods of organisation ~ust be inspired by political and ·diplomatic considerations, while political and diplomatic considerations must find an inner objective basis in technical organisation.

The fundamental questions on the political and diplomatic side which the Committee will have to consider may be suggested as follows - assuming that the maintenance, unchanged, of the existing provisions of the Covenant is for the present a necessary presup· position:

(a) In relation to the permanent seats :·

Should the number of permanent seats be increased or not f

If so, what should the number be'

Should the permanent seats : (1) allotted by the Covenant to the United States, (2) promised to Germany, and (3) reserved for Russia, should occasion arise, be taken into account t If so, how (e .g., by keeping t hem vacant, allotting them temporarily to other States, etc.) t

Can and should account be taken of claims already made to permanent seats on the Council t ·

If so, to what extent '

{b) In relation to non-permanent seats :

Should the existing system of free election of non-permanent Members of the Council be maintained or not t

If not, can and should the principle of rotation, already officially advocated by several States, be incorporated via facti in the system of election t

What should be the period of such rotation 1

What should be the number to be fixed for the non-permanent seats'

Should the system of rotation, if adopted, provide for representation of ~oups of States on a geographical and political basis, or for general representatiOn of Members of the League which do not occupy permanent seats ¥

. It is evident at a glance that discussion of these questions on purely political and diplomatic lines would be extremely delicate and prejudicial to positive results from the labours of the Committee. If the Committee confined itself to discussing the problems referr_ed to it solely on these lines, it would soon find itself. in the sam~ viciou~ circle as that m which the Council and Assembly were involved dunng the SpeClal Sesswn o~ ~he latter. ~he only way out of this vicious circle for the Assembly was to postpo~e de?ISlon and appomt the Committee - a means of escape obviously closed to the Comnnttee ~tself. The League awaits from the Committee positive proposals for one (or more) pract1cable methods of escaping rapidly and safely from the impasse.

-120-

In _the c?~se of such refl_ecti~n:> the Com~ttee will pr~b~bly fin_d_ itself compelled to seek thts pos1t.tve remedy, while givmg full wetght to the enst~ political and diplomatic situation - in the sphere of technical ot·ganisation, better swted to the purpose, calm!r objective, and remote h·om national or political passions. •

A definite proposal for such a remedy may therefore be not without value to the Committee in its work.

* * *

This proposal starts from the fact that problems of the kind now before the Committee have already arisen in very similar form within the League itself on a previous occasion, so that an attempt to adapt the methods of solution then adopted to the present case immediately suggests itself. We refer to the constitution of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation.

In this case, too, the distribution of permanent and non-permanent seats in the Gov. ernment Group raised very grave political and diplomatic difficulties. They were only solved by a decision of the Council of the League which was based mainly, if not entirely, on the results of technical statistical comparison.

Before going more fully into this analogous case and the proposal for its application, mutatis mutandis, to the present problem of the League Council, I will give a short account of the present constitution of the League and endeavour to indicate the dangers inherent therein.

I . - The Council of the Leag1te as at p1·esent c01t,Stituted : Possible ])angers arising out of that Constitution.

Article 4, paragraph 1, Part I, of the Treaty of Peace (Covenant of the League of Nations) reads :

"The Council shall consist of Representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers . "

The Covenant, which was designed to last in permanence, is here based on an historical conception, i.e., on a conception which has a non-permanent value. An attempt is made to perpetuate, in an instrument designed to further the peace of the world, a formula. which derives its whole meaning from the war. Not only is the use of the phrase "Principal Allied and Associated Powers, in connection with the Covenant in contradiction to the true spirit of the League, but the phrase itself is bound to become rapidly void of its original content.

At the time when the Covenant was being drawn up, the phra~e was common property ; it was recognised as a description of the five victorious Powers, namely, the United State of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan. But the United States have failed to ratify the Treaty, have therefore in fact, even if not fo rmally, ceased to be included in the expression "Principal Allied and Associated Powers" , and are dissociated from the League of Nations. Soon after the conclusion of peace and the creation of the League, a deep-seated political estrangement began to show itself between France ~nd Great Britain ; this has now, fortunately for the world, yielded to a very close co-operatiOn, more especially within the field of international reconciliation. To these factors may be added the temporary tension between the United States and Japan and recent political developments in Italy. These facts suffice to prove that the meaning attributed to the expression "Principal Allied and Associated Powers" is already very fairly out of date.

But, if the phrase bas lost currency from a practical point of view, still more important are the objections which may be raised, and which have indeed ali·eady been indicated, against the permanent use of a formula inllerited from t.he war and deriving its con~ent from the notion of power. The 1919 basis was obviously that of a coalition of the princ1pal victorious Powers to form a block within the League of Nations. The old conceptions of Great Powers and of balance of power were no doubt present, with their old reliance on military and economic elements. It is easy to comprehend the 'vish, or even to admit. the opportuneness- nay, the necessity - of placing the tender seedling of the League of Nations under the powerful protection of the Principal Powers, which were the surviving partners

-121-

of the old Concert of Powers as .once established on the balance-of-power ba is, at the moment when the Peaco was berng concluded, when chaos was threatening, especially troro the East. But. the last ten year:~ have ?rought change of a ttitude, following on the strengthening of the 1dea of the League. of Nahons. and the gradual penetration and develop­ment of the more fundamental concept10ns on which the League is built, which have caused methods which once seemed opportune . to .become ou.t of date.. The gcneral mental attitude of the present day sees something mtolerable m the donunation of the League by four or five States merely in virtue of their power, and this applies both gcnet·ally to the other States in the League and more particularly to the defeated nation . .

This in no sense whatever implies that these Powers should not be recognised as the leading States within the League. No suggestion of any aboJition of permanent seats would be possible at this s tage. On the contrary, i t is vital to the League- indeell, it may be defined as the sole pt·inciple fo?' the survival of the League and of its lJ!etnbers - to retain these States in thei?· special position at the head of the L eague. What llhould be changed is the baiiis 00 which they hold t.bis position. They should not be conceived a:; ~S upreme Orea.t Powers but as protecting chief Powers of t.he League of Nation:-; ; noL a8 the Pl'incipa.l Allied and Associated Powers but as the States of -most universal i-mportance, as the States most interested in the objects of the Leagtte and which al.so provide the elements most likely to contri b1,te to the attainment of those objects.

The great difficul tiel$ in the way of amending the Co,enant definitely rule out any suggestion for the altera.tion of t.he phrase itself. New wine, howe,·er, can be pom·ed into the old bottles and a new spirit can be made to inspire the existing formula. Neither facts nor text require to be altered, but t he conceptions underlying them require to be rem•wed. Here is to be found the very e sence of that den•lopment which i. taking place in the League of Nations idea. That development is happening before our eyes in its most painful phases, and to t hat deYelopment the work of the Committee of Enquiry should make a decisive contt·ibution. Anticipating obsen-ations which will be made below, i t may here be stated that the basic idea of the present mode t essay is a couception which, in retaining a special position within the League for the United States of 1\.merica, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, will do so, not with reference to their quality as the Principal Allied and As. ociated Powers, or eYen as Great Powers, but rather with reference to their quality as Powers of "universal importance".

This criterion of " universal importance", to which further reference is made below, will be a measuring-rod which it will be possible to apply in adjudging other claims to an analogous special position wi thin the League, i .e., claims to a permanent seat on the Council, such as may be preferred by Powers other than the Pt'incipal Allied and Associated Powers.

Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Covenant continues :

"together with RepresentatiYes of fom· other Members of the League. These fom Members of the League shall be selected by the Assembly from time to time in its discretion."

It is hardly necessary to call attention to the ob\·iou~ elements of uucet·tainty and. of danger introduced by the phrase "in its discretion" . On more than one occa. ion, actiOn has been attempted within the League i tself to limit this exce. of "di. cretion" by means ?f ,.oluntary restrictions adopted by the Assembly in the form of rules designed to govern tts exercise .

. . Posith'e suggestion , which have formed the subject of Assembly di~cussion:;, exiiit, amung at rotation and distribu tion of the non-permanent ouncil seat· to groups of States w~ch are homogeneous from a political or a geographical point of view, special stress b.eing la1d on the consideration of interests outside Europe. These proposals the C?mnu~tee of Enquiry will be bound, in virtue of its terms ofreference, to take into special constderatwn. They plainly express the dissatisfaction of the Members of the League with this umestricted freedom of selection. The instruction to the Committee of Enquiry to examine methods of election reflects the desire for a just and final settlement of the necessary procedure.

Article 4, paragraph 1, fUI'ther uses the 'vords : "from time to time" .

The liberty of action indicated in these words has also ceased to recommend i~s~lf ~0 the majority of the Members of the League. The inherent danger of the opporturutles lt affords, e.g., to an elected group of States to prolong their own mandate, perhaps on account of. difficulties in selecting their successors, or, again, ~o a ~i~gle Member. to ~etua~ 1ts non-permanent seat, perhaps on account of the speCial abili ty ~r populanty 0 lts representative, has already given rise more than once, as already ment10ned, to the

-122-

expression of a wish on the part of the States concerned to see some fixed automatic system of rotation introduced. This heal.thy desire to get rid of al?- element of u~certainty arising out of the text of the Covenant will also be bound to make Itself fully felt m the discussions of the Committee of Enquiry.

The final words of Article 4, paragraph 1, are :

"Until the appointment of the Representatives of the four M~mbers of the League first selected by the Assembly, Representatives of Belgium, Brazil, Spain and Greece shall be Members of the Council."

This clause ceased to be effective after the elections of 1922. Article 4, paragraph 2, reads :

"With the approval of the majority of the Assembly, the Council may name additional Members of the League . . . "

The Covenant contemplated a Council of nine. The Council, owing to the failure of the United States of America to ratify the Treaty, at first consisted of eight Members only. The growing importance of the Council, which is qualified to take action, and which meet~ four times a year, as against the Assembly, which meets only once a year and which i'l slow to action, has brought it about that the number of Council seats, in other word~, the chances of election, have begun to appear insufficient. The possibilities of extending the number of those seats as laid down in Article 4 began therefore soon to be taken into consideration.

And continues :

" whose Representatives shall always be members of the Council."

The purpose of the clause was clearly to leave the door open for a later entry of Germany and Russia. Some idea may, in addition, have been present envisaging a contingency that some other State might advance to the position of a Great Power. The principal situation provided for did not actually arise until1926, whereas the more remote contingency was at an early date taken into account by more than one Power, e.g., by Spain, Poland, Brazil, which raised claims to new permanent seats. The vagueness of the text makes such demands, and further demands, perfect ly possible, but provides no criteria or procedure for their examination or comparison.

The appeamnce of such demands and their vigorous pursuit are thus easily to be understood. They arise when the desire to attain the position of a Great Power is taken as equivalent to having attained it or from other motives whose value is difficult to estimate. Nevertheless, they are dangerous to the peaceful growth of the League of Nations. The events of the Special Session of March 1926 and the crisis they evoked have giYen rise to a general feeling that some means must be found for a fundamental regulation of additions to the seats in the Council and their distribution.

Article 4, paragraph 2, continues :

"The Council with like approval may increase the number of Members of the League to be selected by the Assembly for representation on the Council."

Permanent seats having been allotted to four Members, the number of non-permanent seats allotted between the remaining Members was originally only four. The chance. of allotment was in direct contradiction to the desire and the need for it. The disproport~on between the competition for non-permanent seats and the available chances caused actiOn to be initiated under this paragraph for increasing the number of non-permanent seats. as early as 1924. The very first election which took place at the Assembly was the occasiOn for increasing the number of those seats from fom to six. The following States were elected:

Belgium, Brazil, Czechoslovakia,

Spain, Sweden, Uruguay.

The election of three representatives of the Latin-Iberian race met the dissatisfaction which had been expressed with the composition of the Council by the rising States of the South American continent. However, at this, the first election undertaken by the Assembly, political, .diplomatic and personal factors came exclusively into play, as had also

-123-

b n the case in the initial designation to the non-permanent seats which had been embodied . ~he text of the Covenant. There was as yet no thought of objective criteria or of any ~ ·tem of automatic rotation. byb A review of the above analysis of .Article 4, as illustrative of the uncertainties and risks inherent in th~ present constitu~on of the Council, leads to .the conclusion that the excessive freedom perrrutted_ by_ the wording of the ~ovenant has of Itself produced an inevitable call for some systematisation, some means which shall prevent that freedom from being abused and shall properly secure the preponderance of common sense, objective judgment and justice. Tbis can only be attained by means of a technical principle which is adequately divorced from_ the. obscurities of the diplom_atic. and political game: The present memorandum lS des1gned to be a modest contnbut10n towards the eluCidation of such a principle.

It will be preceded by a comparative study of the parallel case of tile International Labour Orgauisation, from the constitution of which the present suggestion has been taken.

II. - Analogy with the I n temational Labour 01·ga1~isation : U sejul 1 njerences.

Part XIII of the Peace Treaty : "The Labour Charter", Article 3!>3, pamgrapb (a).

"The International Labour Office shall be under the control of a Governing Body consisting of twenty-four persons, appointed in accordance with the following provisions "

Wbile the Covenant provides for a Council of nine Members - capable of expansion, it is true- the Labour Charter institutes a Governing Body of twenty-fom· members. This and other differences to be noted arise from the fmldamental differences in the nature of the two institutions. The League of Nations is an association of Governments, while the International Labour Organisation is an association of Governments plus the two interested parties. This affords a natural explanation of the larger number of members on the Governing Body, whicb bas certainly conferred on that body the great advantages of adaptability hitherto denied to the Council of tbe League.

Paragraph (b).

"The Governing Body of tbe International Labour Office shall be constituted as follows :

"Twelve persons representing the Governments; "Six persons elected by the_delegates to the Conference representing

tbe employers; "Six persons elected by the delegates to tbe Conference representing

the workers."

. The number and distribution of the seats on the Governing Body are thus explicitly l:ud down beforehand in the Charter. The possibility of satisfying States whose claims to a seat in the Government Group cannot be granted by giving them representation in the employers' or workers' groups confers on the Governing Body an advantage over the League Council which should not be under-estimated. On the other hanrl, the Governing Body lacks the Council's power of expansion.

Paragraph (b) (1).

"Of the twelve persons representing the Governments, eight shall be nominated by the Members which are of the chief industrial importance, and four shall be nominated by the members selected for the purpose by the Government delegates to the Couference, excluding the delegates of the eight Members menti~:med above."

Comparison of the composition of the Government Group in the Governing Body of the.International Labour Organisation with that of the League Coun_cil s~ows that here a~am the former has the advantage of larger membership : twelve as agamst e1gh_t, or ~ather, 8lllce 1~22, ten. The difference lies in the number of permanent seats - e1ght m . the GoverlllDg Body, four in the Council; while the number of the non-permanent seats remamed the same until 1922, namely, four. The Assembly in 1922 decided to raise the number of the non-permanent seats to six. In The_ same need which occasioned this enlargement of the League Council led the . ternatlonal Labour Conference in 1922 to adopt an amendment to Part XIII, ~creasing the number of employers' and workers' representatives on the Gover~ng

ody from six to eight each and the number of non-permanent Government representattves

-124-

from four to eight. The total number of seats would thus be thirty-two. Here, however appears the greater rigidity of Article 393 of the Charter, as compared with Article 4 of th' Covenant, since it m~kes no ~ro~sion for enlarge~en~, bu.t expressly specifies the figur: twenty-four. Alteration of this figure and of the d1stnbut10n of seats therefore involved a ratified amendment to the Peace Treaty. As mentioned above, this amendment was adopted by the Labour Conference but, owing to the failure of certain States to ratify it has not yet come into operation. The amendment also presCiibes that two members e~cb of the employers' and workers' groups and six members of the Government group "shall belong to non-European States". Here is an obvious defect in the provisions of the Labour Charter as compared with the Covenant of the Lea.gue.

On the other hand, the Charter has three important ad vantages over the Covenant:

1. Institution of the criterion "of chief industrial importance" for the allocation of permanent seats on the Governing Body. This is the chief advantage of the Charter over the Covenant, and will be dealt with later.

2. Paragraph (b) (2) .

"Any question as to which are the Members of the chief industrial importaoca shall be decided by the Council of the League of Nations."

This creates an institution to eliminate the dangers of doubtful cases by its absolute decision; an institution, moreover, which, as will be shown later, has both considered and proved itself competent to settle general difficulties arising out of the composition of the Governing Body. Naturally, no analogous institution could be instituted by the Covenant, since the Council of the League cannot act as judge on its own case. The matter is rather one within the competence of the League Assembly.

Investigation and the drafting of proposals are in the present instance the function of the Committee which has to draw up a report to the Council of the League summa.rising the result of its investigations. The Council will then communicate the report to the Members of the League.

3. Paragraph (o).

"The period of office of the members of the Governing Body will be three years. The method of filling vacancies and other similar questions may be determined by the Governing Body subject to the approval of the Conference!'

Thus the International Labour Organisation already possesses the system of rotation at fixed intervals, so generally desired for the League Council. The further provision as to the treatment of vacancies is also an improvement on the Covenant, which does not provide for such eventualities or obviate their dangers.

To return to the clause in the Labour Charter which appears to present the principal advantage over the Pact, namely, the utablishment of a criterion for the allocation of permanent seats.

"Chief Industrial Importance". - The provision of permanent seats on an international body must be governed by the principle of securing the permanent co-operation, in the control of the organisation, of those countries which are of most importance for its objects and to whom, conversely, its objects are of most importance.

The question thus is to determine which are these countries in relation to these object.s - in other words, to define those characteristics which mark out these countries as the most suitable occupants of permanent seats for purposes of these particular objects.

The aim of the International Labour Organisation is sketched in the Preamble to the Charter. It is confined entirely to the sphere of labour, where alone social peace can be secured.

This aim is of most importance to those countries - and they are of most importance for this aim- which pass the criterion of "chief industrial importance".

Analogous Application to the League.- The aim of the League of Nations is world peace.

This aim is political, and is to be reached by influencing the international relations of States.

-125-

The States which are of most importance for thls aim and for which this aim is of most ·m ortance are those which pass the criterion of "chief universal importance". 1

p The meanin{:! of "lllli:versal i~p.ortance" is so clear that i.t is hardly neces ary to put it into words: the mternatwnal political power, extent of terntory, and degree of influence abroad of a country.

While objection may be raised on the ground of vagueness to the term "industrial" this objection is even more justified as regards the term " universal" importance. '

Ne\ertheless, the objection is wholly invalidated in both cases by greater knowledge of the technical methods by which an apparently vague criterion can be precisely and objectively defined by means of statistical tests.

The technical methods of defining "chief industrial importance" wilJ now be described after which an analogous method of defining "chlef universal importance" is outlined.

III.- Histm·ical and Technical Analysis of M ethods 1tsed in constit1tting the Government G1·oup on the Gove1·rling Body of the I nternational LabO'ttr Organisation.

The problem of an objective basis for the criterion "chief industrial importance" aro~e at the first beginnings of the International Labour Organisation.

The problem was first dealt with by the London Organisation Committee of the First International Labour Conference held at Washington in 1919. Tt was solved by the adoption of seven tests :

(1) Industrial population; (2) Relation of industrial population to total population; (3) Length of railway track; ( 4) Relation of railway track to area; (5) Horse-power used in industry; (6) Relation of horse-power to total population; ( 7) Size of mercantile marine.

Uuweighted absolute figures were used. The eight "chief industrial" States were then determined according to the ranking in the seven-test list. The United States, Great Britain, France and Germany were among the eight first States in all seven tests, I taly in six, Belgium in five. Those six: States were therefore immediately ranked as of "chief industrial importance".

In the light of the statistics, J apan and Switzerland were elected to the two remaining seats. Poland, Canada a nd Sweden lodged protests against this result.

As the United States did not enter the Organisation, Denmat"k was elected in place of that country.

The four non-permanent seats were filled by the election of the Argentine, Canada, Poland and Spain. ·

In October 1921, India protested against the selection of the eight chief industrial tates. In December 1921, Poland renewed its protest. At the same time, t.he N etllerlands

demanded a revision of the ranking. Under Article 393, paragraph b (2), of t he Charte1· (see above), decision lay with the

Council of the League. In view of the number of protests and of the admitted defect:> of the rather hasty procedure of the Organising Committee in 1919, the Council decided "to treat the present question as a general question", i.e.t not to pronounce on individual protests, but to decide "whlch are the eight Members of chief industrial importance and endeavour !o name such Members according to the best judgment which it can form upon the information available to it" (Viscount I shii's report to the Councilt October 3rd, 1922).

For the collection of this information a Committee was appointed consisting of :

(a) Representatives of the League of Nations Secretariat:

Professor GINI (Italian statistician) ; Commendatore ~NZILOTTI (Italian lawyer); later replaced by Mr. M 0 K1NNON

WooD, of the legal staff of t he Secretaliat.

(b) Representatives of the International Labour Organisation:

M. FONTAINE j M. I NUZUKA; M. H ODACZ; M. JOUBAUX.

- 126-

M. Ar~hur FoN'~AINE, President of the Governing ~ody, was elected chairman of this Comrruttee and s1gned the report to the League OounCll dated May 31st, 1922 (League document 0 . 410. 1922 . V).

The Committee first considered criticisms of the methods used for the Washington Conference and requested two of its members, M. Hodacz and Professor Gini, to draw up an improved system on a similar basis .

Professor Gini presented a scientific memorandum, the chief points in which were as follows :

"1. Sense ·to be attached to the Expression "Chief Industrial Importance".

"States whose presence there (on the Governing Body) is especially important for the regulation, in the interests of the workers, of the relations between capital and labom.

"2. 01·iteria fO?· determining the Ind1t8t1·ial Importance of a State.

"(a) Absolute Indices :

"(1) The number of workers in each State who require protection by international regulation of labour conditions ;

"(2) The number of workers who emigrate from or immigrate int.c the State;

"(3) The value of the total ne~ production; "(4) The value of exports and imports.

"(b) Relative 1 ndices :

"(1)

"(2)

"(3)

"(4)

The ratio between the number of workers in each State and tbe total of the adult population- a coefficient proportional to the number and effectiveness of the regulations which protect him being applied· to each worker. The ratio between the number of workers who emigrate or immigrate and the total population ; The ratio between the total net production of the country and its adult population ; The ratio between the amoun.t of special trade and the value of the total net production.

"3. Technical Methods of establishing the I ndir.es.

"No weighting; "Alternative systems of classifying the indices: "(a) According to the relative magnitude of the phenomena considered; "(b) According to the actual magnitude of the phenomena."

The Committee came to t he conclusion that "the system as a whole was deserving of consideration for a future occasion, but could not be made use of for working out the next classification owing to the difficult financial conditions through which we are passing and from which we may not emerge for a long time". ·

The Committee · was led to adopt this negative attitude by the three following drawbacks of Professor Gini's system:

1. The difficulty of obtaining official, reliable, uniform and logica~y comparable statistics on which to base the terms "total net production", "special trade", "protection by regulation ·of labour conditions".

2. The difficulty of calculating the coefficient in paragraph 2 of p_9~nt (b), J. . . _,. . . . "'""

3. The difficulty introduced by the exchanges : "How can production reckoned in marks be compared with production reckoned · in pesetas ! The exchange quotations are admittedly insufficient to enable us to convert the figures so as to render it possible to compare their- values." (:M. Fontaine's report, p. 8.)

While these difficulties were so great as to prevent the Committee adopting Prof~ssor Gini's system as a whole, it nevertheless approved the logical basis of the sense to be given to the expression "chief industrial importance", the division of th~ tests . into absolute and relative, and the technical methods proposed.

-127-

The Committee decided to adopt both ~a:riants of ~ofessor Gini's technical methods, but provisionally to apply those of the Orgamsmg Comnuttee of the Washington Conference.

Two tests were drawn up, based on revised and improved absolute figill'es, in accordance with Professor Gini's two methods, viz. :

Method A : I ndex numbers with the base : optimum =100.

Method B : Rank.

Method A (supplemented by weighting as recommended by Professor Gini).

"1. By means of the tables, some containing absolute figures and others relative values, corresponding series of index numbers would be established. These index numbers would be calculated as follows : the index number 100 would be given to the highest absolute figure or relative value in a given table. When that had been done, the other absolute figures or relative values in the table under consideration would be represented by an index number inferior to 100 ; the proportion between these index numbers and the index number 100 should be equal to the corresponding proportions in the original tables.

"2. The index numbers representing the various characteristics of a country would then be weighted, i . e . , multiplied by coefficients so as to take account of their respective importance.

"The Committee decided to give the coefficient 2 to the absolute index numbers, which are the more important, and the coefficient 1 to the relative index numbers. Among the absolute index numbers, however, that which is based on the length of railways should also only be given the coefficient 1. For this is an index number which may be unduly high in certain regions where there is a great length of railway track traversing districts with few inhabitants and little traffic.

"3. The weighted index numbers representing the various characteristics of a given country would be added together, and the descending order of the totals thus obtained would act as the basis for the classification of the different States."

Method B .

"Every State could also be classified with reference to each of the criteria on the basis of the gross statistics ; the orders of classification could then be multiplied by 2 in the case of the absolute criteria (except in the case of the length of railways), while the coefficient could remain equal to unity in the ca.se of the other criteria.

"The numbers thus obtained should be added together, and the ascending order of the totals would then give the desired classification of the States.

"This method, which appears less exact than the preceding one and is less mathematical in appearance, appears quite suitable for adoption, in view of the errors which the comparison of the present statistics entails ; it has the advantage of giving less importance to differences which are sometimes open to question in the present state of our statistical information."

The Committee also presented the following three tables in an appendix to their report to the League Council :

States clal!sified according to the Beven Oharacteri8tic8 of London, Do1tble Weight being gwen to tl«~ Absolute Indices (euept Railways).

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Characteristics United Germany France Canada Italy Belgium Japan I ndia 1 Switzer- Norway Czecho- Sweden Nether- Denmark Poland 1 Argen- Spain Brazil Kingdom land slovakia lands tine

A. Industria.! popu-lation ..... ] ()() 91.6 61.5 9.6 42.0 10.4 38.4 61.5 7.6 2.6 19.2 4.6 6.3 3.1 16.1 2.8 10.0 1. 2

B. Length of Rail-59.6 ways ..... 90.6 93.3 100 34.4 14.9 24.4 92.3 7.9 5.0 21.3 23.6 5.3 6.7 25.8 56.4 24.5 46.8

C. Horse-power .. 100 76.6 61.2 21.3 23.7 12.] 31.1 10.7 6.6 9.7 7.4 13.0 1.a 2. J 5.6 6.2 5.7 -D. Merchant marine 100 3.6 17.7 5.3 13.7 2. 3 16.3 1.0 0.4 13.3 1.1 5.9 9.8 4.4 - 0.8 5.4 2.7 I

I

Absolute Total .. 359.6 262.4 233.7 136.2 113.8 39.7 110.2 165.5 22.5 30.6 49.0 47 .] 28.7 16.3 47.5 66.2 45.6 50.7 I

I i !

E. Relation of In-dustrial Popu-la.tion to total Population .. 100 72.4 73.9 51.0 51.0 65.9 31. 8 9.05 92.7 47.8 66.3 36 .9 43. 1 44.9 28.9 15.5 22.1 2

F. Length of Rail-ways per squa.re kilometer ... 37.2 37.5 33.3 2.02 21.7 100 12.5 3.8 37.7 3.07 29.3 10.3 31.0 30.7 13.0 3.7 9.5 1.7

G. Horse-power per head 0 ••• 57.7 34.6 42.3 65 .7 16.5 44.0 14.9 0.9 46.0 100 14.8 60.0 29.2 17.5 5.8 20.0 7.4 -

Relative Total . . 194.9 144.5 149.5 118.72 89 .2 209.9 59.2 13.75 176.4 150.87 ll0.4 107.2 103.3 93.1 47.7 39 .2 39.0 3.7

2(A+C+D)+ (B+ E+ F+ G) 854.5 578.7 523.6 291.12 282 .4 274 .4 254.2 252 .45 21:3.5 207. 07 187. J 177. 8 155 .4 119.0 ] 16.9 1]5 .2 106. 7 57.7

' s.,... UQ\A>S \,() \,a ble« Vli }\ uno l X.

--129-

List of States clas~ified ~ccording t.Q the Seven Oh~racteristics of Lotld&n, Doub~ w eight btnng uwen to the A.bsol1tte Indtces (except Ra·ilways).

(a) Index numbers.

No. Country Total

1. United Kingdom. 854.5 2. Germany 578.7 3 . France 523.6 4. Canada . 291.12 5. Italy . 282.4 6. Belgium. 274.4: 7. Japan 254.2 8. India . . 252.45 1 9. Switzerland 213 .5

10. Norway. . 207.07 11. Czechoslovakia . 187.1 12. Sweden . 177.8 13. Nether lands 155.4 14. Denmark 119.0 15. Poland . 116.9 2

16. Argentine . 115.2 17. Spa.i.n . . 106. 7 18. Brazil. . . 57.7

(b) Ranks.

No. Country Total

1. United Kingdom 20 2. France 33 3. Germany 49 4. Italy 65 5. Japan 74 6. Canada. 79 7. Belgium 87 8. Sweden. 95 9. Czechoslovakia 104

10. Netherlands 105 11. India lOP 12. Switzerland 108 13. Norway 108 14. Spain 119 15. Denmark 128 16. Poland 133 ll

17. Argentine 139 18. Brazil 157

India. and Poland protested against their position on these lists (League document 0.643 (1). M. 400 . 1922).

In his report to the Council of the League, Viscount Ishii states that he had examined memoranda from these States "criticising the methods recommended by the Committee and proposing, for their respective countries, figures differing from those given in the annex to the Committee's report" .

"A practical example of the difficulty. . . may be seen in the fact that the new figure of Polish railway mileage (33,580 kilometers) differs greatly from the figure. (16,529 kilometers) adopted by the Labour Office . . . Similarly, the Indian Government expressly says that a precise figure for the industrial salaried population of India is not ascertainable, although it considE-rs that the figure of 20 millions which it proposes should be regarded as justifiable on the known facts by a reasonable enquirer. The Labour Office bad, however, suggested a figure of 8 millions."

1 The result !or India is provisional and baaed on an estimated industrial population of 8 millions. 1 Total calculated without Uppe.r Sileeia.

-130-

In these circumstances, t he Council adopted the conclusions of Viscount Ishii's report :

"No statistical procedure can be sugg~sted which will give a solution With mathematical cer titude. . . . In the Circumstances . . . we must . recognise ~hat i t is .impossi.ble . f~:>r us to obtain a solution of OUI' problem· h;· mathematical or stnctly scientific methods. I d? not sugges~ t~at we should approve either t he methods ~roposed by the Comm~ttee as c?nst1tutmg a scientific solut.ion or the figures supplied by the Labour Office as bemg perfectly accurate and comparable statistics . But I think we must be grateful to the Committee for its investigation of the scientific possibilities of. t he situati?n, and 1 think we can safely treat the methods proposed and the figmes supplied as furnishiuu valuable indications for our guidance. It seems likely that we shall be abl~ without much difficulty to select the first four or fi ve countries. There 1vill remain three or four places in regard to the filling of which there is much mor~ difficulty, but for which I suggest we can only make a selection, according to th~ best of our judgment, in the light of the indications obtainable from the material before us a nd of our genera.! knowledge of the industrial importance of variou~ countries."

In other words: We· cannot identify ourselves with the methods proposeu by the Committee, but we can base our decision on their results. This was, in fact , what occurred.

"On the evidence before the Council", i.e., on the basis of the results obtaine(l by the technical methods of classification, seven countries were placed on the list (in alphabetical order of the names in French) :

1. Germany, 2. Belgium, 3. Canada, 4. France, 5 . Great Britain, 6. Italy, 7 . Japan.

For t he eighth seat the choice lay between Poland and India. I t was decided exclusively in t he light of the technical methods. Whether the figures produced by these two countries themselves were or were not used, the statistical indications were in favour of

8 . India.

The Council of t he League presen ted this list to the International Labour ConfcrencP of 1922, which adopted it. The eight seats for States of chief industrial importanre were allotted to the States on the list put forward, and the following were elected to the foul' non-permanent seats:

9. Chile, 10. Spain, 11. Finland, 12. Poland.

At t he regular re-election of the Governing Body by the Labour Conference of 19~:i, no change was made in t he eight chief industrial States.

Spain and Poland were re-elected and, in place of Chile and Finland, Argentine and Norway were elected.

* * *

To sum up this historical analysis of the procedure and experience of the International Labour Organisation, it may be said that the use of an automatic technical system h.as, on the whole, in this case been of signal value. Neither the complaints of States wluch

-131-

nsider themselves prejudiced by the syste!ll ~or the mn.ny defects inherent in it can in eo r way alter the fact, that a system of thiS kind has for the first time been elaborated 811

• li d Slid app e · d 1· t' ·t '11 b ti' 1 'd On a secon app tea ton t WI e essen a to avot the defect:; of the first to compensate its weaknesses, to weigh all the experience acquired, and to ada,pt the system to tbe new case in such a way that I here too it may be of real Y<tlue.

PART !I. - THE SCHEME PROPO:'!ED.

1. _ Recapit11.lation of the Principal F eatwres i·n the Composition of the GovPmment Grot'P in tlte Governing Body of the I nternational Labour Office.

The supreme purpose of the International Labour Organisation cousist.s in the eatablisbment and maintenance of social peace in the world of labour.

Certain countries have, by reason of their industrial importance, admittedly a peculiar ability to promote the attainment of this pmpose. They are on this account of special •alue to the Organisation. Conversely, these countries are particularly fitted to take advantage of the I'esults achieved by the Organisation. Its efficient working is therefore of special value to them.

It is reasonable that the Organisation should reserve a special influence, by the allocation of special seats in the Governing Body, for these countries which are of special •alue to it in view of its objects, and to which the attainment of its objects is of special ralue.

Such was the plan adopted when the Organisation was created, eight out of twelve of the seats attributed to the Government Group being allotted to the eight States of chief irtduatrial importance.

The problem of assigning these eight seats was one of method. It was necessary :

(1} To give a precise meaning to the phrase "ind1tstrial i ·mportance"; (2) To determine objectively the countries which should be considered as the

chief in industrial importance.

The solution was reached :

(1) By establishing a set of criteria of a statistical nature; (2} By drawing up, on the basis of numerical data corresponding to these

criteria, a table in which the countries of chief industrial importance automatically fell into their places so as to form a sort of i'ndust·rial hiera1·chy.

The result of applying this procedure was that the eight seats reserved to the eight chief industrial Powers were awarded to eight States selected by methods at once objective and rational, their validity being not only unquestionable but also practically unquestioned. . Despite a few difficulties, doubtless unavoidable, which arose out of technical defects m the e.arly scheme and have now been surmounted, and despite criticism which was not always either impartial or disinterested, the Organisation can congratulate itself upon the thorough-going application of a method which is essentially automatic. The Organisation was thereby protected from the charge of acting arbitrarily, which may always be preferred ag~inst an international body which, in the delicate matter of selecting and recruiting its officers, relies solely upon political considerations and diplomatic procedure.

n.- Establishment of a Technical Scheme, adapted to the Reqtti,·ements of the Council of the Leag~te of Nations by the .Application, mutatis mutandis, of the Scheme used by tlie

I nter-national Labott?' Organisation.

Is such a scheme desirable ~ It does appear desirable if, first, one r emembers the insuperable difficulties, the

deadlocks and vicious circles in which the League of Nations has recently been involved by the use of other methods, and if, secondly, one appreciates the service which t'his technical scheme has rendered in the constitution of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation.

Is the application to the League of Nations of such a scheme possible ' It is believed so, and the demonstration is here attempted in the following exposition

of a plan adapted to the special needs of the League of Nations. ..

-132-

Detailed Platt. A. THE GENERAL CRITERION: U NIVERSALI1'Y.

In the case of the Council of t!Ie ~eague of Nation~ as in that o~ t~e Go~erning Bodr of the International Labour Orgarnsation, the problem 1s that of ass1grung pnvileged seat' to the countries whose collaboration is of .the greatest value for th~ attainmen·t of the objeet: of the institution concerned, and to wh1ch, conT"ersely, the attamment of such objects~ of most value.

The suprem~ p~rpose of the Leagu~ of Nations ~s the esta~lisht;nent of 1miv~rsal peace. For an instttut10n whose purpose 1s the establishment ot soe'£al peace (International

Labour Organisation), the plane upon which f;tates are ranked in order ill that. of induRtrial importance.

For n.n institution whose purpose is the establishment of 1m i1•ersal peace (League of Nations), the plane, on a yet higher level, upon which States should be ranked in order should be that of 1wi re1·salit11·

There is no need to define the not ion of universality. Its meaning, at once profound and evident, will be understood by every mind familiar with the ideology of the League of Nations, the baRis of which must be universality. The degree of universality of each State is therefore for the League of Nations what the degree of industrial importance is for tbe International IJabour Organisation.

Henceforth the sole problem is that of finding, as bas been found for the International Labour Organisation, indire~ appropriate for determining the degree of universality of any pa,rticular country.

B. INDIOES OF THE CRITERION OF UNIVERSALITY.

In order to determine the degree of universality to be assigned to each country, indicea of its world capacity must be provided. The sense of this term will be made apparent, better than by any formula, by the very tests by means of which it is hoped to measure this quality in the clear and internationally intelligible termn of statistics.

Two kindE! of indices :uEI to be excludecl at the outset and a priori because to take them into account would be to thteaten the fundamental idea of the League of Nations ; these kinds of indices are those corresponding to 71tilitary strength and econo71tic strength. A classification of States determined by these two criteria would doubtless be simple, because abundant statistical material is available and its subject matter is easy to define, thus :

land forces naval forces air forces national wealth

total production national budget total national income etc.

These criteria, however, are only of value in relation to the conceptions of military or economic strength, of ''great powerR", and "national prestige", expressions which should indeed gradually cease to be found in the vocabulary of the League of Nations.

Apart from the question of principle, there is n. technieal consideration to which yet greater weight should be given, namely, the very serious practical difficulty of obta~ precise values for the indices of economic strength. To draw up a series of figures wh1ch should be truly and logically comparable would be, at least at the present time, a problem of insoluble technical difficulty. I t is for this very reason that, in the case of the International Labour Organisation, the plan of Professor Corrado Gini wa-s abandoned, this being based on such notions as "the value of total net produc_tion", "the valtte of import and export trade", etc. One may here reproduce the criticisms expressed in M. Arthur Fontaine's report to the Commission of Enquiry attached to the Council of the League of Nations at the time: "How can one compare production measured in marks with production measured in peseta-st The rates of exchange are admittedly not a sufficient guide to enable the conection of the figures so as to render them comparable".

Thus reasons of a practical order strengthen the theoretical grounds for rejecting the use of indices relating to "economic strength".

In sum, no indices can be utilised which would entail delicate and complicated research, the methods of which would be open to criticism and the results of which would be contested.

On the contrary, what are required are simple and clear criteria, the figures of ~bi~h are to be found clearly and unquestionably stated and easily verifiable in official stattst!C-~ accessible to the public, and are indeed evident to common sen11e. .

These indice~, real expressions of the degrees of universality of various peoples are, Jt is believed, to be found

A : in population and territorial area,

B : in international relaUO'J1,8, either of a n~ateria1 or an inteUectual order.

-133-

The first group fumi~b criteria of a static character, and express the capacity for . -sality of the countries represented by their population and area

•JIItu •

The second group. furnis~ criteria. of . a ~yn!lmic character, and express the effects, a}ready realised, of theu capactty for unt'l,ersahsattOn through the intensit~ of their material and intellectual traffic with other countries. ~

The first group deals with stable elements, playing their pat·t at the present time but !sO containing within themselves potentialities for the future. These elementf' are also the

~asis upon whic~ are founde~ th~ elements. of the second group. ( t would therefore appear legitimate to assign to the ft-rst, m evaluatmg them as a whole, a cer tain " weight" but to attribute to the second only a sintple un'U'eighteil val·ue. '

would it be prop~r t~ calculate, in t~e cas~ of certain criteria: not only an absolute index but also ~ 1·~lattve mde~, e.g., .per mhab1tant, or per s9-uare kilometer, etc. t A precaution of thiS k~d was env1~a~ed In ~he .ca~e of t~e International T~abour Organisa.tion, when it was a questton of determmm~r an tntnn8te quality of a country, namely, its industrial importance. It wo~ld not. appear to be so ne?essary in determinillg an e.rte1:nal qua.lity, such 33 the degree of umversahty. Nevertheless, 1t would be useful to adopt th1s measure in the matter of tbe index of population.

Group A.

(a) Population (data. from the 1ate8t census or official estimate).

1. Nttmber of inhabitants of earh State Member of the League of Xation.s, and of each Dominwn Member.

2. Number of inhabitants per square kilometer.

This index affords the indispensable complement to the preceding one! because the potential unit·ersality of a country is rather a function of the relative density of the population than of the absolute figure of the population. Only a State possessing a sufficiently dense population ca,n unite its forces into a compact body the internal tension of which will impel it to take that external action which is an essential factor in universality.

3. Number of inhabitants of nolonies, protectora.tes, m.andated territories, etc.

Total of aU the foreign possessions of eacb mother country.

{b) Ten·itorial e-rtent (data based on official surveys).

It must be noted that territorial area is to be altogether disregarded, because area as such ca.n never determine adequat~ly the unive1·sality of a country. There e-xists, however, an element in the territorial extent of each country which contributes largely to its degree of universality because upon it depends mainly all the relations with other countries.

This element is the length of t1·ontien. Their length will be given in kilometers (or miles) according to the most recent official measurements.

It will, however, be proper to distinguish clearly :

1. Frontiers highly favoura.l>le to the development of external relations (such are mainly water frontiers : seas with accessible coasts and rivers ).

2. Frontie-rs jait·ly favotn·able to the development of external relations (for example, chains of mountains not ex<'eeding a certain average height, somewhat inaccessible sea coasts) .

. 3. Frontiers forming ohstncles to the development of external relations (for example, chams of very high mountains with no permanent passes, desert and barren regionR, polar seas, etc.).

In using for the tests of the first group the system of weighting, it would be necessary to select with great care the coefficiM~;ts required (it being understood that they would .be used not in order to modify the absolute figures but only the index numbers, so as to give to each test an individuR.l va.lue whereby it will influence more or less the total index of the country concerned).

It is proposed to take the coefficient 3 for the index of the absolute population, but only in respect of the mother count.ry of the State Member; the coefficient. 2 will suffice for the index of the relative population; the coefficient 1 will be attributed to the figure of.the population of the colonies, protectorates and mandated territories without any weightmg. If any weighting were required in this last case, it would be in the sense of reducing ra-~her than increasing the value, and if considered proper, the coefficient Y2 might be applied.

For frontiers of the first category, the coefficient 2 is proposed; for those of t he se~ond category no coefficient is proposed, the value being left at its absolute figure; the figure ?Orresponding to frontiers of the third category would be entirely neglected, because they, Ulatead of assisting, positively hinder the universality of a country.

Group B. International Relations.

I. Exchange of goods.

1. Foreign trade : 2. Merchant marine :

-134-

total volume (not money value). gross tonnage (inland navigation to be included in tb~ case of international rivers).

3. Sea and inland ports, international canals : traffic of vessels in oversea trade (number of vessels cargo). '

II. Exchange of person.s.

1. Permanent changes :

2. Temporary changes : 3. Means of travel :

III. Exchan,ge of ideas.

emigration and immigration according to the statistics recently compiled by the I.L.O. and the Rome Inter· national E,migration Conference. resident foreigners, travellers in transit. Number of through trains to other countries ; Number of motor vehicles; Gross tonnage of passenger vessels of shipping companie~ including those for inland na,rigation in the case or international rivers ; Number of aeroplanes.

1. Material means of communication :

Number of postal packets to other countries ; , , telegrams to other countries ; , , telephone messages to other countries ;

Length of submarine cables; Number (or total wave-length) of large 'vireles~:~ stations.

2. Intellectual means of communication : Literature :

(a) Size of editions of translations of foreign works i (b) Size of editions of works published in foreign languages; (c) Total exports of literature. Foreign students at colleges and universities in the country; Daily press : total foreign circulation of the 6 chief news· papers.

IV. Mutual obligations under International Law.

Number of international treaties concluded by each State and registered at the Secretariat of the League.

I t is tempting to continue this list indefinitely. But there is a risk of getting lost in a sea of vague, imponderable ideas, which would threaten the success of the whole system. For this reason, too, we hesitate to suggest any kind of index for a factor which undoubtedly offers a very obvious criterion for the universality of a country : its language.

There are serious obstacles to its introduction, obstacles of which the statistical services of countries in 'vhich several languages are used have had experience (e.g., pre·''"ar Austria-Hungary). Should the calculation be based on the native tongue, or on ~he language generally employed (Muttersprache, Umgangsprache)! Should the calcula.tiO~ cover only those who actually use the language or include also those who can use tt. 1[

necessary ! For example, under the heading of "French", should persons whose natiYe tongue is French be included and no others, or should account be taken of a ll who und~s~and French and are able to employ it in addition to their own language f These are difficult questions; statistics are difficult to arrive at, the methods by which they are arrived at are the subject of controversy, the results are open to question and therefore liable to endanger the whole system. For all these reasons, language as a test must be ruled out.

Still more necessary is it to rule out certain other factors with which it is still more difficult to deal, e.g., religion, culture, etc.

In fact, owing to the lack of statistical precision, it seems inevitable, though regrett~bl~, to give up the idea of introducing any of the "spiritual" elements in intellectual relatwm, though such elements should in reality represent the most convincing proof of the "universa.lising" force of the different countries.

We are here face to face with factors which clearly cannot be measured or calclllated and are really above all statistical calculation ; they can only be estimated in terms of common sense and even of sentiment.

-135 -

u it were po~sible ~o ~dd to th,~ technic~! syst~m which has .been outlined another st.em for measunng obJeCtively the moral umversality" of the vanous countries and the

~~torical origins" of their present degree of UJ?iversality, there might be added to the list of tests these s.uprem~ tests of the place occup1ed by a country from the point of view of intellectual uruversality :

(a) The great men it has produced (b) Its great traditions (c) Its great achievements (d) Its services to humanity throughout the centuries.

It may, however, be doubted whether such a lofty conception could be appreciated at the present time. Some more favourable moment must be awaited for the employment of criteria which correspond to the conceptions of idealists but have little to do with hard, matter-of-fact figures. The latter will be better understood and appreciated by the present materialist age.

The following then would be the criteria of which calculations could be made:

SUMMARY OF THE TESTS.

Group A (weighted).

(a) Population.

1. Number of inhabitants of States :Members of the League (coefficienL 3); 2. Relative density of population of States Members of the League (coefficient 2); 3. Number of inhabitants of colonies, protectorates, territories under mandate,

etc. (unweighted).

(b) Territorial extent :

1. Frontiers favourable to external relations (coefficient 2); 2. Frontiers only moderately favou.rable, but no t absolu tely pre<.:luding external

relations (unweigbted).

Group B (1mweighted).

I. International relations by exchange of goods :

1. Foreign trade 2. Merchant marine 3. Sea and inland ports, international canals .

• II. International relations by exchange of persons :

1. Emigration, immigration 2. Travellers, foreigners 3. Means of travel :

(a) through trains (b) motor vehicles (c) passenger vessels (d) aeroplanes.

ill. International relations by exchange of idea~ :

(a) Material means of communication :

1. Postal packets to other countries 2. Telegrams , , , 3. Telephone messages , , 4. Submarine cables 5. Wi.reless antemre.

(b) Intellectual exchanges :

1. Literary :

(a) translations of foreign works (b) publications in foreign languages (o) export and import of literature

2. Foreign students · 3. Daily Press.

IV. International relations by mutual obligations under international law :

International treaties registered with the Secretariat of the League.

-136 -

C. STATISTICAL INFORliATION .

To remove any apprehen.sion regarding the large ~UfD:ber of criteria: .suggested, it should be explained that the list has been. made ~x:ha.usttv~ m order to fac~tate a sound selection, to the exclusion of what may be Judged mappropr1ate. The real obJect of the list is to show the many possibilities of arriving at an accurate calculation of the general conception of "universality".

It would be an easy matter to procure th~ statisti~al ~ormatio.n required for the tests suggested, since all have been chosen fo~ therr non-sCientifiC and .stmple nature.

Most of the figures could be determmed at once by consulting a manual of world statistics published in all countries on the basis of official statistics ; this applies parfi. cularly to

A (a) 1, 2, 3.

B I: 2, 3; II: 1, 2, 3, (b), (c), (d) ; III: (a) 4.

For the remainder the figures exist already and to secure them it would only be necessary to apply to Governments and various scientific and other institutions.

E.g., The International Geographical Association :

A (b) 1, 2;

The International Chamber of Commerce :

B I , 1 ; II, 3 (a) ;

The Governments :

B III (a) 1, 2, 3, 5, (b) 2 (from Government Departments) B III (b) 1, 3 (by enquiry in the printing industry) B IV (from the Secretariat of the League).

We are convinced t hat the statistics could be compiled within four weeks if the League could count on the vigorous support of the Governments. The figures to be taken would be the most recent, or averages for several post-war years, according to circumstances. In any case, it would be advisable to entrust the work of collecting, sifting and checking the statistics to a committee of technical experts. Such a qody is already at the disposal of the League : The Mixed Committee on Statistics, ("preparatory committee") consisting of representatives of the International I nstitute of Statistics at The Hague, the Economic Committee of the League of Nations, and the International Labour Office.

Once the statistics have been compiled, the different countries could be classified in accordance with their degree of univet·sality.

D. TECH NICAL METHOD FOR DRAWING UP THE TABLE CLASSIFYING COUNTRIES BY DEGRE£ OF UNIVERSALITY.

In the first place a subsidiary table should be compiled for each index as follows :

Subsidiary Table No ............ .

1

Countries in alphabetical order

2

Absolute figure

Index ... . . .. . . ........ .

3

Rank

4 Index: number

(optimum country = 100)

Next, for each country the figures in all the subsidiary tables in columns 3 (rank) and 4 (index number) should be added and multiplied by the specified weights for tests A (a) 1, 2 and (b) 1. The results would appear in a summary table as follows :

1

Countries in alphabetical order

Summary table. Total of indices.

2

Rank (total)

3

Index number Total

-137-

Two final lists .would then be ob~ained by placing ~he countries in .the order of "rank" (rising trom the optimum) and of the rndex number (falling from the opt1mum) respectively :

List A. List B.

C1assitication of countries by rank in the order given by the criterion of universality.

Classification of countries by index number showing their position in the order civen

by the criterion of universality.~

Country

-

Rank (figures rising

from the optimum)

Index number Country (figures falling

from the optimum)

List A lends itself better to the simple ranking of countries, while List B gives a more aubtle classification, because based on absolute figures correct to the nearest unit. The latter would therefore be better where the object of classification is more subtle, e.g., for the allocation of expenditure, the weighting of votes, etc.

* * * The final chapter will discuss the use to which the method described above, and the

resulting classification, may be put in solving the very serious problems now facing the C~uncil of the League.

III. - Metkod of Application of the Procedut·e designed to solve the Pt·oblem of the Council of the League of Nations.

It should first be laid down as an inviolable principle for the immediate future that there shall be no modification of the Covenant. This principle implies :

1. That the "Principal Allied and Associated Powers" shall retain their permanent seats as of right. Hence the question does not affect the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy or Japan. One seat, that of the United States, is unoccupied for the time being and for an indeterminate period.

2. That the number of permanent seats on the Council may be increased by decision of the Council, subject to the approval or the majority of the Assembly, voting without restriction. It is this very fact of freedom in voting that offers free scope for ambitions, aspirations and claims. It is as regards this point primarily that the procedure now proposed will prove of service, in that it precludes the possibility of arbitrary action and permits of the application of just and purely objective principles.

3. That six (possibly more, possibly fewer, subject to a minimum of four) other members may be "selected" by the .Assembly "from time to time in its discretion" to fill non-permanent seats on the Council. This freedom may involve serious dangers, such as always ensue from a lack of rules or order; it does not, however, preclude the voluntary ado~tion of rules or order. It is surely the fundamental principle, the very essence of all liberty, that it can itself determine and prescribe the limits of its rights. The second result of t4e procedure proposed would be to fix the limits within which the liberty of the Assembly should function and the rules to which it should be subject.

These rules would operate as follows :

After settling in principle the question whether it is expedient to enlarge the Council. After fixing in principle :

the number of permanent seats to be created in addition to the five seats laid down in the Covenant, the number of non-permanent seats to be filled at the next election, and the period of office · attaching to such election,

thfere should be taken as a basis for the following procedure List A of the classification 0 COuntries ·

' ~e five "Principal Allied and .Associated Powers", who are ipso facto permanent members 0 the Council, would be left out of account ;

~ 'IV?~d be decided whether the unoccupied seat of the United States should be 0Vl8ionally allocated to another State; in the affirmative, that vaoant seat and the

1

_. 138-

new seats to be created would be allocated ~o the c~nnt~·ies _next named in the lists : for the non-permanent seats to be filled for the fixed pe~od m VIew, th~re should be selected not the countries named in the list after t_bose which ~aYe occup1ed a per;lllanent seat: but the countries which should be appornted according to an automat1c system of rotation.

The system of rotation frequently ~en~io~ed is the ~ystem base~ upon "geographical and other considerations".. The Counc~, m 1ts reso_lution, even directe~ the attention of the Committee of Enquuy more particularly to this proposal. The chief value of the system would be to create "geographical and other groups" of countries, each group constituting the elector ate, so to speak, for one of the non-permanent seats to be fi lled. It is easy for the advocates of this system to propose the following groups :

On the "geographical" principle: South American Central Asiatic " North European

On "other" ('i.e. political) principles : The Dominions

States

" " "

The States in the Li ttle Entente.

I t should be clearly understood that in each of the fi r. t two groups there are 10 countries, in the third 3 (.Japan bas a permanent seat, and Afghanistan and the Hedjaz have not yet been admitted), in the fourth 4 (or with the three K ortb Eastern States ­Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania - 7), in the fifth 5, in the sixth 3. Consequently, with a system of annual rotation, a country belonging to the Little Entente or an Asiatic country would sit on the Council every three years, a North European country every four (sen n) years, a Dominion every five years and a Central or South American State every ten years. Such would be the unequal allocation of the six existing non-permanent seats. And what should be done for the other countries '

Even if it were decided to increase the number of such seats still further, any. practical attempt to group the other countries according to "geographical or other considerations" would produce absurd results, such as a biennial rotation between Portugal and l rela.nd, Bulgaria and Greece, Austria and Hunga.ry, Belgium and Holland, etc. And side by side with these "forced marriages", there would still be that ignominious residue of all arbitrary classifications, the "miscellaneous" group, in 'vbich the remaining countries : Luxemburg, Iceland, Albania, Turkey, Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia, Lichtenstein, Monaco, would be flung higgledy-piggledy.

In fact the system, far from being the secret in which the solution of the problem lies, would tend to produce unending fresh difficulties. That is because its idea depart.s markedly from the fundamental principles of the League : universality and democracy.

Thus the "geographical" principle definitely threatens the strict universality of the League. To introduce it would be to take the first step towards "dividing up the League by continents", as advocated by the founder of the Pan-Europe movement, Cou~t Coudenhove-Kalargi. Pel'haps this first step ought to be taken, and perhaps other~ ~ll follow. Undoubtedly it would mean a cha.nge in the direction of League actinty, may be for the better. It would be wrong to ignore these ideas and not to examine the possibilities they offer. .But at the same time it should not be forgotten that such a development may endanger the very existence of the League. I n its present form, the League must suffer the most serious shocks from any "sub-division by continents", and this problem must be faced as soon as ever it is proposed to apply to the composition of the League some sort of geographical princi vle be13ide that of strict universality.

As for ~he "other" principle, which is quite simply that of a political grouping, i~ would tend to po1son one of the noblest conceptions of international democracy, the Idea of making the Council of the League the supreme organ of the conscience of the world. There is no need for the Council to aim at the "super-state", that bugbear of all sovereign Powers. But it _cannot carr_y out its duties as. supreme conciliator and arbit rator (not judge or ~uper· sovereign) unless Its members are Imbued solely with the spirit of a world conscience. There ~an be n_o escape from the logical conclusion that in the policy of the Council, the mentality of Its members, and the quality of its decisions, national interests must give way to purely international interests. Yet if a "non-permanent seat" is permanentlY assigned to a political group, in itself an unstable unit, it will assuredly tend to guru:antef that the States composing the group will find their individual interests represented tn the

-139-

L gue Council. "The representation of interests" is absolutely incon:sistent with the idea ea . , of a "world consCience .

We are convince~ ~ha:t even though th~ adoption of sll:ch .a system mig:ht help the League out of the present criSis, 1t would expose 1~ to other, penodical and possibly chronic, crises . the future. If these are to be avOided once for all, let the system for filling ~e non-permanent seats be_ that of strictly automatic rotation which follows a schedule dJ'aWD up in advance and g~ves all members of the League access to such seats on equal teriDB·

This proposed schedule will be found in the classified list put for"Ward here. The system would work as follows :

Given (1) the number of non-permanent seats to be filled, (2) the number of States left after the permanent seats have been

filled,

the second figure divided by the first gives the number of States forming a "ro tation group".

The total number of States with a right to non-permanent seats is then divided into as many "rotation groups" as there are such seats.

Having fixed the term of office of each non-permanent member of the Council, the "rotation period" (probably one year), each seat to be filled is a signed in turn to the members of one group. For instance, in the first rotation pe1·iod, the seats might be filled by the first countries in the rotation groups, in the second period by the second countries in the groups, and so on, during the complete period of rotation.

In this way each Member of th e League would have a chance of sitting reg~u larly on the Council for a normal rota tion p eriod during the complete period of rotation. The latter period would be obtained by multiplying the number of countrie · in the rotation group by the number of years in the rota tion period.

This table shows how this method would work if seven non-permanent seats were allocated, the number of States concerned being 51 (the 7 first excluded).

Group No. of Non · perma.uen t P eriod of Rotation Sta tes sca.t occupied individual period

membership

1 7 No. 1 1 year 7 years 2 7 , 2 1

" 7 ,

3 7 " 3 1 "

7 " 4 7 , 4 1

" 7

" 5 7 " 5 1 "

7 , 6 8 , 6 1 "

8 , 7 8 , 7 1 , 8

" Alternative method, giving advantage the first including Sta tes of to two groups,

greater universal importance :

1 5 No. 1 2 years 10 year;; 2 6 " 2 1 year 6

" 3 8 " 3 1 "

8 " 4 8

" 4 1

" 8

" 5 8 " 5 1 "

8 ,, 6 8 " 6 1

" 8 " 7 8 7 1 8 " " "

The strict objectivity and absolute jus tice of such a sy~tem arc uuduw; and thC.$e advantages of strict impartiality are u tterly conYincing.

. They might perhaps lead the Members of t.hc League of Nat ion:; to give up their mtra~table ways, their tendency to press their individual ar·gument,s. l o tho bitter end and, mstead, to agree in supporting an essential reform, LhaL of adoptmg a liystem whose COillplete impartiality is secured by its mechanical bases and automatic methods.

Such a system may perhaps serve better t han any otller to ma,iutain in it:; integrity that which constitutes the essential principle and very foundation of Lhe League- peace ­and thereby to protect its life and fu ture growth.

l

-140-

OBSERVATIONS OF THE NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT, DATED MAY 12TH, 1926.

[Translation. J

C.C.C.16.

In the first place the Royal Government proposes briefly to examine the question 'vhich arises at the outset- that of an increase in the permanent and non-permanent membership of the Council.

It can hardly be disputed that the clause in Article 4 of the Covenant enabling the Council, with the approval of the majority of the Assembly, to name additional permanent Members, was inserted to meet the eventuality of certain great Powers, which are not at present Members of the League (Germany, for example), becoming so in future. It would not appear that the authors of the Covenant intended this clause to enable those original Members of the League who were not given seats on the Council at the beginning to obtain them later. From the very outset the Covenant placed all the original Members of the League, except the "Principal Allied and Associated Powers", on a footing of equalitr as regards membership of the Council. The right of certain Members of the League to permanent seats on the Council is a concession which was made to them because they were beyond question "great Powers". If an exception were made in favour of one country to the principle that only "great Powers" are entitled to permanent seats, it would be exceedingly difficult thereafter to refuse the same privilege to other countries which could adduce equally plausible arguments in support of their claims to permanent seats. Thus a single exception to the principle would be the first step in the direction of a complete alteration of the structure of the Council, and consequently of the structure of the League itself.

Moreover, it is probable that any increa-se in the number of permanent Members of the Council by which others than "great Powers" would be admitted would carry with it a corresponding increase in the non-permanent membership, thereby making the Council a very large body. It seems superfluous to enlarge upon the undesirable effect· this would have upon the work of the Council and the League ; for it is an essential condition of the satisfactory working of the League that the Council - the organ of the League which is executive and whose work is continuous - should have only so many Members as are strictly necessary for the proper performance of its important duties. We need only refer to the difficulties which would arise out of the "unanimity" rule, and the possibility that a "Council within the Council" might be formed by the representatives of the most influential Powers.

It has also been argued that the Council must be large enough to be able to act with authority in a dispute affecting a considerable number of countries; the possibility bas even been contemplated of all the Powers signatories of the Locarno Treaties being involved in a dispute which endangered the maintenance of peace. In the Norwegian Government's view, should such a catastrophe be threatened, only one institution could intervene with any hope of success, and that would not be the Council, whether small or large, but the Assembly of the League as the mouthpiece of t he public opinion of the world. Nor can it be denied that the authority and influence of the Assembly would probably 'vane in proportion to the increase in the membership of the Council. Such a change in the mutual relation of the two organs of the League was certainly not contemplated in the Covenant, and cannot be held to be in the interests of the League.

The Norwegian Government sincerely trusts that the Committee will be able to axoid altering the size of the Council by adopt ing the principle of rotation which the Assembly has so often urged, and to draw up rules for the election and re-election of non-permanent Members which wlll satisfy, as far as that is possible, all the Members of the League.

c.c.c.6.

COMM'VNICATION FROM THE ESTHONIAN GOVERNMENT.

By a lett~r dated May 14th, .1926, the Esthonian Government informed the Se_cretary; General that 1t had no observat10ns to make on the questions which the Comm1ttee se up by t he Council Resolution of March 18th, 1926, was appointed to study.

-141-

APPENDIX Ul

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE BY ITS MEMBERS AND BY THE SECRETARIAT AT THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST~

C.C.0 . 7.

TABLE OF ELECTIONS RY THE ASSEl\tlBJJY TO THE NON-PERl\fANF.NT SEATS ON THE COUNCIL I N THE YRARS 1920-1925.

First Assembly: December 15th, 1920.

Spain, Brazil,

Belgium, China.

Second .Assembly : October 5th, 1921.

Belgium, Brazil,

China, Spain.

Third .Assembly : September 30th, 1922.

Brazil, · Spain,

Uruguay,

Belgium, Sweden, China.

Fourth .Assembly : September 29th, 1923.

Uruguay, Brazil, Belgium,

Sweden, Spain, Czechoslovakia.

Fifth Assembly : October 2nd, 1924.

Uruguay, Brazil, Czechoslovakia,

Sweden, Spain, Belgium.

Sixth Assembly : September 26th, 1925.

Brazil, Uruguay, Spain,

Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Belgium.

C.C.C.8.

PROPOSALS REGARDING THE NUMBER AND METHOD OF ELECTION OF THE NON-PERMANENT 1\!El\ffiERS OF THE COUNCIL,

SUBMITTED BY VISCOUNT CECIL AT -THE MEETING OF MAY 11TH, 1926.

l. The non-permanent 1\!embers of the Council shall be elected for a term of three Years. They shall assume office immediately on their election. One-third of their numbe1· shall be elected each year.

2. In principle the elected Members shall not be re-eligible for three years after the expiration of their term of office. Nevertheless, the Assembly may, by resolution pass~ by a majority of not less than two to one, declare that an elected Member actually ~ ~ffice shall be re-eligible for another term, provided that not more than one-third of the stttmg elected Members can be so declared re-eligible.

3. The elected Members shall be increased to nine in number and shall in future be elected by proportional representation.

4. In order to bring the above system into operation there shall be elected nine Members as soon as possible in the next .Assembly. Three of them shall be elected for a ~rm of three years, three for two years and three for one year.

IDe~ A collection of documenta relating to the question of the composition of the Council and the number and IV

26 od of election of ita Members was prepared by the Secretariat for the use of the Committee (C.394.M.l37 . . v (C.C.C. l.)) and is referred to in the Minutee., but is too lengthy to be reproduced in the present document.

-142-

c.c.o. 13.

ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS PRESENTED BY VISCOUNT CECIL.

The Committee have already agre~d provisionally that in principle, if a system or rotation is to be establisbed in the electwu of the non-permanent Members of the Council some provision must be made whereby the Assembly migh.t have the power of exempting from the operation of that system Members whose contmued presence on the Council may, for one reason or ano~~er, be considered desirable. .

The scheme which the British Delegate has had the honour t~ submtt to the Committee achieves this by providing that the Assembly may, by resolutiOn passed by a majori1r of not less than two to one, declare that an elected Member .shall be re-eligible for anotbe'r term.

Certain members of t.he Commit,tee have objected that this would mean that individual members would have to present themselves to the Assembly as candidates for this privileged position, and that a debate would have to ensue on t he merits of their application, involving a discussion which might be embarrassing and undesirable.

There are perhaps various means of obviating this particular difficulty. One method would be to divide the elective seats into two categories - seats carryina

re-eligibility and seats that would have to be evacuated at the termination of the fixed period. The Assembly would be asked to fill the former category first, and then the latter.

A simpler method tending to the same result would be to hold an election to all tbP elective seats simultaneously, it being understood that the Members (three, or whatever number is decided on) obtaining the highest number of votes should have the )lrivile~e of re-eligibility at the ensuing election.

O.O.C.l4.

ADDITION TO THE FIRST PROPOSAL OF VISCOUNT CECIL

MADE BY M. DE BROUCKERE.

[Translatio1t .]

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, the Assembly may at any time, in accordance with Article 4 of the Covenant, proceed to an election to all the seats : thi~ would involve the annulment of the mandates previously conferred.

In this case Members who cease to be represented in the Council without having completed their period of three years will, unless the Assembly decides otherwise, be re-eligible for a period equivalent to the uncompleted fraction of their previous term ol office.

C.C.C.12.

NOTE ON THE HISTORY OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE COVENANT.

DY VISOOUN'f CECIL.

Three proposals for the constitution of a League of Nations we rep1·esented to the League of Nations Commission of the Paris Peace Conference. The first, presented by P1·esident Wilson, was the 'vork of the British and American delegations. By it, it was propos~d to constitute as one of the Organs of the League an Executive Council, which was to con lSI of "Members of the League directly affected by matters within the sphere of action of tbl' League". It was then declared that the "United States of America, Great Britain, France~ I taly and Japan shall be deemed to be directly affected by all matters within the spherl' of action of the League". In addition, Powers whose interests were directly affec~ed by any matter brought before the Executive Council were to be invited to the meett.ng which was to deal with such matters. The French scheme for a Leagu'e merely proposed that the Permanent Delegation, which answered to the American Executive Council, should consist of fifteen Members. The Italian proposal was that "a Council composed of a representative of each of the five Great Powers mentioned in the preamble as promoters of the scheme and four representatives of the other Contracting States. . . should meet at least once a year" . .

The American draft was taken as the basis of discussion, and when the Article dealing with the Executive Council (then Article 3) came to be discussed, great objection ~a' taken by various members of the Commission to its composition, the Brazilian representa~n'e in particular objecting that the "five Great Powers would have permanent representatl"es on the Executive Council, whereas the other Powers would be represented on it only wbeD their interests were directly affected". ·-

-143-

Ultimately, it was agr~ed that four ~epresentative~ of the other Powers should be ded and in the debate which took place 1t was emp~~stsed over and over again that the

adrma.nent Members were the Great Powe1:s ; the Brazilian delegate! for in~tance, objecting ~at the Great Pow~r~ shoul~ have .the nght thems~lve~ to appomt thetr delegates, the F encb delegates saymg that It was Important to mamta1? a due proportion between the Great and small Powers, and the Greek delegate acceptmg the principle of a majol'ity Jone for the Great. Powers. At a .later revis!on ~f the Articles of the Covena~t a paragraph was inserted enabling the Execut1ve Council, With the approval of the maJority of what ., now the Assembly, to co-opt on the Councill'epresentatives of States other than those ~ ecified in the Covenant as permanent Members, provided that, in any such increase, ~;18 regard should be had to just proportional represent.ation of the non-permanent llembers. This provision was recommended as tending to make the Leag·ne more attractive to newcomers as well as to the smaller States.

In the contemporary commentary of the Covenant issued by the British Government it is stated t.hat this provision "allows for the admission of Germany and Rnssia to the Council" in the future.

It is to be observ·ed that in every draft of the Covenant, np till the time that it left the bands of the League Commission, the permanent Members of the Council were always described as representatives of the United States of .America, of the British Empire, of France, of Italy and of Japan, and never as the representatives of the "Principal Allied and Associated Powers". The change to the latter designation must have been made by the Drafting Committee of the Supreme Council.

There can, I think, be little doubt , from a perusal of the proceedings at Paris, that the permanent Members of the League were intended to be Great Powers in the ordinary acceptation of that term.

C.C.C.lO.

ELECTION OF COUNCIL BY THE ASSEMBLY ACCORDING TO THE " SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE " SYSTEM.

MEMORANDU M COIDfUNICATED BY VISCOUNT CECIL.

Three JJ!embe-,·s Elected by Fifty-two Delegates on One Ballot.

1. Brief Description of the System.

By this device an elector can indicate on his ballot paper not only his first choice, but also his second or third, etc. To enslll'e election a candidate need not obtain a majority of the votes polled, but only a certain number, so f ixed that it can be obtained by a. number of candidates equal to the number of seats to be filled, but by no more; this number of votes is called the "quota". At the first count fil·st choices only are reckoned, and those candidates who have received a "quota" or more are declared duly elected. H all the seats have not then been filled up, the surplus votes of those candidates who have received more than the "quota" are transferred according to the second choices indicat.ed on them. If these transfers still do not bring the requisite number of candidates up to the "quota", the lowest candidate is eliminated ancl his votes transferred according to the next preferences, and so on till the seats are filled .

. T!rls system is designed to guarantee a fair representation of mn.jorities and nunontiE>.s alike. To attain this the vote must be made transferable, for the Delegate does not know (1) whether the State for which he desires to vote will get more support than it requires to ensure election, or (2) whether it will obtain so fe,v votes as to be hopelessly out of the running. The Delegates wish to vote for their favourite. b11t do not wish to throw their votes away. The transferable vote meets this situation.

2· Example of Election. - Three .Members of the Gotmcil to be chosen by the Assembly.

f (a} Each of 52 D-elegates voting in the Assembly express their first, second, third, ourth, etc. choices, with the following results for the first two :

Count'ry lli'rst Second

Persia 30 5 Nether lands 12 3 Switzerland 5 10 Urugua.y 2 25 Spain 1 5 China 1 3 Sweden 1 1

52 52

l I

-144 -

(b) As already explained, in order to obtain election, the candidate must secure vote more than one quarter of the total number of votes, i.e., 14 votes. This requiremone is called the "quota". ent

(c) Applying the quota to the first choice, it is evident that Persia alone is elect d e. (d) Persia obtained 16 votes which it did not actually require to secure election and

therefore, these 16 votes must be apportioned among the other candidates in propdrti as those who voted for Persia in the first place distributed their second choices. T~n distribution of the second choices on the 30 ballots which gave first place to Persia are~ follows: Netherlands 2, Switzerland 4, Uruguay 22, Spain 0, China 2, Sweden o. 1

Netherlands therefore gets 2/30ths of Persia's 16 surplus votes, or 32f30ths votes· Switzerland 4/30ths of the 16 votes or 2 and 4/30ths votes, etc. In order to use round numbers, fractions below Yz will be eliminated and those above Y2 counted as one. Per8ia/1 16 surplus votes are therefore found to be divided as follows :

Netherlands 1, Switzerland 2, Uruguay 12, Spain 0, China 1, Sweden 0=16.

The second count is therefore as follows : Country

Persia Nether lands Switzerland Uruguay Spain China Sweden

Votes 14 13

7 14

1 2 1

52

Uruguay has thus seeured the necessary quota and is elected as the second Member of the Council.

{e) The candidate or candidates (if two are equal as in this case) with the smallest number of votes on the last count (Spain and Sweden) are now eliminated and the second choices on the ballots of the delegates who voted for them in the first place are counted. Both these second choices are for Switzerland.

The third count is therefore as follows : Country

Persia Netherlands Switzerland Uruguay China

Votes 14 13

fl 14

2

52 No candidate has received a quota and there is no election.

(I) The lowest candidate (China) is again eliminated and the second choices distributed as previously. They are as follows: Netherlands 1, Switzerland 1. This gives Netherlands 14 votes, which is sufficient to secure her election as the third Member of the Council, the fourth count being as follows :

Country Persia Nether lands Switzerland Uruguay

Votes 14 14 10 H

52

C.C.C. l(a).

DATE OF THE BEGINNING OF THE MANDATES OF NON-PERMANENT MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

NOTE ON THE HISTORY OF THE QUESTION PREPARED BY THE SECRETARIAT.

Under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, Belgium, Brazil, Spain and <?reect received representation on the Council (according to the English text) "until the appointment of the Representatives of the four Members of the League first sel~cted .bY the Assembly". The French text of the Covenant reads: "jusqu'a la premiere destgnattOn par l'Assemblee".

-145-

Proceedings at the First Assembly.

The First Assembly, on December 11th, 1920, resolved that the mandates of the above-ntioned Powers as Members of the Council should expire on December 31st 1920 and

roether resolv~d to ma~e new ele?tions for a period of one year. o.n Decemb~r 15th, the :sembly actmg under Its resolutiOn of December 11th, elected Belgmm, Brazil, China and

8 ain who accordingly began to be represented on the Council on January 1st, 1921. P -fu selecting December 31st-January 1st, as the date for the change in the composition

of the Council, the Assembly ac~ed on 3: I'ecommendation of the Fir~t Committee based n a report from the Sub-Committee which the latter had charged with the examination

~f the method of selection of the non-permanent Members of the Council. The relevant passage of the Sub-Committee's report (Records of the First Assembly, Committees, Vol. I, page 103) is as follows :

" Two Resolutions taken by the First Committee have considerably facilitated the work of Sub-Committee B. At its meeting of November 26th, 1920, the First Committee decided, on the one hand, to recommend to the Assembly that it shou1d not establish as a principle the complete annual renewal of non-permanent Members of the Council ; and, on the other hand, to recommend to the Assembly that it should proceed at its first Meeting to select the four non-permanent Members of the Council. Sub-Committee B has therefore, for practical reasons, reached the unanimous conclusion that the period of representation of the four new non-permanent Members should begin as from January 1st, 1921. This would mean that the mandates of the non-permanent Members at present represented on the Council would expire on December 31st, 1920."

Meetings of the eleventh session of the Council took place on December 17th and 18th, at which Greece was represented.

Proceedings at the Second .Assembly.

The Second Assembly, on October 5th, 1921, adopted the following "conclusion of the riport of Committee No. 1":

"That the non-permanent Members of the Council should in future be elected according to a system of rotation for a fixed period, and that the Assembly should this year renew for the year 1922 the appointment of the present Members."

Later at the same meeting of October 5th, a ballot was held, with the result that Belgium, Brazil, China and Spain were in fact re-elected and wei·e represented on the Council during the year 1922, in accordance with the Assembly's resolution of October 5th, 1921.

Three meetings of the Council's fourteenth regular Session were held in 1921 after the Assembly's election of the non-permanent Members. The Extraordinary Session dealing with Upper Silesia also continued after that date and the Council's fifteenth Session was held in November 1921. There were at that time no fixed dates for the C-ouncil's sessions.

Proceedings at the Third .Assembly.

0~ September 25th, 1922, the Third Assembly gave its approval to a decision of tha Coun~ll increasing the number of non-pei·manent Members from four to six and provided that 1ts decision should come into force immediately .

. ~t would appear, therefore, that the Assembly could, immediately after the above dec1S10n, have elected two additional Members of the League for representation on the Council. . .The Assembly was, however, at the same time thl·ough its First Committee engaged ~ dis~ussing details of regulations for the election of the non-permanent ~embers o~ the

un~il based on the system of rotation. On September 29th, the Fll'st Comnuttee su~nutted to the Assembly a report recommending that the Assembly should adopt rules ~hich wo'!-ld gradually establish a system under which the n?n-permal?-ent Members of be Council would be elected for three years at a time, one-thll'd of theu· n~mber would e elected annually and retiring Members would not be eligible for re-electwn for three

Lears. January 1st following the date of election was fixed under these rules as the te from which the mandate of the non-permanent Members would begin:

The Assembly decided not to adopt the First Committee's recommendat10n, but to recommend the Fourth Assembly to adopt the rules proposed by the Committee. M On September 30th, 1922, the Assembly proceeded. to e~ect ~ix non-permanent embe.rs of the Council, but, by what was clearly an oversight, 1t offiltted, to ~dopt any

tesolut1on as to the period of the mandate conferred on the Members which It elected.

-146-

The States elected were (in the order of the votes obtained) Brazil, Spain! Uruguay, Belgiu Sweden and China. Of these Uruguay and Sweden entered the Council for the first timm,

Despite the .Assembly's failure to decide expre~sly ~hat. was the peri?d of the ne~ mandates as non-permanent Members of the Council which It was conferrmg, it was a almost inevitable conclusion from all the circumstances that it understood itself to b n conferring mandates which would begin on January 1st and last to December 31st, 1923. The mandates conferred at previous sessions had been for the following calendar year. The .Assembly had just decided to recommend that at the Fourth Assembly mandates shouJ~ be conferred to begin on January 1st, 1924. The date of January 1~t as the usual date for the beginning of the mandates of non-permanent Members was m the minds of aU the. dele.gations. Since on~y two new ~embe~s were . added t? the <:ouncil, no practical difficulties would have ansen from therr taking theiT seats Immediately. If, however one or more of the Members entitled to sit until the end of the ye~r had not been re-elected' and more than two new Members had been added to the Council, then, on the view that the election became effective immediately, a grave question would have arisen as to whether the new Members should all take their seats at once and the Members who had failed to secure re-election be displaced, or, if not, as to which of the new Members were entitled to occupy at once the two newly-created seats and which would have to wait until January 1st.

To all these questions the .Assembly had provided no answer and it was proper therefore, to consider that it did not intend to proceed in a manner which would rais~ these questions.

The view which was taken in practice, with the concurrence of the States concerned was that the new mandates conferred in 1922 were conferred for the year 1923: .Accordingly, although the Council continued to sit in its twenty-second Session down to October 4, 1922 (there was no later session in this year), Sweden and Uruguay first took their seats at the twenty-third Session held in January-Febl'Uary 1923.

Proceedings at the Fourth Assembly.

The Fourth .Assembly referred to the Fifth Assembly the recommendation as to the adoption of rules for the election of the non-permanent Members of the Council which it had received from the Third Assembly, but it did not otherwise make any pronouncement as to the period for which the mandates of the non-permanent Members of the Council should be conferred. It proceeded, on September 29th, 1923, to elect the non-permanent Members, nothing being said as to the period of the mandate ; and it, in fact, elected the same States as were elected in 1922, with one exception, namely, that China was not re-elected and Czechoslovakia was elected in her place.

As the Third Assembly was understood to have conferred on China a mandate for the year 1923, Czechoslovakia took her seat on the Council from the beginning of 1924. At the Council's meeting of December 18th, 1923, a vote of thanks to the Chinese Representative was adopted, in view obviously of the fact that China was ceasing to be represented on the Council.

The system of Council sesf!ions at regular dates was established by the Council's resolution of August 31st, 1923.

Proceedings at the Fifth Assembly.

The Fifth Assembly adopted no resolution bearing on the period of the mandate of the non permanent Members of the Council. .At the moment of proceeding to the actual el~ction, October 2nd, 1924, the President of the Assembly made the following statement (Fifth Assembly, Records of the Plenary Meetings, page 227): "the Assembly has to elect the six Members who will sit on the Council during the year 1925".

The six sitting Members were in fact re-elected. After the date of the election the Council brought its thirtieth Session to a close and

before the ~nd of the year it held its thirty-first (Extraordinary) Session and its thirty­second SessiOn.

Proceedings at the Sia:th Assembly.

The period of the mandates conferred by the Sixth Assembly at the election of the non· permanent Members of the Council held on September 26th, 1925, was indicated in t"'0

ways. In the first place, on proceeding to the election, the President stated that the .Assembly

was about to elect the six Members who would sit on the Council for the year 1926. In the second place, the Assembly adopted the following resolution :

-147-

"The .Assembly, "Noting that the non-permanent Members of the Cotmcil at present in office

have been re-electecl for a yea-r ; "Considers the meaning of this re-election to be that it is subiect to the non­

perma.nent part of the Council being renewed as from the election of 1926 by application of the principle of rotation."

AJter the date of the ele<'tion in 1925, the Council concluded its thir'ty-llith Session Dd before the end of the year it held its thirty-sixth (Extraordinary) and its thirty-a .

serenth Sesswns.

DATES OF COUNCIL SESSIONS AND DECISION ESTABLISHING REGULAR DATES FOR THE SESSIONR OP THE COUN('II,,

A table showing the dates at which sessions of the Council were held down to the end of 1925 (Annex I) and a note on the establishment of regular dates for the ordinary sessions of the Council (Annex II) follow herewith:

Annex I. - Sessions of the Cowncil up to the end of 1926.

No. of tbe Session.

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Sixth

Seventh

Eighth

Ninth

Tenth

Eleventh

Twelfth

Thirtoonth

Special Ses!lion

Fourteenth

Fifteenth

Sixteent.h

Seventeenth

Eighteenth

Date and Place of the Meeting.

January 1920, Paris

February 1920, London

March 1920, Paris

.April 1920, Paris

May 1920, Rome

June 19201 London

July 1920, London

July-August 1920, St. Sebastian

September 1920, Paris

October 1920, Brussels

Meml.lers of tbe Council.

Belgium, Brazil, British Empire, France, Greece, Italy, Japan,

Spain.

ditto

ditto

ditto

ditto

ditto

ditto

ditto

ditto

ditto November-December 1920,

Geneva ditto February-1\farch 1921,

Paris

June 1921, Geneva

.August-October 1921, Geneva

(Upper Silesia) First part, August­

September 1921,

Belgium, Brazil, British EmpirE>, China, France, Ita ly, Japan,

Spain.

ditto

ditto

ditto Second part, Sept.-Oct. 1921,

Geneva ditto November 1921,

Paris J anuary 1922,

Geneva

March 1922, Paris

May 1922, Geneva

ditto Belgi'um, Brazil, British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan,

Spain.

ditto

ditto

No. of the Session. Nineteenth

Twentieth

Twenty-first

Twenty-second

Twenty-third

Twenty-fourth

Twenty-fifth

Twenty-sixth

Twenty-seventh

Twenty-eighth

Twenty-ninth

Thirtieth

Thirty-first Special

Thirty -second

Thirty-third

Thirty-fourth

Thirty-fifth

Thirty-sixth Special

Thirty -seventh

-148-

Date and Place of the Meeting. Members of the Council.

July 1922, Belgium, Brazil, British Empire London China, France, Italy, Japan, Spai~.

August 31st and Oct. 4th, 1922, Geneva ditto

(Commission for the Holy Places)

From August 31st to Oct. 4th, 1922,

Geneva. ditto From August 31st to Oct. 4th, 1922,

Geneva ditto (Financial Reconstruction

of Austria) January-February 1923,

Paris

April 1923, Geneva

July 1923, Geneva

August-September 1923, Geneva

December 1923, Paris

March 1924, Geneva

June 1924, Geneva

Aug.-Oct. 1924, Geneva.

Oct. 1924, Brussels (Iraq)

December 1924, Rome

March 1925, Geneva

June 1925, Geneva

September 1925, Geneva.

September 1925, Paris

Belgium, Brazil, British Empire China, France, Italy, Japan '

Spain, Sweden, Uruguay. '

ditto

ditto

ditto

ditto Belgium, Brazil, British Empire, Czechoslovakia, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, Swede?~, Ur~tguay.

ditto

ditto

ditto Belgium, Brazil, British Empire, Czechoslovakia, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Uru.guay.

ditto

ditto

ditto

ditto (Appeal of the Bulgarian

Government) December 1925,

Geneva ditto

.Anne.x II. - Establishment of Reg1tlar Dates for the Ordinary Sessio1~s of the Council.

The question of fixing regular dates for Council sessions has been discussed t,nce at meetings of the Council.

At the twelfth meeting of the twenty-third Session of the Council, held at Paris in ~923, the Council decided "that its sessions should be held at fixed dates, save in exception~~ circumstances. It was agreed that the opening date of the next session should be Apnl lOth, 1923." (Minutes of the twenty-third Session of the Council, p. 237).

The question came up again before the Council at the twenty-sixth Session of the Council, August-September 1923 (see Minutes of this Session, p. 1268).

Lord Robert Cecil submitted at the first meeting of this Session a proposal that the Council should hold four regular sessions each year to take place in principle in the m~nt~s of December, March, June and August. After some discussion as to the dates to be ~el ' it was decided "that the Council should meet regularly on the Monday immediate S preceding December lOth, March l Oth and June l Oth and that the fourth session s~onld begin 3 days before the meeting of the Assembly". It was understood that an extraordinarY session could be held whenever necessary.

-149-

APPENDIX IV

coMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE COMMITTEE'S SESSION

MEMORANDUM FROM THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT

received by the Secretariat on May 21st, 1926.

o.o.c. 18 .

The primary interest of India is that the League should become more and more an efficient instrument for securing world peace, and next in importance for India is the desirability that the League should be t ruly worldwide in its out look, and that its organs should be so constit uted as to secure due recognition of the varying cultul'al and other view-points of all its Members. It follows that the Government of India (a) regards it as essential in the interests of world peace that Germany should become a Member of the League in September next with a permanent seat on the Council; (b) thinks that, apart from the admission of Germany to a permanent seat, any proposals for the enlargement of the Council, whether by increase in number of permanent seats or by adding temporary seats, should be jealously scrutinised ; (c) holds that in any case the present rule of unanimity should be maintained; and (d) desires that, in all questions relating to the constitution of the Council, regard should be had to the four-times repeated r esolution of the Assembly on the subject of giving due consideration to the main geographical divisions of the world, the great ethnical groups, the different religious traditions, the varying types of civilisation, and chief sources of wealth.

MEMORANDUM FROM THE SIAMESE GOVERNMENT

received by the Secretariat on June 4th, 1926.

o.o.c. 19.

STATEMENT OF THE VIEWS OF THB SIAMJi:SE GOVERNMENT ON THE QUESTION OF THE COMPOSITION AND METHOD OF SELECTING THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE

OF NATIONS

By the Covenant the powers of the League are exercised chiefly by the Council. In many important aspects it is the League itself. I t is therefore of vital importance that the composition and method of selecting its Members should make and keep it truly representative of the League. Obviously the original plan of securing this end by creating tw~ groups of members - permanent and non-permanent - has not proved in practice entirely satisfactory.

Permanent M embers.

In theory the permanent Members should consist of all the principal world Powers. So far its membership has been restricted to four nations. Naturally there has been some movement in favour of increasing the number. H. M. Government is not opp~sed to the ad mission of Germany or in general to increasing the number of Members, proVlded th~t such increases are limited to principal world Powers solely. The admission of Members which are not obviously entitled to be so regarded would destroy the proper distinction h.etween the permanent and non-permanent groups. It would, on the other hand, ~~eate ~ed discriminations among the smaller Powers. I t would not improve present condit10ns, ut on the contrary might make them less satisfactory .

. In view of the state of public opinion Ol' of political conditions existing in cert~in nat~ons which theoretically should be Members of the League, the problem of securmg an Ideal representation of world influences in the permanent group is somewhat remote.

~he method of increasing the permanent membership is very rigid. It gives a. powerful orgaiUsation the further power of perpetuating itself. If it were clearly proVIded that only P:incipal world Powers were eligible, H. M. Government would not oppose some relaxation of the existing requirement.

-100-

N l»L-permanent Members.

If there should be any increase in the number of permanent Members, there should be a proportional increase in the number of non-permanent Members. There must be a proper balance between the two groups.

H.M. 's Government favours a change in the method of. .electing non-permanent members. So far the method used has tended to defeat the ongmal purpose in dindina the Council into permanent and non-permanent groups. There should be rotation in office and members should not be eligible for re-election for a fixed period. e

.At present the .Assembly, in electing non-permanent Members, is guided by no stated principle or rule. It should be provided that proper consideration be given for the main geographical divisions of the world, the great ethnical groups, the different religion­traditions and various types of civilisation. Asia does not now have sufficient •oice i~ the Council having regard to its vast populations and the growing importance of it, relations with the rest of the world. The fact that several European permanent Member: have large territories and interests in .Asia makes it all the more essential that the views of the independent .Asiatic peoples should be given greater weight.

The suggestion made by H.M's Government concerning the composition and election of the non-permanent group has been covered by the recommendations adopted by the Assembly in Resolution No. 22, September 29th, 1922. H.M.'s Government hopes that these recommendations, at least in substance, may be endorsed by this Commit.tee.

In making these recommendations, H.M. 's Government has been guided solely by the desire to increase the usefulness of the League of Nations. A world organisation for peace requires worldwide support. If the plan of having two groups of Members on the Council is retained, the adoption of the above suggestions would stimulate such support.

PART II.

Extracts from the Minutes

of the Fourth and Fifth Meetings

of the

Fortieth Session of the Council

Part II .

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH MEETINGS

OF THE FORTIETH SESSION OF THE COUNCIL

Held at Gene/Ja from ]tme 7tlt·IOth, 1926.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

r OI."iTH MEETING (Public), June IOth, 1926, at II a.m.

1741. Ratification by Spain of the amendment to Article 4 of the Covenant.

FIFTH MEETING (Public), J une roth, 1926, at 3.15 p.m.

Page

!54

175I. Report of the Committee on the Composition of the Council. . . . . . . . . 154 r7s8. Co-operation of Brazil in the Work of the Council: Statement by the Brazilian

Representative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Annex.

Letter dated June Ioth, 1926, from His Excellence M. Afranio de Mello-Franco and tele­gram from the Brazilian Government concerning the co-operation of Brazil in the work of the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r62

- 154-

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING (PUBLIC)

Held on Thursday, june 1oth, 1926, at II a.m.

Present: All the representatives of the Members of th<:' Council and the Secretary-Gener 1 a.

1741. Ratification by Spain of the Amendment to Article 4 of the Covena nt.

M. QuER BouLE read the following statement : " I have the honour to bring to the notice of the Council that the Government of His Catholic

Majesty, notwithstanding his repeatedly expressed desire to associate himself with the ideas corresponding with the general feeling of the League of Nations, had not considered it possible up to the present to proceed to the ratification of the amendment to Article 4 of the Covenant. The Spanish Government thereby desired always to make it possible for it to be a Member of the Council by means of successive re-elections up to the moment judged opportune for the nomination of Spain as a permanent M~mber of the Council.

" It had not, moreover, let any opportunity slip of stating this with the utmost sincerity. " As the present situation excludes the possibility of the presence of Spain at an election, and

as the reason which prevented the ratification by Spain of the amendment of Article 4 of the Cove­nant has thus been removed, my Government has decided to proceed with the ratification of this amendment. "

Sir Austen CHAMBERLAI:-1 was sure that the declaration which the Spanish representative had just made in the name of his Government had been heard with the greatest satisfaction by all the Members of the Council. This result had been hoped for for some time past. Now that it was realised, the moment had come to congratulate both the Spanish Government and the Leagc~ itself.

l\1. PAUL-BONCOUR agreed with the statement just made by the representative of the British Empire. He was all the more delighted with this communication in that recently, at the meeting of the Committee of the Council entrusted with the examination of this question, he had had the pleasure and honour of announcing the ratification by France of the same amendment. He thought that these ratifications, which now put the amendment to Article 4 into force, would provide a happy solution of outstanding questions.

M. SCIALOJA expressed complete agreement with the declarations just made by the repre· sentatives of the British Empire and France. He associated himself with those statements \\~th that cordiality that had always characterised the relations between Italy and Spain.

The PRESIDENT considered that the expressions of satisfaction which had just been made would be shared by all the members of the Council. He himself most warmly congratulated the Spanish Government on this ratification.

EXTRACT FROM THE MI NUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING (PUBLIC)

Held ot~ Tht~rsday, June 1oth, 1926, at 3-IS p.m.

Present : All the representatives of the Members of the Council and the Secretary-General.

I751. Repor t of t he Committee on the Com posit ion of the Council.

Viscount IsHII (Rapporteur) read the following report : "The Secretariat has circulated to us, in proof, a document which includes: (a) the report of

the Committee on the composition of the Council on the work of its first session; (b) the min~tes of this Committee. To this document will be annexed the various papers and memoranda exammed by the Committee. . .

"As t he Council will have noticed, the Committee's report merely shows the stage which tt has at present reached in its work. The Committee has decided to continue its enquiry at a second session the date of which has been provisionally fixed for June 28th.

" \vithout wishing to prejudge any conclusions the Committee may finally reach, I am s~e my colleagues will agree with me that the proposals adopted by the Committee on first reading are of the greatest importance. Similarly, I feel that the minutes of the discussions and the docu­ments which the Committee examined should be of interest to all the Members of the League.

-ISS-

.. In these circu~stanc~s I p~opose that the Council should ta~e note of the report and the . tes of the Committee, mcludmg the annexes, thank the Committee for its work a nd instruct

:Secr~tary-General to communicate these documents to all the Members of the League for their

informatiOn. · h d ·d d h "b"lit f th C ·1 · " The Commtttee a consi ere t e possi 1 y o e ounci chang~ng the date which it had fixed for its next session, if the .~ouncil feels that ~he date should be postponed so as to allow a

1 nger period between the two sess10ns. Before making any proposal on thts point, I should like t know my colleagues' views. If the Council feels that it should ma ke no pronouncement at the ~esent session, it mi_ght authorise the ~cting _Pre:>ident ?f the Souncil to adjourn, if necessary,

fhe Committee's sesston, after consultation With 1ts Chairman. :M. SciALOJA said that the report of the Committee merely gave the arguments on which the

Committee itself had voted, and for that reason it referred only to the number of nine elective or non-permanent seats on the Council. He desired to ~dd th~t. when this ~umber was adopted, the vote was to some ext~nt dependent on. othe_r cons1deratwns. He beheved that many of his collea'!tles on the Committee had agreed With him to go so far as to accept the number of nine non­perm:nent Members on condition that , if subsequently the number of permanent Members should be increased beyond five, there should be a corresponding decrease in the number of the non­permanent members- and this for the very good reason that, in his opinion a nd that of many of his colleagues, the maximum number of the members of the Council should not exceed fourteen. Fourteen was a la rge number - perhaps too large - to allow of the efficient working of the Council while still observing the principle of unanimity.

As he had voted in favour of the number nine on the condition that the total number of the Council should not exceed fourteen, he thought it desirable to make this decla ration now, when the Council was not discussing tbe results reached by the Committee but was communicating them to the .Members of the Assembly. It seemed to biro desirable that the 1\lem bers of the Assembly should know that the Committee had accepted the number nine, tha nks to the vote of many of its members, who assumed that the total number of the Council would not exceed fourteen. this did not mean tha t it would be impossible in the future to increase a lso the number of the permanent ~embers of the Council ; it meant only that, if there should be such an increase in t he number of permanent l\lembers of the Council, there would have to be a corresponding decrease in the number of non-permanent Members.

:\I. DE MELLO-F RANCO sa id tha t he would abstain from Yoting on \-iscount Ishii's report. HeiSked the President to a llow him, before the close of the present session, to make a declaration oo behalf of his Government.

The PRESIDENT, referring to the observations of ::\I. Scia loja, thought t hat the same ideas ll"ere expressed during the discussion in the Committee. The minutes of those d iscussions and l'iscount Ishii's report, together with the minutes of the present meet ing, would be sent to the Governments Members of the League of Nations so that the views expressed by :\f. . cialoja and his colleagues would be known to all the Members of the League.

M. QuER BoULE stated that, in addition to the declaration he had made a t the previous meeting, and in accordance with instructions received from his Government, he had to stat€' that his Government was unable t o accept a classification which would place Spain among the second rank of Powers. The attitude of Spain therefore had not undergone a ny cha nge .

M. PAUL-BONCOUR said that he would like to be sure that he understood wha t had just been said by the representative of Spain, and above all that what he understood was not what he feared. It was only at the last meeting that the Council had deservedly tha nked the Spanish representative for the information which he had given concerning a ratification which should greatly conduce to the solution of the present difficulties. He felt sure that the panish repre­sentative would not now wish to give the impression that the place he occupied was about to become vacant, a situation which everyone hoped would not occur.

Sir Austen CHAMBERLAIN said he would not press the representative of Spain for further explanations if he did not desire to give them, but though not quite a ble to appreciate on first hearing the full sense of the declaration which he had made, Sir Austen desired t o express the earnest hope - shared he was certain not merely by the other )fembers of the Council but by all the Members of the League - that the co-operation of Spain in the work of the Assembly and the Council, a co-operation which had been so valuable to the Council a nd so honourable to Spain, might not be withdrawn in the future.

It was obvious that the question of the composition of the Council raised problems of extreme difficulty and extreme delicacy, but it would be a misfortune, it would be a complete misapprehen­sion of the Council's attitude, if Powers whom it was impossible, within the limits of the League C?nstitution, to place permanently upon the Council felt that therein an invidious discrimina­tion was made against them or that any reflection was cast upon their standing and their power. It was incredible that a great country like Spain could think that her fellow-nations in the League could entertain for one moment such a thought. He hoped that the Council would long enjoy -would permanently enjoy - Spain's co-operation in the work of the League.

M. VANDERVELDE wished to add a few words to what had just been said by M. Paul-Boncour and Sir Austen Chamberlain, because the country which he represented was one which had not asked for a permanent seat and which thought, moreover, that it was not desira ble to increase the number of the permanent Members of the Council. He added that, if the matter had to be discussed now, he would express a regret that a distinction should exist between the permanent and elected Members of the Council; but that was due to the Covenant and there was no idea of revising the Covenant. The only question was whether it was desirable to increase the number

- 156 -

of permanent seats, and Belgium had replied in the negative for reaso_ns of principle. He desir d however, to say to .the repr~sentativ~ of Sp~n, as h?-d already be~n satd ~y the Belgian represen~a~ tive on the Cornm1ttee wluch exammed th1s question, that, while ~elgm~ felt sympathy for all the countries \~hich participa~ed in the w~rk of tb~ League of Nattons, It neverthel~ss felt that it owed a special debt of gra!1tude .to Sp.am. Belgmm c~uld never for!?et that, dunng the war, Spain was one of the countnes which wttb such gener~sity and de:rohon had come to the aid ·of a people dying o~ mi.se~y a~d distress. If, ther~fore, It h~d been m any way possible to make .any exception or discnmmahon betwee~ the vanous candi?ates the~e was no doubt that the voice of Belgium would have been heard m support of the clarm of Spam.

Belgium had been one of Spai~'s warmest supporte~ in the elections to ~he Cou~cil ever since the foundation of the League. It smcerely_ hoped, as Su A~sten Chamberlam had JUSt said, that Spain would continue to play the great role m. t~e Leag~e which was due to her past, to the interests wruch she represented and to the noble traditiOns which she possessed.

M. ScrALOJ A said that, when the representative of Spain had read that morning his declara. tion in regard to the ratification of the amendment to Article 4 of the Covenant, he had not quite clearly heard the last paragraph of the declaration, and he was not sure that the other members ol the Council had heard it either. If he had heard it, he would have added a few words.

He did not desire to change anything in his observations as regards the gratitude which the Council owed to Spain for ratifying the amendment to the Covenant as had been announced that morning; but he deeply regretted the reasons for that declaration. Spain declared that it ratified the amendment to the Covenant but no longer proposed to seek re-election on the Council. It was because Spain was disinterested in a further election that she had ratified the amendment to the Covenant. He would even now have preferred not to have heard the second part of the Spanish representative's declaration, and he asked rus colleague to allow him still to forget it for a while in the hope that between now and the next session of the Council that part of his declaration would have ceased to have effect.

Viscount ISHII, speaking in the name of his Government, said that he sincerely and honestly hoped that the League of Nations would not in the future be deprived of the precious co-operation of Spain.

M. SJoBORG associated himself sincerely with the words of sympathy which had been expressed by several of his colleagues regarding Spain. His country was opposed to the creation ol a permanent seat on the Council for Spain, solely, as one of his colleagues had said, for reasons ol principle. His country sincerely hoped that Spain would continue to take a constant and valuable part in the work of the League.

M. BENES agreed with the declarations of the other members of the Council -all the more so because his country and he himself bad always enjoyed close and intimate relations and cordial co-operation with the distinguished representative of Spain on the Council.

The PRESIDENT said that the words which had just been spoken expressed with great eloquence the unanimous feelings of the Council. He was glad to be able to associate himself with those expressions of sympathy and with the deep appreciation which all the Council felt for the work which had hitherto been done in the League of Nations by Spain.

M. QuER BouLE said that it was a great honour for him to thank the representatives ol Uruguay, France, the British Empire, Belgium, Japan, Sweden, Italy and Czechoslovakia for the words which they had just spoken with regard to his country, and which had been so weU summarised by the President of the Council.

As he had no instructions from his Government, he unfortunately could not give any addi· tiona! explanations, but he begged to be allowed to state how deeply touched he was by the words of deep and affectionate feeling which had been spoken in honour of Spain.

The report of V iscount Ishii was adopted.

1758. Co-operation of Brazil in the Work of the Council. Statement by the Brazilian Representative.

M. DE MELLO-FRANCO spoke as follows: The Peace Conference, when setting up during its meeting of January 2oth, rgrg, a Com­

mission to study the constitution of a League of Nations, decided that this commission should be composed of two representatives of each of the great Powers and five representatives of the countries described as Powers with special interests.

The representatives of these latter Powers, meeting on January 27th, rgrg, resolved: (r) That Belgium, Brazil, China, Portugal and Serbia should appoint delegates, each of these countries having one member, to represent them on the Commission above described; (2) to ask the Supreme Council (consisting of the heads of Governments and Ministers for Foreign Affairs) to give to the four States, Greece, Portugal, Roumania and Czechoslovakia, the option of appointing a substitute delegate.

Such were the circumstances in which the co-operation of Brazil in the League of Nations began, this co-operation deriving its origin from the very source from which the Geneva Organisa­tion proceeded.

- I57-

Brazil, having participated in the work of the Commission appointed to frame the constitu­tion and de~ermine the competence of the League, wa:- app?int~d, on the proposal of President Wilson, whtc~ was al?proved ~y the Supreme Council dunng tts meeting held on April z8th,

1919, to sit With Be~g~~m, Spat~ and_ Greece as one of the ~our Members of the League entitled to sit on the Council stde by stde wtth the great Powers, m conformity with Article 4 of the Covenant, up to the moment when the future Assembly would proceed to the election of the non­~anent Members.

This position was ~onfirmed by the first Asse~bly, and su~sequently by the five succeeding .-\ssemblies, and Braztl has always _endeavo~ed, m the exerctse of the difficult mission imposed on it by the confidence of the associated nations, not t~ d~part, b¥ even a single line, from the Jetter of the Covenant and scr~pulou~ly to o~ey the pnnctples of JUStice, the ideals of fraternity and peace, and the_good_ doctnne of mternahon_al_la~. !hese P!Lnciples, these ideals and this doctrine had b~en mvanably followed by Brazil m Its mternattonal life during a century of independent ~~s~~nce. . . .

From the Imtlal st<l:ge of Its co-operahon_m_the work_of the Co~mission instructed to study the scheme for the creatiOn of the !-eague of _Nations, Braz1l, through tts representative, President Epitacio Pessoa, defended the thesis of equality of treatment between the great and small Powers in regard to the composition of the Council. '

The international political evolution which had not ceased as a consequence of the creation of the League of Nations;_ the ~eyelopment of the legal construction of the Covenant; the gradual substitution of a mentahty ansmg from a state of war by another mentality more consonant with a state of peace; the abandonment of the militarist conception of a great Power, and the radical change of this obsolete conception into another more in conformity with the idea of the universality of economic interests and the principle of solidarity and the interdependence of States; the increase in the number of the Members of the League of Nations, a membership which had risen from the original thirty-two States to the fifty-five States at present associated in the League- all these factors constituted an unanswerable body of arguments which have led Brazil to the conviction that it was just and necessary to proceed to a reorganisation of the Council of the League of Nations, based on the principle of equality of treatment between the continents and tiling account of the fact that the States of America formed one-third of the total number of the Yembers of the League.

For these reasons, Brazil had recently taken up again the thesis which had been defended b~its representative on the Commission instructed to frame the Covenant.

The Council, as had been said by the delegate of Brazil on the Commission for the League of Sations, should have a single origin. If, however, owing to circumstances which continued loexist, it was still necessary to maintain a distinction between permanent and non-permanent Jlembers, it must be recognised how odious becomes the exclusion of America from representa­tion, by one of its States, in the permanent framework of the Council, in view of the fact that the privilege of such a representation is accorded to the other continents.

It is not desirable to discuss now this thesis, which is based, when examined dispassionately ~nd without prejudice, on the very foundations of justice and on indisputable arguments inherent m the most essential principles of the League of Nations and the structure of its various bodies. If there are problems which more particularly concern Europe and in the solution of which the Stat~ of the Continent of Europe have a common interest, it cannot be .denied that there exist also m America special rules of continental policy, a special organisation composed of the American States, a closer co-operation of the interests which they have in common, a union of sister Republics, assured by more intimate bonds than those of a mere concert between Powers, and, lastly, a doctrine the existence of which has been recognised by Article 2I of the Covenant. . . Without in any way opposing the idea of the unity and universality of international law, n IS necessary not to lose sight of the fact that, politically, the separation of the continents is a r~ity, and that there exist, in respect of the conditions proper to each of them, legal rules haVIng a cha racter which is more continental than universal.

Iu establishing the Statute of the Permanent Court of International J ustice at The Hague, ~e Assembly of the League of Nations took into account, in choosing the judges, the representa­hon of the principal legal systems of the world. Similarly, the International Conference on Freedom of Communications and Transit held at Barcelona under the auspices of the League explicitly recognised continental and regional distinctions, so far as the regulation of transit and the navigation of waterways of international interest was concerned.

It is not proposed here, as has been said, to discuss the thesis that it is necessar~ for. the League of Nations to take into consideration the differences resulting from the histoncal, geographical and economic conditions of the various continents, with a view to their permanent ~epresentation on the Council. It is, nevertheless, very desirable to re-establish t~e truth regard­In~ the character and form of the claim put forward, in this connection, by Braztl, as there have been many errors in the interpretation of the Brazilian case.

The object of our request was not the creation of a specially privileged position for ~razil, but that it should be recognised that the American continent also had the right, together With the other continents, to be permanently represented on the Council. Europe is perm~nently repre­sented by three States and as a result of the forthcoming admission of Germany this representa­tion would be raised to four States. Asia also, with five States in the League, had a permanent representative. Africa, with three States, and Oceania, with two States in the League, were also r~presented, since the Dominions, also Members of the League of Nations and having all the ngbts and obligations arising out of the Covenant, constitute, as is known, an integral part of the political system of the British Empire.

- 158-

On the other hand, the Ibero-American States to the nwnber of seventeen - not includin Ecuador, which had not yet ratified the Treaty of Versailles, and h3:d not been representedatang Assembly, nor ~osta Rica, which has already noti~e~ the Secretanat of the League of her wit?. drawal, nor ~lextco, which has not yet asked for admtss1on- have not been granted any pennanent place on the Council. .

Brazil has never claimed the right to represent the other Arnencan States on the Council nor would such a representation be possible, seeing tha~ the Stat~ ~1embers of the Council are not political representatives of the other States of the contment of whtch they form a part.

On the other hand, it is impossible to dispute the right of Brazil to formulate a claim founded on continental considerations, as this right springs from the community of interests, from which it follows that each of the associated parties is at liberty to ask for the necessary legal protection of the above interests.

Brazil has no need of a mandate on the part of the other States of the American Continent to place her in a position to maintain a right which she possesses in common with them all.

This impersonal claim must not in any way be confused with the legitimate aspiration of Brazil to have her. own candidature for the C?uncil examined on a footing of .equality with .that of any other Amencan State when the Counctl would be called upon to appomt, under Article 4 of the Covenant, the State which would have to occupy the permanent place thus created for America.

The Council, in the exercise of its right to appoint the State chosen to occupy the permanent seat which may possibly be created, would automatically have to examine the claims of Brazil to such a scat in the same way as the claims of the other American St ates Members of the League of Nations, and in this way Brazil would not even need specially to bring forward her candidature.

It is necessary, therefore, to sweep away all ambiguities and to affirm categorically that the object of the Brazilian claim was essentially continental in character, based on the co-imperium of the territory of which Brazil is a portion and on the indissolubility of certain interests, withou1 there being any question of a political representation of the other States of the continent. If tht justice of the cause defended by Brazil had been recognised, Brazil hoped that the Members of the Council would impartially examine the problem of the choice of the new permanent member and that they would make an appointment which would bo most advantageous to the interests of tbe League of ~ations.

The Committee appointed to study the reform of the composition of the Council has already recognised in part the American claim and has contemplated, by a unanimous vote, the granting to America of three non-permanent seats.

Nevertheless, the principal question, which was the question of the permanent seats, has been postponed to a later session convened for June 28th, 1926.

From the moment when the constitution of this Committee had been determined by the Council, the Federal Government of Brazil decided to decline the distinction repeatedly conferred upon her of occupying the temporary seat on the Council which she had held for seven years. Brazil, however, had not wished to carry out this decision before the close of the last quarterly session of the Council preceding the ordinary session of the Assembly. She was anxious to aYoid giving rise by her resignation to any difficulty concerning the interpretation of Article 5 of the Covenant.

In order that the Council may meet, the presence of all the representatives of its Members is not necessary; but, deprived of the presence of one of the States Members either owing to resigna­tion or owing to a final severance from the League of Nations, the Council cannot take any decision or any action within its competence.

Brazil, bearing in mind that its decision before the end of the June session might interfere with the work of the Council, has resolved to postpone it until a time when it cannot affect the work o[ the League of Nations, in view of the fact that the next session will coincide '>vith the ordinary meeting of the Assembly, which will consequently be able to provide for the vacant seat without delay.

The Brazilian Government has decided to decline at the present session of the Council the honour ·which the confidence of the six previous Assemblies has renewed towards our country, and to await the final decision of the Committee called upon to study the reorganisation of the Council, in so far as the principal part of the request made by Brazil with a view to the pennanent representation of America on the Council is concerned.

The statements made by some of the eminent representatives of the States Members of the Counc~ in th~ course of the deliberations of this Committee already clearly indicate the fate of the clatm whtch we desire to have the right to formulate in our capacity as an integral part of America. We are, however, disposed to await the final result of the second session of the Com­mittee convened, in the first instance, for the 28th instant. The recent decision of the Council to postpone this session si11e die makes it impossible to attain the end intended by the resolution adopted by the Council on March I8th last, stipulating that special attention be devoted to requests so far ma.de by any Member of the League of l':ations whatever, and laying down that t.he report of the sa1d Comm1ttee should, as soon as posstble, be communicated for the informatwn of all Governments, so that these Governments might have the necessary time to formulate their obser­vations and present them at the next Assembly in September. . Such a postpone~ent,. added to the fee~ng of conviction resulting from the statements made m the. course of t~e discus~tons of the Committee appointed by the Council, makes us fear tha~ the question of the mcrease 111 the number of the permanent scats will not be further exammed. Such a solution would simply amount, in fact, to the rejection of the Brazilian case.

It is with the deepest emotion that, in conformity with the instructions of His Excellency the President o~ ~he Brazilian Republic, I have the honour to hand to the Secretary-Gent>ral the doc~t­ment contammg the statement that the Brazilian Government has sent me by telegram. (Anne:-:.)

-159-

As an indirect .result of its adheFence to .the basic P?n~iples of the League of Nations and of . devotion to the mterests of the great contment of whtch It forms part Brazil in the full know-115 • d . d h f d 1" ' ' ledge of havmg alway~ one I~S uty,. t ere ore ~c mes the gr~t honour paid to it by friendly

lions and seeks by tts sacrifice to lighten the difficult and senous task of solving the problem ~~ch ;rose as early as the first Assembly and ~as been discussed since 1922, when t he reso­l tion dated September 25th, adopted by the thtrd Assembly, and raising the number of non­urmanent seats from fom; to six, left in suspense the question <;>f the number of permanent seats.

pe In begging t~e Counctl to.a~t towards the Assembly as an mtexyreter of Brazil's deep thanks

1 r the noble and unportant mtssion that had been accorded to her smce 1920, Brazil cherished the h~pe that the nat~ons. which have .b.een associ~t~d in accorda~ce with the terms of the Covenant ·ould do her the JUStice of recogmsmg the legttlmacy of the unperattve reasons for her decision. 11

For myself, obscure co-operator in the work of the Council ~ince the month of September 1923, 1 wish here to record my d~epest respect and esteem for the emment statesmen who now represent the Members of the Council, .and towards all who, now absent, have been entrusted during this

riod with that representation. pe I shall alw~ys retain an undyinl? m~m?ry of my dealings with everyone and of the good fortune and honour which have been mi!le lil: Sittmg on the Council as representative of my country.

To the Secretary-General, Srr Enc Drurrunond, I offer warm thanks for the loyal and efficient assistance that he has given to me throughout the whole period of my office, and I beg that he will be good eno':lgh to convey my thanks to the Under-Secretaries-General and to the whole staff of the Secretanat.

The PRESIDENT spoke as follows: I ask your pardon for speaking immediately and before inviting my colleagues to do so. I have

very special reasons which oblige me to take this course. I have the honour of being, like my col­league, M. de Mello-Franco, the representative of a South American country with a seat on the Council. You will certainly all realise the sadness and surprise which I felt on hearing the statement of my colleague the representative of Brazil.

There are yet other reasons which have induced me to express my feelings at once. Brazil, which is a friend and neighbour of my own country, occupies in South America a position of the highest rank, not only because of the extent of her territory, her population and her material resources, but also because of her whole history and her deep devotion to the work of the League o\ Nations, which is a work of conciliation between the peoples, a work of peace and universal teronstruction.

In America, Brazil has been- a veritable champion of international arbitration. I wish to repeat this here, although it has been said on many occasions. The Brazilian constitution, like that of other countries in America, provides that no war can take place with other nations without previous resort to the procedure of arbit ration. Allow me to remind you of a fact which shows the Jove of international justice which has always animated Brazil in her conduct towards her American brothers and which cotmects her especially with the history of Uruguay. We had a frontier dispute with Brazil which lasted nearly half a century. It was a dispute about navigation on frontier waters. We claimed that this question should be settled according to the principles of international law.

Although the treaty in question was in force, the Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs, M. Rio Branco, who is one of the most remarkable figures in the diplomatic history of South America, at a certain moment expressed spontaneously and without any demand from outside adesire that this historical mistake should be rectified in the name of justice and of the friendship which existed between two neighbouring peoples. He of his own accord presented to his Parliament anew draft Convention which was approved and which led to what is to-day an accomplished fact. I cannot imagine therefore that a country which occupies in the memory of my country and in the :-vhole American continent so high a place from the moral point of view can, for reasons the motives for which I ought not to judge at this moment, leave us and refuse to give us its valued co-operation.

Allow me to add a few words. It will have seemed, perhaps, in the discussions which have taken place on the reorganisation of the Council, that the points of view of Brazil and Uruguay were far apart as regards the question of the permanent seats. I think it desirable to explain t~s now. My country is absolutely opposed to the principle of permanent seats on the Council. ! declared at the Committee which is dealing with t he reorganisation of the Council that, perhaps tn a future more or less distant, the true ideal of justice would be to suppress altogether the permanent seats and to establish absolute equality between the States. .

~ut there is a point on which our views are very close to those of Brazil. _We think, as d?es ~raziJ, that there must be assured to the American continent a fairer and more JUSt representatiOn m t~e composition of the Council. The Brazilian Ambassador has employed c~rtain means to attam that end. The representative of Uruguay is employing other means to attam the same end. ~·de Mello-Franco has used many arguments in support of the theory that a stronger representa­tion of the States of Latin America is necessary for the good administration of the Leagu~.

I must declare that, if the question of the increase of the permanent seats were to anse, I can only think of this increase as being in favour of the cotmtries of Latin America which are at present ~xclu_ded from occupying such a position on the Council; but, as this question ~s not before us m this ~~rm, my Government prefers that the principle of equality sho~ld dorru!late the future compo~1tton of the Council of the League with the exceptions already provided form the Covenant and With the exception of Germany.

Allow me to add a few personal considerations. M. de Mello-Franco has always been a most hlalued colleague. His great capacity, his loyalty, his intellige~ce, have al~vays . been of ~he

ghest value to us. On many occasions he has given the Council the most mtelligent advtce.

- 160-

I can therefore only renew my regret at the attitude which he considers t~at he is obliged t take and which he has just announced to us, and I beg to express the most smcere wish that thio ~~~~~~ s

Sir Austen CHAMBERLAIN spoke as follows: Mr. President, a passage in the declarati~n of the repres~ntative of ~razil in regard to Article .

of the Covenant obliges me to reserve my nght on any smtable occasiOn, or whenever it shoul~ beco~e necessary, to express my views upon that subject; but that is not what preoccupies me at th1s moment.

No one will have listened without emotion to the declaration read to us by the representative of Brazil or to the observations with which you, Sir, have followed it. You echoed the senti­ments of us~ when you expressed your own _feelings abou~ the personal co-oper~tion of M. de Mello-Francom the proceedmgs of the Council and regarding our personal relatwns with him both in and outside the Council. If the announcement merely meant that M,. de Mello-Franco himself would no longer occupy the Chair of Brazil, it would give us all pain. The announcement is still more serious as he made it. However, I draw - and I hope I am not too optimistic in drawing - some conclusion from the fact that no irreparable step has yet been taken, and that perhaps, as this matter is further discussed in the Committee or in the Council or in the Assembly Brazil may see reasons of public policy and international importance for reviewing the decisio~ indicated but not actually announced to-day.

May I add that, whilst it is very natural that any State in presenting its claim should dweU upon its particular national, historic, cultural and other qualifications for the position which it seeks, it is impossible for us to discuss the matter on that footing. We cannot allow our personal sympathies, our national affinities, or even our sense of the weight which these various arguments have, to determine the question for us. We have to consider how the Council can be so composed as to give the widest and most equitable representation to the States which are Members of the League, without becoming so large that it is impossible for it to discharge the great responsibilities with which it is entrusted, since upon its power adequately to discharge these duties there might at any moment rest the peace of the world.

One other observation I would like to make: this remark is unnecessary for my colleagues at this table; it is not, I think, necessary for any of those who habitually follow our proceedings, but it may perhaps be useful to bring it home to those who see us only from a distance, who read perhaps only the scanty reports of our meetings and who are unable to obtain any vivid personal impression of the manner and the spirit in which the deliberations of the Council are conducted. It is true that we arrive here by different routes, but once we have entered the Council Chamber no difference exists between us. We all speak with an equal authority. The assent of every one of us is equally necessary to a decision by the Council. We sit here, from whatever source we derive our right to our seats, as equals, as colleagues and as friends, discharging to the best of our ability and in the spirit of comradeship, friendship and equality the great tasks with which we are entrusted.

M. SCIALOJA spoke as follows: I would like to be able to speak in Italian in order to express my feelings with more force.

Our mother tongue always contains expressions which it is absolutely impossible to translate. If the declaration of the representative of Brazil has caused a painful impression on the

members of the Council, this impression has been all the stronger and all the more painful forme, as Brazil is to some extent identified with Italy, at least from the racial point of view, so consider­able has been the contribution of the Italian people to the population of Brazil. M. de :Mello­Franco will accordingly understand the depth of my feelings.

It is not merely that the decision of Brazil has created a serious source of difficulty within the Council; there is the further point that this decision which has been brought to the know· ledge of the Council has cut the Gordian knot at the very moment when a solution is being sought. I would like to suggest to my friend M. de Mello-Franco that he should explain to his Govern· ment how all the work of the Committee and all the investigations which it is proposed to make between this date and the month of September will be upset by the declaration which he bas just made.

Brazil has clearly such strong reasons for a seat on the Council that facts, which are stronge.I than any arguments, have proved this, for Brazil has had a seat on the Council since the constitu· tion of the League of Nations. This fact should have convinced Brazil that the Council could not forgo its help. Moreover, as the President and the British representative have emphasis~d, the regret of the Council at this declaration is increased by its regret at losing a colleague like M. de Mello-Franco, for whom it has so great an affection. I had formed the habit, when any di.fficultJ: arose, of looking to M. de Mello-Franco, sure of having a just and a wise reply which m1ght enable the obstacle to be surmounted, even in the case of the most difficult problems.

I do not know whether at this moment I may venture to resort to a legal artifice. .M. de Mello-Franco has announced the resignation of his country. But he said at the same time that neither he nor his country desires to impede the work of the Council. H~ even added that he had postponed announcing his resignation until to-day as he considered that the work of the Council was finished and that it might resume its activities in September after new elections have been held. I do not know whether this is so. In any case, I would ask the Council to replY. to my friend, the Brazilian Ambassador, that, from the point of view of public law, resignatiOn does not free a Member until it has been accepted. I do not know whether the Council is com· petent to accept a resignation. I believe that in any case it will never, in fact, accept it: in O:Y opinion it will be for the Assembly to accept a resignation and for this reason I believe that tf,

- x6r --

the legal point of view, Brazil does not wish to impede the work of the Council it must frotinue to occupy its seat until a decision of the Assembly has been taken. ' con It is not a fact that this ~sour last mee~ing.. We have thought. of holding a session in August,

d even if the August sesswn were not m mmd, m y colleague IS well aware that the Council :s more than .once been .conve!led by telegram owing to difficulties whid.l hav~ arisen in the world. The last occaswn on whtch thts happened was the recent Grec.o-Bulgana!l dtspute. Does Brazil \~'ish to impede the fundamental. work of the ~gue of Nations by withdrawing ? This is a

oblem. M. d~ Mello-Fran~o, htmself an expenenced la_wyer, has said that the Council cannot :eet if one of tts .members IS !lot present -:- I do not Wish to exp~~s any opinion on this point . it is rather a difficult .question. According, however, t~ the opnuon of M. de Mello-Franco, :s will give. rise to a difficulty, and. I am sure that Br~il does n~t wish to create difficulties

tor the Council ~r for the ~eague. Hitherto t~e co-oper~t10n of Braz1~ has been striking evidence o{this and has gtven su~c1e~t proof of her destre to help m and not to tmpede the work of civilisa­tion which the League tS domg. Why do you want now to create a state of affairs which might ~~are such serious consequences ?

I should like M. de Mello-Franco, therefore, to continue to represent Brazil on the Council nding further discussion: T~e experience <;>f the League ~as shown that delays smooth away

~J!iculties and perhaps th1s Will be the case m the present mstance. In any event, the Council must not neglect any remedy for meeting so serious a misfortune.

On behalf of Italy and on my own behalf - an(j I am sure that I am interpreting the feel­iogsofall.Italians- I venture to ask M. d~ Mello-Franc_o to use all his infiuenc~, whi~~ is very great in h1s country, to persuade the Prestdent of Brazil at least to postpone h1s dectston unttl the month of September.

)!. PAui.-BoKCOUR spoke as foUows : I should have asked to speak earlier, so rapid was my reaction - not only from the senti­

mental standpoint - to M. de Mello-Franco's speech, if the exact and legal counterpart of my feeling had not been supplied to me in a private conversation which I have had with my neigh­bour, the representative for Italy, an eminent lawyer, and if I had not considered it desirable toleave him to express it first.

If M. de Mello-Franco, knowing perfectly well how deeply his speech would shock our feelings olaf!ection for him and for his country, s till made that speech it is clearly because he has received in.<Uoctions and because his country has based its decision on reasons the soundness of which tkCouncil has moreover been able to appreciate. It is not, therefore, by laying emphasis upon thedfep sorrow that the realisation of this resignation will cause us that I would base an endeavour !oJffiUade our Brazilian colleague to reconsider his decision.

There is another argument which cannot fail to strike so eminent a lawyer as M. de Me11o­Franco. That Brazil m a..y wish to tender her resignation for reasons, of which she is the sole judge, is conceivable. But the Council is not empowered to accept it. The Assembly alone dectedBrazil, and the Assembly alone has the power to accept such a resignation. The Assembly alone can appreciate the motives for it and give to such legitimate motives the effect which it ronsiders appropriate.

I venture to think that it is not our duty so much as our spontaneous wish to express here "theregrets to which M. de Mello-Franco's speech had given rise. I a lso venture to remind you that, from the legal standpoint, our colleague is still a member of the Council, and that neither his wish alone nor the wish of his Govemment can separate us. Again, my colleague and friend, ¥. Scialoja, has just now r aised, with his gre~t: legal ability. a very serious question. I think -though I express m y view with hesitation since, when M. Scialoja has formulated a legal ~on, no one can formulate another without hesitation - that nothing can prevent the Council ir.m continuing its work in case of necessity. But if this is legally true, M. de 1\Iello-Franco lllderstands very well the moral situation in which the Council will find itself. i f it is obliged to-morrow to face one of the situations to which the delegate for Italy has referred. Is it possible that, though legally present, you could be morally absent ?

. Your country, as M. Guani has just reminded us, embodies the very idea of compulsory arbttration. This is what your country was doing here, and what it is continuing to do - for !speak always of the present. I beg of you, therefore, M. de ~Iello-Franco, to be good enough to mform your Government on our behalf and with all respect that, in deprivin& us of y~ur valuable CG-operation, it will be diminishing the authority of the Council, which it wtll not wtsh to do.

Viscount IsHn spoke as follows: The declaration which the eminent representative of Brazil has just .madE' is of so _grave

a ch~acter that I cannot hazard any improvised remarks upon it. It mvolves complicated questions both of a political and of a juridica l order, as has so clearly been demonstrated by At Scialoja and M. Paul-Boncour. All I can say at the moment is that I sincerely and pro­foundly regret the decision which the Government of Brazil has found it necessary to take. My regret is based not ·only on the cordial personal relations which have ah~ays ex~sted between the representative of Brazil and myself but also, and especially, from the pomt of vtew of the loss It means to the League of Nations.

I desire to express the hope, as has already been expressed by the President and many o.t~er of my colleagues that the decision announced by the Brazilian Government may not be defiruhve and final. ,

M. BENES spoke as follows: deal I ~o not wish to prolo ng the debate nor to discuss the substance .of the question already

t WJ.th by my colleagues with such eloquence and competence. I wtsh merely to add a few

-!62 -

words and to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my co~leagues concerning Br .1 and M. de Mello-Franco, with whom I have always had the most cordial and friendly relati aZl

Secondly, I feel bound to inform the Council that I entirely agree, from the legal point of v~~­with the opinion that has been expressed to the effect that the Council is not competent to ace ell,

the resignation of Brazil. Thirdly, ~ note, with Sir Austen Chamberlain, that. no i rrevoca6t~ step has been taken. I hope very smcerely that when September comes the situation will be such that no further steps will be taken as a result of the statement of M. de Mello-Franco.

M. DE MELLO-FRANCO spoke as follows:

Allow me to express the same regrets as M. Scialoja at being unable to use my own langua e to say how extremely grateful I am to the members of the Council for the very kind words th~l they have used regarding myself, and which I feel should be considered as having been addressed to my country.

I am convinced, Mr. President and Gentlemen, that the considerations which have been put forward by the members of the Council will be much appreciated by public opinion in my country It is my duty to point out that the interpretatioi). of Article 5 of the Covenant to which I have referred must not be considered as my personal interpretation - I am only a very modest student of law. We merely thought that account should be taken of all difficulties and that the duty of Brazil was, after having taken its decision regarding the political side of the matter, to show the greatest respect for t he difficult work of the Council of the League of Nations in which up to the moment Brazil has had the honour to take part.

I cannot discuss the question of the interpretatio·n given to the political action of Braza I desire merely to remind my dear colleague, M. Scialoja, that, according to the rules of procedure of the Federal Chamber of Deputies, to which I have had the honour to belong for twenty yea!"$, resignation of a mandate is considered as unilateral and cannot be judged by the Chamber il~ell. Vvhatever be the legal interpretation given to the action of the Government of Brazil, I am not competent to take a decision; I can merely do my duty by forwarding to the Federal Government the considerations put forward by my colleagues on the Council. Only the Federal Government is able to take a decision concerning a question which is of an essentially political nature.

In conclusion, I must inform my colleagues of the profound emotion which I feel and renew to them my most sincere thanks for their courtesy and the friendly way in which they have treated me.

I would also like to renew to the Secretary-General and to the staff of the Secretariat o! the League of Nations my most sincere thanks for the unfailing good-will with which they have assisted the delegate of Brazil in the difficult t ask of representing a State Member of the Council of the League of Nations.

The PRESIDENT proposed that the telegram of the Brazilian Go"\'Crnment should be sent to all States Members of the League of Nations together with the minutes of the latter part of the present meeting of the Council. Everyone would thus be able to appreciate the feelings of sympathy and friendship which had been expressed by all the members of the Council towards Brazil and towards its distinguished representative.

The proposal of the President was adopted.

Annex

)

CO-OPERATION OF BRAZIL IN THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL

LETIER DATED j UNE roth, 1926, FROM HIS EXCELLENCE M. AFRANIO DE MELLO-fRAKCO AND TELEGRAM FROM THE BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT.

I ~ _instructed by the P_resident of the Brazilian Republic to forward to you a statement by the Br~ihan Goyernment ~vhich has been communicated to me by telegraph from Rio de Janetro and which explams the attitude adopted by my Government with regard to the proposal for the reform of the Council.

[Translation.] (Signed) Afranio DE MELLO-FRANCO.

~e addressing her most sincere thanks to the countries which form the League of Nations, Brazil now renounces her seat on the Council as non-pennanent member.

Owing to her record since the Great War and to the esteem in which she was held by the victorious .Powers, Brazil was nominated from the outset to occupy this place and was successirely re-elected by a number of votes which deeply gratified her. . In order to make an adequate response to these marks of esteem, she did not refuse h~r share m the common burden and, overstepping to some extent the bounds of her American policy, ~he on many occasions took a share in the responsibility of deciding European questions, from whtch she has always kept, and desires to remain, aloof.

- I63 -

She acted in this way in the conviction that she would be rendering a service to a universal ..nr.rm!>Cluv .. destin_ed to gi:ve material sh_ape in the politic~llife of the whole world to the pacific

f which Prest dent Wtlson was the smc~re apostle. It ts not easy to renounce such an illusion; d ~though it became more and more evtdent that there were certain differences between the

:nerican ideas w~ich inspi!ed th~ creation of t~e League o~ N_ations an? the actual development of ~e new organisatwn •. Brazil ~ontmued to chensh the convtcbon that tune would make perfect an jnstitution created wtth so htgh a purpos~.

5o great \vere her ~opes that s~e ~d not hesitate to take_ the initiative, soon afterwards ~Uo~red by other countnes, of establishmg a permanent delegatiOn at Geneva so as to be in a ~tion to perform more effectively the work entrusted to her and to devote herself wholeheartedly

10 the ideals of the League of N ahons. . It is common knowledge how the work of the League of N attons grew and developed accom­

"ed by unavoidable diffic~ties which were for the .m~st part the outcome of the Great War. {8J1I The presence of the Un~ted States on t~e Councilm th~ perma~ent seat assigned to them by the Covenant would have gtven great prestige from the pomt of vtew of universal peace to the

decided upon. But in the absence of this great friendly nation , whose influence had been decisive in bringing the conflict to a close, a peculiar situation grew up in the League of Nations rith regard to the American countries which remained; and this situation finally took the form of an unjust inequality and inferiority of America's position in the League as compared with that of Europe. The immediate attribution of a non-permanent seat to Brazil and later of another seat of the same nature to Uruguay did not, and still does not, suffice to compensate for this disadvantage. It was no doubt for this reason that in 1921 Chile took the initiative, for which we thank her once more, of proposing Brazil at the same time as Spain as permanent Members.

This proposal would have had the consequence, first , of putting an end to the anomaly of a continent being excluded from permanent representation on the Council and, secondly,

account would be taken, as was necessary, of the greatest neutral country of Europe. The United States being absent of their own accord, Argentine having withdrawn, and no

other American Republic having put forward its candidature, Brazil, proposed by Chile, at once became the American nation with the strongest claim to occupy the permanent post the creation (i which was being considered. Despite the anomaly of the position, Chile would certainly not hare put forward Brazil's name if she had not recognised the latter's legitimate qualifications to emcise so high a function. I ndeed, Brazil considers that the consistently active part she has tJl)1dio the work of the League of Nations and the responsibilities she has assumed to do it service, p\"thl! successive re-elections, secured by a most gratifying number of votes, the character of an ~n of appreciation which placed her in the front rank for promotion to a permanent place 11 ~Council.

But the tendency towards exclusiveness which was already making itself felt began from this time onwards to be exercised against Brazil, obliging her, despite the high esteem she has always reltandstill feels for Spain, to declare that she refuses, as she is entitled to do, to consent to such a difference being made between them.

Being herself a canclidate, she could not give her assent to a reform of the J)Crmanent member­~pof the Council which did not take account of the countries of America. It was for this reason that the reform clid not take place.

Later, by way of a compromise, and while care was t aken not to increase the number of jtilllanent members, it was decided to create two new non-permanent seats.

The initiative in this proposal was 1 aken by France and the British Empire, and it is set bth in a letter sent by Lord Balfour to M. Leon Bourgeois. I n this proposal will be found the i:&wmg passage, which should be compared with the new doctrine that only great Powers should bit permanent seats on the Council:

. " We must not lose sight of the fact that, if this solution were adopted, the criticism IDlght be made that the new formation of the Council would consist of four permanent States and of six non-permanent States, whereas the Covenant lays down that it should consist of five permanent States and four non-permanent States. But this objection can hardly be considered a serious one since, by Article 5 of the Covenant, the decisions of the Council are­exce.J?t where otherwise provided- taken unanimously by the Members represented at the me~tmg. The question of a majority, therefore, does not arise as far as the Council is concerned. It IS advisable, moreover, to provide for a future increase of permanent Members. "

By spontaneously recognising that it was possible to increase the number of permanent Stats,_ which would therefore obviously exceed the number of so-called "great Powers"­tSJiecJally now that it is proposed t o increase further the number of non-permanent seats-the Po~sal in question fina lly disposed of the possibility of giving the great Powers a privileged ~lhon as regards the attribution of permanent seats.

In the report pronouncing in favour of the adoption of the French and British Governments' proposal, the competent Committee said:

" The first paragraph of Article 4 is based on a certain principle concerning the number of the permanent and of the non-permanent Members of the Council. The propo~ed a~g­!Jlen~atton of t he number of non-permanent Members produces a considerable moclificahon In this principle. Nevertheless, a subseq1tent augmentation of the number of permane.ttl Mem~ers WOuld re-establish the principle of which Article 4 is the application without it bemg possthk to consider that the change proposed to-day prejucliced such re-establishment. "

No promise could be clearer or mo~e defiz:ite. ~he solution of th~ questi?n was post n but it was announced th.at there was a s~cere mtentlo~ of shortly makmg t~e i~Crease ask~ fed

In consequence, all1ts Members contmued to ~vor~ m .the League of Natwns mspired \Vith ~· greatest confidence in the universal future of the mstltutton. e

This confidence grew even greater when the fifth Assembly approved what has come to bt known as the Geneva Protocol.

Unfortunately, Europe's still comp~cated: and difficult position has ~o~ rendered possible tht achievement of the great step fonvard which this Protocol would represent m mternational relati .

The. British Minister ~or Foreign Affairs took the ~t opportunity of m~in~ the resen·at~~ with which we are acquru._nted, and th~ European por_t10n of the I;-eague of Nations, which is the most directly concerned m the establishment of reg10nal peace m the old world, endeavoured to ftnd at Locarno a separate solution for its own difficulties.

Although regretting the complete abandonment of the great work of the fifth Assemblv which bad aroused such great hopes throughout the world, all the non-European Members of League of Nations rejoiced at the signature of the Locamo Pacts, being convinced that, owing to the spirit which bad inspired them, they would adapt themselves perfectly to the broader and more general programme of the League of Nations. This impression was certainly confirmed by Treaty of Security and Assistance concluded between Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, and its provisions regarding decisions by the Council taken without counting the votes of the representatives of parties engaged in hos~ilit~es . In this way the decisions of the in any case in which the system of guarantees mstltuted by the Treaty could be applied, depend, even if the present number of Members was increased only by one, on six votes, to the fact that the five other signatory States would be debarred by the terms of the from voting.

Any assistance, whatever its nature, which all the signatories undertake to afford the attacktd State will mean that all the five permanent Members in question will be engaged in hostilitirsand will thus be debarred from voting.

Consequently, only one of the present permanent Members of the Council, Japan, will have a voice in the decision to be taken. This imperative reason for increasing the Council was so e\ident that even now no one understands how it could be argued that Germany alone should be admitted as a permanent Member.

The present is a good opportunity for extending the application of the soundest principles and doctrines of international politics. \¥by not make public any agreements concluded at the same time as the Pacts ? What harm would be done ? The conduct of negotiations among strong nations only in order to prevent the weak from yielding to the desire of adhering thereto no new error, othenvise it might be excused; but Brazil already drew attention to it in 1907 The Hague.

For Germany's admission to the Council as a permanent Member to be proposed to Assembly, the unanimity of the Council was essential; and on a previous occasion a nation already opposed the entry of another, although the latter was its friend, on the ground that, itself a cat:didate, it could not give its consent to an increase in the size of the Council which did not also take into account the claims of America. ·

The rights of others cannot be so lightly set aside. Nor can less regard be displayed to the political and moral personalities of nations already committed to a policy which they ca~not renounce without humiliation and loss of dignity. Brazil has therefore remained true to herpohcy; her self-respect did not allow her to do otherwise. .

When the question of the admission of Germany to the League was mooted at Locarno, 1t was naturally assumed that the constitution of the permanent membership was at length t?.be reformed. It was, indeed, impossible to think otherwise, having regard to the previous. Ch1han proposal and the assurances given to the effect that Brazil must await for that purpose the ing admission of Germany. Nobody could then have suspected that the entry of Germany be the sole question at issue. Her admission was universally desired. Everybody wished t? see occupying her proper place among the nations ; and no country was more anxious that thi~ be so than Brazil, which of all countries in the world is one of those best able to appreciate the value of Germany's participation in international affairs.

Moreover, we have already urged, and we repeat it once more, that the League of ~atio~5• as a universal institution, should endeavour to draw into its orbit all those nations which ~till remain outside.

When consulted by Germany in regard to her admission- not her exclusive adm!~on­Brazil gave expression to these views, and evinced the keenest sympathy; but as a prelirru~a~: she formulated the obvious and natural reservations which were dictated by the whole preVlOU:> history of the question of the permanent Members, and added that "the questions that Genna~~~ bas asked and the wishes she has expressed are of such a kind that they should not be dealt wJt by inter-Governmental negotiation, but should be ventilated and discussed collectively by the Members of the League, under the auspices of the League, in order that all the aspects of these questions and the attitudes of the other Members may be brought into relief. " ·a1

We examined the explicit terms of the question which was placed on the agenda of the 5~~1

Assembly, and we went calmly to Geneva with the intention of assisting in the promise~ re~51~0

of the constitution and the consequent admission of Germany to the Council, together ''7th hf~ and Brazil (whose candidatures had previously been put forward), and other countnes w c might become candidates, the whole being dependent upon the reform. . . he

On that occasion the head of the French Government publicly proclaimed the JUSttce oft 1 Brazilian claim, which almost all the other Members of the Council accepted as reasonable, or 3

- I65 -

rate definitely expressed that view to us. Great Britain~ herself, while she informed the other concerned of the atti~ude she proposed ~o take up.towar~s them, though she made no com­

-""'l.4 .. ,, .. whatever to Brazil on the subJect, did not offictally ratse any clear and definite objection our candidatur~. . General surpnse was theref?re occas10ned by the announcement that the Swedish represen­

was coming to Geneva wtth th~ unalterable resolve to veto the admission of any country Germany, and that the latter, influenced naturally enough by European interests insisted

the country to enter the Council in March, though she would doubtless be willing !rive consideration to other claims in September. 0 Thus the J::ocarno decision assumed t~e c~aracter of an order; and in consequence the League ~ations, whtch bad been f?unded to mamtam peace through respect for the rights of all nations, already failing to make 1tself respected by the strongest Powers, even when its own internal

the constitution and composition of its representative bodies were at stake. At the eleventh hour, when no justification could be found for this attitude, the theory that

memberhsip of the Council should be confined to the great Powers was evolved. No was given to the fact that this rule constitutes a frontal attack on the pacific aims of the

since the latter is a universal institution whose true purpose is to make justice prevail in relations thr?ugh res_Pe~t for. law, and not through subservience to the stronger

whose arrogance, mdeed, 1t 1s destgned to curb. Thus the League, by abandoning the ideal which created it as an institution to prepare the future, is being converted into an

lll)UI.U"''" whose essential object seems to be to perpetuate the past. We may also point out that when the question is settled, if it is decided that only the great

are to have permanent seats on the Council, it will be difficult to make them understand election, seeing that for the present the Treaty of Versailles forbids her to possess a

army or fleet. After the Great War, the noble idea arose in America of uniting the nations in a political

mrusatmn to prevent the repetition of such a world catastrophe. Only those who know the inner history of the peace negotiations can tell what were the

President's motives for compromising on certain of his fourteen points in order to achieve formation of the League, and sacrificing the present, as far as he saw his way to do so, for the of laying t he foundations of a future in which international peace should be more secure. Taken all in all, the League was the antithesis of the Council of the Holy Alliance, which met llleNapoleonic wars to impose upon the world the decisions of the reactionary Governments

t Powers. To this very policy, it will be remembered, the liberal spirit of England support, amid the applause of all the peoples of the world.

Uthe transformation which we have outlined is achieved, which of these two models will League of Nations approach most closely ? By reserving the permanent seats exclusively for themselves, and by the influence which they · on other grounds throughout the world, the great Powers- since it is proposed to reduce

non-permanent seats to the status of precarious positions, by empowering the Assembly by Nt>-~h1rds majority to order new elections whenever it thinks fit - would impress the League Nations with the character of an association under the dominance of force. In that event, League, with the collective and general interests which it represents, would cease to be what

originally intender\ to be - an institution designed to achieve the reign of justice among peoples by insuring that the rights of each are respected. If on the other hand, other nations

the great Powers became permanent Members of the Council, the League would retain its ch.aracter, while the influence quite properly exercised by the most powerful States would ummpaired. The same end could be attained with the consent of Brazil by adopting the

· proposal-· with which many countries have associated themselves- that the permanent should be abolished.

We cannot listen to the argument that, notwithstanding the exclusive attribution of these and ~h.e arbitrary changes which it is now proposed to introduce in Article 4 of the Covenant,

gwmg them a regular form of an amendment to be submitted to the Governments of States Members for legislative approval and eventual ratification, the other nations are

free to reject any proposal that they regard as undesirable. The Validity of this argument is now made clear by the March incident, which occurred before was any question of reducing the non-permanent seats to the status of precarious positions,

by the progress of the work of the Committee on the composition of the Council. We need o~ ly mention the welcome extended by the great Powers to t~e S~edish re.pre~enta­

m favour of a collective veto and in contrast to that, the Indtgnant reJection of m~re threat to use her veto on one singl~ and special occasion, when she was obliged to

~y Circumstances which are now universally known, and which have been set forth at the of this statement.

that is not all. When the storm was allayed, and when at length, as a re~ult of Braz_il's . the question of reform was brought under discussion, consider the expedients to whtch

~lsans of the old system were ready to resort in order arbitrarily to change the substance lcle 4 of the Covenant, in which no such extensive change could be made except by an

in due form. Yet the complete solution of the question could have been achieved perfect ease without departing from the letter or the spirit of that article.

}Ve do not hesitate to say that this procedure is tantamount to the admission t?at a stubborn IS lllore powerful in the League of Nations than the constitutional law by which the League

•

•

- 166 -

There is no need, however, to allow the situation to become so serious as that by obst' Am . , . tnateh· refusing to accept enca s v1ew. . . .

In the situation in which she was placed, ~raz1l d1d her dut~ by firmly announcing the att' which she intended to adopt, n~t-.~rithstandi.ng the regret wht~h she felt at being compeu~u~ prevent at that juncture the adm1sswn of a fnendly count~y wh1ch could not be allowed 10 re .0

outside the League, and at being forced to thwart the destres of other - and also friendh·-mltn Powers with which she ~as ~or many years co-operate~ on the most cordial terms at Geneva. t:~~~ the direct threat of falbng mto politlc~l and mo~al dtsr~pute. ~ve ac~ed a;> ~e should act again b\· using in on~ particular ca~e the very nght .to wh1ch, w1thout 1ncurnng s1rrular criticism, Swedtn·s representative employed m a c?mpr~hens1ve. manr:er.

When she objected to certam !1?-hons_ta~mg, w1thout the kr:owledge of t~e others and outsid· the framework of the League, dectstons bmdmg on the League m regard t o tts own composttir­Brazil 's desire was to bring the League ba~k from t~e dang~rot;ts p_ath which would lead

10 ;~

losing the ch.aracter ?f an _org~n of the na.ttons, a umversal mst1tut10n,. th_e defender of law anc upholder of mternatlonal JUStice, and whtch ~ould h_ave transforrr:ed_ tt m~o an association

10 carry out the will of the great Powers. In thts way tt would forfett 1ts umversal character br destroying the essential purpose of its existence- the foundation of a better future for the peopJ~ of the world, which desire it with all their h~art and \~ill eve~tually force their Governmcms

10 that direction. By such a step the League will retrace tts destmcd path and may perhaps rtd~Xt itself to a mere instrument for perpetuating the past.

The League of great Powers - almost entirely European, in any event non-American _ wluj will now be created by irregular action and a depa rture from the present constitution will in reals be nothing less than an entirely different organisation.

We repudiate the designs which have been attributed to us and desire to call attention 10 the dangers to which the League of Nations is exposed; our ftrm intention was and is to learerbt great Powers to act on their own responsibility, and faithfully to uphold American ideals t1:m~b which alone the race in armaments will ever be ended and peace established throughout thewro~i.i Only those ideals can give strength to punish aggressive war as an international crime, ar.d 10 establish compulsory arbitration in place of all the forcible methods which have hitherto '~Un employed .

Using her right o£ veto with sorrow, but with the calm conscience of one who perform" an unavoidable duty, Brazil had hoped that her motives would be understood and her claim-. s:~tt-· fied; but if this was not to be, she never intended to press them further.

Since the present quarterly session of the Council is the last before the September :h~mb1y Brazil here and now vacates the non-permanent seat which she has occupied for the past sewo years.

It will remain for her, in accordance with the final paragraph of Article I of the (o,·enJti. to notify the Secretariat in due course of her decision to abandon the honour of memben.hipa the League which she has always valued so highly; and thus regretfully, but with a clear consciemt she will complete the act begun to-day and uphold the principles set forth in this statement which she has felt bound to make in self-defence, and as a tribute to the League of Nations and all us members.