The Geneva Protocol, by David Hunter Miller

CHAPTER XX. 137
18. The above brief summary indicates how in the Protocol the committees of the Assembly have sought to
embody, in concrete form, the proposals made to the Assembly itself by the British and French Prime
Ministers. The Protocol is an attempt to complete the Covenant, to facilitate and develop the procedure of
pacific settlement provided therein, and to define more clearly the obligations imposed by it on States
Members of the League. The Protocol is based on the Covenant and keeps within its terms except in so far
that it extends the Covenant procedure to give an alternative procedure by peaceful {227} settlement, even in
those cases for which the framers of the Covenant in 1919 were unable to find a remedy. So far as it contains
anything new, it is to be found in the definition of aggression which follows as a necessary corollary to the
limitations inserted in the establishment of a universal system of peaceful settlement. But even here the
principle is not new. Article 16 of the Covenant decreed that sanctions should be applied against any Member
of the League that might "resort to war in disregard of its Covenants under articles 12, 13 or 15." Article 10 of
the Protocol decrees sanctions against any State resorting to war without availing itself or in defiance of, the
procedure of pacific settlement provided in the Covenant as amplified by the Protocol itself. The amplification
of that procedure to cover all cases, so as to remove all excuse for resort to war, has enabled the framers of the
Protocol to give a more exact definition of aggression, and to make that definition more certain and more
automatic. The Protocol is thus free from the reproach that had been levelled against the Draft Treaty of
Mutual Assistance, which left a wide and dangerous discretion to the Council in determining which party to a
dispute was the aggressor. It further discards the system proposed in the draft Treaty, whereby power was
given to the Council to decide on and to direct the military sanctions required. The draft Treaty tended
towards the realisation of the idea of the League as a "super-State": the Protocol respects the principle of
national sovereignty. Every State retains its own liberty of action: it is still free to choose what it will do. The
Protocol has stated in clearer terms what is expected of those who signed the Covenant in 1919, and it is to be
hoped that this more explicit declaration may serve to deter those who would contemplate a violation of the
spirit of the Covenant, whilst reassuring those who have hitherto sought safety in their own armed strength, by
giving them confidence in the solidarity of the civilised nations and in their determination to resist all
unscrupulous attempts to plunge the world again into the disaster of war.
{228}
19. It remains only to say a few words as to the actual procedure adopted by the Assembly for putting into
effect the scheme thus elaborated. It was generally agreed that mere resolutions of the Assembly would not
give sufficient assurance of progress. The famous Resolution 14 of the Third Assembly had been discussed
and debated and had seemed to lead to an impasse with the rejection of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance. The
Prime Minister, in his speech to the Assembly, had said: "Let us see to it that even before we rise, before the
Assembly breaks up, some substantial progress shall be made in co-ordinating these ideas and in producing
from their apparent diversities some measure of agreement and consent." It was therefore decided that the
scheme should be embodied in the form of a Protocol, ready for signature, and that the Assembly should pass
a resolution endorsing the principles contained therein, recommending the Protocol to the Governments for
their acceptance, and directing that it should be opened immediately for signature. The terms of this
Resolution, which was carried unanimously, have already been published.
20. The Protocol itself was signed in Geneva by Delegates of the Governments of Albania, Bulgaria, Esthonia,
France, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and Czechoslovakia. The Delegate of
France at the same time signed on behalf of his Government the special Protocol opened for signature in
virtue of article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, making the
following declaration:--
"I hereby declare that, subject to ratification, the French Government gives its adhesion to the optional clause
of article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, on the condition of reciprocity, for a period of fifteen
years, with power of denunciation, should the Protocol of Arbitration, Security and the Reduction of
Armaments, signed this day, lapse, and further, subject to the observations made at the First Committee of the
Fifth Assembly, according to the terms of which 'one of the {229} parties to the dispute may bring the said