The Geneva Protocol, by David Hunter Miller

CHAPTER XX. 140
reach a unanimous decision, the parties to a dispute which is submitted to the Council recover their liberty of
action. Here, he said, was a gap in the {233} Covenant which must be filled. Was the position to be
perpetuated, he asked, by which any one member of the Council could completely prevent a peaceful
settlement of a dispute? The third was paragraph 8 of article 15, which provides that in matters within the
domestic jurisdiction of a State the Council can make no recommendation. The French Delegation asked the
Committee to consider whether it would not be possible to discover a method of friendly conciliation over
matters relating to domestic jurisdiction.
34. After the general discussion had been declared closed, the First Committee adjourned for a week and
entrusted to a sub-committee, known as the Fifth Sub-Committee, the task of formulating concrete proposals.
The work done by this sub-committee was of such importance that it is considered desirable to indicate its
composition, which was as follows:
Mr. Adatci (Japan). Count Albert Apponyi (Hungary). M. Loucheur (France). Mr. John O'Byrne (Irish Free
State). M. Erich (Finland). M. Raul Fernandez (Brazil). Sir Cecil Hurst (British Empire). M. Nicolas Politis
(Greece). M. Rolin (Belgium). M. Vittorio Scialoja (Italy). M. Nicolas Titulesco (Roumania). M. Torriente
(Cuba). M. Limburg (Netherlands). M. Unden (Sweden).
35. The discussion was taken up on the 12th September in the sub-committee on the lines of the general
debate in the full Committee. The meetings were not open to the public. As regards the proposed British
reservation to the acceptance of the obligatory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice, by
signing the optional clause in the Statute of the Court, some opposition developed at first from two quarters.
Subsequently, however, it waned and did not reappear.
{234}
36. As regards the extension of the principle of arbitration by amendments to the Covenant, it at once became
clear that there were many conflicting views as to the best system to adopt. The days were spent mainly in
ascertaining, inside and outside the sub-committee, the extent and the nature of the different points of view.
37. The work on which the sub-committee was engaged was intimately related to the questions of security and
disarmament with which the Third Committee was dealing. On the 16th September, Dr. Benes, chairman of
the sub-committee of the Third Committee, who had been in close touch with the British and French
Delegations, produced a draft Protocol covering the whole ground, in which he had attempted to reconcile
opposing points of view and which was intended to serve as a basis for discussion. Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of
this draft Protocol concerned the First Committee and were referred to the sub-committee. They may be
summarised as follows:--
38. Article 1.--The signatories recognise the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice as
compulsory, "subject to the following reserves":--
39. Article 2.--The signatories undertake to submit all disputes, not covered by articles 12, 13 and 15 of the
Covenant, to the Council of the League, subject to an express reserve as to the right given exclusively to the
Assembly in article 19 of the Covenant, whereby the Assembly alone is entitled to advise the reconsideration
of existing treaties. The Council in such cases to act as an arbitration tribunal and to decide by a majority vote.
Pending an examination of the dispute the Council may, by a majority, define measures to be taken by the
parties to avert or put an end to armed conflict. Similarly, the Council may, in case of imminent danger, call
upon the parties to discontinue any measure likely to cause the dispute to become more acute.
40. Article 3.--The procedure laid down in article 2 to apply to the Permanent Court in cases concerning the
competence of that Court.