The Geneva Protocol, by David Hunter Miller

CHAPTER XX. 148
80. Most of the speakers devoted some time to a statement of the views of their Governments on the Draft
Treaty of Mutual Assistance, against which the main objections urged were the uncertainty in regard to the
definition of aggression, the too wide discretion and powers conferred upon the Council and the evils
attendant on the system of "complementary agreements" sanctioned by the Treaty. The first defect might now
be remedied by the extension of the system of arbitration, which would simplify the definition of aggression.
As regards the "complementary agreements," even those who recognized their harmful possibilities were
compelled to admit that they could not be abolished or prevented, and that their power for evil might be
lessened if they were controlled and brought within a general scheme of mutual assistance under the League.
81. All the speakers were in substance agreed that the Covenant itself afforded the best basis for any scheme
of mutual assistance; that it needed only to be developed and carried to its logical conclusion in order that it
might provide an adequate basis of security.
82. In summing up the debate the President observed that there appeared to be general agreement on the
interdependence of the three problems of arbitration, security and disarmament, and on the point that a
complete system could be evolved from the Covenant itself. Everyone was prepared to accept the principle of
economic and financial sanctions, though some difference might exist on the subject of military sanctions.
Little had been said about disarmament, which could only follow as a consequence of the solution of the twin
problems of arbitration and security.
{250}
83. It was then agreed, on the morning of the 13th September, to appoint a sub-committee of representatives
of twelve Delegations to formulate concrete proposals.
84. The sub-committee, known as the Fourth Sub-Committee of the Third Committee, was composed as
follows:--
Lord Parmoor or Mr. Henderson (British Empire). M. Paul-Boncour (France). M. Schanzer (Italy). M.
Branting (Sweden). M. Benes (Czechoslovakia). M. Villegas (Chile). M. Kalfov (Bulgaria). M. Poullet
(Belgium). M. Titulesco (Roumania). Mr. Matsuda (Japan). M. Lange (Norway). M. Skrzynski (Poland).
85. The sub-committee met for the first time on the afternoon of the 13th September, under the presidency of
Dr. Benes. The first meeting was occupied by a discussion on procedure. In the first instance, it was proposed
to appoint a drafting committee of three members to draw up proposals, keeping in close touch with a similar
committee to be appointed by the First Committee, but this idea was subsequently abandoned, and the
President was requested to draw up the outline of a scheme, to be submitted to the sub-committee, if possible,
on the 15th September. This the President undertook to do, but he was only able to submit his proposals for
the first time on the 16th September. The delay was due mainly to the necessity of consulting with
representatives of the First Committee and with certain Delegations. In particular, meetings were held on the
15th September between representatives of the French and British Delegations who went carefully through the
scheme and reached a preliminary agreement on a number of points of principle. This agreement greatly
facilitated the eventual completion of the work.
{251}
86. These proposals were in the form of a draft Protocol, of which articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 concerned the First
Committee, and have already been dealt with in the preceding section of this report. The remaining articles, as
originally proposed, may be summarised as follows:--
87. Article 4.--The Council or the Permanent Court may appoint International Control Commissions,
composed of civilian and military experts, to ensure that during the course of the arbitral procedure none of