The Geneva Protocol, by David Hunter Miller

CHAPTER VII. 32
[11] The statistics of language, etc., even when accurate, do not always forecast the popular wish. Upper
Silesia is an instance of this fact. The statistics, as stated in the note of Clemenceau of June 16, 1919, showed
1,250,000 Poles and 650,000 Germans. The vote was 717,122 for Germany and 483,514 for Poland.
[12] The Convention between Germany and Poland relating to the régime of Upper Silesia is a document of
some 300 pages.
[13] I am greatly indebted to Professor A. A. Young for some of my economic information; but he is in no
way responsible for any of my conclusions.
[14] Of course this is an over-statement. Germany produces about one-tenth of her consumption of copper.
[15] Or a period due to war, such as 1919-1920.
[16] See Hall, International Law (Seventh Edition), Chapter VIII, for an illuminating discussion.
[17] Such as the right of State A to cede territory to State B, notwithstanding the objection of State C to such a
cession.
[18] See Moore's Digest, Vol. VI, pp. 2-367.
[19] Such as the intervention in Greece in 1827 by Great Britain, France and Russia. See Hertslet's Map of
Europe by Treaty, Vol. I, p. 769.
[20] See the Message of President McKinley, April 11, 1898, Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 750 at p. 757.
[21] The Ethics of the Panama Question, Sen. Doc. 471, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 39.
[22] There is a reference to the status quo in the General Report (Annex C, p. 181), which uses this language:
"There is a third class of disputes to which the new system of pacific settlement can also not be applied. These
are disputes which aim at revising treaties and international acts in force, or which seek to jeopardise the
existing territorial integrity of signatory States. The proposal was made to include these exceptions in the
Protocol, but the two Committees were unanimous in considering that, both from the legal and from the
political point of view, the impossibility of applying compulsory arbitration to such cases was so obvious that
it was quite superfluous to make them the subject of a special provision. It was thought sufficient to mention
them in this report."
[23] For the view that this includes acts of force, even in the absence of a state of war, see infra, p. 55.
[24] The other exception "when acting in agreement with the Council," etc., is not here material. It is
discussed infra, p. 50.
{46}