The Geneva Protocol, by David Hunter Miller

CHAPTER XII. 52
Now, let us look at paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Protocol, quoted above. Each signatory State is "to
cooperate loyally and {78} effectively" not only "in support of the Covenant," but "in resistance to any act of
aggression." Well, certainly resistance to an act of aggression means force and this fact is not qualified but
emphasized by the words: "in the degree which its geographical position and its situation as regards
armaments allow." I grant that these words have a qualifying effect in some cases. They would mean, for
example, that if Denmark had no army, she could not be under any obligation to use infantry. But they also
refer to the other side of that picture, that the British do have a navy, that is their particular situation as regards
armaments, a very particular situation; and under this Article, as I read it, the British would be bound "loyally
and effectively" to cooperate in resistance to an act of aggression in the degree which their particular naval
situation allowed.
Furthermore, paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Protocol says that the "obligations * * * in regard to the
sanctions of all kinds mentioned" not only in paragraph 1 but also in paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the
Covenant "will immediately become operative." This indicates that there are military, naval and air sanctions
to be employed and that the parties to the Protocol are under obligations to employ them.
Now, it is no answer to this to say that as to the extent of the armed forces to be used, the signatory State has
its own discretion; and it is true that there would be no international command, there would be no turning over
of the forces of one country to the General Staff of another or to an international Staff of all; however, even
that did not take place during the first three years of the World War, except with specific detachments. So, for
example, the British could say that they would send five destroyers or ten cruisers under their own Admiral, or
the Grand Fleet if they chose; but clearly it would be bad faith for them to say with this commitment that they
would not send even a gunboat.
I am entirely satisfied that these provisions greatly extend the provisions of the Covenant; for the first time[6]
there is {79} introduced in the League system a definite military commitment--definite in the sense that it is
obligatory, and not in the sense that it is defined as to extent of force.[7]
It may be argued that the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Protocol looks somewhat the other way, but I do
not think that it does. That paragraph merely provides that the parties to the Protocol, if they see fit, may give
to the Council "undertakings"[8] as to the military forces which they would use in applying the sanctions of
the document. There is no obligation to give any such undertaking; it is purely optional with each State.
Doubtless if such an undertaking was given and accepted by the Council, the State giving it would at least not
have to do anything more in the way of military action than provided in the undertaking; but as the giving of
the undertaking is optional, the fact of its not having been given would not, in my opinion, limit or qualify the
obligation "interpreted" in the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Protocol.
I point out here that the word "contingent" in the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Protocol does not relate to
the obligatory character of the sanctions but to the necessary uncertainty as to the future existence of the
breach required for their applicability (see the French text); and the debate in the Third Committee and more
particularly the Report unanimously adopted by the Assembly, in its discussion of Article 11,[9] make it clear
that the above interpretation as to the military sanctions is correct; uniform in obligation, they are flexible in
application.
Consideration of the third paragraph of Article 11 of the Protocol in connection with the third paragraph of
Article 16 of the Covenant tends to support the views already expressed. Without further elaboration, I call
particular attention to the last clause of the paragraph of the Protocol mentioned and cite {80} the respective
paragraphs of the two documents in parallel columns:
Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of Paragraph 3 of Article 11 of the Covenant. the Protocol.
"The Members of the League "In accordance with paragraph agree, further, that they will 3 of Article 16 of