« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
tions which now exist between them or which may hereafter arise, whatever their nature or origin, in the event that they have failed to reach an understanding through diplomatic channels, or have not accepted some other form of arbitration, or have not agreed to submit said questions or controversies to the decision of another tribunal.
“Nevertheless, the questions or controversies which affect the sovereign and independent existence of any of the signatory Republics cannot be the object of arbitration or complaint.”
There is no need to emphasize the importance of such a proposal, the acceptance of which would guarantee for all time both the territorial integrity and the political independence of each of the American Republics, and which would maintain peace between them.
The proposal, which the American delegation will present in due time, is not only in conformity with the aspirations and the best traditions of North America, but also of each of the Latin American Republics.
If the proposal be eventually adopted with such modifications as may be judged necessary, all violations of international law as well as all violations of the rights and duties of the Republics will be submitted to arbitration. We feel quite certain that the project which we will submit to the Commission is inspired by our common aspirations and that it will make an irresistible appeal to the juridical conscience of the continent.
Statement Made Before the Subcommission of Public International
Law, May 19, 1927, by Dr. James Brown Scott of the American Delegation 51
MR. PRESIDENT: In the name of the Delegation of the United States, I wish to make the following statement: It was our proposal to present for the kind consideration of the International Commission of American Jurists a most liberal project, and we reserved the right to prepare this in the form of an amendment to the project relative to pacific settlement by means of arbitration. But owing to the difficulty of submitting to the Commission questions which require a definite solution, we have resolved not to present it here and now. As the problem of establishing an American tribunal of arbitration is difficult and laborious, not possible of definitive discussion and solution in an assembly such as this, comprised exclusively of jurists, we have believed that we ought to abandon the attempt to modify, in any way, the method which now exists, leaving for a more favorable future occasion the discussion of these questions by delegates provided with political powers.
See footnote 36, p. 390.
REPLY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO QUESTIONNAIRES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW SUBMITTED BY THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The British Ambassador (Howard) to the Secretary of State No. 489
MANCHESTER, Mass., August 17, 1927.
[Received August 19.) SIR: The Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law set up by the League of Nations has communicated to the Council of the League a report in which it is stated that the Committee have decided to include in its list of subjects, the regulation of which by international agreement would in their opinion be desirable, the following questions:
“Is it desirable to revise the classification of diplomatic agents made by the Congresses of Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle? In the affirmative case, to what extent should the existing classes of diplomatic agents be amalgamated, and should each State be recognised to have the right, in so far as existing differences of class remain, to determine at its discretion in what class its agents are to be ranked?”
To this report is attached a report by a sub-committee proposing that Ambassadors, Legates or Nuncios should be included in the same class and designation with Envoys and Ministers Plenipotentiary, and that as the substitution of the term “Public Minister” or “Minister Plenipotentiary” might appear to be somewhat derogatory to existing Ambassadors, it would be desirable that the title Ambassador should be used to designate the representatives of the first three categories of the Regulation of Vienna as completed by the Aix-la-Chapelle Protocol.
It is understood that a copy of this report (C.203.M.77.1927.V) has been communicated to the Government of the United States.
In a letter marked C.L.57.1927.V, dated the 7th June, the Secretary General of the League enquired inter alia whether His Majesty's Government in Great Britain consider the revision of the classification of diplomatic agents desirable.
I have the honour, under instructions from His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to inform you that the Secretary General of the League of Nations has been informed that His Majesty's Government do not consider it desirable that the present classification of diplomatic agents should be revised. In informing you of the view taken by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain, I am to state that Sir Austen Chamberlain believes that the view of the Government of the United States will coincide with that of His Majesty's Government and that they will send to Sir Eric Drummond a similar reply to his enquiry. I have [etc.]
ESME HOWARD * For reply to earlier questionnaires, see Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. I, p. 555.
500.C1196/26 The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Howard)
WASHINGTON, December 16, 1927. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to refer to Your Excellency's note of August 17, 1927, in which you state that His Majesty's Government has informed the Secretary General of the League of Nations, in reply to his communication of June 7, 1927, which was addressed to various governments including His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, that His Majesty's Government do not consider it desirable that the classification of diplomatic agents adopted by the Congresses of Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle should be revised. Your inquiry of November 29, 1927,63 on the same subject has been received.
In reply I take pleasure in informing you that my Government concurs in the view of His Majesty's Government that the present classification of diplomatic agents should not be revised. The Secretary General of the League of Nations will be informed accordingly in the reply of my Government to his communication of June 7, 1927. Accept [etc.]
FRANK B. KELLOGG
500.01196/21 : Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switzerland (Wilson)
WASHINGTON, December 16, 1927—5 p.m. 99. Please transmit to the Secretary General of the League of Nations in the usual manner before December 31, the following communication :
The Secretary General of the League of Nations with a communication dated June 7, 1927, was good enough to transmit to the Secretary of State of the United States certain questionnaires and reports prepared by the Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law 64 and to request the opinion of the Government of the United States as to whether the regulation by international agreement of the subjects treated in the questionnaires, having regard both to their general aspects and the specific points
63 Not printed.
Communication not printed. For texts of the four questionnaires, see League of Nations, Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law: Questionnaires adopted by the Committee at its Third Session, held March-April 1927: (8) Communication of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Acts in Penal Matters and Letters Rogatory in Penal Matters (C.201.M.75.1927.VC.P.D.I.99–2); (9) Legal Position and Functions of Consuls (C.202.M.76.1927.VC.P.D.1.100–2) ; (10) Revision of the Classification of Diplomatic Agents (C.203. M.77.1927.V-C.P.D.1.101–2); (11) Competence of the Courts in Regard to Foreign States (C.204.M.78.1927.V-C.P.D.I.102-2). There was also transmitted with this communication a report of the Committee entitled “The Most-FavoredNation Clause" (C.205.M.79.1927.V-C.P.D.I.97–1).
mentioned in the questionnaires, is desirable and realizable in the near future.
QUESTION No. 8. With respect to the amended draft convention on this subject submitted with the report of the sub-committee of the Committee of Experts, it may be stated that the taking of testimony relating to criminal cases in foreign countries by the use of letters rogatory, with which Article I of the amended draft deals, is a process for which no provision has been made by the legislation of the Federal Government and one which under the system prevailing in the United States can be employed, if at all, only pursuant to the laws of the several states. It is not deemed advisable to make commitments by international convention to change the existing practice in this regard prevailing in the United States. Moreover, evidence obtained in foreign countries through letters rogatory could not be used in criminal cases in the United States, since under the Constitution the accused must be confronted by the witnesses against him.
With respect to the second Article of the revised draft it may be stated that the Government of the United States is not prepared to commit itself to serve summonses emanating with foreign courts on witnesses or experts resident in the United States or to surrender persons in custody, except through the process of extradition.
It is the view of the Government of the United States that the matter of the surrender of exhibits dealt with in the third Article of the amended draft convention can be adequately provided for in extradition treaties. Indeed, provisions for the surrender of property in possession of fugitives are contained in some of the extradition treaties of the United States. The list of treaties appended to the report, as examples of judicial cooperation, indicates that the subject as heretofore treated, is closely related to extradition.
While conventions on the subject of judicial cooperation doubtless serve a useful purpose among countries in close geographic proximity to each other, it is not apparent that uniform application of such agreements is necessary.
QUESTION No. 9. The experience of the Government of the United States has not revealed any considerable uncertainty regarding the legal position and functions of consuls. Furthermore, this matter has been the subject of numerous provisions in bilateral treaties. It is the view of the Government of the United States that no compelling necessity exists for the treatment of this subject by a general international convention.
QUESTION No. 10. The Government of the United States does not consider it desirable to revise the classifications of diplomatic agents as proposed. No circumstances or conditions demonstrating the desirability of changing the classification have been revealed nor is there reason to expect that the purposed change, if made, would effect any material improvement.
The Government of the United States does not consider that the regulation by multilateral international agreement of questions eight and nine or the change of classification proposed in question ten is desirable or attainable in the near future.
QUESTION No. 11. The Government of the United States is inclined to the view that an international agreement on the subject of competence of the courts in certain classes of cases against foreign states, would serve a useful purpose, and would therefore be desirable and that there should be no insuperable obstacle to the concluding of an agreement on that subject.
The Government of the United States thanks the Secretary General for the report on "Effect of the most-favored-nation clause" forwarded with the communication of June 7.
OPINION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ON STATUS OF LEAGUE
OF NATIONS OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES
The Acting Counselor of the British Embassy (Chilton) to the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Marriner)
WASHINGTON, September 28, 1927. DEAR MARRINER: A case has recently been brought to our notice by our Consul-General in San Francisco of a British subject who, justly or unjustly, was arrested and fined by the Oakland authorities for a disturbance of the peace.
Such cases are presumably of fairly frequent occurrence and would not as a general rule be of any particular interest to us, but it so happens that the transgressor happened to be an official of the International Labour Office of the League of Nations who was on his way to Australia on leave and who, in the course of his journey, subsequently attended the second session of the Institute of Pacific Relations at Honolulu as an observer of the International Labour Office.
In the course of certain complaints lodged with the ConsulateGeneral, the offender-or victim, as the case may have been-who had with him a card of identification signed by the Director of the International Labour Office, raised the question of his right to the diplomatic privileges and immunities” accorded to officials of the League of Nations under the Covenant. He did not, however, attempt to press the matter at the time of his arrest.
I should be very glad to have your views as to what privileges officials of the League of Nations are entitled to in this country. I understand that in certain circumstances League Officials are granted diplomatic visas by the United States Government, but as far as I am aware the extent of such privileges has never been defined. Yours sincerely,
H. G. CHILTON