The first reservation is not calculated to raise any difficulties: it deals with a recognised fact, since it was the opposition of the Government of Cuba which prevented the protocol concerning the revision of the Statute from coming into force on September 1, 1930, as had been intended. The second reservation, on the contrary, calls forth serious objections. It bears on the new text of article 23 of the Statute and provides for permanent sessions of the Court and the presence of the judges. It should, however, be remarked that by its new rules the Court has helped towards a solution of the two questions involved in this reservation. As the Registrar of the Court says in a letter dated February 21, 1931, to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, "the new text of articles 27, 28, and 57 of the rules is based on the idea that the judges are, in principle, always at the disposal of the Court, which itself is always at the disposal of litigants." In view of these new regulations, which to a large extent confirm the principles underlying article 23 of the protocol concerning the revision of the Statute of the Court, the Belgian Government wishes to postpone any definite reply. Possibly, in the light of the new rules of the Court, the Government of the Republic of Cuba will see its way to reconsider the form of its ratification. In any case, the Belgian Government is of opinion that this question should be brought before the Assembly of the League of Nations in September next and the problem examined afresh by all states signatories of the Statute, which, during these discussions, will certainly take account of the revised rules of the Court. Irish Free State By a communication dated July 15, 1931, the Legal Adviser of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State of the reply received from the representative of the Irish Free State accredited to the League, regarding the reservations made by the Government of Cuba when ratifying the protocol of revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The text of the reply, dated June 24, 1931, is as follows: I have the honour to refer to your letter No. C.L. 4.1931.V, of the 22nd of January 1931, regarding the ratification by the Republic of Cuba of the protocol concerning the revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, 1929. Under instructions from the Minister for External Affairs, I have the honour to inform you that the Irish Government regards article 4 of the protocol of 1929 as being no longer applicable and they have no objection, therefore, to the reservation which the Government of Cuba wishes to make with regard to that article. On the other hand, however, the Irish Government attach considerable importance to the principle embodied in the revised version of article 23 of the Statute, and would feel great difficulty in accepting any proposal the effect of which might be to weaken the position which that article was intended to create. More especially is this the case in view of the resolution adopted by the Eleventh Assembly on September 25th, 1930, requesting the Permanent Court of International Justice itself to examine the suggestions contained in part II., paragraphs 1 and 2, of the report of the committee of jurists which was submitted to and approved by the Council of the League of Nations on September 12th, 1930, and expressing the hope that the Court would give consideration to the possibility of regulating, pending the coming into force of the protocol of September 14, 1929, concerning the revision of the Statute of the Court, the questions of the sessions of the Court and the attendance of the judges on the basis of article 30 of the Statute as annexed to the protocol of December 16, 1920. It is assumed that the conditions upon which the protocol concerning the revision of the Statute should be brought into force, will form the subject of full discussion between the signatories of the protocol at the forthcoming Assembly of the League. The Irish Government prefer to await the result of those discussions before taking a final decision with regard to their acceptance of the Cuban reservation to article 23. Italy The Legal Adviser of the League of Nations transmitted to the Secretary of State, by a letter dated July 15, 1931, the text of a letter from the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning the reservations made by the Government of Cuba when ratifying the protocol of revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The letter follows: In reply to your circular letter No. 4 of January 22 last with reference to the ratification by the Republic of Cuba of the protocol concerning the revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, I have the honour to communicate the following: (1) The Royal Government has no objection to the reservation made by Cuba on the subject of article 4 of the above-mentioned protocol as the article in question can, under present circumstances, no longer take effect, and consequently the acceptance of the Republic of Cuba's reservation can in no way modify the existing situation. (2) On the other hand, the Royal Government does not think it possible to accept the Cuban reservation regarding article 23, since such acceptance would not have the effect of freeing the Republic of Cuba from the obligations arising out of the article in question, but would lead solely to the regrettable result of preventing the coming into force of the article itself and of thus modifying, at the request of a single state, an instrument accepted by almost all the states members of the League of Nations. (3) With regard to the statement contained in the letter announcing the deposit by the Republic of Cuba of the instrument of ratification, viz. "the Cuban Government considers that the protocol will not affect the position of judges already elected," the Royal Government is of opinion that this is a question which it is for the Court itself to decide. Such, it would appear, was also the opinion generally expressed at the last Assembly. ARMAMENT REDUCTION WASHINGTON NAVAL TREATY OF 1922 On July 1, 1931, this Government brought to the notice of the Governments of France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan the desire of the Powell River Co., Ltd., to purchase the hulk of the U.S.S. Huron for use as a part of a breakwater in British Columbia. This notice was sent in pursuance of the agreement reached by an exchange of notes in 1923 and 1924, to the effect that any signatory of the Washington naval treaty, contemplating the transfer of a vessel susceptible of being considered as coming within the category referred to in article 18 of the treaty, should undertake to inform the other interested powers of its intention. Article 18 of the treaty provides: Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale, or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the Navy of any foreign Power. The hulk of the Huron has been reduced to the condition of an empty shell, and there could be no practicable possibility of its being incorporated in the navy of a foreign power. Replies have been received from the Governments of France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan stating that under these circumstances they have no objections to the sale. LONDON NAVAL TREATY OF 1930 By a note dated August 17, 1931, the Counselor of the Japanese Embassy informed the Secretary of State in accordance with article 10(a) of the London naval treaty of 1930, that the keel of a submarine, tentatively named I-68, of the Imperial Japanese Navy was laid down on June 18, 1931. The particulars are as follows: Classification of the vessel: Submarine Standard displacement: 1,400 tons (1,423 metric tons) Extreme beam: 8.200 meters Mean draft at standard displacement: 3.950 meters Caliber of largest gun: 10 centimeters ERRATUM Under the heading "London Naval Treaty" on pages 3 and 5, respectively, of Bulletins No. 20, May, 1931, and No. 21, June, 1931, Italy should also appear as one of the Governments notified. MUTUAL GUARANTIES CONVENTION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE By a circular letter dated August 13, 1931, the Acting Legal Adviser of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State that the permanent delegate of Finland accredited to the League of Nations had deposited on July 30, 1931, the instrument of ratification by Finland of the convention of financial assistance signed at Geneva October 2, 1930. The purpose of the convention is to create a system of financial assistance in the form of guaranties for loans to be given in the event of international disputes likely to lead to a rupture or in case of war. POLITICAL BOUNDARIES TREATY BETWEEN GUATEMALA AND HONDURAS By a note dated August 18, 1931, the Guatemalan Minister at Washington informed the Secretary of State that the President of Guatemala had signed on August 17, 1931, the instrument of ratification of the treaty of arbitration and additional convention, signed. at Washington July 16, 1930. The treaty provides for the submission of the boundary question between Guatemala and Honduras to arbitration, and the additional convention provides for the delimitation of the boundary after the arbitral tribunal shall have rendered its decision.1 By telegram dated August 1, 1931, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Honduras informed the Secretary of State that his Government had appointed Dr. Carlos A. Perdomo to exchange ratifications of the boundary treaty with Guatemala.2 BOLIVIAN-PARAGUAYAN CONTROVERSY 3 On August 6, 1931, the following note was presented to the Bolivian Government by neutral Governments which had been represented on the Commission of Inquiry and Conciliation, namely, Uruguay, Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, and the United States, suggesting the conclusion of a pact of nonaggression in the Chaco between Bolivia and Paraguay: The neutral Governments have studied with care the note received on July 25 from the Bolivian Government in reply to their note of June 25. They have noted with the greatest pleasure the statement that the Bolivian Government would be disposed to study immediately a pact of non-aggression in the Chaco, of such a nature as to guarantee peace and tranquillity, with the purpose of entering into negotiations that would carry the territorial controversy to an equitable and final ending under the auspices of a procedure propitious to a pacific settlement. The neutral Governments have felt that they could recommend this suggestion to the Paraguayan Government, which they have done today. |