On this occasion Mexico thinks it necessary to state, when accepting, that she has never recognized the regional understanding mentioned in article 21 of the Covenant. On starting her new work, Mexico has pleasure in renewing to all the peoples and governments which constitute the League of Nations her sincere greetings and in expressing her firm desire to obtain with them the best results for the welfare of humanity.

On September 12, 1931, the Assembly adopted the following resolution:

The Assembly,

Having by its resolution of September 8th, 1931 considered as an omission which should in justice be repaired, the fact that Mexico is not mentioned in the annex of the Covenant enumerating the countries invited to accede thereto;

Having unanimously decided to repair that omission and therefore to invite Mexico to accede to the Covenant and to lend its valuable support to the League as though it had been invited from the outset;

Having by this exceptional invitation-which must not be regarded as establishing a precedent-formally indicated that it accepts as having been fulfilled from the outset in the case of Mexico the conditions governing the entry of states into the League as set forth in article 1 of the Covenant;

Noting the reply of the Government of Mexico dated September 10th, 1931, by which it agrees without reservation to enter the League on the terms announced;

Declares Mexico to have become a member of the League of Nations and invites the representatives of Mexico to take part as soon as possible in the work of the present session of the Assembly.

RESTRICTION OF WAR

PROTOCOL CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WARFARE OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS, OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE

Estonia

With a despatch dated September 9, 1931, the American Ambassador to France forwarded to the Secretary of State a certified copy of the procès-verbal of the deposit of ratification by Estonia, on August 28, 1931, of the protocol concerning the prohibition of the use in warfare of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare, signed at Geneva June 17, 1925. Estonia ratified the protocol with the reservation that

The said protocol binds the Estonian Government only with respect to the states which have signed and ratified it or which have adhered to it; and that the protocol will rightfully cease to be bind

ing for the Estonian Government with respect to any enemy state whose armed forces, or whose allies, do not respect the prohibitions which are the subject of this protocol.

CHANGE TO BE NOTED IN THE LIST OF TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PROMOTION OF PEACE

On page 40 of the First Supplement of the Bulletin of Treaty Information, June 30, 1929, under the heading "Bipartite treaties signed but not in force," there should be added:

Italy:

Treaty modifying the terms of article II of the treaty to advance the cause of general peace, signed on May 5, 1914.

Signed at Washington, September 23, 1931

POLITICAL

CONVENTION REVISING THE GENERAL ACT OF BERLIN OF FEBRUARY 26, 1885, AND THE GENERAL ACT AND DECLARATION OF BRUSSELS OF JULY 2, 1890

By a despatch dated August 28, 1931, the American Ambassador to France informed the Secretary of State of the receipt by him of a note from the French Foreign Office stating that the British, Italian, and Portuguese Governments have signified their acceptance of the reservations made by the United States when ratifying the convention revising the general act of Berlin of February 26, 1885, and the general act and declaration of Brussels of July 2, 1890, signed at Saint-Germain-en-Laye on September 10, 1919. The British Government likewise accepted the reservations on behalf of the Governments of South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Ambassador further reported that by a note dated June 19, 1930, the French Government informed him that it accepted the reservations. Therefore, there remain but two of the signatory states, Belgium and Japan, to accept the reservations and make complete the deposit of all ratifications.1

TREATY OF SAINT-GERMAIN-PROTOCOL NO. I, FOR THE RESTORATION OF AUSTRIA, OCTOBER 4, 1922-PROTOCOL PROVIDING FOR A CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND GERMANY, MARCH 19, 1931

THE ADVISORY OPINION BY THE PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE CONCERNING THE PROPOSED AUSTRO-GERMAN CUSTOMS UNION

2

On September 5, 1931, the Permanent Court of International Justice delivered its advisory opinion in response to the question of the Council of the League of Nations:

Would a régime established between Austria and Germany on the basis and within the limits of the principles laid down by the Protocol of March 19, 1931, be compatible with Article 88 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain and with Protocol Number I signed at Geneva on October 4, 1922?

The Court held, by a vote of 8 to 7, that

A régime established between Germany and Austria, on the basis and within the limits of the principles laid down by the Protocol of March 19th, 1931, would not be compatible with Protocol No. I signed at Geneva on October 4th, 1922.

According to the opinion of the Court,

if the régime projected by the Austro-German Protocol of Vienna in 1931 be considered as a whole from the economic standpoint adopted by the Geneva Protocol of 1922, it is difficult to maintain that this régime is not calculated to threaten the economic independence of Austria and that it is, consequently, in accord with the undertakings specifically given by Austria in that Protocol with regard to her economic independence.

M. Guerrero, Count Rostworowski, MM. Fromageot, Altamira, Urrutia, and Negulesco, concurring in the opinion of the Court, declared that, in their opinion, the régime of customs union projected by the Austro-German protocol of March 19, 1931, since it would be calculated to threaten the independence of Austria in the economic sphere, would constitute an act capable of endangering the independence of that country and would, accordingly, be not only incompatible with protocol No. I of Geneva of October 4, 1922, but also and in itself incompatible with article 88 of the treaty of SaintGermain of September 10, 1919.

M. Anzilotti, while concurring in the operative portion of the opinion of the Court, declared that he was unable to agree in regard to the grounds on which it was based and accordingly delivered a separate opinion.

MM. Adatci and Kellogg, Baron Rolin-Jaequemyns, Sir Cecil Hurst, MM. Schücking, van Eysinga, and Wang, declared that they were unable to concur in the opinion given by the Court and, availing themselves of the right conferred on them by article 71 of the Rules of Court, delivered a joint dissenting opinion, in which they declared that their examination of the various provisions of the protocol of 1931 led them to the conclusion that none of its provisions, when considered individually, were inconsistent with the maintenance of Austria's position as a separate and independent state. They added:

The numerous restrictions on Austria's liberty of action resulting from the Treaty of Saint-Germain are well known: so are those imposed in 1922 by Protocols Nos. II and III at the time of the Austrian Reconstruction scheme. They affected Austria in matters military, financial or economic, which touch most closely on the national sovereignty. None of them were reciprocal in character.

80061-31-2

Yet they were all regarded as compatible with Austria's sovereignty and independence. A fortiori it seems to follow that a customs régime, such as that proposed in the Vienna Protocol, organized on a basis of parity and reciprocity, does not prejudice the independence of Austria.

For these reasons, they were of the opinion—

that a régime established between Germany and Austria on the basis and within the limits of the principles laid down by the Protocol of March 19th, 1931, would be compatible both with Article 88 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain and with Protocol No. I signed at Geneva on October 4th, 1922.

On September 3, 1931, Dr. Julius Curtius and Dr. Johann Schober, German and Austrian Foreign Ministers, had renounced the pact before the League of Nations Commission of Inquiry for European Union.