INTERNATIONAL LAW PROTOCOLS ADOPTED AT THE CONFERENCE FOR THE CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE HAGUE, 1930* Great Britain By a circular letter dated January 27, 1932, the Legal Adviser of the Secretariat of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State of the deposit on January 14, 1932, of the instrument of ratification of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire not separate members of the League of Nations of the following protocols which were signed at The Hague on April 12, 1930: Protocol relating to military obligations in certain cases of Protocol relating to a certain case of statelessness; In accordance with the provisions of these protocols the ratification will become effective 90 days after the date on which a procèsverbal shall have been drawn up by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations stating that ratifications or accessions of ten members of the League of Nations or nonmember states have been deposited with the Secretariat. United States CONVENTION ON MARITIME NEUTRALITY On February 6, the President ratified the convention on maritime neutrality adopted at the Sixth International Conference of American States at Habana, February 20, 1928.5 Ecuador RENUNCIATION OF WAR 6 On February 24, 1932, the Minister of Ecuador at Washington, Señor Don Gonzalo Zaldumbide, deposited with the Department of State the instrument, dated December 14, 1931, evidencing the definitive adherence of the Government of Ecuador to the treaty for the renunciation of war, signed at Paris on August 27, 1928. Hejaz and Nejd The American Chargé d'Affaires ad interim at London forwarded to the Secretary of State with a despatch dated February 12, 1932, the instrument of adherence dated December 10, 1932, of the Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd to the treaty for the renunciation of war, signed at Paris, August 27, 1928. The instrument of adherence was received by the Department on February 24, 1932, and is effective from that date. Iraq The American Chargé d'Affaires at Baghdad reported by a telegram dated February 13, 1932, that the Iraqi Senate and House of Deputies had passed a law authorizing the King to accept the invitation to adhere to the treaty for the renunciation of war, signed at Paris, August 27, 1928. The law was signed by the King on February 11, 1932. The adherence of Iraq will become effective on the date of the deposit of the instrument of definitive adherence with the Department of State." STATUS OF RATIFICATIONS OF AND ADHERENCES TO THE TREATY FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR The deposit of the instruments of adherence of the Governments of Ecuador and the Hejaz and Nejd brings the total number of ties to the treaty to 61, as shown in the following table: PARTIES TO THE TREATY FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR SIGNATORY COUNTRIES par PARTIES TO THE TREATY FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR-Continued The countries which were invited to adhere but have not yet adhered are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, El Salvador. Iraq, and Uruguay. Of these Bolivia, El Salvador, Iraq, and Uruguay have expressed an intention to adhere. RESTRICTION OF WAR CONVENTION FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE SICK AND WOUNDED OF ARMIES IN THE FIELD AND CONVENTION RELATING TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR United States The American Legation at Berne has reported by a despatch dated February 4, 1932, that the ratifications by the United States of the convention for the amelioration of the condition of the sick and wounded of armies in the field and of the convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war, signed at Geneva, July 27, 1929, were deposited with the Government of the Swiss Confederation on February 4, 1932.8 See Bulletin No. 28, January, 1932, p. 12. TREATY OF VERSAILLES 1 POLITICAL CONVENTION BETWEEN POLAND AND THE FREE CITY OF DANZIG OF NOVEMBER 9, 1920 2 ADVISORY OPINION OF THE PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF THE TREATMENT OF POLISH NATIONALS AND OTHER PERSONS OF POLISH ORIGIN OR SPEECH IN THE TERRITORY OF THE FREE CITY OF DANZIG The following information is quoted from communiqué No. 618, unofficial, from the Registry of the Permanent Court of International Justice: At a public sitting, on February 4th, 1932, the Permanent Court of International Justice delivered the Advisory Opinion for which it had been asked on the following questions by the Council of the League of Nations, under its Resolution of May 22nd, 1931. 1. Is the question of the treatment of Polish nationals and other persons of Polish origin or speech in the territory of the Free City of Danzig to be decided solely by reference to Article 104 (5) of the Treaty of Versailles and Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Convention of Paris (and any other treaty provisions in force which may be applicable), or also by reference to the Constitution of the Free City; and is the Polish Government accordingly entitled to submit to the organs of the League of Nations, by the method provided for in Article 103 of the Treaty of Versailles and Article 39 of the Convention of Paris, disputes concerning the application to the above-mentioned persons of the provisions of the Danzig Constitution and other laws of Danzig! 2. What is the exact interpretation of Article 104 (5) of the Treaty of Versailles and of Article 33, paragraph 1 of the Convention of Paris, and, if the reply to question (1) is in the affirmative, of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Free City? The Court's reply to the first of these questions is in the negative. In answer to the second, it explains its interpretation of Article 104(5) of the Treaty of Versailles and of Article 33 (1) of the Convention of Paris in detail: this interpretation differs from both of those suggested by the two interested Governments but is nearer to the view of the Free City. The Opinion as a whole was adopted by 9 votes to 4. It appears. however, from the dissenting opinion signed by the minority (MM. 1 2 1 For text, see Treaties, Conventions, etc., vol. III, p. 3331. For text, see League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 6, p. 191. Guerrero, Rostworowski, Fromageot, Urrutia) that the Court unanimously approved the reply to the first question and that the divergence of views was confined to the second. Two of the judges voting with the majority (Bn. Rolin-Jaequemyns, Sir C. Hurst) filed a separate statement of reasons. The Court in its opinion, after briefly summarising the difficulties which led up to the reference of the matter to the Court and shortly explaining the origin of the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig and of Article 33 of the Convention of Paris, the interpretation of which was the main point at issue proceeds to consider the questions asked. First question The Court in the first place considers whether the two parts of which this question consists constitute in reality two distinct questions. It comes to the conclusion that they do not: in its view, they are to be regarded as constituting only one question, namely, whether the Polish Government is entitled to resort to the procedure provided for in Article 103 of the Treaty of Versailles and Article 39 of the Convention of Paris-i. e. to the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner of the League of Nations at Danzig-in disputes concerning the application to Polish nationals etc. of the laws of Danzig and in particular of the Constitution of the Free City. In regard to this question, the Court first observes that the League of Nations has the right to intervene in the event of an improper application by Danzig of her Constitution. But it also observes that such intervention is not the same thing as the procedure provided for by the articles above-mentioned. With regard to this procedure, the Court shows that the Constitution of Danzig is not among the instruments in regard to the application of which Article 103 of the Treaty of Versailles gives jurisdiction to the High Commissioner. Similarly, the Court shows that a dispute concerning the application of the Danzig Constitution to Polish nationals etc. does not fulfil the conditions upon which the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner, as defined by Article 39 of the Convention of Paris, is made to depend. In this connection the Court says that "the general principles of international law apply to Danzig subject, however, to the treaty provisions binding upon the Free City" and that "the peculiar character of the Danzig Constitution affects only the relations between Danzig and the League." But the Court adds that the application of the Danzig Constitution may result in the breach of an international obligation incumbent on Danzig towards Poland and that, in such case, Poland may resort to the international procedure provided for in Article 39. Second question Article 104(5) of the Treaty of Versailles. On the basis of the circumstances attendant on the establishment of the Free City, the Court declares that Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles contains a mandate given to the Principal Powers to negotiate a convention between Poland and Danzig, designed to fulfil certain objects specified in the Treaty, which Convention was to secure to Poland the advantages guaranteed her by the Treaty. |