A.—s

46

original article, and did not require to be specifically defined., and they contended that anything in the nature of an amendment or interpretative resolution would, only convey to the world an erroneous impression that a change had boon made in the meaning of the article. In the end, however, the persistence of the Canadian delegates had its reward, and the committee decided to submit to the Assembly the resolution contained in Document A. 85. Tho speech of M. Rolin, the Belgian delegate, in introducing the resolution to tho Assembly (see Verbatim Record of Twelfth Mooting of the Assembly) sets out very clearly, and in considerable detail, tho reasons which led the committee to recommend an interpretative resolution in preference to an amendment, and also voiced the opinion held by the majority of members of the committee that any recommendation made by tho Council under the provisions of this article must be regarded as a recommendation only, and not, in any sense, as an order to the State concerned as to the action it must take. Indeed, some members of the committee went further and contended that not merely was it a matter for the State's own decision as to what action it should take in order to give effect to the recommendation, of the Council, but that each State should have tho right of deciding for itself whether the circumstances of the case actually constituted an act of aggression or not. This view was strongly objected to by other members, who considered, that the decision of the Council on that point must be accepted as final; but no attempt was made to provide, an authoritative interpretation on this point, the interpretative resolution being confined to the two points mentioned in the Canadian amendments. The debate in tho Assembly regarding tills question will bo found in the Verbatim Record of the Thirteenth Mooting. For the reason stated in his speech at that meeting, tho Persian delegate voted against the resolution in the Assembly. No other State actually voted' against the resolution, but a considerable, number of States abstained from voting. Owing to the need of unanimity on such a question the resolution was not adopted. The vory large number of States which voted in favour of the interpretative resolution, however, and the fact that thoy included all the principal Powers, was accepted by the Canadian, delegates as expressing the opinion of the. Assembly. Even had the interpretative resolution boon carried unanimously it would only have had a moral and not a legal value. The result of the, debate regarding this article, coupled with the outcome of the Italo-Greek dispute, has doubtless proved very disappointing to some of the smaller' States who joined the League principally on account of tho protection which they understood it would afford to them ; but, as the Greek delegate very sensibly remarked, if the Great Powers interpreted the Covenant in a much more restricted sense than some of the smaller ones had been, doing, it was much better that the fact should be known at once, in order that the small Powers might know exactly where, they stood, as " a text to which greater value is attributed than, in actual fact it possesses involves the risk that it may cause, bitter and cruel disappointment when it is applied." Article 16. —The decision with, regard to the British proposal (see Document A. 26) for an alteration in the wording of tho first amendment to this article passed by tho Assembly in 1921 was that it should be postponed for further consideration at the next Assembly. I am not greatly impressed with tho force of tho arguments put forward by the committee in support of this decision (see Document A. 86). The wording of the proposed British amendment may be somewhat cumbersome, but it does not appear to me to be ambiguous. As neither Britain nor France is prepared to ratify tho amendments to this article passed by the Assembly in 1921 unless the wording of tho first amendment is modified, and as ratification by both these States is essential boforo tho amendment can become operative, it would appear that a deadlock has been reached with regard to this matter, and if tho amendments to Article 26 are ratified before the next Assembly tho whole of the four amendments to Article 16 passed in 1921 will automatically be- wiped out, owing to the twenty-two months' time-limit. Rules governing Election of Non-permanent Members of the Council. —This matter affords another example of the difficulties arising out of the protracted delays incidental to the present unsatisfactory procedure for bringing into force amendments to the Covenant. Until tho amendment to Article 4 comes into force the Assembly has no power to determine the term of office and conditions of reelection of non-permanent members of the Council. The Committee, therefore, after fairly protracted deliberations, found itself only able to propose, the reiteration of the resolution passed by the Third Assembly, referring the matter " to tho next Assembly," and that a now rule regarding the actual electoral procedure should be added to the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly (sec Document A. 99). The non-permanent members of the Council elected, at this Assembly will therefore only hold, office for one year (unless re-elected at the Fifth Assembly), instead of being elected for three years, as recommended by the Third Assembly. On tho other hand, Belgium, Brazil, and Spain, who were reelected this year, having all beon members of tho Council for throe years, would not have been eligible for re-election had the recommendations of the Third Assembly been put into effect, as thoy would have boon had the amendment to Article 4 become operative. Competence of Assembly to deal with Lithuanian Requests. The committee considered the question of the competence of the Assembly to deal with the request of the Lithuanian Government that certain questions arising out of the dispute between Lithuania and. Poland, should be submitted for decision to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Tho question at issue was whether, in view of the fact that the Council had already decided against the requests of Lithuania, the matter could bo reopened before the Assembly. The committee's decision was that it could ; and the Sixth Committee therefore gave consideration to the requests of Lithuania (vide remarks on tho work of tho Sixth Committee, later in this report). COMMITTEE No. 2—TECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONS. The subjects allotted to this committee wore— (1.) The financial reconstruction of Austria. (2.) The work of the Health Organization of the League (including Epidemics Section). (3.) Tho work of the Economic and Financial Commission. (4.) The work of the Advisory and Technical Committee on Communications and Transit.