LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
FROM COVENANT TO CHARTER
SIR,—Dr. Garnett is anxious that public opinion here and elsewhere shall support the Charter agreed to at San Francisco, and so am I. But, I submit to him, that object will not be promoted by minimising the defects of the Charter or exaggerating those of the Covenant. By the Charter, Chapter I, Article 2, the "organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members." But, by the effect of Article 27 and subsequent articles, no coercive action can be taken against any member, including the five permanent members of the Council, without the agreement of all of these five members. In other words, no coercive action under the Charter can be taken against any of them without their consent. It seems to me impossible to defend this position. But in view of the other very valuable provisions in the Charter it should be supported and as opportunity serves, amended.
It is not the case that there is any similar provision in the Coyenant. True, generally ,speaking, " decisions " of the Assembly and Council had to be unanimous to be binding. But any resolutions passed by a majority of 'the Assembly can operate as a "recommendation," and presumably the same rule applies to resolutions of the Council. Further, the question as to majority does not arise with regard to the imposition of sanctions under Article 16, which provides that if any member of the League "resorts to war " in breach of its covenants, all other members undertake forthwith to subject it to various economic and diplomatic sanctions. Meanwhile, the Council is'bidden to recommend to the several Governments what military forces they shall contribute to protect the covenants of the League. Further, the members of the League agree to suimort one another if in consequence of these coercive measures the wrong-doing member attacks any of them.
The effect of these provisions is that all members of the League have equal obligations to resist aggression, and these obligations are derived from the terms of the Covenant itself and not from any decision of the Council or Assembly, so that no question of unanimity arises. Further, with regard to measures designed to settle dangerous disputes, it must be taken, since the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Mosul case, that the vote of any member directly con- cerned in the dispute is, under the Covenant, not to be counted in any vote on the subject by the Council or Assembly.
It is an entire mistake to suppose that the failure to prevent the war was due to any defects in the wording of the Covenant or to any inadequacy of the powers of the League Council or Assembly. It was solely due to the reluctance of the chief members of the League to use
the powers given to them. CECIL. Chelwood Gate, Haywards Heath, Sussex.
Previous page
