X. DISPUTES BEFORE THE COUNCIL

By Art. 11 of the Covenant it is "declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends."

By Art. 12 "the Members of the League agree that, if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter to arbitration or to inquiry by the Council."

Art. 13 deals with the arbitral method; Art. 14 provides for the Permanent Court of International Justice, which affords the method of judicial decision; Art. 15 deals with the method of inquiry, which does not result in a binding decision; and Art. 17 extends the whole system by invitation to states non-Members of the League.

The system does not contemplate handling of any dispute until the resources of the parties respecting its settlement are exhausted; that is, direct negotiations are recognized as the normal method of adjusting difficulties between nations.

Procedure Disputes may be brought to the attention of the Council by one or more of the parties or by a disinterested Member of the League.

The jurisdiction of the League does not extend to matters solely of domestic concern.

Both parties are heard on a footing of equality, their representatives sitting as Members of the Council at any meeting during the consideration of matters affecting them.

Disputes of a legal nature will usually go before the Permanent Court of International Justice, and not before the Council of the League.

AALAND ISLANDS

On June 19, 1920, the British Government, having informed the Governments of Sweden and Finland of its intention, brought to the attention of the Council the case of the Aaland Islands as a

matter affecting international relations and threatening to disturb the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends (Art. 11). The Council took jurisdiction over the question at its seventh session on July 11, 1920, and applied the principles of Arts. 12, 15 and 17, Finland not then being a Member of the League. Representatives of the disputants and delegates of the Aaland Islanders were heard by the Council. The principal demand put forward by the Representative of Sweden was:

"That the Aaland Islands population shall be allowed to determine immediately by plebiscite whether the archipelago shall remain under Finnish sovereignty or be incorporated with the Kingdom of Sweden.'

The chief argument put forward by the Representative of Finland was:

"That the Republic of Finland was an independent and sovereign country; its independence having been recognized without reservation by several Powers, including Sweden, and that the Aaland Islands formed part of the Republic."

The Council decided, with the consent of Sweden and Finland, to ask for an opinion from a special commission of three international jurists on the two following questions:

a. Does the Swedish case as presented to the Council on the question of the Aaland Islands arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the jurisdiction of Finland within the meaning of par. 8 of Art. 15 of the Covenant? b. What is the present state of the international obligations regarding the demilitarization of the Aaland Islands?1

The Commission of Jurists, Ferdinand Larnaude (French), A. Struycken (Dutch) and Max Huber (Swiss), sat from August 3 to September 5 and reached the following conclusions:

a. The de facto position which led to the dispute between Sweden and Finland arose at a moment when Finland had not yet acquired the character of a definitely constituted state. The dispute does not fall exclusively within the territorial sovereignty of Finland, and international law does not leave the question of the Aaland Islands to the exclusive competence of Finland. The Council of the League is competent to recommend any solution which it may regard as most equitable and expedient.

b. As regards the demilitarization of the Aaland Islands the stipulations of the Convention and Treaty of Paris of 1856 are still in force. Each interested state

1Official Journal, I, 248, 249.

accordingly has the right to claim respect for these stipulations and whoever possesses the islands must conform to the obligations imposed by these stipulations.

The Council resumed examination of the question during its eighth session, and resolved on September 20 that the question "presented an international aspect, which brought its consideration within the competence of the League." It declared itself "competent to make any recommendations which it might deem just and proper in the case."

It decided to appoint a Commission of Rapporteurs charged with the duty of "furnishing the Council, in the shortest time required for the necessary consultations, and having regard to the legitimate interests of all parties concerned, with a report which will enable it to frame a final or provisional settlement of the question and to establish conditions favorable to the maintenance of peace in that part of the world."

The Commission was composed of Baron Beyens of Belgium, Felix Calonder of Switzerland and Abram I. Elkus of New York, formerly ambassador to Turkey and ex-judge of the New York Court of Appeals. This Commission during November and December, 1920, pursued its investigations at Stockholm and Helsingfors and in the Aaland Archipelago. Their report was presented to the Council at its 13th session, and on June 24, 1921, the Council passed the following resolution:

1. The sovereignty of the Aaland Islands is recognized to belong to Finland; 2. Nevertheless, the interests of the world, the future of cordial relations between Finland and Sweden, the prosperity and happiness of the islands themselves, can not be insured unless (a) certain further guaranties are given for the protection of the islanders; and unless (b) arrangements are concluded for the nonfortification and neutralization of the archipelago.

3. The new guaranties to be inserted in the autonomy law should specially aim at the preservation of the Swedish language in the schools, at the maintenance of the landed property in the hands of the islanders, at the restriction, within reasonable limits, of the exercise of the franchise by new comers, and at insuring the appointment of a governor who will possess the confidence of the population.

4. The Council has recognized that these guaranties will be more likely to achieve their purpose, if they are discussed and agreed to by the Representatives of Finland with those of Sweden, if necessary with the assistance of the Council of the League of Nations, and, in accordance with the Council's desire, the two parties have decided to seek out an agreement. Should their efforts fail, the Council would itself fix the guaranties which, in its opinion, should be inserted, by means of an amendment, in the autonomy law of May 7, 1920. In any case, the Council of the League of Nations will see to the enforcement of these guaranties.

5. An international agreement in respect of the nonfortification and the neutralization of the archipelago should guarantee to the Swedish people and to all the countries concerned that the Aaland Islands will never become a source of danger from the military point of view. With this object, the convention of 1856 should be replaced by a broader agreement, placed under the guaranty of all the powers concerned, including Sweden. The Council is of opinion that this agreement should conform in its main lines with the Swedish draft convention for the neutralization of the islands. The Council instructs the Secretary-General to ask the Governments concerned to appoint duly accredited representatives to discuss and conclude the proposed treaty.1

In accordance with the resolution of the Council a regional Baltic conference relative to the non-fortification and neutralization of the Aaland Islands was held from October 10-20, 1921, which resulted in a convention signed on the latter date. The ratifications of all participants have been received, namely: British Empire, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Poland, France, Germany, Sweden and Latvia. The treaty went into force on April 6, 1922.

THE DISPUTE BETWEEN POLAND AND LITHUANIA

Prince Sapieha, the Polish minister for foreign affairs, informed the Council of the League by telegram on September 5, 1920, that the Polish Government desired the intervention of the Council in order to prevent war between Poland and Lithuania. The Lithuanian Government, in conformity with Art. 17 of the Covenant, accepted for this dispute the obligations of a Member of the League.

The Polish representative stated that the danger of war arose from the presence of Lithuanian troops to the west of the provisional frontier assigned to Poland by the declaration of the Supreme Council of the Allies of December 8, 1919.

The Lithuanian representative said that Lithuania had no knowledge of this frontier and that under a treaty which it had concluded with the Government of the Soviets on July 12, another frontier had been partially determined. Under the treaty with the Soviets this other frontier was to have been completed by an agreement to be concluded between Lithuania and Poland, and negotiations were proceeding at Kalvarya.

The Council on September 20 appealed to both Governments to prevent any hostile acts and secured from them mutual under

1Minutes of the 13th Session of the Council, p. 42.

takings of neutrality. On October 4 it appointed a commission of control, authorized by both parties to secure the withdrawal of troops from the disputed territory. Immediately afterward the Polish troops drove the Russian Soviet army from Vilna and General Zeligowski, whom the Polish Government declared was acting as a rebel, occupied the city. Poland, however, declared that it could not intervene forcibly against the general since he headed a nationalistic movement which had the unanimous support of public opinion. Poland further claimed that the territory in dispute desired to become a part of Poland. The Council therefore proposed that a plebiscite under the auspices of the League should be held. In preparation for such a plebiscite Col. Chardigny of the Commission of Control tried to effect the demobilization of both Polish and Lithuanian troops in the disputed territory. Neither responded to this effort and it became clear that a plebiscite would involve a long delay.

The Council in February-March, 1921, proposed to the disputants that they undertake direct negotiations in a conference at Brussels under the presidency of M. Hymans, the Belgian delegate on the Council. His essential proposals were favorably received, and he presented on May 20, 1921, a draft treaty covering all subjects in the dispute. The Lithuanian delegation accepted this scheme as a basis of discussion. The Polish delegation stated that "it might be regarded as a basis for discussion if the population of Vilna and its territory agreed, and consequently negotiations could not be continued unless representatives of the population concerned took part in them on a footing of equality." M. Hymans pointed out that this request conflicted with the agreement to reach a settlement by negotiation between the two states. The two parties agreed that the session should be adjourned rather than terminated and agreed to appear before the Council. The Council again heard the two delegations in June and resolved that the direct negotiations should be resumed. The Council stipulated that the agreement signed should be submitted to the Diet of the two countries and subsequently to the Diet of Vilna provided for in the draft scheme. It further stipulated that all men not natives of the disputed territory should leave the Zeligowski forces. Lithuanian reoccupation of normal peace stations was provided.