HL Deb 10 May 1921 vol 45 cc283-6

LORD WEARDALE had the following Question on the Paper: —

" To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been given to the urgent necessity of action within three months of the 5th September, the date of the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, and the subsequent election of the Judges of that body; and whether the Government is prepared to ratify the project for the Permanent Court of International Justice as formulated by the Advisory Committee of Jurists."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl for a misprint in my Question. The phrase, "the subsequent election of the Judges of that body," should obviously read, "Judges by that body." I must also apologise to the noble Earl if I rather press the Question, because, as he is aware, there is very little time to he lost. It is necessary that a decision should be arrived at before June 5 if the League of Nations is to proceed to the election of the Judges of the Permanent Court of Justice.

I am aware that it is a very critical matter to decide without very careful examination, because it involves the acceptance of the principle of obligatory reference to the Permanent Court of Justice of a variety of questions, amongst them, firstly, the interpretation of a Treaty; secondly, all questions of International Law; thirdly, all questions of fact constituting a breach of international agreement; and, fourthly, the action and the extent of the reparation due in consequence of any breach of that international agreement. I am conscious that all those questions involve very careful consideration, and therefore I appreciate the fact that the noble Earl may not be able to give a positive reply to my Question; but I shall be very glad to hear from him that the matter is being considered by him and his advisers, and that he will be able to come to a decision before the date mentioned, June 5.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON)

My Lords, I fear that the mistake in the Question of the noble Lord is not confined to the single misprint to which he referred in the remarks to which we have just listened. The next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations will not take place, as is stated in the Question, in September, but in the month of June. It is the meeting of the Assembly which takes place ill September next. Of course, I realised that when the Question speaks of the Judges of that body the noble Lord meant the election of Judges by that body; and what he was referring to was the provision in Articles 3 and 4 of the Statute of the Permanent Court that those Judges, fifteen in number, shall be elected by the Assembly and the Council—the two are mentioned together—from a list of persons to be nominated by the national groups of the Hague Court of Arbitration.

The noble Lord is quite right in his statement of the position. Article 5 does provide that at least three months before the date of the election the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall request the members of the Hague Court of Arbitration, belonging to the States which are members of the League, to undertake the nomination of persons in a position to accept the duties of a member of the Permanent Court; and, accordingly, it does follow that unless the Statute is ratified by June 5 the Council and Assembly will not be able to elect the Judges, in the manner prescribed, by the meeting of the Assembly at Geneva on September 5.

Those are the provisions dealing with the case. As regards the question of ratification, I need hardly assure the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of depositing the King's ratification of the Protocol at the earliest possible date. What we are doing in the. matter is this. We have drawn up a form of ratification which we have circulated to the Dominions, who, of course, are equally concerned with ourselves. We have not yet had replies from the whole of them. Answers have been received from two or three of their number, and I am very hopeful that the replies from the remainder will not be long delayed. The noble Lord will understand the desirability of the ratifica- tion of the King being deposited, if that be possible, and I see no reason why it should not, in the name of the whole Empire, rather than of any individual section of it. I hope that before the period to which he refers has expired it may be possible to act in the manner which he has suggested.

LORD WEARDALE

I have to thank the noble Earl very much for the careful reply which he has given to this Question, and which, I am sure, will satisfy a number of people who are very anxious on the subject.

House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.