Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Chapter IV. Safeguarding the Rights of the Baltic Minorities. Paper presented to the Council of the Federation of the League of Nations Societies at Vienna, October 1921
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has been proofread at least once.
(diff)
(history)
Denna sida har korrekturlästs minst en gång.
(skillnad)
(historik)
would hardly be consonant with such interests if a member were to
become the mouth-piece for a minority and voice their grievances
against a State with which his own country is on friendly terms. The
absurdity of such a position is shewn not only in theory but in practice
when minorities have found out to their cost that foreign State
representatives will not compromise the friendly relations of their own State
with that State against which the minority complains. And indeed,
why should they do so? It is obvious therefore, that the whole
position is totally unpracticable and although complaints from minorities
have been numerous, no member of the Council of the League of
Nations has come forward as their champion at the expense of
compromising his own country.
In order to avoid the odium of voluntary initiative in taking up
minority claims, it was established on the 22nd October 1920, on the
motion of Italy — M. Tittoni, that the Council was ready to receive
petitions from the minorities as information, and further, on the
25th October 1920, the Council gave the President the right to take
cognisance of these complaints which were addressed to the Council
„ex officio“, and in each case, two members of the Council were
designated to form a Committee of Inquiry. Finally, the Council adopted a
resolution on the 27th June 1921, according to which all petitions coming
from persons who are not members of the Council, must, prior to being
brought before the members of the Council, be presented to the State
concerned which may, within two months, offer its „observances“ on
the said petition. The afore-mentioned „Commission“ of Inquiry —
should it think fit to do so — may submit a report about the case to
the Council which „may procede in a manner and give such instructions
which may seem appropriate and efficacious under the given circumstances“.
For instance, a special Commission of Inquiry may be
appointed to investigate on the spot. The decision of the Council must
be unanimous. If no agreement is reached and the difference of opinion
thus bears an international character, the case may, in accordance with
Article 14 of the Pact of the League of Nations, be brought before the
Permanent International Tribunal of Justice at the Hague.
This then, is the procedure existing at present for the safeguarding
of the minorities’ rights. From a juridical point of view, it does not
bear criticism — it is unfair and ineffectual in achieving the very aim in
view, viz., the protection of the minorities. It does not even bear the
characteristics of a law-suit where the parties opposing each other enjoy
the same legal position in Court, for it places the complaining minorities
distinctly at a disadvantage owing to the fact that they are not
represented in the Council, as is the case with their opponents who have every
facility to make any statement they like in the absence of the other
party. There is also no guarantee for the minorities that their
complaint will ever be taken up, for that depends solely on the good-will
of the President and the Council — in other words, on considerations
of a political nature and not on the requirements of justice. Altogether,
the Council is in no sense a court of justice. And even if it happened
that a case passed through all the vicissitudes of the deliberations of the
Council, it is hardly possible to assume that the minorities would get
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>