Should the Council of the League of Nations Establish a Permanent Minorities Commission?

1933 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Howard B. Calderwood
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
British Empire ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
International Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
Polish Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Character

The guarantee clause of the Polish Minorities Treaty, which is the model for the treaties signed by eight other states, is as follows: “Poland agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing articles, so far as they affect persons belonging to racial, religious, or linguistic minorities, constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of a majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The United States, British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan agree not to withhold their assent from any modification in these articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations. Poland agrees that any member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction, or danger of infraction, of any of these obligations, and the Council may thereupon take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances. Poland further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or fact arising out of these articles between the Polish government and any one of the principal Allied and Associated Powers or any other Power, a member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Polish government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decisions of the Permanent Court shall be final, and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.”

The Process of Amending the Statute of the International Court of Justice

1970 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 880-891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Egon Schwelb
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Considerable Detail ◽  
Unanimous Consent

The Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice did not contain a clause regulating the procedure for its amendment. This was considered to be a “gap,” an “unfortunate lacuna.” This “gap” may or may not have been deliberate. It was certainly not a “genuine” gap. In spite of the absence of a provision on amendments, the law provided a clear though inconvenient answer to the question of how the Statute could be amended, namely, by unanimous consent of all parties to it. In 1928 proceedings for the introduction of some amendments were initiated. They were incorporated in a Protocol of Amendment in 1929. The difficulties which were encountered before the Protocol of Amendment entered into force in 1936 are now history and need not be dealt with here, the less so as they have been described in considerable detail in a recent book. The Protocol of Amendment did not remedy this defect of the original Statute. As Hudson has explained, this was due to the fact that the adhesion of the United States was proposed on condition that the Statute “shall not be amended without the consent of the United States.” Such a position could hardly be accorded to the United States unless it were also maintained for the other states which were parties.

The Pan-American Mass, 1909–1914: A Rejected Contribution to Thanksgiving Day

1982 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-333
Author(s):  
James F. Vivian
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Woodrow Wilson ◽  
Pan American ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Cultural Extension ◽  
Political Question

The Right Reverend Monsignor William T. Russell, pastor of Saint Patrick's Church in Washington, D.C., since 1908 and reputedly one of the finest preachers in the country, agreed to an unusual interview during the spring of 1912. Five other clergy, including a rabbi, likewise participated in separate sessions with the same Protestant minister. The resulting six semiautobiographical accounts appeared as a weekly series in Collier's magazine at midyear. Unlike the companion pieces, however, the article devoted to Msgr. Russell appeared at a particularly timely moment. On the one hand, the Pan-American Thanksgiving Day celebration, although just three years old, seemed well on the way toward becoming an annual observance that neither the president of the United States nor the Latin American diplomatic contingent could slight idly. Yet, on the other hand, the article heralded a major Protestant protest that would call the entire basis of the celebration into public and even political question. Upon assuming the presidency in 1913, an unsuspecting Woodrow Wilson would find himself inadvertently drawn into an interdenominational dispute over the special Catholic service. Embarrassed to the point of privately admitting a clumsy mistake, Wilson eventually yielded to the critics and finally withdrew his support from an implied experiment in the cultural extension of a famous holiday.

The Second Session of the Seventy-Seventh Congress

1943 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-305
Author(s):  
Floyd M. Riddick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Of The Union ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Tax Laws ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Poll Tax

The course of affairs in the second session of the Seventy-seventh Congress can best be differentiated from that of all recent years if examined with the thought that the United States is in an “all-out” war. That was how the President presented the situation to Congress on January 6 in his annual message on the state of the Union. And that was the phrase frequently used throughout the year by Representatives and Senators as an argument for or against enacting controversial bills, delegating unprecedented regulative powers, or appropriating many billions of dollars to defray governmental expenses.On the other hand, while all of the recommendations for legislation embodied in the President's message were designed to bring the war more quickly to a close, Congress was asked by the Administration at various times during the year for the enactment of measures not related to the defense program, as the proposals to “rid Congress of trivia” and for settlement of claims of American nationals against the government of Mexico. The House and Senate, likewise, of their own accord, troubled themselves with such matters as the repeal of poll tax laws, the right of Senator Langer to his seat in the Senate, and the so-called “Congressional pension bill.”

The United States and the Permanent Court of International Justice

1927 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Quincy Wright
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Subject

On August 15, 1921, the Secretary of State of the United States acknowledged receipt from the Secretary General of the League of Nations of a certified copy of the protocol of the Permanent Court of International Justice opened for signature on December 16, 1920, by members of the League and states mentioned in the annex to the Covenant. On February 24, 1923, President Harding submitted the protocol and the accompanying statute to the Senate with a request for its consent to American adhesion with four “ conditions and understandings” explained in an attached letter from Secretary of State Hughes, dated February 17, 1923. President Harding continued to speak for the court until his death, and on December 6, 1923, President Coolidge commended the proposal to the Senate. Resolutions on the subject were introduced in the Senate by Senators Lenroot of Wisconsin (December 10, 1923), Pepper of Pennsylvania (April 7, 1924), Lodge of Massachusetts (May 5, 1924), Swanson of Virginia (May 5, 1924), King of Utah (May 20, 1924), and on May 26, 1924, Senator Pepper submitted a report from the Committee on Foreign Relations endorsing his proposal for Senate consent with radical amendments to the statute.

The United States and the Permanent Court of International Justice

1923 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-437
Author(s):  
Eugène Borel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Present Situation ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Future Time ◽  
World Association ◽  
The Creation

From the day on which the United States of America declared that it would not become a party to the League of Nations, the thoughts of many people have naturally turned to the situation created by this abstention, the seriousness of which was necessarily clear to everyone.Some think that the matter should be taken lightly. In their opinion the attitude of the United States can only be transitory and at some future time, which may, however, be still far distant, the country will modify its decision and make up its mind to occupy the place reserved for it in the League of Nations. Others allow themselves to be misguided by a different hope. According to them the League of Nations cannot live and will sooner or later disappear to make place for another grouping of nations which would win the approval and adhesion of the American Republic. Between these extreme views there lie the proposals of those who seek relief in the present situation, basing their expectations either upon such a revision of the Covenant as would satisfy the United States or upon the creation of a world association which would join the United States, the present League of Nations and other states not yet belonging thereto into one great group.

The Amended Rules of the Permanent Court of International Justice

1931 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
International Justice ◽  
To Come

Various changes in the organization of the Permanent Court of International Justice, particularly in the arrangements for its sessions, were envisaged in the amendments to the Statute of the Court annexed to the Protocol for the Revision of the Statute, of September 14, 1929. This protocol failed to come into force in September, 1930, as planned. While it may yet come into force, that event may be postponed for several years. It would seem to require ratification by each of the forty-five states which have ratified the Protocol of Signature of December 16, 1920, as well as ratification by the United States of America. Only thirty-five states members of the League of Nations have now (May 1, 1931) ratified the protocol of September 14, 1929, and it may prove to be a difficult task to persuade the remaining eleven states to ratify promptly. Meanwhile, it has seemed desirable that the court itself should revise its rules in the direction of some of the changes which would have been effected by the amendments to the statute.

The Importance of Time in Aircraft Manufacture

1957 ◽  
Vol 61 (553) ◽  
pp. 5-36
Author(s):  
F. R. Banks
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
British Empire ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good Thing ◽  
Director General ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Aero Engines ◽  
The Right ◽  
Aircraft Production ◽  
Engine Development

The 999th Lecture to be given before the Royal Aeronautical Society “ The Importance of Time in Aircraft Manufacture ” by Air Commodore F. R. Banks, C.B., O.B.E., F.R.Ae.S. was given on 17th October 1956 at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Great George St., London, S.W.I. Mr. E. T. Jones, C.B., O.B.E., F.R.Ae.S., President of the Society, was in the Chair. Opening the meeting, Mr. Jones said:—This evening marked the opening of the Society's 1956-57 Lecture season in so far as the London district was concerned. Actually, two Main Lectures had already been given at Branches; the first at Derby and the second at Henlow and at both there was a large and appreciative audience. It was gratifying that these early Main Lectures at the Branches had been received so well. He mentioned this because out of nine Main Lectures this session four were planned to take place at Branches, and that was quite an innovation. It was, he thought in 1948 that Council thought it would be a good thing if a few of the Main Lectures each session were held at the Branches and, so to speak, take the Society now and again to the Branches. He was sure they would agree that that was a good thing to do. There might be some present from the Branches and he had no doubt there would be reciprocal response in the Branches' members coming to lectures in London.Now it was his pleasant duty to introduce their Lecturer. Actually of course he did not require any introduction. Air Commodore Banks, as they well knew, was a Lecturer of some importance. He had lectured many times to this Society and, indeed, to other Societies in other countries. He was a Fellow of their Society, a Companion of the Bath, an Officer of the Order of the British Empire and, what was a little more unusual in their Lecturers, he was a Commander of the French Legion d'Honneur and a Commander of the United States Legion of Merit. He had a particular distinction in respect of the subject he was speaking on tonight. He started life as an engineer. He then became an aviation fuels specialist. Then he became Director-General of Engine Production in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and later changed from Production to Development and became Director of Engine Development in the same Ministry. He then went back to his first love, fuels, and returned again for sixteen months to the post of Principal Director of Engine Research and Development at the Ministry of Supply, when at that point of time this Ministry was rather hard put to get the right man in the right job. He was now a Director of The Bristol Aeroplane Company and was also on the Boards of Bristol Aero Engines Ltd. and Bristol Aircraft Ltd.

Neutrality and the Sale of Arms

1916 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-555
Author(s):  
Charles Noble Gregory
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Present State ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
The World ◽  
Class Power ◽  
The Right

The extent to which belligerents may interfere with the commerce of neutrals, on sea or land, has been in all wars a question of warm and continued dispute. A powerful belligerent is apt to proceed lawlessly, and a powerful neutral is apt to claim more rights than the authorities concede. It could-not be expected that the present state of war, involving every first class Power in the world, except the United States, and many of the lesser states as well, would be free from such complications, and this expectation has certainly been realized.It would be improvident to undertake the discussion of so broad a topic as the whole of this controversy. This writer has several times, before considerable assemblies and in various publications, ventured to express his opinion on one limited portion of this dispute, namely, as to the right of neutrals to export munitions of war to belligerents and the extent to which the other belligerents are entitled to complain of or interrupt such trade.

The Deal

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Gibson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sharp Difference ◽  
Difference Of Opinion

This chapter is concerned with the discussions about Khrushchev's two proposals: to remove the missiles in return for a U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba, and to remove them on the condition that the United States agreed to withdraw NATO Jupiter missiles in Turkey. Here there was a sharp difference of opinion, with Kennedy certain that Khrushchev would never accept a deal that was limited to the no-invasion pledge but his advisers equally convinced that it was worth trying. This difference of opinion rarely translated into overt conflict, however, in part because each side allowed the other to tell its story without objection. But eventually a decision had to be made, and Kennedy gave in, only to subsequently sign off on an informal message to Khrushchev that offered a secret concession on the Jupiters in spite of fears that the alliance could unravel as a result.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document