Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:52:19.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Charter of the United Nations and the Lodge Reservations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Leo Gross
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The prompt adoption of the Charter of the United Nations by the United States stands in bold relief against the failure to ratify, the Covenant of the League of Nations twenty-five years ago. The causes responsible for the success of the Charter and the failure of the Covenant are probably diverse in character and varying in importance. The indorsement of the Charter by a virtually unanimous vote in the Senate was probably due in no small measure to the decision of the Roosevelt Administration to place the issue of American participation in an international security organization, almost from the very beginning, on a non-partisan basis. The issue, however, was not one of joining an international organization of the Woodrow Wilson type. The vote in the Senate, accordingly, does not necessarily represent a belated conversion to the idealism of Wilson. It would seem, on the contrary, that the Roosevelt Administration, drawing on the rich experience of international cöoperation during the interwar period, and more particularly during World War II, had taken care to keep from the Charter all the important matters to which the majority of the Senate, in voting on the Covenant with the Lodge Reservations on March 19, 1920, had taken exception. It may be that this policy was merely part of an over-all strategy aiming at bringing the United States into some sort of international security organization rather than running the risk of a repetition of the 1919/1920 drama. It may be, on the other hand, that the Roosevelt Administration, together with the other sponsoring governments, had become genuinely convinced that the League Covenant represented a type of international organization which, under the prevailing circumstances, was unattainable or undesirable or unworkable in practice.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 1947 , pp. 531 - 554
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report to the President on the Results of the San Francisco Conference, Department of State, Publication 2349, Conference Series 71, 1945, p. 24.

2 Lodge, Henry Cabot, The Senate and the League of Nations, 1925, p. 209.Google Scholar

3 The Charter of the united Nations, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, Seventy-Ninth Congress, First Session on the Charter of the United Nations for the Maintenance of International Peace and Security, Submitted by the President of the United States on July 2, 1945, p. 641.

4 See Congressional Record, 79th Congress, First Session, Vol. 91, No. 147, July 23, 1945, p. 8089; but see Senator Fulbright, at p. 8095. The following is the context: “The United States retains every basic attribute of its sovereignty. We cannot be called to participate in any sort of sanctions, military or otherwise, without our own free and untrammeled consent. We cannot be taken into the World Court except at our own free option. The ultimate disposition of enemy territory which we have captured in this war is dependent solely upon our own will so far as this Charter is concerned. Our domestic questions are eliminated from the new organization’s jurisdiction. Our inter-American system and the Monroe Doctrine are unimpaired in their realities. Our right of withdrawal from the new organization is absolute, and is dependent solely upon our own discretion. In a word, Mr. President, the flag stays on the dome of the Capitol.”

5 The text of the reservations will be found in 59 Congressional Record, Part V, March 19, 1920, p. 4599.

6 Miller, D. H., My Diary at the Conference of Paris, n. d., Vol. XX, p. 591.Google Scholar

7 Miller, p. 592.

7a See Sohn, L. B., “Multiple Representation in International Assemblies,” in this Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), p. 71.Google Scholar

8 Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as amended and supplemented by the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Published by Information Bulletin, Embassy of the USSR, Washington, P. C, December, 1945.

9 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1946, p. 79: remarks by Judge Hudson, Mr. Wilcox and Professor Quincy Wright. See also Eagleton, Clyde “The Jurisdiction of the Security Council over Disputes,” this Journal, Vol. 40, 1946, p. 528.Google Scholar

10 Goodrich, L. M., and Hambro, E., Charter of the United Nations, 1946, p. 152.Google Scholar

11 Miller, AA, The Drafting of the Covenant, 1928, Vol. I, p. 444.Google Scholar

12 Telegram from the President of the Council of the League to the Government of Costa Rica, September 1, 1928, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1608.

13 Schücking, W., and Wehberg, H., Die Satzung des Völkerbundes, 1924 (2d ed.), p. 679 Google Scholar; Göppert, Otto, Organisation und Tätigkeit des Völkerbundes, Stuttgart, 1938, pp. 60, 314.Google Scholar

14 Miller, AA, My Diary, Vol. XX, p. 580 Google Scholar; Fleming, D. F., The United States and the League of Nations, 1918–1920, 1932, p. 425.Google Scholar

15 Fleming, D. F., The United States and the League of Nations, 1918–1920, 1932, p. 424.Google Scholar

16 Hackworth, AA, Haywood, Green, Digest of International Law, Vol. I, 1940, p. 752; Vol. V, 1943, p. 455; Vol. VI, 1943, pp. 50, 51.Google Scholar

17 See statements quoted in Hackworth, work cited, Vol. V, pp. 440–462.

18 Report to the President, p. 107.

19 Hearings, p. 307. Senator Milliken expressed the view “that that Doctrine goes much further than self-defense against an actual act of aggression”: same, p. 304.

20 Hearings, p. 650.

21 Statement by Mr. Dulles, Hearings, p. 650.

22 Hyde, C. C., International Law, 1945 (2d ed.), Vol. I, p. 237.Google Scholar

23 See Part I, paragraph 6 and Part II of the Act of Chapultepec. Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Pan-American Union, Congress and Conference Series, No. 47, 1945, p. 33. See also the Declaration of Lima of 1938 and the Declaration of Habana of 1940 referred to in the Preamble of the Act.

24 Kelsen, Hans, “Organization and Procedure of the Security Council of the United Nations,” 59 Harvard Law Review (1946), p. 1114 Google Scholar; Goodrich and Hambro, work cited, p. 178.

25 See Secretary Hull’s statement quoted in Hackworth, work cited, Vol. V, p. 458.

26 Senator Tom Connally’s statement, Hearings, p. 307.

27 Goodrich and Hambro, p. 180.

28 Lodge, work cited, p. 185.

29 Miller, AA, My Diary, Vol. XX, pp. 577, 578–580Google Scholar; Fleming, pp. 422–424.

30 Goodrich and Hambro, work cited, p. 72.

31 Report to the President, p. 45.

32 Mr. Justice Jackson’s remarks in his Report to the President of June 7, 1945, “Trial of War Criminals,” Department of State Publication 2420, 1945, p. 9; also statements quoted in Hackworth, Vol. I, pp. 39–43.

33 Permanent Court of International Justice, Publications, Series B, No. 4, p. 24.

34 Preuss, AA, Lawrence, AA, “The International Court of Justice, the Senate, and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction,” this Journal, Vol. 40, 1946, p. 724.Google Scholar

35 “A Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations,” in British Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 9 (1945), Cmd. 6666, paragraph 20 at p. 6.

36 Permanent Court of International Justice, Publications, Series B, No. 4, p. 24.

37 Statement of the Belgian Delegate, M. Dehousse, in Commission I of the San Francisco Conference, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 112.

38 Statement of the Uruguayan Delegate, M. Payssé, in same, p. 110. See also Eagleton, Clyde, “Covenant of the League of Nations and Charter of the United Nations: Points of Difference,” 13 Department of State Bulletin (1945), at p. 268.Google Scholar

39 15 Department of State Bulletin (1946), p. 452.

40 Wilcox, Francis O., “The United States Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction,” this Journal, Vol. 40, 1946, p. 710.Google Scholar

41 Report of Rapporteur of Committee 1 to Commission I, Doc. 944 (E) 1/1/34 (1). UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 457.

42 Lauterpacht, H., The Development of International Law by the Permanent Court of International Justice, 1934, p. 34; Goodrich and Hambro, p. 64.Google Scholar

43 Permanent Court of International Justice, Publications, Series A, No. 10, p. 18.

44 Report of the Rapporteur of Committee IV/2. UNCIO, Documents, Vol. XIII, p. 709.

45 Same, p. 710.

46 Report to the President, p. 48.

47 Report to the President, p. 44.

48 Statement of the Rapporteur of Committee 1/1 to Commission I. UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 487.

49 “A Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations,” in British Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 9 (1945), Cmd. 6666, paragraph 34 at p. 8.

50 Report to the President, p. 44; Hearings, p. 310.

51 UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 110.

52 Miller, AA The Drafting of the Covenant, Vol. 1, pp. 293, 296, 305, 342–348.Google Scholar

53 “Question of the Universality of the League: Participation of all States in the League,” Report by Lord Cranborne. Doc. A.7.1938. VII, p. 60. See also “The Covenant of the League of Nations with a Commentary Thereon” in British Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 3 (1919), Cmd. 151, p. 13.

54 Fleming, p. 421.

55 Miller, AA, My Diary, Vol. XX, pp. 480, 482, 569–571Google Scholar; but compare Miller, The Drafting of the Covenant, Vol. I, p. 343.

56 Lord Cranborne’s Report, p. 60. See also Engel, S., League Reform, 1940, pp. 73–74.Google Scholar

57 Cranborne Report, p. 60.

58 “Report of the Rapporteur of Commission I to Plenary Session,” Doc. 1179, I/9 (1), p. 5, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 249; “Verbatim Minutes of the Ninth Plenary Session,” 1210, P/20, in same, Vol. I, pp. 616, 620; Report to the President, p. 49; Hearing, p. 232.

59 Report to the President, p. 49; statements by Mr. Dulles, Hearings, p. 649, and by Dr. Pasvolsky, p. 235.

60 Hearings, pp. 234 f., 240, 246, 324, 348, 646, 647, 648.

61 Statements by the Chairman, Senator Tom Connally, Hearings, p. 649, and by Mr. Dulles, p. 648.

62 Statements by the Chairman, Hearings, p. 234, and Dr. Pasvolsky, pp. 235, 236.

63 Hearings, p. 237; also statements by the Chairman, pp. 234, 649; Senator George and Dr. Pasvolsky, p. 235.

64 Lodge, work cited, p. 173.

65 Miller, AA, My Diary, Vol. XX, p. 673.Google Scholar

66 M. Scialoja (Italy) in the Second Assembly, 1921, First Committee, Minutes, p. 111.

67 SirWilliams, John Fischer, Some Aspects of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 1934, p. 122 Google Scholar; Kelsen, AA, Hans, AA, Legal Technique in International Law, 1939, p. 70.Google Scholar

68 Memoranda submitted by the Canadian Government in support of the proposal of the Canadian Delegation at the Assembly to strike out Article 10. Doc. C. 215. M, 154. 1921 (A.C. 28). Memorandum of Sir Robert Borden of March 13, 1919, p. 8.

69 M. Eolin in the Second Assembly, First Committee, Minutes, p. 110; Belgian Memorandum of May 28, 1923, Doc. A.17.1923, V, p. 2; Kunz, J. L., “L’Article 11 du Pacte de la Société des Nations,” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, 1932, Vol. I, p. 707 Google Scholar. The Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance of 1923 stipulated in Article 1 that even in case of a legitimate war the political independence and territorial integrity of the opponent must not be violated. Similarly Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

70 League of Nations. The Records of the First Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 275.

71 Assembly, 1923, Plenary Meetings, Text of Debates, p. 77.

72 “Report of the Committee of Jurists addressed to the Committee on Amendments to the Covenant,” June 28, 1921, Doc. 24 (1). 1921. V. (A.C. 40 (a)), Annex I, pp. 10–14; “Report of the Committee on Amendments to the Covenant,” September 7, 1921, pp. 3–4. Both reports are reprinted in Doc. C.S.P. 26, pp. 43–47. See also “Article 10 of the Covenant. Report submitted to the Committee by M. Nasrollah Entezam.” Doc. A.7. 1938. VII. p. 96: “It would appear, however, that, in practice, Article 10 has hardly been treated as other than a general rule of principle, for the application of which resort has been had to the procedure provided by other articles.”

73 M. Nasrollah Entezam’s Report quoted above, p. 96.

74 Fleming, p. 435.

75 Miller, AA, My Diary, Vol. XX, pp. 572.Google Scholar

76 Lodge, work cited, p. 174.

77 “Application of the Principles of the Covenant. Article 10. Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat,” Doc. C.S.P. 26, p. 33. See also statement by M. Rolin, Rapporteur of the First Committee, in the 1923 Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 77.

78 Official British Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations, paragraph 19 at p. 6; Report to the President, p. 40; Congressional Record, 79th Congress, First Session, Vol. 91, No. 147, July 23, 1945, p. 8096; “Report of the Rapporteur of Committee 1 to Commission I,” Doc. 944, 1/1/34 (1) p. 12, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 457; Doc. 1123, I/8, pp. 5–6, “Verbatim Minutes of Second Meeting of Commission I; “Report of the Rapporteur of Commission I to the Plenary Session,” Doc. 1179, 1/9 (1), p. 2, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 246; also UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, pp. 69, 70.

79 Report to the President, p. 41.

80 Same, p. 39.

81 Same, p. 36.

82 “Report of Rapporteur of Committee 1 to Commission I,” Doc. 944, I/1/34 (1), p. 8, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 453; “Report of Rapporteur of Commission I to Plenary Session,” Doc. 1179, I/9 (1), p. 1 f, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 245 f; and “Report of Rapporteur of Subcommittee I/1/A to Committee 1/1,” Doc. 723, I/1/A/19, p. 7, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 702.

83 Report of Rapporteur of Subcommittee I/1/A to Committee I/1,” Doc. 723, I/1/A/19, p. 7, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 702.

84 “Report of Rapporteur of Committee 1 to Commission I,” Doc. 944, I/1/34 (1), p. 14, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 459. The delegation of Panama submitted a similar proposal.

85 Same, p. 3; “Report of Rapporteur of Subcommittee I/1/A to Committee I/1,” Doc. 723, I/1/A/19, p. 5, UNCIO, Documents, Vol. VI, p. 700; and Fox, William T. R., “Collective Enforcement of Peace and Security,” 39 American Political Science Review (1945), p. 970.Google Scholar

86 Lord Cranborne’s report on the “Participation of all States in the League of Nations,” Doc. A.7.1938.VII, paragraph 27 (2) at p. 48.

87 Same, p. 41.

88 U. S. Congress. Senate. Foreign Relations Committee. Treaty of Peace with Germany, Report of Conference between Members of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and President of the united States at White House, Aug. 19, 1919; presented by Mr. Lodge, 1919. Senate Document 76, 66th Congress, 1st Session, p. 6; also Lord Grey’s letter to the London Times published in The New York Times, February 1, 1920, in which he urged the acceptance of the Lodge Reservations. The letter is reprinted in Fleming, work cited, p. 411.

89 “Reports and Resolutions on the Subject of Article 16 of the Covenant,” Doc. A.14.1927.V. p. 42.

90 Same, p. 44.

91 “Questions Relating to Article 16 of the Covenant,” Doc. C 444. M. 287. 1938. VII. p. 2, 15; Engel, work cited, p. 147.

92 Report Submitted by the Sixth Committee to the Assembly,” Doc. A.74.1938. VII; Engel, work cited, p. 154.

93 Hearings, p. 645.