This recommendation by the Assembly, however, and these signatures, do not, as to any signatories, bring into force the Protocol, which, by its terms, must be ratified, the ratifications to be deposited at the Secretariat of the League at Geneva. The first preliminary to the coming into force of the Protocol is its formal ratification by at least 13 Members of the League; and these ratifications must include those of at least three of the four Great Powers which are Members--Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan. But even these ratifications do not bring the Protocol into force. The absence of such ratifications by May 1st, 1925, _may_ result in the postponement of the Disarmament Conference from the date provisionally fixed, June 15th, 1925. But this is a matter which I shall discuss later.[2] If and when the ratifications above mentioned are deposited, a procès-verbal to that effect is drawn up; but this procès-verbal does not, as is usual when a procès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications is drafted, bring into force the Protocol. The date of the coming into force of the Protocol is stated as follows (Article 21): "as soon as the plan for the reduction of armaments has been adopted by the Conference provided for in Article 17." In other words, the Protocol will not bind any State that {6} ratifies it unless and until the Conference for the Reduction of Armaments adopts a Plan for such reduction. _If_ such Conference is held and _if_ such Plan is adopted, the Protocol will, on the date of the adoption of the Plan, come into force as among the States which have then ratified it. Such is the effect of the provisions of Article 21 of the Protocol. Other States, which have not at the date mentioned ratified the Protocol, may thereafter accede to it, as is provided by the third paragraph of Article 3, and of course the obligations of these States will commence with the date of such accession. Furthermore, provision is made[3] by which the Protocol, even after coming into force, may become, as it says, "null and void." It might well be argued that the becoming "null and void" of the Protocol related back to the date when it came into force.