The Geneva Protocol — John Stuart Mill — John Shaqi
The Geneva Protocol
John Stuart Mill · en
At the beginning of this discussion[1] it was pointed out that upon the
coming into force of the Protocol, there would, in theory at least, and
from the point of view of its provisions, be three classes of Powers in
the world, to wit, the parties to the Protocol, the Members of the
League not parties to the Protocol and the non-Members of the League,
the last named of course being also not parties to the Protocol.
It should also be mentioned again that the possibility of this second
class of States, namely, the Members of the League not parties to the
Protocol, is a temporary possibility only. For certainly if the
Protocol comes finally into force, its provisions will in due course be
embodied in the Covenant, as indeed is contemplated by Article 1 of the
Protocol; and thereupon those Members of the League who have not
ratified the Protocol will either become parties to the amended
Covenant or will, under the provisions of Article 26 of the Covenant,
cease to be Members of the League.
However, temporarily, there will doubtless be certain Members of the
League of Nations who do not ratify the Protocol and the relation of
these States to others during this provisional period is to be
considered.
So far as concerns the relations _inter se_ of this temporary or
provisional class of States (those which remain Members of the League
without ratifying the Protocol) it may be said at once that these
relations, from this point of view, will continue to be governed by the
Covenant and by the Covenant alone. The Protocol does not make or
purport to make any change in this regard; so that, as among those
States, we might envisage during this temporary period the theoretic
possibility of a war not forbidden by the Covenant, just as we might
envisage the possibility, during that period, of a dispute among those
Powers remaining {87} unsettled. It is, I suppose, fair to add that
both of these speculations are here of juristic interest only.
Similarly, the relations of non-Members of the League _inter se_ will
continue, as they are now, to be governed neither by the Covenant nor
by the Protocol. These States would not have bound themselves by
either document and so far as concerns their relations with each other,
neither the Covenant nor the protocol attempts to regulate them.
The only provision of either document which has any bearing in this
regard is to be found in Article 17 of the Covenant, which says in
substance that in case of a dispute between States not Members of the
League, such non-Members shall be invited to become _ad hoc_ members
upon conditions laid down by the Council. If they refuse, the Council,
under the last paragraph of Article 17 of the Covenant, may take
measures toward the prevention of hostilities; but these measures would
be in the nature of good offices or mediation only and could be
accepted or rejected by the two non-Members of the League as they saw
fit; they could decline them wholly and go to war at their pleasure.