There is no provision made in the Protocol of Geneva for the withdrawal of any State from its obligations, assuming that those obligations come finally into force. On its face the Protocol is therefore perpetual; but it is not really so. The obligations of the Protocol are so intertwined with the obligations of the Covenant that there is no doubt in my mind that the withdrawal from the League by a Member thereof (when bound by the Protocol) would release that State from the obligations of the Protocol as well as from the obligations of the Covenant. The obligations of the Covenant are terminable by any Member of the League, as to itself, on two years notice. The obligations of the Protocol go much farther than the obligations of the Covenant. The obligations of the Protocol are, by its terms, later to be merged in the Covenant itself, without in any way impairing the withdrawal clause of the latter document. So clearly it is not to be supposed that the obligations of the Protocol of Geneva, as to a Member of the League, are eternal. If the lesser obligations of the Covenant end as to a particular Member of the League upon withdrawal, surely the greater obligations of the Protocol, as to that League Member, end also. The foregoing shows the fallacy, as a matter of logic, of the idea that a non-Member of the League may be bound by the Protocol and yet not be a party to the Covenant; for it would mean that a Signatory might be forever bound to a subsidiary instrument (the Protocol) although the primary instrument (the Covenant) was terminable; but I discuss this more at length later.[6] Furthermore, it should be repeated that the Protocol is intended to be only a temporary document in the sense that, if it comes finally into force, it is contemplated that the Covenant will be amended substantially in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol. [1] Annex D, p. 210 at p. 211, _et seq._ [2] p. 97, _et seq._ It is settled that that Conference will be postponed. [3] Article 21. [4] _Infra_, p. 97, _et seq._ [5] Article XXIII. See Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Government Printing Office, 1922, p. 1603. [6] p. 10, _et seq._ {10} CHAPTER IV. PARTIES TO THE PROTOCOL. The theory of the framers of the Protocol of Geneva is that it may be signed and ratified by non-Members of the League of Nations as well as by Members of the League. Various words of the Protocol (_e. g._, Article 12) indicate this, the Report to the Assembly so states,[1] and the Resolution[2] of the Assembly recommending the Protocol for acceptance by the Members of the League of Nations specifically says that the Protocol shall be "open for signature by all other States" as well as by Members of the League.