The Working of the Minority Treaties

Author(s): Blanche E. C. Dugdale and Wyndham A. Bewes

Source: Journal of the British Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Mar., 1926),
pp. 79-95
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Royal Institute of International Affairs
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3014590 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Royal Institute of International Affairs are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of the British Institute of International Affairs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE WORKING OF THE MINORITY TREATIES
(Paper read on Februiary
23rd,I926.)
WHAT exactlywas it thattheMinority Treatiesweredesigned
to accomplish?
The wholeinterestand value ofa discussionupontheworking
oftheTreatiesdependsuponan accurateanswerto thatquestion.
I have sometimesfelt disappointedwhen talkingwith people
who have first-handknowledgeof Minorityconditions,and
whose influencein the countrieswherethe Treatiesrun might
be of the greatestvalue in makingthe League's guaranteeas
effectiveas existingcircumstances allow,but who seemto ignore
or misunderstandthose very circumstances,so that their
constructivesuggestionsare oftenquite unworkablewithinthe
limitsof the MinorityTreaties.
For the fact is that the Treaties are very carefullyand
designedlylimited. Let us remindourselvesof some of the
thingsthat theydo not attemptto do.
They imposeno generalprinciplesof good government upon
the signatoryStates, still less, of course,upon others. They
Definition of merely register certain conditions which had to
the Treaties. be accepted by a limitednumberof European
States who, as a result of the War, were receivingpolitical
recognition, or greatincreasesof territory,at the hands of the
principalAllied and AssociatedPowers.
These conditionswere that all inhabitantsof the signatory
States shouldhave equal rightsof citizenship,and equal freedom
to practisetheirown religion,and speak theirown language.
The Treaties,in fact,aim at enablingeverypersondomiciled
witllintlle nationalboundariesto be a fulland completecitizen,
sharingeveryrightand everydutyof thatstatusin the country
that is his by birthor adoption. They do not (exceptin the
one exceptional case of the Ruthenians in Czechoslovakia)
encouragethe existenceof distinctnationalgroupswithinthe
State.
The policy then is to secure equality and thus counteract
separatism. One naturalconsequenceof thatpolicyis a feature
commonto all the Treatieswhichhas a profounid upon the
effect

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80 BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS [MARCH

workingof theirprovisions. Namely,the fact that the parties

Minorities to the Treaties are only the States concerned-
not parties. on the one hand the States who have signedthe
respectiveTreaties,on the otherthe States who are Membersof
theCouncilof the League of Nations. The Minorities themselves
are not parties,nor have theyany Treatyrightof appeal. The
League Councilalone can act on theirbehalf. What is more,
the Councilitselfcan onlybecomeaware of a Minorityquestion
if one of its own Membersis preparedto take up the case.
These provisionsthrowlighton the point of view taken by
the Great Powers who framedthe Treaties in Paris in I9I9.
The attitude They were,it is evident,moved primarily by an
of the acute sense of responsibilityfor certain large
Powers.
transfersof territorywhichtheyhad made. This
consideration received,as we might expect,its most emphatic
expressionfromthe mouthof PresidentWilsonin the speechof
May I9I9, whichfinallyoverborethe resistanceto the Minority
guaranteesthat was put up by some of the States who were
requiredto accept them.
The sense of responsibility, however,did not outweigh,in
the mindsof the greatAlliedPowers,the senseof the dangerof
interference with the sovereignrightsof States. We see that
veryclearlyin Clemenceau'sletterto Paderewskiof JuneI9I9-
a letterwhichprovidesus withthe best officialcommentary on
the Treatiesfromthe Allied side.
This letteralso furnishesexplanationof the reasonswhich
led to the placingof responsibility forthe Minorityguarantees
in the hands of the League.
As the consequencesof that decisionare the topic of our
discussion,I will brieflyrun over Clemenceau'sobservations.
He pointsout, to begin with,that international guarantees
to protectMinorityrightsare no new departure. The principle
Clemenceau's was explicitat the Congressof Berlinin I878-to
letter. go no furtherback-at the time when the inde-
Historical pendence of Servia, Montenegroand Roumania
Precedents. was recognised. Religiousliberty,withan eye to
the needsof the Jewsand Mohammedans, was the pointinsisted
on in thoseTreaties. The GreatPowerswerethentheguarantors.
Their collectiveresponsibility was already some advance upon
the practicebeforethe Berlin Congresswhen the protectionof
Christiansin EuropeanTurkeyhad been vestedin singleStates,
France forthe Catholics,Russia forthe Orthodox.
But, as Clemenceaupointsout, even the joint guaranteeof

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1926] THE WVORKING OF THE MINORITY TREATIES 8I

the Powerswas " in practiceineffective."In his next sentence

he suppliesthe main reasonwhy. He says:
" It was also open to the criticism that it mightgive the
GreatPowers,eitherindividually or in combination,a rightto
Respect for interfere in theinternal Constitution
of theStates
Sovereigaty, affected,whichmight beusedforpolitical
purposes."
The Alliesbelievedthat intervention by the League Council
would not be open to this particularobjection. Clemenceau
emphasisesa specialsafeguardagainstit, in thatdisputesarising
out oftheMinority Treatiesmaybe broughtbeforethePermanent
Court of InternationalJustice.
" In thisway [he says]differences whichmightarisewillbe
removed fromthepoliticalsphere, and it is hopedthatthereby
an impartial decisionwillbe facilitated,
whileat thesametime
anydangerofpoliticalinterference by thePowersin theinternal
affairs of theStatewillbe avoided."
These were soothingwords. But if the Allied Powers had
hoped that the definitely limitedscope of theirMinority guaran-
Opposition to tees, and their respectful attitude towards
the Treaties. sovereignrights,would cause the countriescon-
cerned to swallow the conditionsof their new recognitionas
States withoutgrimacesthey must have been disappointed.
There was violent opposition against the Treaties, led by
Roumania. It is importantto noticethatit crystallised around
a point on whichthe Great Powershad been discreetlysilent.
This was the discrimination made betweenStates. As I said,
the Treatieswereimposedonlyupon new States or upon States
whose frontiers wereconsiderablychanged.
But-not upon all even of those. SignorMussolinihas lately
Italy's drawn the attentionof the whole world to the
Minorities. most notable exception. He observed to his
Senate the otherday:
" as forthe Leagueof Nations,if Germany enterswiththe
idea of obtainingthe protection of GermanMinorities we shall
takenoteofit,but we say beforehand thattheGermans of the
LowerTyroldo notenterintothecategoryofMinorities protected
by theTreaties."
This is perfectly accurate. The Tyroleanshave no access to
the Councilunless or until theircase should appear to justify
in theeyesofsomeLeague Membertheextremecourseofdrawing
attentionto it underArticleXI of the Covenantas threatening
the peace of the world.
c3

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS [MARCH

The Allieshad historicalprecedentsto fallback upon forthis

discrimination, for the Conferences of the nineteenthcentury,
Partial nature whichrecognisedthe new Kingdomof Italy and
of Treaties. new Empire of Germany,had attached no con-
ditionsto the act. And, of course,thereare real differencesof
characterand culturebetweenthe peoples of East and West
Europe whichsupplyargumentsto defendthe distinctions that
were made. The real reason undoubtedlywas that it would
have been impossibleto have carrieda proposalfor a general
guaranteecoveringeven Europe, throughthe Paris Conference.
But the fact remains that the smaller States resenteda
supervisionfromwhichthe Great Powershad exemptedthem-
selves. The discrimination was resistedas a greaterinfringement
of the preciousprincipleof sovereignty than any provisionsin
the guaranteesthemselves. So at least it was urgedin Paris.
The smallStatesaverredthattheywouldwillingly have accepted
general regulationsapplying equally to everycountry.
The desirefora universalpledgestillfindsexpressionin some
quartersaftersix years' experienceof the presentsystem. It
Desire for was brouglhtup again by the Lithuanians at
general pledge. Geneva last year,in the formof a proposalfora
generalConvention. As such it was squashed by strongargu-
mentsfromthe Britishand FrenchDelegations,and withdrawn.
Clearlythe timeis not ripe.
The Treatiesof I9I9 did not extendoverthefulllistofStates
who have now submittedthemselvesto League supervisionof
Signatory Minorityrights. The Baltic States, whose exist-
States. ence had not been recognisedat the date of the
Paris Conference, came in laterwithDeclarationswhichsatisfied
the League Council as having the same bindingforceas the
Treaties. I will just run throughthe list of countrieswherethe
League is directlyconcernedwith Minorities.

Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,Hungary, Poland,,

Roumania,Jugoslavia,Greece, Turkey,Albania, Estonia,
Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania.

it includesall Europe fromthe Baltic

In practice,therefore,
to the Agean, eastwardof Germanyand Switzerland, westward
of Russia.
So muchforthe aims of the Treaties. It is timeto look at
theway in whichthe Councilofthe League has carriedthemout.
It is importantto notice that the Treaties containedno,

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1926] THE WORKING OF THE MINORITY TREATIES 83

provisionsat all about the machineryto be set up formaking

Procedure: the guaranteeseffective.Here the Councilhas a
Not laid down perfectlyfree hand. The point is important
by Treaties. because it permitsthe procedureto be much
more elastic, much more adaptable to developmentsof the
Minorityproblemthanif it had been prescribedby theTreaties.
It permitsit to be. The questionis-is it ?
I think criticismof procedureis much more likely to be
fruitful, muchmore likelyto be valuable than criticismof the
Treaties,especiallyin this case. It is a very seriousthingto
suggestrevisionof any of the Peace Treatiesat present,even
thoughthisparticularMinoritiesgroupof themcontainclauses
providingfortheir own revisionby the League Council. But
procedureis in a different categoryaltogether. It can be, and
shouldbe, discussedon its own meritsand judged simplyby
its results.
As I have just said, the Treatiestroublethemselvesnot at all
about the means wherebytheirprovisionsshould be applied.
A Councilsittingin Switzerlandfor about a week once every
threemonthsor so, withan enormousAgendato workthrough;
Minoritiesspread everywhereto eastwardof them,Minorities
of every class, creed, race, civilisation,language, tradition,
represented in that seethingpot of humanpassionsthat we can
best describeas East CentralEurope-that was the situationas
the Paris Conference leftit. Underthesecircumstances thegulf
betweenthe gods on Olympusand the humanrace was a mere
step comparedwith the gulfbetweenGeneva and Lembergor
Temesvar.
Obviouslythe erectionof laddersof communication was the
immediate,the paramount,necessity-trustworthy communi-
Need for cations, easy to find at the Minorities'end.
contacts. Theseare themoreimperatively calledforbecause
theymustall inevitably narrow intoa bottle-neck at the Geneva
end, owingto that clause in the Treatieswhichultimatelyonly
allows the voice of a Minorityto reach the full Councilon the
initiativeof a CouncilMember.
So let us examine,firstand foremost, the arrangements for
makingcontacts. We findthe Councilrelyingforall its official
Secretariat's information, all its expertadvice,on one channel
functions. and onlyone-the Minorities SectionoftheLeague
Secretariat. This Department of the League's civil serviceis
not onlychargedwithcollectingfactsabout thefulfilment of the
Treaties,not onlychargedwithcollectingfactsabout the fulfil-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 AFFAIRS [MARCH
BRITISH INSTITUTEOF INTERNATIONAL

mentof the dutiesof the Minorities towardsthe States,not only

chargedwithassistingtheCouncilto studycomplaints, butis also
(exceptin one or two particularlocalities)the sole agentof the
Council for investigatingconditionson the spot. I thinkwe
must all agree that these are not easy dutiesforcivil servants
to carryout unaided. We knowthatthe League Secretariathas
in six yearsbuilt up a reputationforitselfthat can bear com-
parisonwith any traditionoffinepublic servicein the world.
But someof theveryqualitieson whichthatreputation is founded
-tact, self-effacement,discretionin expressingopinionspublicly
-preclude otherswhichtheCounciloughtto findequallyavailable
among its assistantsin this Minoritybusiness. The personnel
of the MinoritiesSectionhas, as is well known,done wonders
in promotingprivatesettlementsof Minoritygrievances. But
the wholeDepartmentconsistsof no morethan fifteen persons,
includingtypists and clerks. Seven-leagued boots for every
memberof the staffwould not sufficeforthe personalvisiting
alone. And even if it would, the fact of theirbeing the sole
advisory body to the Council would still throwthe onus for
outspokencriticismentirelyupon the Councilitself.
It is verydoubtfulwhetherthe Counciloughtto be expected
to take the whole of this disagreeabletask upon itself. The
Council's Councilcollectivelyand its Membersindividually,
role are continuallydealing with matters of high
politics,and in highpoliticsit is seldomthat any problemcan
be isolatedforaction or consideration.Be that as it may, the
inclinationof the Council to tread delicatelyover the thorny
groundof the Treatieshas hithertobeen verymarked.
It maybecomeless so howeverin thenearfuture. The entry
of Germanyinto the Councilmay change the atmospherecon-
siderably,forbetteror forworse. We mustrememberthat up
to the presentno State that has been dispossessedof a large
numberofits nationalshas had a seat at thattable.
Now as to the means of access that Minoritieshave to the
Secretariat,and throughit to the Council. So far as written
Means of petitionscan satisfy their needs the approach
access for is, theoreticallyat any rate, very easy, up to a
Minorities,
certain stage.
Petitionsmustbe sentto theSecretary-General oftheLeague.
They need not necessarilycome fromspokesmenfora Minority
Procedure for withinthecountry concerned. The onlynecessary
petitions. conditionsare thattheyshouldnotbe anonymous,
orviolently expressed,and thattheyconfine
themselvesto matters

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I926] THE WORKING OF THE MINORITY TREATIES 85

withinthe scope of the Treaties. If theyfulfiltheseregulations

the Secretary-General sends themto the Government concerned
for observations,and afterthat he forwardsthe whole dossier
to the Membersof the Councilfortheirinformation.But the
Councilis not yet seizedof the question. The petitionmay still
lapse unlessa Memberof the Counciltakes it up.
The nextstagebeginsby the PresidentoftheCouncilforming
Committee a small Committee, consistingof himselfand two
of Three. otherCouncilMembers,to examinethepetition.
This is the body knownas " the Committeeof Three." As
a good deal of criticismlevelledat the procedurehas centred
roundit, and as the fateof petitionshas been latelyvirtuallyin
its hands,we oughtto look at it attentively. Observethat it
consistsof Council Members,and must thereforeshare every
qualificationor disqualificationof CouncilMembersas such,for
adjudicating complaints against Governments.Moreover,it
cannotadd any freshview-pointto thosewhichthe Counciland
Secretariatbetweenthemcan supply.
As regardsits personnel,the choiceis necessarilyrestricted.
The Councilhas tillnow consistedof tenmenat the most-now
withGermanytherewillbe eleven. Fromthese,however,must
be subtracteddelegatesof States directlyconcernedwith the
Minority whosecase is beingconsidered, and of States bordering
the countrywherethe Minoritylives. Such Membersmay not
serve on the Committeeof Three. Thus personal interestis
pretty well eliminated. So also is personal knowledgeof
circumstances.
We must remember, however,that the initiativeof bringing
a case to the Council'snoticeis not limitedto the Committee of
Three. EveryCouncilMemberhas it. Here again we may find
that Germanymay exerciseit more freelythan has hitherto
been done.
Thereforethe futuremay modifythe existingpositionwith
regard to publicityfor petitions,which is the next point of
importancein the procedure.
As thingsstand to-dayno petitioncan be certainof getting
generalofficialpublicityunlessand untilthe Counciltakesit up.
I am not speakingonly of publicityforthe text
Publicity, of a petition, I refer to publicity for the fact
that it has been sent in at all.
From I920 to I923 the case was otherwise. Then the docu-
mentscirculatedto the Councilwere sent automaticallyto all
Governments of League MemberStates. In I923, however,the

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86 BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS [MARCH

Council,at the instanceof the Polish and CzechoslovakGovern-

ments,restricted automaticcirculationof petitionsand observa-
tionsfromthe State concernedto CouncilMembersonly. The
League Assemblymodifiedthis rulingso far as to allow any
League Memberto get these papers upon request.
We must note, therefore, that the Council'sprocedurehas
developedin the directionof a decreasingpublicityforMinority
communications.The change has been made in the light of
experienceand I am not now discussingits pros or its cons,
thoughI hope subsequentspeakersmay do so, forthispointof
publicityis psychologically of immenseimportance. But I have
perhapsdwelttoo long on procedure,and I shall go on now to
say somethingabout the actual cases dealt withunderit.
Something-but not much. I hope you will not be dis-
appointedby my devotingmore of my paper to the League's
methods of dealing with Minoritiesthan to
Cases. concretecases that have been dealt with,or even
to the local conditionsin the various countries. There are
peoplein thisroomwho can speak on thesepointswithinfinitely
greaterknowledgethan I possess. I hope theywill fillup gaps
as soon as I sit down. I shall only give the barest outlineof
what has been done.
Let us lookfirstat theactiontakenby theCouncilon petitions.
In theperiodbetweenI920 and I925 less thana dozenhave been
Small numbers actuallytakenup. The publicity procedurewhich
of cases. I have describedpreventsme fromascertaining
theproportion thesebear to thenumbersentin. I will,however,
quote froman officialpamphleton Minoritiesissued by the
League's Information Sectionin i923, whichsays:

" In mostcasesit has notbeenfoundnecessary by a Member

oftheCouncil,in considerationoftheobservations presented
by
theinterestedGovernment, to call the attention
of the Council
to thequestion."

From that we may take it that onlya smallproportion of cases

examinedby the Committeeof Three have filteredthrough.
The firsttwoofthesecame fromGermanMinorities in Poland
in I92I. Therewas a questionoftherightofthe PolishGovern-
Germans i mentto expel certainGermansettlersfromtheir
Poland. farms,and anotherconcerningthe nationalityof
some of these settlers. Both questionsturnedpartlyon inter-
pretationof Treaties, and in both cases the League Council

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1926] THE WORKING OF THE MINORITY TREATIES 87

turnedto the PermanentCourtof InternationalJusticeforan

advisoryopinion. In bothcases theCourtupheldthecontention
of the Minority,and the League Council,thus advised on the
legalpoints,negotiatedarrangements withthePolishGovernment
forsafeguarding the Germanrights.
One may describetheseas the show cases of real grievances
peacefullyredressed.
Also in 1922 we findquestionsconnectedwithGermanschools
in Upper Silesia consideredby the Counciland settledthrough
Germans in its agency by agreementbetween the Germans
Silesia. and the Poles.
It was in thesameyear,I922, thattheCouncilfirstconsidered
a petitionconcerning thelimitset by theHungarianGovernment
Numerus on the admissionof Jewsto Universities, through
Clausus. operation of the Numerus Clausus law. The
negotiationsabout this case wereveryprotracted. It was only
in Decemberlast that the Councilarrivedat any conclusionon
the questionas put, whichwas, " Is NumerusClaususlaw com-
patible with the Treaty provisionsof equal treatmentfor all
citizens? "
To thattheCouncilgaveno answer,fortheHungarianGovern-
mentin theintervalannounceditsintention ofamendingthelaw.
It was decidedto await that amendment, promisedforthe near
future,and meanwhileto take no action,nor utterany opinion
on the legal aspect.
The case has muchmorethan a local interest,forthe check
on the numbersof Jewsadmittedto places of highereducation
that operatesthroughthe AumerusClausus regulationsis not
confinedto Hungary. It is interesting too fromthefactthatthe
petitionwas broughtbeforetheLeagueby an organisation outside
Hungaryitself,the JointForeignCommittee oftheAnglo-Jewish
Associationand the AllianceIsraelite.
I hope that beforethis discussioncloses we may hear some-
thingabout the principleson whichthis justly respectedbody
exercisesvigilanceon behalfofMinorities in whichit is interested.
Unfortunately we have not a large enoughnumberof petitions
on recordto showwhether thereis a markedora growing tendency
among Minoritiesto entrusttheircause to agenciesbeyondthe
frontiers.Still less can one gauge what the ultimateresultsof
that policymightbe forgood or forevil.
Jewishproblems,and the handlingof them,cannot safely
be used as analogiesforthe cases wherenationalitydifficulties
alone are involved. In mylist of the six or sevenpetitionsthat

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
88 BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS [MARCIr

have been beforethe Council there is one of the latter kind

Pols in concerninga Polish Minorityin Lithuania that
Lithuania. came from sympathisersover the border. It
came froman organisationquarteredat Vilna, called " The
Polish Exiles fromLithuania," and concernedthe Lithuanian
land laws.
Agrarianlegislationdoes not come underthe Treatiesunless
some discrimination againsta Minoritycan be provedto existin
the law or in the workingof the law. This,
Lan laws. incidentally,has caused muchbitternessamongst
the Minorities. In Czechoslovakia,for instance,the break-up
of big estates does undoubtedlyhit the great German and
Hungarianlandownersalmostexclusively, althoughit is equally
trueto say thatit is theoretically applicableto all citizens.
One cannotwishto give the League powerto touchquestions
as manifestly domesticas land laws, evenif the Treatiesallowed
it. But the helplessnessof the Councilin this matteris often
misunderstoodand misrepresented.In the particularPolish
petitionI speak of, and in anotherbroughtforwardby the
MagyarMinorityin Transylvania,therewas enoughprima facie
evidenceof unfairdiscrimination to bringthe cases to the notice
of the Council. In both cases the Councilcriticisedthe State's
action. In both cases the State has given assurancesof its
intentionto redressthe grievances.
In the Transylvaniancase the Roumanian Government,
while denyingobligation,offeredan indemnityto expropriated
personsas an act of grace,whichthe Councilendorsedas satis-
factory. The Minority,of course, had no say in fixingthe
indemnity.
Only one moreobservationon thesepetitions. Withhardly
an exceptiontheyemanatefromstrong,well-organised Minorities
-German, Jewish,Magyar. One listensforthe complaintsof
the feeblerraces and hears-nothing. Eithertheirvoices have
not been raised or theyhave not come through.
This bringsmy surveyof petitionsto an end.
It is very difficultto make constructivecriticisms.The
morewe pry into the foundationsof Europeanrelationships in
the seventhyear of the Peace, the morecharywe
Sggeston*become of suggestingchangesthat mightstirup
passionsand suspicionsthat may be coolingdown.
Thereforeeverysuggestionforstrengthening the application
of the League's guaranteeoughtto be judged firstand last by
the test of whetherit will commandthe goodwillof the parties

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I926] THE WORKING OF THE MINORITY TREATIES 89

concerned. It is better-at presentI am sure it is better-to

use a defectiveprocedure drawnup by agreement thana completer
one to whichGovernments have submittedunderpressure. But
just because that is so, it is necessaryto be alive to defects,and
preparedto tryto removethem. It is open to questionwhether
Criticism of the League Councilhas been particularly alertin
Council. this direction. I can, forinstance,rememberno
occasiononwhichit has adoptedsuggestions forreforms orchanges
in its own procedurewhichhave been put forward by Govern-
mentsspeciallyinterestedin Minorityprotection. There have
beenseveralsuchproposals. The latestwerea seriesput forward
by Hungary,whichincludeda desirewhichseemsto be gaining
strengthamong Minorities,that all disputes involvinglegal
pointsshouldbe automaticallysent to the PermanentCourtof
InternationalJustice,insteadofleavingit to theCouncil'sdiscre-
tion to send themthere,as at present. A reportmade by the
BrazilianCouncilMemberwas adverse to this and to the other
Hungariansuggestions. It explainedtheirimpracticability with
greatwealthof argument,and observedthat all that was really
requiredwas that Governments and Minorities shouldfulfiltheir
reciprocalduties. This reportwas adopted with approval by
the Council.
In fact the only changes in procedurewhich have been
favourablyacceptedhave been those that diminishedpublicity,
and wereput up by States who have fewof theirownnationals
under foreignrule. One cannot be surprisedif this Olympian
behaviouris sometimesirritatingto those Minoritieswho are
enoughin touchwithGenevato perceiveit, and to Governments
outside the Council who are anxious about the welfareof
populationstheyhave lost.
Everyone who is in touch with Minorityopinion,either
throughpersonalknowledgeor throughtheirnewspapers,must
Minority be aware that irritationis a mild wordto use for
feelings, expressions ofemotionthatrangefromthewailings
of traditionallysubject races, to the gnashingof teeth of the
traditionallydominant. Subtractas much as you like foreye-
wash, and some more for unreasonableness, and enough will
remainto make one anxiouswhetherthe legitimatesafety-valves
are as open as theycan possiblybe in presentcircumstances.
Take this point about publicityfor petitions,for instance.
We can appreciatethe reasonswhyGovernments dislikeaccusa-
tionsof theiradministration beingtrumpeted all overthe world.
Accusationsmaybe false,but theystickin memoryas refutations

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
9O BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS [MARCH

neverdo. Disraelionce said, " Calumnyonce circulatedis more

or less forevercurrent." Moreover, advertisement ofgrievances
may easily obstructnegotiationsforredress. All this is true.
Nevertheless Minoritiesshouldhave no excusefordeclaringthat
theirappeals echo in a void.
A sounding-board could, I believe,be providedthroughthe
mredium of the Report on the work of the Councilpresented
Suggestions annuallyby theSecretary-General to theAssembly
for publicity, of the League. This only deals with results.
Thereforeat presentno referenceis made in it to Minority
petitionsthatdo not get throughthe Committee ofThree. This
practicemightbe alteredto makeit includea list of all petitions
examinedby theCommittee ofThree,thelists,however,disclosing
nothingmore than the subject of the petition,the countryit
came from,and the fact that negotiationswere or werenot in
progressabout it. We should thus collecta reallyinformative
recordof the pressureof Minorityquestionsin different places
and at different dates. Moreover,as the debatein theAssembly
on the Secretary-General's Reportis not unlikethe debatein our
ParliamentontheKing'sSpeech,thisplanwouldallowa freedom of
discussionof Minority mattersto the Assemblywhichit does not
at presentpossess. I knowthiswouldhaveitsrisks,butit should
be possibleto ruleout of orderdebateon themeritsofparticular
cases, and, thus safeguarded,a ventilationof generalcurrents
of opinionin a League atmospherewould do a good deal to
counteractirresponsible and maliciouspropaganda.
I believe theseproposalsforwiderpublicityare not outside
the realm of immediatelypractical politics. ThereforeI put
themfirst.
But theydo not quite touchtheweakestspot in theCouncil's
procedure. Here we comeback again to channelsofcommunica-
Suggestions tion-human contacts-direct links between
for contact. guarantors and guaranteed. These-the only
thing needful-are the least adequately supplied. How can
theybe provided? How can the Councilmakethe ignorantand
illiteratemasses believe in its existence,or understandits
functions? How can it impressthe conditionsof their lives
upon its own culturedimagination? It is indeeda farcryfrom
the PripetMarshesto Geneva.
If one consideredonlythe limitationsof time,space and the
Treaties,one mightdespairofanswering the question. But it so
happensthat a very similarquestionhas been partiallysolved
alreadyby the League. The Councildischargesits responsibility

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1926] THE WORKING OF THE MINORITY TREATIES 9I

forthe welfareof nativeraces in MandatedTerritories withthe

help of a PermanentCommissionwhich reportsto it, but is
entirelyindependentof it. The Membersof this Mandates
Commissionare not Governmentrepresentatives, but people
chosen for their knowledgeand qualifications.For instance,
Sir FredericLugardis the presentBritishMember.
It holds its sittingsat stated intervalsand can have extra-
ordinarymeetingswhen a crisis requires. It is an extremely
efficientbody,and seemsto be gainingin theesteemofthenatives
and of the MandatoryPowersalike.
I shall not describeits workingin detail,because some of its
methodscould not be used underthe MinorityTreaties. But
somesortofcounterpart of the PermanentMandatesCommission
would probablybe the best way to developthe efficiency of the
League's Minorityguarantee. I think the adaptations could
easily be workedout, providedthe signatoriesof the Treaties
werewillingto co-operate.
At presentthey are not. ThereforeI fear this solutionis
some way off. There is significancein the historyof some
abortiveattemptsthat have been made to establishlocal Com-
missions,and to get the principleof such Commissions accepted.
I have purposelynot dwelt on these,because I hope Professor
Murray,who was personallyconcernedwith them,will tell us
about themhimself.
And now I have done. I am afraidthishas been a veryarid
attemptto deal witha topic whichis nothingif we cannotfeel
it as human,and vibratingwithhumanfeelings. I do not know
whetherthe instinctsthat we are tryingto combatby treaties
and guaranteeswill ever be subdued. They are rootedin the
ages. The psychologyof the whole problemof Minoritieswas
summed up by Haman the Chamberlainlong ago to King
Ahasueruswhenhe said:
" Thereis a certainpeoplescatteredabroadand dispersed
amongthypeoplein all theprovinces ofthykingdom, and their
laws are diversefromall people,neitherkeep theythe king's
laws,therefore to suffer
it is notfortheking'sprofit them."
We have it all in that one wordtherefore.Thereis morefood
forreflection in that briefstatementthan in all the Reportsof
the Councilput together.
BLANCHE E. C. DUGDALE.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
92 BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS [MARCH

of theDiscussionfollowingtheaboveaddress:
Stummary
MRS. SWANWICK agreed with the lecturerin advocating a per-
manentcommission. She had beenimpressedby thewasteofcapacity
involvedin the fact that millionsof people werelivingundera griev-
ance. It was, indeed,difficultto meettherepresentatives ofoppressed
Minoritiesat Geneva. The absence of powereffectively to help them
made even the most humane dread conversingwith them and they
were convertedinto internationalbores. It was therefore important
to create a body whose businessit would be to listento themand to
take action upon cause shown. The commissionshould be a bond
between the Minorityand its Government. Fears that its inter-
ferencewould be resentedwould probablyprove as ill-groundedas
the similarfearsentertainedwith regardto factoryinspectors,espe-
cially women inspectors,whose success encouragedher to put in a
word for women memberson such a commission. Mrs. Swanwick
urged also the great need forcaution and tact. The discrimination
betweennationsinvolvedin the MinorityTreatieswas a naturalcause
of heart-burnings, and should be remediedby universalisingthese
provisions. Such a stepmightbe a meansofimplementing ArticleXIX
of the Covenant(Revisionof Treaties). The importanceof publicity
was evident to anyone who saw the anxiety of all Membersof the
Assemblyto stand well in the opinionof the League.
MR. LUCIEN WOLF was inclinedto dissent fromMrs. Dugdale's
criticisms. As to publicity,he saw littleuse in a merelist ofpetitions,
and it was impossibleto go further, as the petitionswere necessarily
ex parte statements. The place which it was proposed to fil with
local inquiryagencies could, he thought,be betterfilledby outside
organisationssuch as the Joint Foreign Committeeto which he
belonged. The MinoritiesTreaties had already done much good.
They gave to Minoritiesequal rights,and securedforthemthe right
of electingand of being elected. The Treatieswerenot to be judged
by counting petitions; one must rememberthat they acted in
terrorem, and preventedmuch oppressionwhichoccurredand which
would otherwisestilloccur.
MR. ERIK COLBAN (Head of the MinoritiesSection of the League
of Nations) thoughtthat great progresshad already been made by
cautious methods. He gave a briefoutlineof how the presentpro-
cedurehad developed and underlinedthe importanceof the work of
the MinoritiesCommitteesof the Council. The majority of the
questionsraised by petitionsdid not go beforethe full Council,but
were dealt with by these Committees.
DealingwithMrs.Dugdale's suggestions foran improvedprocedure,
Mr. Colban pointed out that it was not easy to establish a list of
petitionsfor publication. Some petitionsdealt with small private
grievances,while otherstreatedbig questionsput forwardby repre-
sentativepersonsor organisations. The mainproblemwas to convince

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I926] THE WORKING OF THE MINORITY TREATIES 93

the Minoritiesthat somethingwas being done where justifiedcom-

plaints existed. This problemwas still unsolved,and probablyno
general formulawould solve it. As to the proposed permanent
commission,he failedto see how it would be betterthan the present
system. If the intentionwas that such a commissionshould have
powerto take action on its own initiative,that action would not be
withinthe design of the Treaties. If the commissionwere only to
give advice and information whencalled upon to do so by the Council
or its Committees, it wouldachieveno morethanthepresentMinorities
Sectionwas supposedto do. The Councilhad been moredaringthan
otherwise. The League had certainlybeen less blind to the capital
importanceof the Minoritiesproblem than the political world in
general. One thingwas needed; that Councilmembersshould take
theirresponsibilities in thisfieldveryseriously,remembering that the
solution of Minorityproblemseased frontierproblems,and greatly
contributedtowardsthe consolidationof peace in Europe.
PROFESSOR GILBERT MURRAY foundhimselfin generalagreement
with the lecturer. The worst point was that while strong,well-
organisedMinoritieswereattendedto, theweakestand mostoppressed
werenot. There was a real difficulty in securingthe attentionof the
Great Powers on the Council,who had, or thoughtthey had, often
morevital mattersat stake,and wereunwillingto offendthe country
concerned. But grievancescould, in fact, never be remediedif the
Governmentin faultwas offended,the only methodwas persuasion.
In thematterofprocedure,ProfessorMurraybelieved: (i) in develop-
ingthesolutionofthesequestionsin theMinoritiesSectionby informal
communicationswithout appealing to the Council. The only dis-
advantage of thiswas that the aggrievedMinoritydid not know that
anythinghad been done. (2) In takingsteps to make the treatment
of Minoritiesimposedby the Treatiesof universalapplication. The
Assemblyhad already expressedunanimouslya hope that the Great
Powerswould behave as if bound by theseTreaties. This expression
of opinionmighthelp in the Italian Tyrolquestion. (3) Thereshould
be no delay in referringlegal questions to the PermanentCourt.
(4) He believedmostin residentcommissions, such as theyhad failed
to obtainin I924, but werenowin part obtainingin the case of Greece
and Bulgaria.
MR. NOEL BUXTON gave examples fromhis experienceof the
kind of oppressive treatmentto which Minoritieswere subjected.
This kind of thingwas reallycaused by the fearof war. The radical
cure, therefore, depended on appeasing the ferventanimositiespre-
vailingand was therefore connectedwiththe cause ofpeace in general.
MR. ARNOLD TOYNBEE, comparingwhat had happenedas between
Greeceand Turkeywith the European situation,saw reason to view
the latterwith more optimism. In the formercase, prolongationof
hostilitieshad led to such mutualfearand exasperationthat exchange
of Minoritieshad appearedto the partiesthe onlyremedy. The clear
and overwhelming militarydecisionin Europe had herebeen a benefit.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
94 BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS [MARCIt

The speakeremphasisedthe interdependence of the questionsof stable

frontiers and well-treatedand contentedMinorities.
MR. CHARLES R. BUXTON, whilerecognising thedangerofinfringing
governmentalsusceptibilitieswith regard to their sovereignrights,
thoughtwe werein dangerofunder-rating theimportanceof the other
side-the dangers of war arising from Minoritygrievances. We
mighthave to risk making ourselvesdisagreeableto Governments.
The one cheering thing in the discussionhad been Mr. Colban's
statementthat Governments weregrowingless resentfulof what they
would,at an earlierstage,have consideredto havebeen" interference."
MR. WILSON HARRIS observedthat therehad so farbeen no discus-
sionofthefundamental question," OughtMinorities to be protected?"
Mr. NewtonRowell of Canada had pointedout at the First Assembly
that the policies in Europe and across the Atlantic were different.
Americansand Canadians aimed at assimilation; Europeans appar-
entlyat permanentdifferentiation.We oughtat any rate to knowat
what solutionwe wereaiming. His own mindoscillatedbetweenthe
ideas of buildingup a cohesiveState and of preservingracial charac-
teristicsuncontaminated.
MRS. EDMUND GARRETT thoughtthat too much stresshad been
laid on the importanceof tact and delicacy,illustratingher point by
the conductwhichGreecehad been permittedto pursuetowardsthe
BulgarianMinorities.
MRS. DUGDALE, in reply, thought that Mr. Wolf might perhaps
favourher proposedcommissionmore if he did not belong to that
body,the JointForeignCommittee,whichhad done so much
efficient
forthe Jews. To Mr. Colban she wouldsay that the use of the official
publicityshe proposed was to stop the unofficialand irresponsible
publicityto whichhe had alluded. No speechhad shakenheropinion
thatimprovedmethodsofcommunication weretheall-important thing.
THE CHAIRMAN(PROFESSORP. J. NOEL BAKER) agreed with those
who contendedthat much had been done and with those who urged
that much remainedto do. There was no general answer to Mr.
Wilson Harris' question; it depended on the Minority. He agreed
with the lecturerand disagreedwith Mr. Colban with regardto the
machinery proposed. But he agreedwithMr.Colbanthatnomachinery
would work until the Powers took their responsibilitiesseriously.
Above all, this applied to Great Britain. The exampleof the " show
case" dealingwith the Poles and the Germansettlersconvincedhim
that the Powers need not be afraidof actingwith firmness.

The followingletterhas been receivedfromMr. WyndhamBewes,

who was unable to speak at the meeting:
DEAR SIR,
Had it not been for the necessityof catchingmy train for
the country,I would have offeredsome observationsat last Tuesday
night'smeetingon points,whichhad not been fullydiscussedup to
the time of my leaving.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I926] THE WORKING OF THE MINORITY TREATIES 95

The InternationalLaw Association,of whichI am JointHonorary

Secretarywith Dr. Bellot, has had a committeeat work upon the
subject for a considerabletime. AlthoughI am not a memberof
this Committee,I have read its InterimReport,and fromthis and
fromothersourcesI have reachedsome tentativeconclusions.
The Secretaryof the MinoritiesSection at Geneva remarkedin
his speech on the desirabilityof convincingcomplainantMinorities
that theirclaims were fairlydealt with,althoughrejected,and won-
deredhowbest thiscouldbe effected. It seemsto me thattheLeague,
in its earnestnessto keep out frivolousand annoyingapplications,has
adopted just such ingeniousprecautionsas are suited to convincethe
Minoritiesthat even valid complaintswill be entertained withregrets.
First,the petitionis examinedby the League Secretaryto see that it
conformsto rules. Then the MinoritiesSecretariatgets to workand,
apparently without any appropriate authority,tries to negotiate
between the State and the Minority,and sometimessucceeds in
bringingthe partiesto some sort of terms. This means compromise
and not justice. Then the Committeeof Three gets to work,having
beforeit the complaintand any answerthe State impugnedcares to
make. This answeris not communicated to thiecomplainantsat any
timte and maybe acceptedat its facevalue by theCommission, although
entirelyunsifted. On theseex partestatementsmostcomplaintsseem
to be rejected,or at any rate pigeon-holed. Even if this does not
happen,the petitionis stillin a perilouscondition,forit is completely
ignored unless one Member of the Council chooses to become its
foster-father.
At long last the petitionin some formmay be submittedto the
PermanentCourt of InternationalJustice,but the legal issues nay
havebeenr modified1 by the politicalprejudicesof the Council,so that
as little may be made of it as possible. The motto seems to be
" surtoutpointde zele." No wonderthat the spiritof Gallio is gener-
ally thoughtto inspirethe proceedings.
The remedyforthis unfortunate state of thingsis not farto seek.
Make straightthe path to justice,i.e. to the PermanentCourt. After
the petitionis seen to conformto the fiverules and afterthe answer
and replyare lodged,let therebe a formaland acknowledgedattempt
at negotiationby the ordinarymachineryof the League. If thisfails,
let the petition,being neitherfrivolousnor vexatious, go forward
to the Hague Court. I feel sure that the Councilwould be glad to
be relieved!
Yours verytruly,
WYNDHAM A. BEWES.
1 On this point see Securityagainst War, p. 512, by Kellor and Hatvany.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:35:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions