of revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva, September 14, 1929; and the protocol of accession of the United States of America to the protocol of signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva, September 14, 1929. These protocols were signed on behalf of the United States on December 9, 1929. Colombia By a despatch dated December 9, 1930, from the American Minister at Bogotá, the Secretary of State was informed that Law 38 of November 7, 1930, has been published ratifying "various international conventions on the constitution of the Permanent Court of International Justice created by the League of Nations." The following is a translation of the pertinent articles of the ratifying decree: Article 1. All of the above inserted international conventions signed at Geneva December 16, 1920, and September 14, 1929, are approved. Article 2. The ratification by Colombia of the conventions referred to is effected with the following reservation: That the obligations which the Republic of Colombia thereby contracts, refer only to decisions which may arise subsequent to its ratification. The act of ratification embodies the protocol of signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva, December 16, 1920; the protocol of revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva; September 14, 1929, and the protocol of accession of the United States of America to the protocol of signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva, September 14, 1929. Cuba The Secretary of State has been informed that the Cuban Senate adopted a report on November 25, 1930, approving the protocol of revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, with two reservations." A translation of these reservations based upon the accounts in the Heraldo de Cuba for November 26, 1930, is as follows: First. Article IV of the protocol, by the precedent which it attempted to establish in creating a new method for the entrance into effect of international agreements, namely that it would suffice See Bulletin No. 3, December, 1929, p. 1. that they be not impugned by the governments by a certain date, to establish the obligation on the part of the parties to the protocol. Second. The new wording of Article 23 of the Statute, which imposes on the judges the duty of residing at a place situated at a distance of not more than five days from the seat of the Tribunal. ARTICLE 36 OF THE STATUTE OF THE PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE Colombia By a despatch dated December 9, 1930, from the American Minister at Bogotá, the Secretary of State was informed that Law 38 of November 7, 1930, had been published ratifying the protocol of signature of, the protocol of revision of, and the protocol of the accession of the Untied States to the protocol of signature of, the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. At the same time the Government of Cuba ratified the optional clause of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice by Article 3 of the ratifying decree, a translation of which is as follows: Article 3. The Republic of Colombia recognizes as obligatory, of full right and without special convention under the condition of reciprocity with respect to any other state which accepts the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the above mentioned Court, in accordance with Article 36 of the above inserted statute. Yugoslavia By note dated November 29, 1930, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State that the instrument of ratification by Yugoslavia of the optional clause provided in the protocol of signature concerning the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice was deposited with the Secretariat on November 24, 1930. Irish Free State ARMAMENT REDUCTION LONDON NAVAL TREATY OF 1930 The deposit of the instrument of ratification of the London naval treaty by the Irish Free State took place at the Foreign Office in London on December 31, 1930.8 With this deposit of ratification the treaty enters into force as between the United States, Japan, and the British Commonwealth of Nations. In accordance with Article 24 of the treaty, Parts I, II, IV, and V will come into force as to France and Italy, respectively, on the deposit by each of its ratification. The rights and obligations resulting from Part III of the treaty are limited to the United States, Japan, and the British Commonwealth of Nations. The parties are to agree as to the date on which and the conditions under which the obligations assumed under Part III by the United States, Japan, and the British Commonwealth of Nations will bind them in relation to France and Italy. Such agreement will determine at the same time the corresponding obligations of France and Italy in relation to the parties to the treaty. The President of the United States will proclaim the London naval treaty on January 1, 1931. PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR THE DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE The Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, which was set up by the League of Nations in 1926, and the sessions of which were attended by American delegations headed by the Honorable Hugh S. Gibson, Ambassador to Belgium, concluded its labors in the second part of its Sixth Session, from November 6 to December 9, 1930. It drew up a draft convention for submission to a final disarmament conference which is expected to meet some time in 1932. This convention consists of 60 articles, dealing with the limitation of effectives, period of service, material of land, naval, and air armaments, budgetary expenditure, and chemical arms; it also provides for a permanent disarmament commission for receiving and distributing information regarding armaments. The convention does not lay down figures of limitation but leaves the determination and the insertion of figures to the final conference. The American delegation at the last session consisted of the Honorable Hugh S. Gibson, Ambassador to Belgium, and the Honorable Hugh R. Wilson, Minister to Switzerland, as delegates; J. Pierrepont Moffat, First Secretary of Legation at Berne, Pierre deL. Boal, Assistant Chief of the Western European Division, Department of State, Lieut. Col. George V. Strong, U. S. Army, Capt. William W. Smyth, U. S. Navy, and Commander Thomas C. Kincaid, U. S. Navy, as advisers; and Maj. Robert LeG. Walsh, U. S. Army, Assistant Military Attaché, Paris, and Lieut. Commander George D. Murray, Assistant Naval Attaché, London, as technical assistants. In the final meeting, Mr. Gibson made the following statement: In the course of our debates we have heard numerous estimates as to the value of our work. But it is only now that our deliberations 'The first part of the Sixth Session was held from Apr. 15 to May 6, 1929. are coming to an end that we can effectively judge to what degree we have succeeded in our task. For four years we have been endeavoring to reach an agreement. There have been long and direct conflicts of opinion; views have been maintained with vigor and yet our friendship with those who have differed from us has grown as steadily and as surely as our friendship with those who have shared our views. I take this as a good omen for the spirit in which all the nations will enter the General Disarmament Conference and try to convert our text from a theory to a reality. I have throughout been sensible of the very real difficulties under which many members of this Commission have labored. Overshadowing our discussions, though seldom spoken, have been the anxieties and worries that have arisen from the special preoccupations felt by numerous governments for their national security. We have now completed a draft convention which, after study by the governments, will go forward to the General Conference. I should not be frank if I did not say that this draft falls far short of our hopes and expectations. It fails to contain many factors in which we have always believed and which in our opinion would lead to a real reduction of armaments. What we have achieved does not hold out the promise of bringing about that immediate reduction of armaments we would like to see. Make no mistake; it is not my purpose to belittle what we have done. Although our hopes may thus be disappointed we can find comfort in the measure of agreement which has been reached in this Commission. We can at least foresee a stabilization of armaments, the setting up of a machinery to receive and disseminate information on armaments, to educate public opinion. and to prepare systematically for the work of future conferences, as successive milestones in the continuing process of disarmament. If these things can be achieved by the coming Conference, and from present indications I think we are justified in assuming that they can be achieved, we shall have a situation obviously better than we have at present and, while we cannot claim to have built the edifice, we shall have at least laid the foundation upon which the edifice can be erected. It is possible that the coming conference will accomplish more than this, but if so it will be because our labors have been improved upon and because, after mature study of the problems involved and after weighing the consequences of failure, the governments come to the conference resolved on greater measures of concession than the delegates here have been authorized to make. I feel that we should be rendering a poor service to the cause of reduction of armaments if we were to lead our peoples to believe that this work carried the movement further than it does. We have been repeatedly told during the past four years of the role of public opinion in connection with disarmament. It has been repeatedly said that real achievement by the Conference can be reached only by an aroused public opinion. This is partly true, but it is not enough that public opinion be aroused. It is first of all necessary that it should be informed, for an aroused and uninformed public opinion may do infinitely more harm than good. Public opinion will not be informed in such a way as to exercise an intelligent influence if, through a desire to create confidence, we adopt too optimistic a tone as to what can be accomplished on the basis of our present draft. Such exaggeration can really tend only to lull public opinion into a false sense of confidence, render it incapable of exercising its salutary influence and prepare it for inevitable disillusionment. We are all in agreement that an immense amount of preparatory work remains to be done before the meeting of the General Conference. The technical preparation for that Conference is in all conscience great enough, but a more difficult and more responsible task lies ahead of all our governments in informing public opinion as to the facts, as to the difficulties, and as to the possible measures which may, with mutual concession, help us toward the goal we all desire to reach. This end can be served only by stating our achievements and our difficulties with moderation. I hope that in separating at the conclusion of our labors we shall not yield to the temptation to indulge in mutual congratulation, that we may separate with becoming modesty, and on reporting to our various governments, that we do so with a full and frank recognition of the shortcomings of our present draft, and of the duties and responsibilities still before our governments to lead the General Disarmament Conference to the success which our peoples earnestly desire. INTERNATIONAL LAW PROTOCOL RELATING TO MILITARY OBLIGATIONS IN CERTAIN CASES OF DOUBLE NATIONALITY On December 31, 1930, the Honorable Hugh R. Wilson, American Minister to Switzerland, signed, on behalf of the United States, the protocol relating to military obligations in certain cases of double nationality, drawn up at the Conference for the Progressive Codification of International Law,10 which met at The Hague from March 13 to April 12, 1930. The following 47 states were represented at the conference: the United States of America, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Free City of Danzig, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, the Irish Free State, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxemburg, Mexico, Monaco, Nicaragua, Norway, the Netherlands, Peru, Persia, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Salvador, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Union of South Africa, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, moreover, had observers present. The Assembly of the League of Nations had placed on the agenda of the conference three questions which the Committee of Experts |