States in acceding to the international slavery convention, signed at Geneva, September 25, 1926. Italy. On February 22, 1930, the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs sent the following communication to the Secretary General of the League of Nations: The Royal Italian Government, guided by the principles on which its laws are known to be based, is in substantial agreement with the Government of the United States, but is nevertheless of opinion that the provisions of Article 5 of the convention are of themselves sufficient to allay any apprehension-being designed to prevent any compulsory or forced labor, even where allowed for public purposes, from developing into conditions analogous to slavery. The Royal Italian Government, therefore, does not consider it necessary to depart from the text as signed, but sees no objection to accepting the reservation of the United States Government as a declaration accompanying the latter's accession to the convention.' TREATMENT OF FOREIGNERS CONVENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE STATUS OF ALIENS Nicaragua. The instrument of ratification of Nicaragua of the convention for the purpose of determining the status of aliens, adopted at the Sixth International Conference of American States, was deposited by the Nicaraguan Minister at Washington with the Pan American Union. The convention was ratified by decree of December 22, 1929. 1 Official translation of the League of Nations. ECONOMIC COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE ABOLITION OF IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS On March 6, 1930, the President of the United States proclaimed the international convention and protocol for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions, signed at Geneva, November 8, 1927, and the supplementary agreement and protocol, signed at Geneva, July 11, 1928. THIRD CONFERENCE FOR THE ABOLITION OF IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS The following report was made by M. Colijn, president of the conference, to the Council of the League of Nations: GENEVA, January 9, 1930. In presenting my report on the third conference for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions, I think it may be convenient to remind the council in a short statement, of the previous history of this question. Following a resolution of the Assembly of 1924, a first conference was held in November, 1927, which adopted an international convention abolishing, with certain exceptions, all existing import and export prohibitions and restrictions. A second conference was held in June, 1928, to deal with certain additional claims for exceptions and to settle the conditions for the coming into force of the convention. The convention of November 8, 1927, and the supplementary agreement of July 11, 1928, were signed by 29 states members of the league and nonmembers. In order to be brought into force the convention and the supplementary agreement had to be ratified before September 30, 1929, by at least 18 States. By the 30th of September, 1929, only 17 ratifications had been obtained. While some, however, of these ratifications were unconditional or subject to conditions which had been fulfilled, a number of them were conditional upon the ratification of two countries, namely, Poland and Czechoslovakia, which had not ratified. It was necessary therefore to convene the third conference which forms the subject of the present report. This conference was attended by all the signatory states except Bulgaria, Chile, and Siam. It rapidly became clear that an important number of countries felt it impossible to bind themselves to abolish prohibitions, so long as Poland and Czechoslovakia did not accept the same obligation. In these circumstances, our efforts were at first directed to seeing whether there were any means of assuring early ratification by these two countries. In the course of the conference, a declaration was made on behalf of Czechoslovakia, of an intention to secure early ratification on condition that Poland also ratified, that is to say we had the prospect that Czechoslovakia would soon be in the position of the other countries which had ratified cond:tionally. The real difficulty was therefore reduced to that of the absence of ratification by Poland. It was understood that the principal, if not the only, obstacle to ratification by Poland consisted in the state of the commercial negotiations between Poland and Germany. In these circumstances, I ventured to suggest that the convention might have no application as regards the reciprocal relations of the two countries who were continuing their commercial negotiations. This was acceptable to the conference generally, and we learned, would also be agreed to by Germany. Poland, however, was unable to agree to it, and we were left with the difficulty that still remains, that Poland's ratification has not been secured or assured, and that in its absence most of the other signatories will be unable to bind themselves. Under these conditions, the protocol which was finally agreed and signed and is presented herewith (see Annex)1 has the following effect: The convention is brought into force legally as from January 1, 1930, by all states who signed the protocol. It has practical effect from July 1, 1930. Seventeen states have signed this protocol. Of these, six, namely, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United States of America, have agreed to be bound in any case until June 30, 1931. They then, and in any subsequent June up to 1934, have the opportunity of terminating their obligations. The remaining 11 states, namely, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg, Roumania, Switzerland and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, will be released from the obligation to give practical effect to the convention on the 1st of July next-unless they decide to the contrary—if ratifications from Poland and Czechoslovakia have not been received by the 31st of May, 1930. I am convinced that, granted the fundamental difficulty which I have described, this was the best arrangement that it was practicable to make at the time. It has the advantage of launching the convention and securing that it is legally in force at least during a period of 11⁄2 years during which there is a possibility of other states adhering. It also gives five months for any renewed effort that may be practicable to secure the ratifications of Poland and Czechoslovakia. If that effort is successful, the full convention comes into force for 19 states, that is prohibitions will be in effect abolished by praetically all states of Europe, and in addition by the United States and Japan. This would be, I need not remind the council, a result of absolutely capital importance both for its direct effect and as affording a basis, perhaps an indispensable basis, for the further work to which the league has committed itself by the resolution of the last assembly of removing and reducing trade barriers, stabilizing and reducing tariffs, and by this and other means securing closer economic relations between nations. While, however, the opportunity is great. I am bound to remind the council in the most clear terms that we have at present no assurance that that oppor 'Not printed. For text of protocol see Bulletin No. 5, February, 1930. tunity will be utilized. We still remain, as we have for so long remained, confronted with the difficulty that we have no ratification by Poland and Czechoslovakia. We have indeed the declaration by Czechoslovakia to which I have referred, giving us a reasonable assurance of early ratification, though it is conditional, like other countries, upon ratification by Poland. The fate of this convention and perhaps of the wider work of the league, which is so largely dependent upon it, turns therefore upon the question whether the situation which, as the council will be aware, has so far made it impossible to remove this difficulty, can be changed in the immediate future. I would only wish to add one word in conclusion. The whole course of the discussions, as well as the particular difficulty to which I have referred, have hoth brought out very clearly indeed how close is the interdependence between the national economic systems of Europe and how wide are the repercussions which any difficulty, however, localized it may appear to be, at first sight, has upon the interests and difficulties of other countries. TREATY OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND TURKEY On March 3, 1930, the President of the United States ratified the treaty of commerce and navigation, signed at Ankara (Angora), Turkey, October 1, 1929. This treaty, which now awaits ratification by Turkey, will take effect on the exchange of ratifications at Ankara. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUMANIA ACCORDING MUTUAL UNCONDITIONAL MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT IN CUSTOMS MATTERS The agreement effected by exchange of notes signed February 26, 1926, between the United States and Rumania according mutual unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in customs matters, which was to have terminated on March 1, 1930, in accordance with the notification given to the Department of State on November 29, 1929, by the Rumanian Government, has been extended to May 1, 1930. CUSTOMS INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SIMPLIFICATION OF CUSTOMS FORMALITIES Estonia. The Estonian Deputy-Minister for Foreign Affairs deposited with the Secretariat of the League of Nations, on February 28, 1930, the instrument of accession of Estonia to the international convention and protocol relating to the simplification of customs formalities, signed at Geneva. November 3, 1923. FINANCE DEBT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND FRANCE According to a despatch dated February 24, 1930, from the American Ambassador at Paris, the decree of February 17, 1930. promulgating the debt agreement between the United States and France, signed at Washington April 29, 1926, was published in the Journal Officiel of February 21, 1930. POSTAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND CEYLON REGULATING THE EXCHANGE OF PARCEL POST On February 19, 1930, the Secretary General of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State that the British Government had communicated to him, for the purpose of registration, the agreement between the Philippine Islands and Ceylon for the direct exchange of parcels by parcel post, signed at Colombo, March 7, 1928, and at Manila, April 6, 1929, and detailed regulations annexed thereto. The above-mentioned agreement was registered with the Secretariat of the League on February 8, 1930. PAN AMERICAN MONEY ORDER CONVENTION Panama. The Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the Legation of Panama at Mexico City, Señor Raul Alvarez de Alvarado, deposited with the Department of Foreign Affairs of Mexico on February 17, 1930, the instrument of ratification of Panama of the convention on postal money orders, signed at Mexico City, November 9, 1926. PAN AMERICAN POSTAL CONVENTION Brazil. On March 6, 1930, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico informed the Secretary of State that the Ambassador of Brazil in Mexico deposited the instrument of ratification of Brazil of the principal convention and the agreement concerning parcel post signed at the Second Pan American Postal Congress, November 9, 1926. |