LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 244, 28 September 1922, Page 2

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

SETTLING TURKISH TROUBLE. PROCEDURE EXPLAINED. INITIATIVE WITH COUNCIL. (By Professor A. H. Chnrteris, Sydney University). If the Assembly of the League of Nations acts on Mr Hughes* suggestion to intervene in the Turkish question, what are its powers under the covenant, Turkey not being a member of the League'! Although the Assembly, which is the large, deliberative body of some 150 members, has in general the same competence as the small body Of eight members known as the Council, to deal “with any matter within the sphere of action of the League and affecting the peace of the world” (3), the initivative in dealing with this matter lies with the Council. For it is a dispute between members of the League — Britain, France and Italy—and a nonmember —Turkey. This kind of case is expressly covered in Article 17, which provides that the nonmember “shall be invited to accept the obligation of membership in the League for the purposes of such dispute, upon such conditions as the Council may deem just.” Oace the invitation is issued, either the Assembly or the Council can deal with the matter, and as soon as the invitation is given the Council must immediately institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the dispute, and recommend such action as may seem best and most effectual in the circumstances. “BOUND BY PROVISIONS.” If the invitation is made, and the Angora Government accepts, then it. becomes bound by all the provisions of Articles 12 to 16 of the covenant, the effect of which is that the dispute must bo submitted cither to arbitration or to round-table inquiry by the Council, at which the Angora Government ,as an interested party, would be entitled to be represented. It would also bo bound not to go to war until three months after the award of the, arbitrators or the report of the conference, as the case may bo, and the conference would bo bound to report within six months. In the conduct of a round-table conference there are detailed provisions too long to mention here, the general aim being to secure what may bo termed authoritative publicity as to the merit of the dispte, so that the world may know which party in the opinion of the Conference is in the right. If the members of the Conference, excluding the parties to the dispute, arc unanimous in making a report, then the members of the League are bound not to go to war with any party to the dispute which complies with the recommendation of the report. ECONOMIC BOYCOTT. If the Angora Government were to refuse the invitation to temporary membership, and thereafter go to war against a member of the League (Greece), article 17 provides that all members of the League (and there are 51 of them) are bound to apply the economic boycott against the refuser of the invitation. But there are great difficulties in making the boycott immediatjy effective, even if the members were willing to apply it. If both parties to the dispute decline the invitation ,then the League is powerless, though it may make recommendations, designed to prevent hostilities which it has not the material means of enforcing. It should he added that if the Assembly, instead of the Council, holds the inquiry, there is a slight difference in the requirement of a unanimous finding in the report. While the report of the Council must be unanimous, excluding the disputants, that of the Assembly requires the concurrence of those members of the League who are represented on the Council, and a majority only of the other members of the League. And, finally, the Council consists of representatives of Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, China, Belgium, Brazil, and Spain. If the model of the Silesian settlement were followed the inquiry would be conducted conclusively by the representatives of the smaller Powers.