A. —5

Rules of Procedure of the Assembly. In the first section of this report I have related that although the first delegate of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics obtained a clear majority of votes in the election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly he was not elected as there were only six seats to be filled and six other delegates obtained a higher number of votes. I mentioned that he was subsequently elected; to the General Committee. Not to have put him 011 that Committee would have meant the absence of a representative of one of the countries possessing permanent seats on the Council. Now the rule, numbered 7, relating to the appointment of officers of the Assembly reads : — " 1. The officers of the Assembly shall consist of » President and of six Vice-Presidents, together with the Chairmen of the main Committees of the Assembly, who shall be ex officio Vice-Presidents of the Assembly. These officers shall form the General Committee. "2. The President shall be elected at the beginning of each session. " 3; Until the election of the President, the President of the Council shall act as President of the Assembly. " 4. The election of the Vice-Presidents shall take place at one of the early meetings of the session." Thus the Assembly may choose from any nationality represented on the League. In practice its choice of a President has always fallen upon a citizen of a State not a permanent member of the Council, although it has been usual to elect as Vice-Presidents the chief delegates of the countries possessing permanent seats. At a meeting of the General Committee held on the 21st September the Secretary-General presented a note containing certain amendments to the Rules of Procedure. The General Committee passed the proposals to the Assembly, which, in turn, directed its First Committee to examine them. The paper bearing on the subject is Document A. 49; and this contains suggested' amendments to Rule I>, and. an addition to that rule in order to make statutory provision for the Agenda Committee, which in practice has always been set up. The proposals met with some opposition in Committee. The Norwegian delegate suggested further amendments, and, indeed, propounded a plan whereby an Assembly should agree on the States which were to provide the officers for the following Assembly. It is regrettable that the proposals of the General Committee should have been submitted so late in the session, which was then drawing to a close. Fortunately, the adjournment of the item was proposed, and this was carried by a majority of votes. On the 28th September the Assembly decided to adjourn consideration of the matter until 1936 (see Documents A. 49, A. 1/17, A. 1/18, and A. 69). Amendment to the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Protocol for the revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice was drawn up and signed in 1929. When the Assembly met, the Protocol had not received all the ratifications necessary to put it into force. The position is explained on page 64 of the report on the work of the League (Document A. 6 (a) ), and, under a motion presented by the Swiss delegation, the passage dealing with the statute was referred to the First Committee, with the request to consider w-hat steps could be taken to remedy the situation. To bring the Protocol of Revision into operation the ratifications of three States were still required' —that of Brazil, Panama, and Peru. The Governments of these countries had, however, intimated that they would soon be able to deposit ratifications. Such being the position, there was reasonable prospect of the Protocol of Revision coming into force quite early ; but in view of the promised ratifications a number of delegations expressed a desire to hasten the date. Ultimately the Committee decided that the date should be Ist February, provided Brazil, Panama, and Peru saw no objection. Under the resolution of the Assembly of the 27th September the Council and the Secretary-General are invited to take the necessary action (see Document A. 62). International Institute at Rome for the Unification of Private Law. The Italian delegation proposed to the Assembly that that section of the Secretary-General's report on the work of the League (Document A. 6 (a), page 59) should be referred to the First Committee. It will be remembered that, following the precedent created by the French Government 111 providing premises for, and funds towards the maintenance of, the Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, the Italian Government, in 1924, offered to establish and maintain in Rome an International Institute lor the Unification of Private Law. The activities of the Institute, although known to members of the Assembly, had not been hitherto brought under the notice of this body in a formal manner. As, however, some years had elapsed since the creation of the Institute, it was perhaps as well that the Assembly as a body should learn what was being done. For a brief account of the position to date I cannot do better than refer you to the First Committee's report presented to the Assembly on the 28th September, when the Assembly passed the resolution with which the report concludes (Document A. 66). It will be observed that under the resolution Governments are requested to give early and favourable consideration to drafts of the Law of Sale and the Law on the Responsibility of Hotelkeepers transmitted to Governments for observations under a resolution of the Council of 14th January, 1935. 2—A. 5.

9