A.—s

the Fifth Committee suggested that Governments be reminded of the existence of these two international instruments, with a request that progress be made with a view to Governments taking the necessary measures for acceding to them or expediting their ratification. The following resolution was duly submitted to and adopted by the Assembly— " The Assembly adopts the report of its Fifth Committee on penal and penitentiary questions." (Document A. 70, 1938, IV.) SIXTH COMMITTEE: POLITICAL QUESTIONS. New Zealand Delegate: Mr. W. J. Jordan. Substitute: Mr. R. M. Campbell. The " Application of the Principles of the Covenant" was the main item, and the one on which there was the widest divergence of opinion, on the agenda of this Committee. Much thought and valuable study had been applied to the subject since it came to the forefront over two years ago as one result of the admitted failure of economic sanctions to deter Italian aggression in Abyssinia. A series of reports covering all phases of the problem had been made for the League's " Committee of Twenty-eight"; and these had been circulated for consideration and comment by Governments. In one sense, therefore, the time was clearly ripe for attempting to reach some finality. On the other hand, it will be recalled that when the Assembly met on 12th September there was already grave tension, with peace hanging by a thin thread, in Central Europe, tension that fluctuated from day to day and hour to hour while the Assembly and its Committees were in session. This being the case, and having regard to the absence of agreement on problems that were changing in substance, it was judged by some—and your telegram of 14th September authorized me to support this view—that the time was inappropriate for discussing more or less abstract political principles and the terminology of the Articles of the Covenant. Nor can it, I think, be said in retrospect that much would have been lost if this view had prevailed. We are in truth little, if any, further ahead as a result of the 1938 discussions at Geneva in appreciating the League's strength and weaknesses— qualities which, as cannot be too much emphasized, will always depend not on the League at Geneva, but on the resolution or otherwise of Governments in their various countries. The foregoing refers particularly, of course, to Article 16, the " Sanctions " Article, of the Covenant. In the opinion of some Governments this Article as it stands is of the very essence of the League and its fundamental purpose in deterring or combating aggression against the independence and territorial integrity of member States; delete or seriously weaken it, in this view as sometimes expressed, and the League of Nations, even though attracting new adherents, might degenerate into a " universal committee of non-intervention." Others, as you know, would go far toward refashioning the League into a merely consultative body. Faced with a gap between the terms of the Covenant and present practice, some would stand firm to the Covenant in the hope that sooner or later the world will conform thereto; others would so amend or " interpret" the words of the Covenant as to bring it down to the level of present achievement. It would be superfluous for me here again to discuss the pros and cons of these opposing views. Suffice it_ to say that in principal delegates' opening speeches in the Assembly, and subsequently in the Sixth Committee, not merely were divergent opinions expressed as to the direction that League reform should take, but varying interpretations were also placed upon the present effect of Article 16. There were, of course, general and generous tributes to the high idealism underlying the Covenant. Some representatives insisted that in discussing the League "we have to make certain concessions to unpleasant facts," and for their part they read Article 16 as at present committing their Government to nothing more precise than an obligation to " consider, in consultation with the other members, whether, and if so how far, they were able to apply the measures provided in Article 16, and what steps, if any, they could take in common to render aid to the victim of such a breach of the Covenant. In the course of such consultation each State would be the judge of the extent to which its own position would allow it to participate in any measure that might be proposed, and in doing so it would no doubt be influenced by the extent to which other States were prepared to act," Nonetheless, even this " interpretation " was linked (and by the same representative, in the same speech) with a firm expression of hope and trust that for the League 1938 would in years to come be seen " not as a year of retreat . . . " And we had agreement, virtually without exception, that " the text, structure, and juridical effect of the Covenant remain unaltered." These few sentences seem in themselves enough to show that clarification of ideas was still required not simply as between one Government and another, but in respect to the different and scarcely reconcilable sentiments of the one Government, In the Assembly or the Sixth Committee formal statements bearing on Article 16 were made for the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Latvia, Hungary, Argentina, Roumania, Mexico, Estonia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Colombia, China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Ireland, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Greece, Union of South Africa, Ecuador, Albania, India, Lithuania, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Haiti, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. The short statement for New Zealand is here cited, not of course for any special

26