May 5, 1930


Bill No. 78, for the .relief of Louis Battaino. -Mr. Lang. Bill No. 79, for the relief of Edith May Smith.-Mr. Lennox. Bill No. 94, for the relief of Eva Verona McColeman.-Mr. Gray. Bill No. 98, for the relief of Henry Cutler. -Mr. Gray.


INTERNATIONAL PEACE

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:

That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the protocol for the revision of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva in respect of the Dominion of Canada, on the 14th September, 1929, and that this house do approve of the same.

He said: The protocol being submitted for approval of this house was signed for the Dominion of Canada by Senator Dandurand at Geneva on the 14th September, 1929, and is subject to ratification. In the ten years that have elapsed since the creation of the permanent court, the experience of its actual working arrangements has indicated that certain improvements in its organization were necessary. The French delegates were voicing a very general feeling when, at the ninth assembly, they proposed that the statute of the court be examined with a view to the introduction of such amendments as may be judged desirable. In accordance with this resolution which was unanimously adopted, the council appointed a committee of jurists which undertook the work of revision. Their report was submitted by the council of the league to a conference of states, parties to the statute of the permanent court which met at Geneva in September, 1929, for the purpose of examining the amendments of the statute recommended by the committee of jurists. This conference, in which Sir George Foster represented the Dominion of Canada, adopted a draft protocol of amendments which was aproved by the tenth assembly on the 14th September. It is not necessaiy at this point to examine in detail the changes embodied in the protocol whose ratification we have under consideration. They represent, for the most part, modifications in the structure and procedure of the court which its decade of experience has suggested as necessary. Inasmuch as the entire court is to be reelected this year it has seemed desirable that the recommended changes be put into practice as speedily as possible.

The motion is largely of a formal nature and I think I have given the house all the information in regard thereto which will be necessary.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

It has not been ratified as yet

by other countries?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes, I understand it has by many of them.

MAY'S, 1930 1765

Permanent Court-Revision oj Statute

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I agree largely with the

statement of the Prime Minister that this motion is mainly of a formal character. Nevertheless, it involves a responsibility which, if discharged, would do much towards making it impossible to have recourse to war for the settlement of differences 'between nations. I understand that most of the nations concerned have accepted thi3 revised statute dealing with the international court. I notice the next resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister deals with the acceptance of the reservations made by the United States. It will be remembered that Mr. Root is largely responsible for preparing the reservations under which the United States is willing to accept the revised statute with respect to the world court. My memory is not clear as to whether or not the revised statute has been formally accepted with reservations by the United States. The only reason I asked the question was that in the event of its not being accepted it might be that this protocol would be again amended or that a condition would be imposed upon it before the senate of the United States would accept it. I asked the question for the purpose of clearing it up in my own mind.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
LAB

Herbert Bealey Adshead

Labour

Mr. ADSHEAD:

Would the Prime Minister tell me if there is a code of laws drawn up for the guidance of the international court of justice? If there is such a document I should like to have a copy of it. If such a code does not exist for their guidance I would like to know how they proceed.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

One of the purposes of this present protocol is to bring about something in the nature of a code under which the court will hereafter proceed. I presume the court of International Justice at the Hague follows the general practice of any court dealing with international affairs, and makes use of existing international law which in its opinion has a bearing on the question before it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Perhaps the Prime Minister will not mind if I say that a committee has been set up to endeavour to codify certain outstanding views and customs with respect to international law, and when that is done obviously this court will apply such a code to disputes. The reason this court is being set up is because there is no other body in the world able to apply the principles of international law, which are more or less nebulous, to differences between nations.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
LAB

Herbert Bealey Adshead

Labour

Mr. ADSHEAD:

When this code of laws is set up, will each of the nations have to approve of it?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Not necessarily.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

In answer to the question my hon. friend asked a moment ago, I may say that for the purposes of the present protocol the United States of America shall be in the position of a state which has ratified the protocol of December 16, 1920.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

That is not quite the question I had in mind, and I am bound to say I intended to look it up, because the Prime Minister cannot be expected to carry all these things in his mind. He will perhaps recall that the United States was unwilling to accept the revised protocol, and informed the nations of the world that they proposed to add reservations. Mr. Root was chairman of a small committee which drafted reservations assumed to be acceptable to the United States, and my memory is that the Senate of the United States has not yet ratified the conclusions at which that committee arrived, as expressed by the reservations.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That is correct.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

The only reason I am raising the point is because it does occur to me that our accession to it, as it now stands, may have to be modified more or less if it is the sense of the nations of the world that the . reservations which may be imposed hereafter by the United States, should have to come back for reaffirmation or ratification by the nations concerned before they are finally approved. I think that has been done in several instances, but just where we stand with respect to it now I am not quite sure. I am not quite in order; I am only speaking with the permission of the house, but I fancy we all agree that it is highly desirable that the American republic should be a party to this protocol. The United States was not a party to the original protocol. The revision to which I have referred was one by which it was hoped the United States would become a party to that protocol.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

It was done for other purposes as well. I believe it was originated by France.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, but I say it is the sense of all nations of the world that if this court is to be a great international tribunal the 120,000,000 people of the United States must be represented. That is why the present Chief Justice of the United States became a member of that court, and the other day the president nominated a dfistinguished international jurist from Massachusetts to take the place of Chief Justice Hughes on that court. The point I am endeavouring to make is this:

If we give our accession to it now as the

1766 COMMONS

Permanent Court-Accession oj United States

protocol has been revised, and it subsequently becomes necessary to revise it again because of the character of the reservation made by the United States, it might possibly come back to us again. Probably that would be the effect of it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Of course it would have to go back to another conference at Geneva. Motion agreed to.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Sub-subtopic:   PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Permalink

ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:

That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the protocol relating to the accession of the United States to the protocol of signature of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, on the 14th September, 1929, and that this house do approve of the same.

He said: In 1923 the President of the United States invited the Senate of that country to approve the adherence of the United States to the statute of the permanent court. No action was taken at that time on the president's recommendation, but in 1926 the Senate approved of the accession of the United States subject to five reservations, which were communicated to the secretary general of the league. A conference of states, parties to the original protocol of December 16, 1920, was held in Geneva in 1926 to consider these reservations and a deadlock developed on the subject of the fifth reservation concerning advisory opinions.

No progress was made for the next two years, but in 1928 the United States took the initiative in requesting, through the intermediary of Mr. Elihu Root, the reopening of the negotiations which had been dormant since 1926. The committee of jurists which at this time was engaged in revising the statute of the permanent court undertook to prepare a draft protocol which would enable the United States to adhere to the court. This protocol was approved by the tenth assembly of the League of Nations on September 14, 1929, and signed on that day for Canada by Senator Dandurand. It was signed by the United States on December 9, 1929, and by fifty-one other powers in the interim.

It is unnecessary to dwell on the great value to international peace and good feeling which must arise from the participation of the United States in the work of the permanent court. The difficulty which stood for so long in the path of its accession has been successfully surmounted in the protocol now before the house.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT
Permalink

May 5, 1930