The relation between the World Court, the entrance of the United States into that Court, and the protection of the racial and religious minorities, was discussed at a meeting held last Sunday at the Pennsylvania Hotel by the Judeans, an American Jewish club, the purpose of which is to further the intellectual and spiritual interests of the Jews.
Louis Marshall, president of the American Jewish Committee, who represented American Jewry in Paris during the Peace Conference and collaborated in the framing of the International treaties concerning the protection of the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities, Professor Manley O. Hudson, who cooperated in the framing of these treaties in Paris, and Arthur K. Kuhn, vice-president of the International Law Association, discussed the matter, in addresses delivered before the Judeans. Judge Samson Lachman, president of the Judeans, presided.
“The average good citizen of the City of New York or of any part of the country, if asked to tell what the minorities treaties are, or what is meant by the expression ‘racial, linguistic and religious minorities,’ would have great difficulty in making any intelligent statement,” Louis Marshall stated, when he set out to trace the history of the national minorities treaties which were accepted at the conclusion of the World War.
LOUIS MARSHALL TRACES HISTORY OF NATIONAL MINORITIES TREATIES
With Article 12 of the Minorities Treaty-taking the treaty with Poland as an example-which places the provisions of these treaties under the guarautee of the League of Nations and with the function of the Permanent Court of International Justice rendering advisory opinions on matters of dispute between the majority governments and the minorities, Louis Marshall declared that there is an “international conscience” at work. “The function of the World Court in the matter of the protection of the national minorities makes the minority treaties a matter of international concern which is to be determined by an international court proceeding not upon political considerations but solely as a judicial tribunal, upon considerations of law.”
Describing the history of the attempts made during the 19th cenutry to assure justice to the racial and religious minorities in European countries, Mr. Marshall referred particularly to the treaty of the Berlin Congress of 1878, which guaranteed equality to the Jews in Roumania but which remained in effective, and described how the Roumanian Government succeeded in evading the fulfillment of this treaty.
“Before the acceptance of the minority treaties Roumania, in 1878, told England, France, Italy, Austria and Germany: ‘This is none of your business. It is a matter of our own concern. We are dealing with people in our own country.’ The national minorities treaties, however, declared that the protection of these minorities is a matter of international concern and that the rights of these minorities are to be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations,” Mr. Marshall stated.
“The world is under a great obligation to Woodrow Wilson, to Col. House, to M. Clemenceau and to Lloyd George, for the adoption of these treaties,” Mr. Marshall stated.
Mr. Marshall cited the two advisory opinions rendered in September, 1923, by the Permanent Court of International Justice where national minorities were concerned and declared that “if there ever was any doubt in our minds as to how the World Court would act, that doubt is entirely obviated by the manner in which this tribunal has acted. I therefore feel that the question now before the American people as to whether we shall participate in the World Court is one which can be determined not in accordance with theories, but in accordance with actual experience. We know just exactly what kind of tribunal we have. People who are afraid of the advisory opinions, I think, will have to revise their opinions.”
The enforcing of the national minorities treaties is a matter “of greatest possible importance,” Mr. Marshall stated. “As Mr. Eric Colban, a distinguished member of the secretariat of the League of Nations in Geneva, who is in charge of the Minorities Bureau, said to me while I visited him last summer, ‘the only thing that stands in the way of the destruction of thirty five million human beings is these treaties.’ They are therefore worthy of consideration and protection,” Mr. Marshall declared.
PROF. HUDSON ON PERMANENT MINORITIES COMMISSION IDEA
Professor Manley O. Hudson, in his discourse, opposed the proposal made to the League of Nations by Count Apponyi, a representative of the Hungarian Government, to create a Permanent Minorities Commission. “I must say that that proposal is most ill-advised. I cannot imagine a better procedure than the present one. It is important that the personnel of this committee change from time to time.”
Professor Hudson discussed the enforcement of the minorities treaties at length, declaring that he differed from Mr. Marshall as to the meaning of the term ‘of international concern.’ Professor Hudson referred to the attempt of the representative of Lithuania at the Assembly of the League of Nations last year, who proposed that a universal treaty concerning the protection of the minorities be drawn up, and that the various powers be asked to sign it. He stated that the difficulty of the situation lies in the fact that there exists a dissimilarity in the nature of the treaties concluded and the contracting parties. While one group was asked to sign these treaties, the others were not.
“Of course, all the efforts at the equalization of the situation are doomed to failure. This failure is inevitable because they are not dealing with a situation which will lend itself to a uniform treatment in different countries or in different parts of the world. You do not have anything like a universal political situation which would make it possible for different countries to accept the same obligation,” he declared. “But assuming that the minorities treaties are an international obligation. What is the nature of the international obligation? The treaty says that it is an obligation of international concern. Speaking in precise terms, it is very difficult to know just what is meant by an obligation of international concern. What are the ways of having this obligation enforced? Before the war there was no way at all. When Secretary Hay, in 1902, protested against the violation of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, his protest was thrown into the waste basket. There was no machinery of any kind at that time.”
Professor Hudson then went on to enumerate the details of the procedure of the Council of the League of Nations when a complaint is brought to it and declared that “some very delicate questions are involved in this connection.” He referred also to the recent decision of the Council of the League of Nations concerning the Hungarian numerus clausus and declared that “it was going pretty far to have the case come before the Council. It is rather a lamentable fact that the people of the United States interested in the protection of the minorities have kept quiet as much as they have during the last six or eight months. If the Jewish people in America are really interested in the protection of the minorities then it seems to me that it is their duty to see to it that the jurisdiction of the World Court to give advisory opinion is in no way whittled down by any reservation as has now been proposed in the United States Senate,” Professor Hudson declared.
CALLS MINORITY PROTECTION GREAT EXPERIMENT
“This effort to protect the racial, religious and linguistic minorities is a great experiment. I know of no more interesting experiment in the world of international affairs today, even if it does not mean that there will be no violation of the equality that these treaties attempt to achieve. Of course there are going to be violations, but the fact that there are violations does not mean that the system is not a success. I believe that when opportunity has been vouchsafed to the racial, religious and linguistic minorities of Eastern Europe and I believe that the practice that has already grown up in these six years is such a practice as will lend us the hope that the world will find a way not by force, not by violence, but by careful administrative pressure, to give relief to minorities that are really suffering,” Professor Hudson declared.
“I cannot close without saying one more word in behalf of the special interest of the Jewish people in looking for an honest and firm court of International justice. The Jewish people have cause, as no other people that I know, to be grateful for this new method of handling international affairs, and I hope very much that every ounce of your influence will be bent in preventing the kind of changes in this system that are now being discussed in the United States Senate,” he concluded.
Arthur K. Kuhn, in his address on the World Court and the practice of the League in respect to minorities declared:
“While we do not favor recognizing minorities as legal persons before the Council of the Court, we urge that any state, even though not represented on the Council, should have the right to take up the cause of a minority. This is a principle adopted by the United States government at the time of the Hay Memorial to Russia protesting against the persecution of the Jews. The complaint was not based alone upon humanitarian grounds but partly upon self-interest in defending the country from receiving an inordinate number of refugees at one time. But as the denial of justice to minorities has now been recognized as a disturbance of international peace, the basis of national interest is never lacking because every nation is vitally interested in maintaining peace. It was upon considerations such as these that the Stockholm Conference of the International Law Association in September, 1924 (Lord Phillimore in the chair) adopted the following principle:
” ‘Every member of the League of Nations has the right to bring before the Council a case of infraction of the rights guaranteed by the Treaties of Minority and, in case of difference, to submit it to the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice.’
“The problem of minority rights is not a Jewish question, it is an international question. The Jews will benefit with the advancement of this cause along with other minorities. The problem should never be viewed as a special or limited one, but as part of the perfection of international organization as a whole,” Mr. Kuhn declared.
“This is of greater significance because it is precisely in those countries in which other minorities are disadvantaged that the Jews are under the greatest disabilities. Where the population is not arbitrarily divided into ethnic, religious, or linguistic groups, identified as such, the minority problem is of less importance. Where the individual is guaranteed in his legal privileges apart from his relation of the group, there minority protection can never be a problem except it be by action outside the law.
“International law has taken a great forward step in placing the protection of minorities upon a legal basis. It will require tact and self-restraint on the one hand and a spirit of fair play on the other to develop a smooth-running technique which will make the guarantee effective without infringing upon the prerogatives of any just government,” Mr. Kuhn concluded.
“The Judeans,” organized in 1897, has a membership of about two hundred, composed of practically all the prominent professional men of New York and its vicinity. The membership is limited by character to have at least four-fifths professionals.
The officers of “The Judeans” are as follows: President, Judge Samson Lachman, who succeeded Dr. Henry M. Leitziner, the first president; vice presidents, Max J. Kohler and Oscar S. Straus; Secretary, Edgar J. Nathan, Jr.; Treasurer, Louis M. Isaacs. Dr. Henry Moskowitz, Sol Lowenstein, Julius J. Frank and Sol. M. Stroock are also members of the Board of Directors.
The Society holds meetings about three or four times a year.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
