, LS.-5UI1 oy Îa-’-T IP I'S . i G.293.1924.711.

Peris, N07TJ OIT TFG DG7'I3GFG'.ri0îT": O 1 Tïï ; CCIîr'BP.GlîCE Ju n e 1 2 th , 19241 Of AMBASSADORS OOGOTTII'd ThG ;j;LOCATIO:i 0?

TES MONASTERY OV GAIIÎÏ ITAOÜM.

The Doc i si on of the Conference of Anbc.ssc.dors do. toi

TToverab or 9th, 1921 (Document Uo.l), c .’tor confirming the frontiers

of Albania as dra^n in 1915 by the Conference of Amors sc dors in

London - certain statements (Document ITo,2 ) in explanation of this

confirmation b.?ins m r â e by the r e o r e s e n t c.tivos of v rious? 'orers -

leys do"""n in p . rez r ~>h III that the Delimitation Commission

instructed to tr ce on the ground the northern an-1 nor t h-o as torn

frontier-line of :.nia shall tcke into consideration as for as

nossible both administre tive boundaries end l o c i economic interests.

Tho Decision sdds that the Commission is in rtrrticulcr to rectify

the tracing fi^od in 1913 by the Conference of London in four

regions mentioned by name : -

(a) Tho region north-east of Scutari;

(b ) The region to tho ’ "est an' south of Prissrend;

(c) The reaion to the "est and south-east of Dibrc;

(d ) The region of Dim.

In reseoct of this letter - ; prion the terms of the Decision arcs

"in tho region of Lie in such a r-ay as to assign to

Albania the to'"n of Lin end thus to ensure communication

bet'veen Elbesscn and horitza dona: the shores of the Laho of

Ochrida.,T

Ho mention is m-de of the . lone story of Svot-ltooum, ~hich is clso situ, ten on the od^ro of the Lahe of Ochrida, but on the southern shore; in this region the Conference believed that thefrontier h d soon fixed in " ccordance vith the delimitation of 1913. This aes not tho case, s.nd in Jebruary 1st 1922, following upon the communi­ cation by the League of Nations of ho or t Ko. 5 of its Commission of Enquiry - ^hich di^ not in -:ny "'ay challenge the attribution of Saint--1mi-oum to Albania - the Conference reached the following decision:-

"It is decided......

3. to instruct the Delimitation Commission to trace on the

ground the Sorbo-Albanian snd Oreco-Albanian frontiers fixed

by the Conference of London in 1913 up to the actual point

at "hich the r-ork embodied in the Protocol of JT. or once

Vi c— S O \J •

4. To instruct the Technical Geographical Committee to

determine a neutral zone from Lim up to the point referred

to in paragraph III above.”

Moreover, the 'rotocol of London of 1913, defining the

Albanian frontier, is corded as follows : -

?rom north to south

"thence it shall f oiler™ the ridge of Mount Ilorab, leaving

to Alb:nie the district of the Lo"™er Dibra end outside

Alb-^ni- the district of nek a, Leaving this ridge

slightly to the north of the valley of the Dibra, ~hich

sir'll ram in outside Alb- ni-v , the frontier shell extend

to tho Black Drina, ^hose course it shall folio**’ up to the

village of Loukovo, -honee, passing long the ridges

separating the basin of the Drina from that of the

Grhkoumbi ~nd leaving Strouga outside Alb.a ni' , it shall

re”eh the shores o" the, A o of Ochrida in the neigh­

bourhood of the vill.-go of Lim, " Th..m froa South to _J[or th:

"The shoro? un to >htolia, including the Island of

Sasseno, the region north o ° tho Greee. lino, nd th- former

qese of .x-oritze , o^ot'.or ■ i th the 'astern " ncT Southern

shoror o.r the jiczo of Ooiirida, 3::tondin

Lim u ■* to tho Monastery of Svet-Naoum, sh'll form nr rt o C

Albanie ".

In point of fct, the region in vhic;> St » No oum is situated

•vas ocorroiod by Serbian troops in 1913. The Serbians r-Gre forced

to evacuate the district durins the w r , but they returned in 1917

and are still there to-day.

■Jhon, in 1922, the Delimitation Commission had to consider the

fixin? of the frontier in the region of Svet-Naoum, certain

Commissioners felt some doubt as to the manner in rhich the terms

of the Protocol of London - "un to Svet-Naoum" - ’-ere to be

interpreted; they v?ere uncertain whether it had been tho intention

of the authors o ' the Protocol to attribute Svet-ïïaoum to Albanie

or to Serbie. The question is only of importance because, as

subsequently bee-' me more clear, certain religious traditions connected • -ith the I-Ionastery of Gvet-Faoum make it. a nlace of pilgrimage for all tho surrounding country. The monastery itself is quite unimportant, and is inStr eited at the ore pent time by only tr’o monks, one sneaking alb ni en end the other Serbian. Goth of these monks rere sent by the Ju^o-31rv Authorities.

This problem havin'- been brought to th° notice of the Conferote

by a note from the British Grab assy dated Soot ember ‘":7 th 1922

(Document Bo. 3), tho Golimit tion Commission - s asked to furnish

'11 information ,,-hich mi ■'Bet eeeist the Oor "er. r:ce in xoacnin' a decision. The Commission " -a:i r t the s .me time requested to

/ c o mmunicate - 4 -

communicate the reasoned opinion of e1 oh of tho allied

Commissioners end of tho Commission irr, directly concerned.

The information and tho opinions in question -’’ore transmit ted

to the Confer one 3 in a letter date--1 November -5th 1922 (Document

Ho.4 ). A more detailed oninion from th ; ilb nien Coranission­

er , dated November 30th, 1922 (Document To. 5), '-as received

by the Conference x^hen the latter h d already to?; on its

decision. Finally, the ad .indie.-: tion of the monastery to

Albanie r,aa demanded in v note from th; Alb"ni-' n Location

d 'ted November 25th 1922 (Document lro . ô ).

The British Commissioner, after some hesitation, inter­

preted the Protocol of London as assianinr St.If: oum to Serbia;

but from and ethnic 1, geographical and strategic point of

vie'-' he considered th. t 3t. lia oum «hould bo left to Alb nia.

Tho french and Xt-'li n Commissioners rero in favour of assigning

the monastery to Alb nia. Tho Commissioners of the countries

directly concornad n-atur lly differed in their opinions. --Tith

the exception of the oninion of the Alb.nian Commissioner, none

of the documents lai-*~ before the Conference dro'- attention to

the moral and relierions interests ’ hich -ould be affected by the

decision about to be t-Aon.

It '■'•'8, moreover, difficult to determine ■ ith ny c.ertint;;

/the intentions o " the '-ut hors o-f the 191-5 Protocol. II o

regular minutes '"ere he it of the Conference of London, nor are

there in existence any contemporary official area shooin'-’ the

tracinp- aa-reed up on by the Ambassadors. Subs a au ont examination

of tho documents concerning the Conference of 1913 has not .ado

it possible to ast-bliah the intentions of the Conference. In those circumstances tho Confer once of Amb a s s r d o r s .

considerin'" that the ’rotocol 0:17 London mieht be inter­

preted in v rious v-c.s * g ro^rds tho ultime te oossossion

of St. Mr.oum, sn^ Loin? of opinion, in particular, th/. t tho

ethnic::]. ■ nd economic considorations r ised fcy the members

of tho Delimit tlon Commission ,:ore 7:;ry f- vour :ble to t h -

H o c bion o^ thin mon story to Albania, as si rood the

:ion-'st Ty of St. iT onu to A1 b‘ ni-r on December 6th., 1922.

T.;jic decision vas officially communie' tod to th ' t"o

Governments concerned by letters dr ted December £3rd,

1923 (Documents lîos. 7 end 8 ) ; it ~as '-.Iso communicated to the Delimitation Commission, vhioh hoo m- do the decision asbasis for its enquiry into the troc .in cr* the frontier.

>To’- -ever, the "oromosrle ■■maieh the Commission subsequently made iv ve never received the off id- 1 approval of the

Conference, end the frontier in this reeion remains entirely indefinite.

The problem had re cher1 this ^ he £■■■■■ - r tin Serb-

Croat Slovene Government, in its note of Anril 5th, 1923, laid before the Conference of rmbass- dors ? scries of observa tions r0 7- r.-"i.n

Some of these observe tions (Document ho.9) concerned-n/5 4 of assignment /the mon?s te?y of Svet-haoum; t h e S^r o-Oroat-

Slovene Government, Lor. in» its •: T o u r n e n t :v inly on o t h n i o a l

end m o r a l p r o u e c l s , demnev’ t };="(; t o e d ci~ion o ■’ December

6th 19- - , should be roc one idered. - 6 ~

In a subsequent i:ote (Document ITo. 10 ), the Serbian argumen ts were further developed. and the question was at the same time brought on to legal -round; tho Belgrade

GoTornmont end e ax o ur e -d to show that it had been the intention of the authors o', tho Protocol of London to assign the

lionsstory to _»er oia* a fu_r uh or .^er ox an dote, g at od June

23th, IS23 (Document ho. 11) advance,' racial arguments to support tho same conclusion.

The Albanian Government, however, in a note dated June

20th, 1925 (Document ho, 12), pressed for the maintenance of the Decision of December 6th. 1922, both on moral and on strategic end ad mi ni s t r at i v e grounds

A further Albanian IToto. dated her oh 25th 1924

(Document ITo. 13) again demanded thac the decision should De carrie; 1 wto oftect.

In those circamstances the donfci onee felt shot tho natter reouirod investigation; but the Committee to which it entrusted she enquiry was unable to reach a unanimous con­ clusion.

She Drench representatives, while fully appreciating the

serious difficulties which the relocation of an earlier

decision would entail, considered that tho legal argument

on './hich the Serbian claims were based wa.j incontestable,

and that It had been the intention os the ,uthors of the

Protocol of London to give uvet-haeum to Serbia, The

French view on this point was founded on the preparatory work

of the Conference (Document Ho. 14).

1'he British and Italian representatives on the other

hand, in a joint memorandum dated Au w a s t 3rd. expressed tho

view both on .^rounds of cwpedienoy and dor legal and technical ( othnoqr a.mhicc.l, ooonomio, ■ :cogra h Lc al and ctr ate ai c ) reasons, t ac the Je ci sien ox ho go:.her 6 th, 1922, ( Jo ciment Ho. 15} should bo confirmed. To this memorandum the Drench

delegation made a detailed reply on ,_u gust 9th, 1923,

(Document Ho. 15).

In order uo 0 ccide brtv:ecn the t/o views, the Conference laid the q ues b.ion before its legal Co; trait tec in the follow­

ing terms : - " './hat interpr e tat ion is ;o be -ivcn to the Décision of the Conference of .hmbass^dor s he If- in London in

1913, and to the subsequent Decision of the Conference held the in Paris on November 9th, 1921, in re ard/to allocation of

the Monastery of Jvet-Kaourn?"

The documents x/hich mere laid before the Drafting

Cornait tee included a further Drench memorandum dated March

12th, 1924, (Document Ho. 17), in vhich additional arguments,

based upon f'-esh researches into the records of the 1913

Con:: or once, v/ere put for./ard in support of tho view previously

maintained by the Drench Government,

L'uch were tho circumstances in \ Ach the Drafting

Committee, in a ilote dated Liar ch 27th, 1924, (Document Uo. 10),

.pave the opinion aslro. for. The Commit m e ’ findings

included the foil ovin,;; : - ‘'It seems clo:.r that there vas an

original Italien proposal of Kerch 13 ht, 1913, to exclude

of. Haoum from .Albania, and that rn Aus tro- Italian agreement

had be :n reached on that point; that from March to August

1913 ( the date of the final • -rotocol) tho object of the

London negotiations vas to restrict tho territory of Albania;

that there is no evidence to su - • est Aiec _1 > ani an territory

vac extended beyond the li its laid do an in March, 1913, or. - 8 -

in "-articuler, tliat it .am estended go inc lue1, c tho monastery of Jt. Ilaoum, -..hich had (as stab cf. above ) b c an doliber ately cncluclod; and, lastly, that tho final 1 rotocol of . signs t

191-3 expressly st . too that bo tho south and south-east, the sphere of opexacions of bho ."ueli"iitation Oom is si on is to e abend as far ao the line pro ose" by Austria .116 Italy. "

'.‘he uoam-itt eo further drev bho c t tent ion of the Con­ fer one 0 co tho i!roal -ravity'1 ox rever sin» a -ooioion • Inch hod been duly notified to both the Co • ernmenly concerne.'' oàid o- thus i ':nor 11 ; the rights hich -lb.: ni a :.:i 7 h t for that re •'.•son loo. t i:.mtel_ regard ao hoax - nor 0 es- ecially as. in its letter of no bixicacion bo the ^ c r 0 - or 0 a t - j 10 x7 e no

1 .-■n.gc'.on, the Confer one 0 hat .ab. cod that it f 0 ncl .itself obliged to decide on the allocation o- the Ilonas bory in tho absence of any specific inui cab ion in the fr coo col of

London.

.ifter examining bho fisdinvj of the Committee, bho

British Government sent a monon md urn, dated April 14th,

1924 (Document ITo. 19). Tho British Government found that there xau a doubt as to the i . A entions 01 th e 1913 Conference, end also recalled the fact that , in 1922, all bho Co mini 3- si onera of tho non-interested lovers recommended tha t .xb.

ITaouia should be as a 5 "ned to Albania. It added that neither

Albania nor Yugoslavia aux ared to bo in a position to contest the decision of Be comber 6 th. 1932. because at tho

As.,eally o f the loa -uo of hat ion.-. in 1921 both Powers had accOT'tcd the Resolution re gar din • bho delimitation of the frontiers o f ...lb,n ia . f’he British ,'Government also felt that tho admit o ri -ht of the xl ixov ^,..1 Pc crs to fix the f r o n t i e r s in rues L ;.on should be exercised once ax', once only: in the oc.se oi it. lïaoum the frontier had been fixed by the Decision of Deo oho or 6th, 1922, -/hich decision had boon o fficia lly commun lactée1, to tho Cto verraient a concerned; in taking this action, thoreforo, the Jonfcrcnoe had e::hausted oll its right a, and. it co Id not revoke a decision reached in auch circumstances.

ïo thir: monorrzidun :he >rench delegation replied, on

jvpril 16th, by ne./ survey ox the çuooti. n (Document

ITo. 20). After pointing* out chat it had not boon the intention of the Poxere to authori se nod ifications of the frontier flared in London errcept . t thexe pointa "./hich './ere specified in the decision of Fovember 9th, 1921. and that x if, on December 6th 1522 the Aronch delegation had ouppooed that the Decision ro.rolied on that v ; .te would involve a modification of the I rotocol, it - ould not have ; > conourred in the Decision, tho French delegation concluded that, in viev; of the opinion of the jurists, the Decision of December 6th, 1922, should be revoked It further denied that the right of the Powers had been exhausted by that Decision. The right had boon exorcised in tho

Decision of iïovember 9th, 1921, to : 'hich the subsequent Decisions of the Conxerence merely ;xvo effect. Lastly, tho Drench Do to dr ep at conci on to cAc do facto occupation of vit. lïaoum by Jcrbian troop-; ^incc 1913, .md ur -;ed that it would be a seriouj ,.iaccor to require the évacuation of the place 'hen the ri hx of -he Ac ers co do jo had in no v/ay been proved. On Aay 19th, the Aricixh Amoassy replied (Document Ho. 21) maintaining the vie ic had already state.'', end - 10 -

suggestin': that the question should be laic! before the

Council of the League of Hâtions or the . émanent Court of International Justice.

It was une.er the Lvovc circ-nutanceu that oho Con­ ference vecided, on June 4th last, h a decision which was cov.miini catc to bho Council of the league of I at ions in a letter of June 5th, to sub it the question to the Council in terras which were reproduced in tho letter. I b should be noted that, dur i n - the more recent fiseussions at the

Confer once, the Italian f-o vornnent ncde. at the r.icct; rug he If on Iiay 1 • t 1024. a pro-osal or a comgronise. the torus of ".M ch are re grofucof. V.i the hbached e:.tract from tho minutes of the Confer : nee1 .est :.ng held on May 1st

( Doc uric nt l:o. 2 2 ).