• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

[Distributed to the Council C. 12. M. 7 . 1925. VIII. and the Members of the League.] (C. C. T./C. J./N . I./ist Session P. V.) Geneva, Jan u ary 15th, 1925. LEAGUE OF NATIONS. ADVISORY AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSIT. Joint Session of the Legal Committee and the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation. MINUTES OF THE FIRST SESSION Held at Geneva, November z^th-zbth, 1924. (With Annexes.) The Legal Committee is at present composed as follows : His Excellency Dr. F. J. U r r u t ia (appointed by the Government of Colombia), Envoy Extra­ ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Switzerland (Chairman). His Excellency Dr. J. G. G u e r r e r o (appointed by the Government of Salvador), Envoy Extra­ ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in France and Switzerland (Vice-Chairman). M. B. W in ia r s k i (appointed b y the Government of Poland), Professor of Lawy at the University of Poznan. Jonkheer W . J. M. v a n E y s in g a , Professor at the University of Leyden. M. J. H o s t ie , former Legal Adviser to the Belgian Department of Marine, Secretary-General of the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation. The Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation is at present composed as follows : M. Silvain D r e y f u s (appointed by the Government of France), Inspector-General of Bridges and Roads, Member of the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation (Chairman). M. G. P o p e sc o (appointed b y the Government of Roumania), Professor, Director-General of the Société nationale de crédit industriel (Vice-Chairman). Mr. J. G. B a l d w in (appointed by the Government of the British Empire), Representative of Great Britain on the International River Commissions. M. G. D o b k e v ic iu s (appointed by the Government of Lithuania), Engineer, Counsellor of Lega­ tion. M. A. St ie v e n a r d (appointed by the Government of Belgium), Inspector of Belgian Railways. M. B. W in ia r s k i (appointed by the Government of Poland), Professor of Law at the University of Poznan. M. T sang-O u , former Delegate for China at the Barcelona Conference. Secretariat: M. R . H a a s , Secretary-General of the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit; M. J. R o m e in , Secretary of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation. S.d.N. 575 (F.j £25 (A.) 1/24. Imp. Kuniiig. FIRST MEETING. Held on Monday, November 24th, 1924, at 3.30 p .m . Chairman : His Excellency M. G u e r r e r o . Present: All the members of the Legal Committee, with the exception of His Excellency M. Urrutia ; all the members of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation, with the exception of M. G. Popesco and M. Tsang-Ou, who was replaced by M. O u a n g -H a n g , mem ber of the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit ; Also : His Excellency M. A. S e e l ig e r , Minister Plenipotentiary, appointed by the German Government as temporary member of the Advisory and Technical Committee, assisted by M. P eters, Secretary of State at the Ministry of Public Works of the Reich ; His Excellency M. F. V e v e r k a , Minister Plenipotentiary, appointed by the Government of Czechoslovakia as temporary member of the Advisory and Technical Committee, assisted by M. V. K r b e c , Engineer, Counsellor of Legation. Secretariat : M. H a a s, Secretary-General of the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit ; M. R o m e ix , Secretary of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation. Dispute as to the Application of the Articles of the Peace Treaty concerning the Oder (Odra). The Ch a ir m a n asked the representatives of the countries concerned to state their point of view ; there would then be a general discussion, and later a special Sub-Committee might be formed to seek a solution of the question. M. van E y s in g a paid a tribute to the clearness and precision of the report of the Commission presided over by M. Hostie, which had already studied this problem (see Document C .676. M. 240.1924. VIII). M. S e e l ig e r said that the question at issue was rather one of law than of fact, and turned on the point whether, under the terms of the Treaty of Peace, the Oder and its tributaries should be internationalised only up to the Polish frontier or up to the point at which they ceased to be navigable. The German view was that the tributaries must be regarded as internationalised up to the limit of navigation. He referred to Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles and considered that the attitude taken up by the Conference of the Danube confirmed this interpretation. The Barcelona Conference had adopted the principle that tributaries, when they traverse more than one country, should be regarded in the same manner as the main rivers. International opinion had accepted this principle, and it therefore seemed clear that the War te and the Netze ought to be regarded as internationalised and within the competence of the International Commission, starting from the point at which they become navigable. M. W in ia r s k i said that, as a member of the Advisory and Technical Committee, he retained full freedom to express his own opinion, but he thought that in this particular case his position should be the same as that of the members temporarily appointed by the German and Czecho­ slovak Governments to represent the points of view of the latter. As regards the legal point of view, therefore, he expressed his own personal opinion, which was indeed in entire agreement with that of the Polish Government. He was unable to accept the conclusions in the experts’ report for the same reasons that the Polish expert had found it impossible to concur in the opinion of his two colleagues. Two articles could be quoted in support of the argument opposed to that of the Polish Government: Article 331 or Article 338 (see Annex I). He thought that he was of one mind with the experts in interpreting Article 331 in a sense favourable to the Polish argument. Contrary to the opinion of the German delegate, the expression “which naturally provide more than one State with access to the sea” could only refer to the words “all parts” ; consequently, the tributaries of the Oder were only internationalised — that is to say, submitted to an international administration in which non­ riparian States participated — in so far as they corresponded to this definition — the W art a (Warte) from the Polish frontier (a point to be selected west of Miedzychod) and the Notec (Netze) in its frontier and German sectors from Ujscie (Usch). Furthermore, the speaker wras unable to admit that the opposing theory could be based upon Article 338, since that article, which expressly referred to Articles 332-337, had no connection with the question of international administration. He recalled the discussions which had taken place on this matter within the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways at the Peace Conference. After a period of confusion and hesitation, the Commission fixed upon the distinction between th e regime and the administration proposed by the late Secretary-General of the Commission, M. A. Charguéraud. The provisions concerning the regime (Articles 332-337) were to be replaced b y a general convention with regard to navigable waterways of international concern ; this conven­ tio n existed to-day in the form of the Barcelona Convention. On the other hand, the provisions relating to the administration were purely political, their object being to assure access to the sea for land-locked States. The rivers under international administration were designated as rivers 0f general international concern. Those which in their navigable parts traversed or separated two or more States, and for this reason had to be open to flags of all nations without being subject to international administration, were to be called rivers of common concern. The Barcelona Con­ vention had adopted this distinction. It had concerned itself solely with the regime for these two kinds of rivers, leaving the question of international administration exactly where it remained in virtue of the Treaties of Peace. The Convention had noted that the Treaties had instituted an international administration over certain parts of the river systems therein mentioned and had carefully avoided anything which might extend or diminish the territorial competence of the river commissions. The speaker recalled the numerous interventions in this direction at the Barcelona Con­ ference. The various articles in the Treaty of Versailles supported this theory, and subsequent practice at the Barcelona Conference did not appear to have departed from it. In particular, the provisions of the Navigation Acts of the Elbe and the Danube could not be quoted against the Polish case, since, of the numerous cases cited by the delegate, that of the Maros seemed to him to be the only one at variance with this theory. But this departure was based upon the consent of Roumania. The consent of the Powers territorially concerned was a conditio sine qua non of any extension of the territorial competence of the river commissions. Poland, however, was not obliged to adhere to the Navigation Act of the Oder, as wTas the case, for example, with Germany; she was not bound to give her consent to any extension of international administration beyond the stipulations contained in the Treaties.

Load more

  22

Copy Link