1. Relations inter se of the Signatories to the Protocol.
2. Relations inter se of the Members of the League not Signatories to the Protocol.
3. Relations inter se of non-Members of the League.
4. Relations of the Signatories to the Protocol with the Members of the League not Signatories thereto.
5. Relations of Members of the League not Signatories to the Protocol with States non-Members of the League.
6. Relations of the Members of the League Signatories to the Protocol with States non-Members of the League.
It is proposed in this discussion first to consider the first of the above six classes, namely, the relations of the Signatories to the Protocol, inter se; and this discussion will proceed primarily on the assumption that the obligations of the Protocol are carried out.
In numerous places the Protocol speaks of the parties thereto as "the signatory States," e. g., Articles 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, etc. It is curious this is so in view of the meticulous insistence by the British Dominions at the Peace Conference, on the use, throughout the text of the Covenant generally, of the expression "Members of the League" instead of "States Members of the League."[[2]]
Certainly it is contemplated that ratification of the Protocol may be made on behalf of the British Dominions. Accordingly, I think that the use in the Protocol of the expression "signatory States" is probably an inadvertence, as in no proper international sense of the word are the British Dominions States, despite the fact that they have an international status under the League of Nations and even otherwise.[[3]]