The Geneva Protocol

by David Hunter Miller

Any dispute as to what State was guilty of aggression prior to that time would be put over for subsequent adjustment; the armistice would be laid down and would be obeyed. Of course, in theory, it could be violated and the violator of the armistice would become the aggressor; but a State that was going to refuse or violate the armistice, knowing the procedure, would doubtless not go to the Council at all.

So, to my mind, the vital part of the procedure laid down by Article 10 for determining an aggressor is found in the provision giving the Council the power immediately to declare an armistice; and, under the procedure, this, in my judgment, is the only power that the Council would ever exercise, except in the case suggested, in which a State itself denounced itself as an aggressor.

I am aware that the framers of the Protocol are not in accord with these views. In their opinion, the presumptions of Article 10 establish "an automatic procedure which would not necessarily be based on a decision of the Council." They say that where a presumption has arisen and is not unanimously rejected by the Council, "the facts themselves decide who is an aggressor" and otherwise that "the Council has to declare the fact of aggression."

I can only say that their conclusions, while perhaps admissible as a mere matter of language and nothing but language, take no account of the inevitable certainty that there will always be at least two views of what the facts are; to put it from a legalistic viewpoint, tribunals do not deal with facts; they deal with what lawyers call facts, but which are merely conclusions based on such evidence as is available. This sort of a "fact" is arrived at only after a hearing or a trial of some kind; and to suppose that the Council could ever conduct such a hearing, and at the same time come to a unanimous and immediate conclusion is to suppose a contradiction in terms.[[12]]

So while from the language of Article 10 of the Protocol difficulty may arise in determining an aggressor under its provisions (for there might in any case be a disputed or doubtful question of fact; and the Council under the provisions of the Covenant would in general have to act unanimously) the Protocol provides a solution of any such difficulty by saying that if the Council does not immediately determine the aggressor, it must (the language is mandatory) proceed to enjoin an armistice, to fix its terms and to supervise its execution, acting for these purposes by two-thirds majority. Then the Protocol provides that any belligerent which refuses the armistice or violates it shall be the aggressor.

These provisions regarding an armistice seem to me to meet any possible objection that might be raised to the absence of a more complete and detailed system of determining in fact and in law what State is an aggressor.

No matter what the presumptions were or even what procedure was laid down, it is clear that, after hostilities in any given case had actually commenced, there would be enormous difficulty for any tribunal whatever in laying down conclusively which State was the aggressor. After all, the vital thing is to prevent war; and the opening of hostilities, to be immediately followed by an armistice, would not be very much of a war. So I regard these provisions as to an armistice as the most ingenious [Transcriber's note: ingenuous?] and, except its statements of principle, the most important of all the provisions of Article 10 of the Protocol.

The power given to the Council to formulate an armistice would be the power exercised if hostilities broke out rather than the power of adjudging the aggressor; unless the aggression was openly admitted, which would mean that one of the parties to the Protocol really defied the others; and, in that case, of course, it would defy the terms of an armistice as well as any other terms. But in any other case a new consideration would immediately arise. The Council would formulate an armistice and in the absence of an open defiance by one State, or possibly by a group of States, of all the others, the armistice would introduce a new situation, a situation in which hostilities were not going on; and human experience shows that, given an armistice, the recommencement of hostilities on the old grounds is a real impossibility.

In the view that I take, the Sanctions of the Protocol become less important in the light of its provisions as to the determination of an aggressor, for it is only against an aggressor that the main Sanctions of the Protocol can be brought into play; and these provisions for determining the aggressor really mean that an aggressor is a State or a combination of States which has finally and deliberately determined to begin war and to carry it on regardless of its most solemn engagements to the contrary. In other words, there could be no war as between the parties to the Protocol without a wilful, wanton and wicked disregard of its provisions.