CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

jan kuklík CYIL 12 (2021) The Resolution of the Council of the League of Nations allowed for a longer period than the usual two months for comments to be submitted by the government of a state concerned, particularly if the issue turned out to be serious or if there were outstanding judicial or administrative proceedings dealing with the respective issues and the government was expecting the results of such proceedings to formulate their comments for the Council. The position and comments of a respective government was distributed only among the members of the Council. In Colban’s opinion, this was to ensure better cooperation of a state concerned with the League of Nations than it had been when all fifty Member States of the League of Nations had been informed of the petition. Other member states and/or the public should have only be informed of the petition if the respective state wished so, or the reaction of the respective state was insufficient and the Council would have made a decision regarding the violation of a minorities obligation. The Resolution also stipulated a binding procedure according to which the Minorities Committee should decide whether a respective case would be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations or not. In the 1920s, the Czechoslovak Government used their submitted observations and comments regarding relevant petitions to draw up comprehensive documents in 1922 and 1924, for example regarding the land reform or the situation in Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia, which were given to the Minorities Section and the Members States of the Council of the League of Nations. 42 Many procedural issues relating to the consideration of petitions were put into final form in practice and carried out in reality by the Secretariat General in Geneva with the consent of the Council. As has been mentioned, a submitted petition was referred to the government of a state concerned for their observation with a certain time-limit for them to do so (usual two months). Many petitions were finally disposed of at this stage, particularly if the government admitted some errancy in an individual case (so called “petition concerning personal situation”), such as failure to grant state citizenship, social benefits, etc., and the government made settlement with the applicant. 43 This was also applicable to petitions against Czechoslovakia, primarily because the substance of the Czechoslovak policy was to cooperate with the League of Nations in such issues, if possible. 44 In all other cases, the observation of a respective government was debated and, as a rule, the government could be asked to complement their observation or to react to questions posed. If the petition was found admissible, the Council appointed the Committee of Three which was to consider the 42 It was a statement regarding the constitutional framework, land reform, educational system, state administration and self-government, submitted with the cover letter of E. Beneš on 15 September 1922 and 15 March 1924, C-161-1924-I_EN. 43 The case of Josef Fleischlinger regarding his pension (see his petition C-146-1931-I_EN) was rejected by the Czechoslovak Government because it did not recognize his Czechoslovak citizenship. The positions of the Czechoslovak Government were confirmed by the Committee of Three in August 1932, namely by British, Peruvian and Yugoslav representatives. C-5-1933-I-EN.pdf. 44 In 1933, for example, the Czechoslovak Government disposed of the petition of Mr Titz regarding the state citizenship of Marie Wendelin from Příbor; however, the final disposal of the case was done after the issue had been dealt with by the Committee of Three, Archives of the League of Nations, Geneva, R3910/4/704/704, Hungarians in Czechoslovakia – Petition of Mr. Titz of 30 June 1932 relating to the personal situation of Ms. Marie Wendelin – Observations of the Czechoslovak government.

60