CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

jan kuklík CYIL 12 (2021) of the Council and French Foreign Minister. The Council resumed that question on 6 March 1929 and came to the conclusion during discussion that there was time to regulate the procedure. Some proposals, such as to establish a permanent minorities committee of the Council, were rejected; however, the Council agreed that consideration of petitions in the Committees of Three should be given more attention and that communication with the government of the states concerned in clarifying facts and the issues of law should improve. In that context, not only critical comments were presented in Stresemann’s appearance and the Canadian memorandum supported by British minister Austen Chamberlain, but also proposals of Poland presented by A. Zaleski, Romania (represented in the Council by N. Titulescu) as well as Czechoslovakia, i.e., states frequently subject to the minorities procedure, were taken into consideration. 63 The debate, thanks to Briand, eventually focused not on essential changes in the concept of minorities rights, but on the procedure and more extensive distribution of the respective information regarding the cases under consideration. 64 Adachi was assigned as the reporter to prepare the draft of a resolution based upon the outcomes of the debates, along with the British and Spanish representatives. This was important because British opinions were again formulated by Sir Austen Chamberlain and prominent British lawyer Sir Cecil Hurst. Agurier de Carcer, Head of the minorities section, and his deputy Pablo de Alzcárate assisted in finalizing the draft. 65 The Council in its resolution of 7 March 1929 invited member states to express their opinion regarding the intended changes in the minorities procedure; Czechoslovakia reacted with a memorandum formulated in the same way as those submitted by the Polish, Romanian, Yugoslav, and Greek governments. 66 Those states subject to minorities obligations raised those issues as important for changing the procedure agreement with member states having minorities on their territories; they warned of “dangers” implied in the Canadian memorandum, or Stresemann’s appearance in the Council of the League of Nations, and in the subsequent proposal of the German Government to modify the minorities procedure of 12 April 1929. The Canadian and German governments proposed changes in the composition of minorities committees and required increased publicity regarding submitted petitions. However, a majority of the Members States of the League of Nations opted for the preservation of the existing procedure with marginal improvements in organizational arrangements and in dissemination of information on national issues. The most extensive changes in the minorities procedure were proposed by the Hungarian Government. In their statement of 12 April 1929 they criticized insufficiencies in “material” rights of the Hungarian minority in territories detached from Hungary as a result of the Trianon Treaty; the Government repeated their earlier proposals regarding the minorities procedure. 67 They primarily insisted that the person submitting a petition should become 63 For the Czechoslovak position see Beneš’s recording of 26 February 1929 regarding the search for common position with Poland, Romania, Yougoslavia and Greece during debates on the regulation of the minorities procedure. Hajdinová, E., Konrád, O. et al., (eds.): Edvard Beneš, Němci a Německo [Edvard Beneš, Germans and Germany], edition of documents, Vol. II/2, Praha, MUA 2016, doc. N. 2, pp. 32–33. 64 Protection of linguistic, racial or religious minorities by the League of Nations. Resolutions and Extracts from the Minutes of the Council, Resolutions and Reports adopted by the Assembly relating to the Procedure to be followed in Questions concerning the Protection of Minorities, ibid., část II., pp. 100–103. 65 Ibid, pp. 116–118 and final proposal p. 156 and following.

66 Ibid, pp. 193–197. 67 Ibid, pp. 205–209.

64