CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

DALIBOR JÍLEK – JANA MICHALIČKOVÁ CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ status of refugees, had risen in the discussion. 50 The convention would be capable of instituting legal effects in the national order. In addition, it would be possible to commit all the organs of the state, mainly by regulation of the legal status of persons and the resulting rights or claims. Under required legal conditions, the courts could directly apply the rules of the ratified and promulgated international treaty. 51 At the same time, the recommendation could not oblige any addressee to make legislative amendments or could not even result in the direct applicability of the provision. The delegations of the participating countries voted in favour of the recommendation. 52 They relied on the practice of existing arrangements that were prepared at intergovernmental conferences under the auspices of the League of Nations. 53 All arrangements relating to Russian and Armenian refugees included only recommended standards as reasons for non- binding conduct. Despite its nature, the 1928 Arrangement was listed in the League of Nations Treaty Series. Under Article 18 of the Covenant, none of the international treaties negotiated by a member of the League of Nations could become binding unless it was registered by the Secretariat. 54 The registration did not introduce any of these arrangements into international law. The registration was not able to ensure a radical change in the form of the Arrangement and its particular provisions. Through this registration the Arrangement did not revert to a particular convention binding the States. 55 The content and concepts used therein determined the nature of the Arrangement. The binding international treaty and the content of its normative sentences usually enumerate international legal obligations. Yet it emerged from the text of the Arrangement that government representatives agreed on the need to define the legal status of Russian and Armenian refugees more clearly. To that end, nine resolutions were adopted which contain principles. Each resolution begins with the phrase il est recommandé . The passive voice used in conjunction with these words expressed the common intention of the representatives of states not to impose any international rights and obligations as subjective normative modes. The final part of the 1928 Arrangement expressed the hope that the representatives of individual governments would announce at the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations what measures the participating states had taken to implement the provisions. Czechoslovakia implemented the recommendations in the following manner. On May 16, 1929, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent letter No. 102/29 to the Secretary General through a permanent representative at the League of Nations. The letter, being 50 Ibid ., pp. 111-112. 51 Ibid ., p. 112. 52 Ibid ., p. 112: «Toutefois, il convient de relever que les délégations de la Conference se sont surtout exprimées en faveur d’une re commandation.» 53 Ratification of agreements and conventions concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations. Annex to the Supplementary Report on the Work of the Council and the Secretariat to the Fourteenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the League of Nations. Official No. A. 6(a). 1933, Geneva, September 15 th , 1933. 54 Art. 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations reads as follows: “Every treaty or international engagement entered into hereafter by any Member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. No such treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so registered.” 55 VICHNIAC, M., Le statut international des apatrides. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1933, Vol. 43, p. 220.

90