¹ I See, as to the Geneva Convention of 1929 for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, an article by Fitzmaurice, E. in this Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 533 seq.Google Scholar

² There are, in fact, two conventions on this subject, the Convention of 1921 for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children and the Convention of 1933 for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women of Full Age. Reference may be made also to the International Convention of 1924 for the Suppression of the Circulation of and Traffic in ObscenePublications, and the Draft Convention on Terrorism (See L.N. Doc.C.36.1936.V), which are allied to the development of the international law as to criminal offences.

³ See especially the League of Nations pamphlet published in 1934, entitled The League and the Drug Traffic, which contains a full account of the matter within reasonable compass. See also article by Professor Quincy, Wright “The Narcotics Convention of 1931,” in this JOURNAL, Vol. 28 (1934), p. 475 seq. Google Scholar, and Bailey, S. H. “The Anti-Drug Campaign,” passim.Google Scholar

⁴ The problem of the unification of penal law in the general sense was dealt with in a special report of the Fifth Committee of the League Assembly to the Assembly, Sept. 1931 (Doc.A.70.1931.IV). This report emphasized that unification should have for its first object offences in the suppression of which all civilized States are interested, e.g., slavery, drug offences. The report also pointed out that the best method to follow would be to submit the question in each case to certain independent organizations having the necessary qualifications, requesting them to indicate how the League of Nations could best assist the process of unification.

⁵ See page 31, n. 1.

⁶ The questionnaire dealt with the following three points:

(i) Whether it was possible to amend the national penal laws in a way to make punishable all or any of the acts enumerated in the draft convention.

(ii) Whether it was possible to treat all or any of the offences in question as extraditable

(iii) Whether Governments approved the police organization and the procedure of international collaboration set out in the draft.

⁷ See also report to the Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law by Mr. Brierly, Dec. 7, 1925 (L.N.Doc.C.P.D.1.25), which deals with the problem of regulating extradition matters by general convention. The following conclusion is set out on page 3: “We believe that on a large number of questions connected with extradition there already exists practical uniformity in the practice of States, and that in certain others the differences which exist are not founded on any seriously divergent policies and might be capable of reconciliation. But undoubtedly there are still other questions upon which States appear to hold strongly opposed views, the existence of which renders a single comprehensive convention, regulating the whole practice of extradition for all States, unlikely of achievement.”

⁸ See Resolutions and Recommendations adopted by the Assembly during its Twelfth Ordinary Session, p. 11.

⁹ It will be noticed that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Assembly resolution as to the preparatory procedure to be followed in the case of multilateral conventions, provide that the Assembly shall decide at the end of the first consultation whether the subject is prima facie suitable for the conclusion of a convention, and at the end of the second consultation,whether a conference shall meet to conclude a convention. In view of the urgency of the question of the illicit drug traffic, the Assembly in both cases delegated this right of decision to the Council.

The fact that the Council discharged the functions allotted to the Assembly in paragraphs 4 and 5 is not at all contrary to the terms of the Assembly resolution. The resolution expressly states that the procedure set out by it shall “in principle” be followed, “except where previous conventions or arrangements have established a special procedure or where, owing to the nature of the questions to be treated or to special circumstances, the Assembly or the Council consider other methods to be more appropriate.”

¹⁰ See L.N.Doe.C.208.1935.XI, page 3.

¹¹ In passing, it is worthy of note that the Conference was attended by delegates from forty countries and observers from two others.

¹² See above, p. 35.

¹³ This may possibly be regarded as a precedent for the future that the conference does have sovereign powers.

¹⁴ These are: “The manufacture, conversion, extraction, preparation, possession, offering,offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokage,despatch, despatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of narcotic drugs,” contrary to the provisions of the Hague, Geneva and Limitation Conventions.

¹⁵ See below, p. 42.

¹⁶ The practice as to interpretation clauses of this nature has always varied; sometimes they are inserted in a protocol which is open to signature and ratification (e.g., Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency), sometimes, as here, in the Final Act.

¹⁷ See as to Art. 5, below, p. 40.

¹⁸ See as to the Committee of Experts, above, p. 36.

¹⁹ For the acts in question, see above p. 38, n. 14.

²⁰ The wording of Art. 2 is in this respect much more clear and precise than in the earlier drafts.

²¹ The clause was first inserted by the Committee of Experts, and Governments were, as a result of a decision of the League Council, asked to forward observations on the clause, particularly in regard to the possibility of including it in the subject matter of the conference (see Official Journal of the League, February 1936, pp. 68–69).

²² For latest developments as to this convention, see report to the Council of the Opium Advisory Committee on the work of its 21st session, July 1936, pp. 16–17.

²³ The contraventions referred to in Art. 5 also fall outside Arts. 6–13, inclusive, which articles explicitly refer only to the offences specified under Art. 2.

²⁴ Thus the wording of Art. 8 was brought into line with that of a similar article in the Draft Convention on Terrorism.

²⁵ The object of condition (b) is to exempt from the provisions of the article countries which, like Great Britain, generally speaking, only apply the system of territoriality in the case of offences committed abroad by foreigners.

²⁶ The formal clauses are Articles 17–25, inclusive.

²⁷ See above, p. 37.