¹ Australia, Canada, Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa. Following the 1926 Imperial Conference these entities were also commonly described as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The exact meaning of these and other status designations was often unclear. See internal Dominions Office Memorandum of Jan. 1930, Public Record Office (hereafter PRO), DO 114/32.

² Pursuant to the Newfoundland Act, 1933, c. 2 (U.K.) enacted upon the request and consent of the Newfoundland legislature, reproduced as Sched. I thereof. For information on the background to this development, see PRO CAB 24/243-CP 203(33). See also Cmd. 4480(1933); Cmd. 4479 (1933) ; and Noel, S.J.R., Politics in Newfoundland 204–14 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971).Google Scholar

³ Effected by the British North America Act, 1949, c. 22 (U.K.).

⁴ See for example, Reference re British Columbia Offshore Minerals, [1967] S.C.R. 792, at 816; Reference re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada (Nos. 1, 2 and 3) (1982), 125 D.L.R. (3d) 1, at 44, 66, and 83-84, and, Re A.-G. Canada and A.-G. British Columbia (1984), 8 D.L.R. (4th) 161, at 172.

⁵ See O’Connell, and Crawford, , “The Evolution of Australia’s International Personality,” in Ryan, K. (ed.), International Law in Australia 1, at 23–28 (Sydney: Law Book Co., 2nd ed., 1984)Google Scholar. See also Kirmani v. Capt Cook Cruises, [1985] 59 A.L.R. 265.

⁶ See for example, Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, [1969] 1 A.C. 645, at 772; Manuel v. Attorney General, [1982] 3 W.L.R. 821, at 839; and R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p. Indian Association of Alberta, [1982] 2 All E.R. 118.

⁷ See Marston, , “The Newfoundland Offshore Jurisdictional Dispute,” (1984) 18 Journal of World Trade Law 335 Google Scholar; Marston, , “The Newfoundland Offshore Jurisdictional Dispute: A Postscript,” (1985) 19 Journal of World Trade Law 423 Google Scholar; and Herman, L. L., “The Newfoundland Offshore Mineral Rights References,” (1984) 22 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 194.Google Scholar

⁸ Reference re Mineral and Other Natural Resources of the Continental Shelf (1983), 145 D.L.R. (3d) 9. See also Gilmore, , “Newfoundland Offshore Mineral Rights,” (1983) 7 Marine Policy 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Reference re the Seabed and Subsoil of the Continental Shelf Offshore Newfoundland (1984), 5 D.L.R. (4th) 385. See also Gilmore, , “The Newfoundland Continental Shelf Dispute in the Supreme Court of Canada,” (1984) 8 Marine Policy 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ de Smith, S. A., Constitutional and Administrative Law 642 (Harmonds-worth: Penguin Books, 4th ed., 1981).Google Scholar

¹¹ Supra note 9, at 402.

¹² See generally Craig, G. M. (ed.), Lord Durham’s Report (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 1983).Google Scholar

¹³ See generally Gunn, G. E., The Political Hutory of Newfoundland 1832–1864 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See SirLucas, C. (ed.), Lord Durham’s Report on the Affairs of British North America, Vol. 1, at 282 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Keith, A. B., The Constitutional Law of the British Dominions 7 (London : Macmillan, 1933).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Despatch of June 28, 1895 reprinted in “Colonies (Negotiation of Treaties with Foreign Powers),” (1910) H.C. Paper 129, at 8.

¹⁷ See Stewart, R. B., Treaty Relations of the British Commonwealth of Nations 365 (New York: Macmillan, 1939)Google Scholar. After 1907, although an Imperial repre-sentative acted as a co-plenipotentiary, actual negotiations were conducted by the representatives of the Dominion concerned.

¹⁸ See for example, C. 6303 (1891). See also Fraser, , “The Bond-Blaine Convention,” in MacKay, R. A. (ed.), Newfoundland: Economic, Diplomatic and Strategic Studies (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1946).Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Fraser, ibid., 386. The U.S. Senate failed to consent to the ratification of this the Hay-Bond Treaty. For the views of the Imperial Law Officer, see PRO, CO 194/266.

²⁰ See for example, Gilmore, , “The Acquisition of Dominion Statehood Reconsidered,” (1982) 22 Virginia J. Int’l L. 481, at 484-85.Google Scholar

²¹ That year saw the creation of a separate Dominions Department and Imperial Secretariat within the Colonial Office. For the historical background to the concept of the Dominions enjoying an exactly similar status, see Latham, R. T. E., The Law and the Commonwealth 597–98 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949).Google Scholar

²² It concluded bilateral postal conventions with the U.S. in 1872, 1873, 1876, and 1894. Unlike the other Dominions, however, it did not seek membership of the Universal Postal Union during this period.

²³ See, for example, Lewis, , “The International Status of the British Self-Governing Dominions (1923–1923),” 3 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 21, at 25.Google Scholar

²⁴ See SirRoberts-Wray, K., Commonwealth and Colonial Law 252 (London: Stevens and Sons, 1966).Google Scholar

²⁵ First Sir E. Morris and later Sir W. Lloyd.

²⁸ See for example, Wheare, K.G., The Statute of Westminster, 1931, at 67 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933)Google Scholar. See also Keith, A.B., War Government of the British Dominions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921).Google Scholar

²⁷ See Gilmore, , “Newfoundland and the League of Nations,” (1980) 18 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 201.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Christie, L.C., “Notes on the Development at the Paris Peace Conference of the Status of Canada as an International Person” (Confidential Print, Ottawa: Department of External Affairs, July 1, 1919)Google Scholar, Public Archives Canada (hereafter PAC) MG30, E15, Vol. 6, File 18. But see Zines, , “The Growth of Australian Nationhood and Its Effect on the Powers of the Commonwealth,” in Zines, L. (ed.), Commentaries on the Australian Constitution 1, at 27 (Sydney: Butterworths, 1977).Google Scholar

²⁹ Keith, A.B., Dominion Autonomy in Practice 57 (London: Oxford University Press, 1929).Google Scholar

³⁰ See Miller, D.H., The Drafting of the Covenant, Vol. 1, at 61 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1928).Google Scholar

³¹ For the view of Judge Anzilotti on the wording of this provision, see Free City of Danzig and International Labour Organization, P.C.I.J., Ser. B, No. 18, at 22 (1930).

³² Hurst, , “The British Empire as a Political Unit,” in Great Britain and the Dominions: Lectures in the Harris Foundation 1927, at 6 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928).Google Scholar

³³ See supra note 17, at 72. See also Mar. 26, 1923 memorandum by Sir Cecil Hurst entitled “Memorandum respecting Treaties affecting Dominions,” PRO, FO 371/81190.

³⁴ See the Oct. 8, 1923 minute by Hurst on this subject, PRO, FO 372/2015.

³⁵ Cmd. 1987 (1923), at 13.

³⁶ Ibid.

³⁷ Ibid., 14.

³⁸ “As regards treaties negotiated at International Conferences, the existing practice of signature by plenipotentiaries on behalf of all of the governments of the Empire represented at the Conference should be continued, and the Full Powers should be in the form employed at Paris and Washington,” ibid.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ See Governor of Newfoundland to Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mar. 15, 1924. This acceptance was subsequently brought to the attention of the other participants. See, for example, Secretary of State for the Colonies to Governor General of Canada, May 10, 1924, PAC, RG7 G21, Vol. 658, File 41881.

⁴¹ See Jacomy-Millette, A., Treaty Law in Canada 19 (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1975).Google Scholar

⁴² Reproduced in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference 1919, Vol. XIII, at 760, 762 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt Printing Office, 1947).

⁴³ See, for example, Secretary of State for the Colonies to Governor of Newfoundland, July 7, 1919, PRO, CO 532/137.

⁴⁴ Noel Baker, P.J., The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law 57 (London: Longmans, Green, 1929).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See, for example, Kidwai, , “International Personality and the British Dominions: Evolution and Accomplishment,” (1975) 9 University of Queensland L. J. 76, at 99-100.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Foreign Office memorandum of Mar. 1926 on the position of the Dominions in relation to Locarno, PRO, DO 35/12. This theory had been put under strain at the time of the Chanak incident in 1922. See Dawson, R.M., The Development of Dominion Status, 1900–1936 54–65 (London: Oxford University Press, 1937).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Reproduced in supra note 42, at 841, 845.

⁴⁸ See draft telegram to the Dominions, including Newfoundland, approved by the U.K. Cabinet, PRO CAB 24/175 — CP. 473(25) and CAB 23/51 — Cabinet 53(25)6. For the views of the Newfoundland government, as expressed by Prime Minister Monroe at the 1926 Imperial Conference, see PRO, CAB 32/56 — E. (I.R. — 26), 7th Meeting, at 4.

⁴⁹ Text reproduced supra note 17, at 180.

⁵⁰ PRO, FO 372/6146.

⁵¹ At the sixth meeting of the 1921 Imperial Conference, reproduced in Documents on Canadian External Relations, 1919–1925, at 170, 172 (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1970).

⁵² Cmd. 1988 (1923), at 11.

⁵³ See for example, Jan. 1926 memorandum prepared by the Dominions Office and entitled “Procedure in Connection with Signature and Ratification of Treaties,” PRO, FO 372/2291.

⁵⁴ See ibid.

⁵⁵ See July 31, 1926 memorandum by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, PRO, CAB 24/181 — CP 311 (26).

⁵⁶ At the Nov. 11, 1926 meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence. See PRO, CAB 24/202 — CP 97(29).

⁵⁷ See PRO, CAB 24/203 — CP 218(29).

⁵⁸ See supra note 53. As R. B. Stewart had noted, supra note 17, at 185: “In the instrument of ratification as originally drafted there appeared a provision limiting the scope of its application. This statement is: ‘Provided however that this Our Ratification of the said Treaty shall not be deemed to apply, in respect of Our Commonwealth of Australia, Our Union of South Africa, Our Island of Newfoundland, or Our Empire of India, in respect of which we reserve to Ourselves the faculty of further ratifying the said Treaty hereafter.’ This provision was eliminated from the final draft, and the Treaty was ratified by His Majesty by a single instrument without specifying or excepting any of his territories.”

⁵⁹ See supra note 53.

⁶⁰ See supra note 20, at 489-90.

⁶¹ See, for example, Crawford, J., The Creation of States in International Law 244 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979).Google Scholar

⁶² This was particularly true of Prime Minister Hertzog of South Africa: see PRO, CAB 24/181 — CP 341 (26), Annex B. In stark contrast was the position of Newfoundland, Australia, and New Zealand: see R. M. Dawson, supra note 46, at 105.

⁶³ See the minute of Jan. 3, 1923 by Addam of the Foreign Office, PRO, FO 37I/9399.

⁶⁴ That such was not the original intention of the U.K. authorities is evident: see memorandum of July 12, 1926 on proposed agenda, PRO, DO 35/8.

⁶⁵ See Condliffe, , “The Attitude of New Zealand on Imperial and Foreign Affairs,” in Great Britain and the Dominions: Lectures in the Harris Foundation 1927 359, at 369 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Quoted by Harkness, D.W., The Restless Dominion 87 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1969).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cmd. 2769 (1927), at 26–27.

⁶⁸ PRO,DO 117/35 — E.(I.R. — 26) 1st Meeting.

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Ibid. There was at first little support for the idea of a formal declaration of status. See the private recollections of Sir M. Hankey of the Nov. 1, 1926 meeting, PRO, DO 117/48.

⁷¹ PRO, DO 117/48 — CP 384(26).

⁷² See PRO, CAB 23/53 — CP 390(26).

⁷³ See generally PRO, CAB 23/53 — Cabinet 59(26)2.

⁷⁴ Ibid.

⁷⁵ See Cmd. 2768 (1926), at 14–15.

⁷⁶ Ibid., 14.

⁷⁷ Ibid.

⁷⁸ Evatt, , “The British Dominions as Mandatories,” (1935) I Australian and New Zealand Soc. Int’l L. Proc. 27, at 35.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Proceedings of the Newfoundland House of Assembly 1927, 4th Session, 26th General Assembly, 17.

⁸⁰ Departmental reference CRO N/2005/109.

⁸¹ See PRO, DO 117/22 — ICD (26) (Sub. 1) ist Conclusion, July 7, 1926. See also PRO, DO 117/22 — CP 304(26).

⁸² See Form of Preamble and Signature of Treaties, PRO, DO 117/22 — E. 104.

⁸³ See ibid. — E. 104.A.

⁸⁴ See Jennings, , “The Commonwealth and International Law,” (1953) Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 320, at 331Google Scholar. For the British view of the outcome, see “Inter Se Application of Multilateral Governmental Agreements,” PRO, CAB 32/83 — E. (B)(30)2, Enclosure 2. See also Fawcett, J.E.S., The British Commonwealth in International Law 144–94 (London: Stevens and Sons, 1963).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Cmd. 2768 (1926), at 21.

⁸⁶ Reproduced in Documents on Canadian External Relations, 1926–1930, 113 (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1971).

⁸⁷ Ibid., 114.

⁸⁸ Cmd. 2768 (1926), at 22–23. As A. B. Keith has remarked: “It was remembered that in 1919 Sir R. Borden had proposed that treaties should be signed specifically for the United Kingdom and its dependencies, as well as for each Dominion, and this doctrine was successfully revived and adopted by the Imperial Conference of 1926”: Keith, A.B., Speeches and Documents on the British Dominions 1918–1931 xxv (London: Oxford University Press, 1932)Google Scholar. See also R. M. Dawson, supra note 46, at 107.

⁸⁹ See Cmd. 2768 (1926), at 29–30. This was, in turn, based on an earlier draft by Sir C. Hurst: see PRO, CAB 32/57 — E(I.R./26/T.P.) 1.

⁹⁰ See supra note 82.

⁹¹ For an alternative formula discarded because of difficulties of application to Newfoundland, see Dec. 11, 1925 minute by Malkin, PRO, FO 371/2173.

⁹² See PRO, CAB 32/57 — E(I.R./26/TP)2.

⁹³ Reproduced in supra note 86, at 153–54.

⁹⁴ Ibid., 155.

⁹⁵ See Cmd. 8768 (1926), at 22–23.

⁹⁶ See supra note 24, at 252-53.

⁹⁷ Supra note 95, at 22.

⁹⁸ This reads: “Where by the nature of the treaty it is desirable that it should be ratified on behalf of all the Governments of the Empire, the initiating Government may assume that a Government which has had full opportunity of indicating its attitude and has made no adverse comments will concur in the ratification of the treaty. In the case of a Government that prefers not to concur in the ratification of a treaty unless it has been signed by a plenipotentiary authorised to act on its behalf, it will advise the appointment of a plenipotentiary so to act.” Ibid.

⁹⁹ PRO, FO 371/2293.

¹⁰⁰ See Cmd. 2768 (1926), at 23-24.

¹⁰¹ See ibid., 24-25.

¹⁰² Supra note 24, at 252. See also supra note 45, at 103-4.

¹⁰³ See Cmd. 2768 (1926), at 24.

¹⁰⁴ Secretary of State for the Dominions to Governor, Feb. 24, 1927, Newfoundland Provincial Archives (hereafter NA) 1927.

¹⁰⁵ See for example, Secretary of State for the Dominions to Governor General of Canada, Feb. 24, 1927, reproduced in supra note 86, at 619.

¹⁰⁶ Governor to Secretary of State for the Dominions, Mar. 4, 1927, NA 1927.

¹⁰⁷ Enclosed with Secretary of State for the Dominions to Governor, June 23, 1927, NA 1927. Reproduced in supra note 17, at 182.

¹⁰⁸ Newfoundland was, however, a party to an Exchange of Notes with Canada, the U.S., and Cuba on the allocation of short wave radio frequencies: see (1929–30) 97 LNTS 302. In 1931 it also became a party to the British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement: see (1932) 129 LNTS 178. It also participated in the post-1926 arrangements concerning the appointment of foreign consuls in the Dominions: see Dominions Office to Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1934, PR0, FO 372/2983.

¹⁰⁹ External Affairs Act, 1931, Cap. 14 (Nfld.), s. 2(1).

¹¹⁰ See supra note 32, at 6. See also Prime Minister of Newfoundland to Dominions Office, Aug. 31, 1931, PRO, FO 371/15768.

¹¹¹ The process of information and prior consultation used in the case of Newfoundland was described by the Dominions Office for the benefit of South Africa in 1929. See Dominions Office to Houstoun-Boswall, Aug. 15, 1929. PRO, FO 627/13.

¹¹² This was a proposition that was even accepted by the Foreign Office. See memorandum of Feb. 4, 1931 entitled “Technical Phraseology in Extradition Treaties (with special reference to the Imperial Conference formula for commercial treaties and to the position of Newfoundland),” PRO, DO 35/175. See also Cmd. 1768 (1926), at 26.

¹¹³ Consisting of representatives of the Foreign Office, Dominions Office, Colonial Office, Home Office, and Board of Trade.

¹¹⁴ See supra note 112, memorandum of Feb. 4, 1931.

¹¹⁵ See, for example, Acting Legal Adviser of the League to Under-Secretary of State, Foreign Office, Jan. 12, 1931 relative to the treatment of Newfoundland under the Convention for the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards, PRO, FO 371/14987. See also Governor to Secretary of State for the Dominions, Oct. 30, 1930, ibid.

¹¹⁶ Memorandum of May 10, 1930 entitled “Participation of Newfoundland in Multilateral International Instruments,” PRO, DO 35/164.

¹¹⁷ Ibid.

¹¹⁸ See Keith, A.B., The Dominions as Sovereign States 22 (London: Macmillan, 1938).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See, for example, Secretary of State for the Dominions to Governor, May 2, 1928, PRO, FO 371/12791. In some instances, however, non-League Head of State instruments dealt with technical questions, for example, the Rome Copyright Convention of 1928. This contained both a colonial exclusion article and a provision whereby “countries outside the Union” might later accede. There was considerable internal debate within the British government in the years following the Imperial Conference on this subject. It was the view of the Dominion’s Office that in such instances, “the position of Newfoundland must be determined by the Newfoundland Government alone. The ratification of such a treaty in respect of the United Kingdom should therefore not cover Newfoundland and the participation of Newfoundland … should be effected by subsequent accession under the Article dealing with the accession of ‘States’ or ‘countries’”: supra note 116. These views received preliminary consideration by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations on May 13, 1930, and were again before that body on May 7, 1931. On this occasion the Dominions Office again prepared a memorandum in which similar views on the above categories of treaties were expressed: see “Participation of Newfoundland in Multilateral International Instruments,” Apr. 21, 1931, PRO, FO 371/17321. At this meeting the Inter-Departmental Committee noted that “there was general agreement” as to the position of Newfoundland in these classes of treaties: Inter-Departmental Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations, May 7, 1931, PRO, FO 371/17321.

¹²⁰ Deputy Colonial Secretary to Governor, Sept. n, 1929, NA 1929, GN 2/6/B.

¹²¹ See U.S. Secretary of State to British Ambassador at Washington enclosed with Secretary of State for the Dominions to Governor, Sept. 4, 1930, NA 1930, GN 1/2/0.

¹²² See for example, memorandum by Counsellor, Sept. 25, 1929, reproduced in supra note 86, at 799, 801. See also Secretary of State for the Dominions to Governor, Aug. 17, 1929, NA 1929, GN 1/2/0.

¹²³ Foreign Office to Dominions Office, Oct. 28, 1931, PRO, FO 371/15665. For the view of the Dominions Office at this time, see memorandum of Apr. 21, 1931, supra note 119.

¹²⁴ Foreign Office to Dominions Office, June 1, 1933, PRO, FO 371/17321.

¹²⁵ Ibid. In an internal minute Beckett retorted: “The D.O. are fond of inserting in letters general views on the line of the passage … in this letter but when it comes to the point in any practical case, Nfld. always is dealt with as a colony,” ibid.

¹²⁶ Newfoundland Colonial Secretary to Governor, Dec. 14, 192B, NA 1928.

¹²⁷ See Newfoundland Colonial Secretary to Governor, Jan. 16, 1929, NA 1929, GN 2/6/B.

¹²⁸ Thus, on Feb. 22, 1929, Mr. Whiskard of the Dominions Office minuted: “The logical line of differentiation between administrations wh. shd. have, and those wh. shd. not have, this right to be represented and to vote at these Congresses is no doubt that those administrations wh. are entirely free from control by any govt, other than their own shd. have representation & vote & that the rest shd. not. On this basis Newfoundland wd. be entitled to representation & vote, & I think that, if and when circumstances are favourable, we shd. endeavour to secure this for her,” PRO, DO 35/69.

¹²⁹ PRO, DO 35/74.

¹³⁰ Note of a meeting of Jan. 8, 1932. PRO, DO 35/164.

¹³¹ See Secretary of State for the Dominions to Governor, Feb. 23, 1932, NA 1932, GN 1/2/0.

¹³² See Secretary of State for the Dominions to Governor, Nov. 28, 1933, NA 1933.

¹³³ Supra note 116. As an internal Dominions Office minute of Mar. 12, 1930 stated: “it would, I think, be possible to make out a case for arguing that Newfoundland should be entitled to participate as a separate Contracting Party in non-League multilateral instruments in the governmental form. In support of this contention it might be argued that, while we may treat Newfoundland, as an entity, as part of the United Kingdom etc., for purposes of international instruments, we can hardly treat His Majesty’s Government in Newfoundland as other than coequal with His Majesty’s other Governments; yet we should be doing this if we attempted to arrange that His Majesty’s Government in Newfoundland shall only come into such a Convention as the present one under the Colonial Article,” PRO, DO 35/164.

¹³⁴ Supra note 116. The issue remained a contentious one and was raised again in 1931. The Dominions Office, in elaborating on its earlier view, stated in part: “(a) In the case of formal Inter-Imperial Agreements (which necessarily take the Governmental form), Newfoundland as an equal Member of the British Commonwealth would be entitled to participate on exactly the same footing as the other Dominions. Thus the draft Merchant Shipping Agreement drawn up at the recent Imperial Conference treats Newfoundland as a separate party on the same footing as this country and the other Dominions, and definitely puts Newfoundland in a different position from a Colony which, under Article 27 of the Agreement, is brought in by the action of the Government under whose authority the Colony is administered. The question arises whether there is such a differentiation between Inter-Imperial and International Agreements as to justify treating Newfoundland in a different manner in relation to the two classes of Agreement”: see memorandum of Apr. 21, 1931, supra note 119.

¹³⁵ PRO, FO 371/14083.

¹³⁶ At its meeting of May 7, 1931, supra note 119.

¹³⁷ In a Dominions Office memorandum of Dec. 1936 Newfoundland was treated on the same basis as the other Dominions on the ground that “it has equal status with Great Britain whereas Southern Rhodesia has not,” PRO, DO 35/13.

¹³⁸ Note of meeting of Feb. 28, 1927, PRO, FO 371/12647.

¹³⁹ Dominions Office to Under-Secretary of State, Foreign Office, Apr. 4, 1928, PRO, FO 371/13051.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid. For the form of wording commonly used see “Form of Commercial Treaties,” PRO, CAB 32/81 — E(30)8. See also “Form of Preamble, Signature and Ratification of Treaties,” PRO, CAB 32/83 — E(B) (30) 11.

¹⁴¹ See, for example, minute of Apr. 10, 1928 by Beckett, PRO, FO 371/13051.

¹⁴² PRO, DO 35/58.

¹⁴³ See, for example, Arts. 18 and 22 of draft model extradition treaty prepared by the Foreign Office in 1928, PRO, DO 35/59. See also “Form of Preamble, Signature and Ratification of Treaties,” supra note 140.

¹⁴⁴ PRO, FO 371/11735.

¹⁴⁵ See Art. 6, Cmd. 2911 (1927).

¹⁴⁶ Supra note 142.

¹⁴⁷ See generally Cmd. 3717 (1930).

¹⁴⁸ See, for example, “Technical Phraseology in Official Documents,” June 4, 1930, PRO, CAB 32/83 — E(B) (30)2, Enclosure 5.

¹⁴⁹ Supra note 112. For views as to its position under the London Naval Treaty of 1930, see Foreign Office minute of Jan. 9, 1931 by Malkin, PRO, FO 372/2629; and memorandum of Feb. 4, 1931, supra note 112.

¹⁵⁰ PRO, FO 637/30.

¹⁵¹ Ibid.

¹⁵² Ibid.

¹⁵³ Governor to Secretary of State for the Dominions, Apr. 22, 1931, ibid.

¹⁵⁴ In Mar. 1932 the Foreign Office suggested that Newfoundland be treated nominatim in the colonial article in the proposed Anglo-Japanese agreement for dealing with illicit drug traffic. In a letter to the Dominions Office dated Mar. 7, 1932 it was explained that: “the effect of the draft notes in their present form will be to constitute not only an agreement between ourselves and the Japanese Government, but also separate agreements between each Dominion named and the Japanese Government…. In view of the fact that Newfoundland is not a member of the League of Nations and has no separate international status, and is therefore incapable of contracting separately with a foreign Government …” the above suggestion was made: PRO, FO 371/16252. This course of action was accepted by the Dominions Office in a letter to the Foreign Office of Mar. 22, 1932 “on the understanding that we do not wish this to imply that we are committed to a similar view as to the method of dealing with Newfoundland in the case of Civil Procedure Conventions and Commercial Treaties,” ibid.

¹⁵⁵ 1931,c.4 (U.K.).

¹⁵⁶ PRO, DO 35/126.

¹⁵⁷ Ibid.

¹⁵⁸ See Foreign Office to Dominions Office, Feb. 22, 1932, ibid.

¹⁵⁹ PRO, DO 35/126. The “British Commonwealth of Nations” form was subsequently used in commercial treaties. See, for example, treaty between the U.K. and Estonia of July 15, 1933, art. 2(d), (1933–34) 141 LNTS 34. It was also used in subsequent civil procedure conventions. See, for example, treaty between the U.K. and Finland of Aug. 11, 1933, Art. 15, (1934) 149 LNTS 132. The practice of the U.K. does not reveal a positive outcome to this debate prior to the introduction of Commission of Government in Feb. 1934. Thereafter Newfoundland was dealt with under the Colonial article in treaties in the new form : see, for example, in the context of the Finnish treaty (1934–35) 156 LNTS 316. During this latter stage of constitutional development, it was also treated with the colonies in treaties concluded in the old form: see for example, (1934–35) 156 LNTS 261, providing for the extension of the U.K.-Denmark treaty of Nov. 29, 1932 under the colonial article. See (1933–34) 139 LNTS 10.

¹⁶⁰ See Houstoun-Boswall to Dominions Office, June 5, 1929, PRO, FO 627/13.

¹⁶¹ See Foreign Office to Dominions Office, Aug. 9, 1929, PRO, FO 627/13.

¹⁶² Dominions Office to Houstoun-Boswall, Aug. 15, 1929, PRO, FO 627/13.

¹⁶³ Supra note 8, at 28. Subsequently this was characterized as “de jure sovereignty as a coastal State”: ibid., 32-33.

¹⁶⁴ Supra note 9, at 402.