Decline of the International Protection of Minority Rights

• Author: Joseph B. Schechtman
• DOI: 10.1177/106591295100400101
• Published date: 01 March 1951
• Date: 01 March 1951
• Subject Matter: Articles

the Western
Political Quarterly
DECLINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
OF MINORITY RIGHTS
JOSEPH B. SCHECHTMAN
New York City
I
NE OF THE basic elements of the ethno-territorial settlement after
World War I was the introduction of the system of international
protection of ethnic minorities under the control of the League of
Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice. This system
was created by special minorities provisions which the defeated states-
with the notable exception of Germany-were compelled to sign. More-
over, the new states which emerged out of the war, as well as those enlarged
or reconstituted by the inclusion of new territories with a minority popu-
lation-with the exception of Italy, France, Belgium, and Denmark-were
compelled to sign separate minorities treaties. On September 21, 1922,
the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted a voeu that states not
bound by minorities treaties should observe the same standards as those
bound by such treaties. This voeu, which did not prevent measures openly
hostile to minorities in Fascist Italy or in Nazi Germany, was reiterated
by the Assembly of the League in 1933. Both voeux remained empty
gestures.
Events of the last thirty years have convincingly demonstrated the
inadequacy of the League of Nations system of international protection of
minorities as a solution to the minorities problem in Europe. It has become
commonplace to assert that the minorities treaties devised after World
War I were a failure. Some students find explanations and extenuating
circumstances for the ineffectual operation of these treaties; nobody has,
however, sought to challenge the very fact of failure
1 For a comprehensive work on the League system of protection of minorities from the viewpoint of the
minorities states see Joseph Sulkowski, "The Protection of National Minorities; Past Experiences as
a Basis for Future Solution," in the Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America
(New York), Vols. II (1943) and III (1944). The attitude of the dissatisfied minorities is expressed
in Gustave Koever’s trilogy: Non, Genève ne protège pas les minorités nationales, Genève 1938;
Historie d’une trahison, Le calvaire des minorités nationales et la Société des Nations, Genève 1939;
L’erreur initiale de la Société des Nations, Documents pour servir à l’histoire de la question minori-
taire, Genève 1940.
1

---

2
The minorities system of the League of Nations was designed mainly
to safeguard the rights of national groups in East and Southeast European
countries. It tried to protect not only the individual rights of the members
of minorities by guaranteeing them full equality in law and in fact, but
also their group rights to exist as cultural, religious, and linguistic entities.
Minorities were thus as a matter of principle to be safeguarded against
assimilationist tendencies.
This principle was widely discussed in the abundant wartime litera-
ture of World War II on &dquo;World Organization.&dquo; While the number of
writers who directly attacked the system of protection of collective
minority rights was not large, there was, with few exceptions, only luke-
warm support for the continuation of the system after the wary
2
On the other hand, the idea of international protection of human
rights of the individual attracted increasing attention and sympathy. The
belief was expressed that a universal approach-as opposed to a regional
or group approach-to the protection of the rights of the individual
would remove the causes of irritation on the part of the states bound
by the minorities treaties; with the implied stigma of inferiority removed,
states were expected to be more ready to assume equal responsibilities
toward their own citizens.3 It was argued that under the old system a
privileged position was allegedly granted to ethnic minorities by providing
them with a right of recourse to an international forum; political dissidents,
it was said, even when they constituted majorities, might be overwhelmed
by militant fascist minorities but enjoyed no such international protection;
hence the establishment of a universal bill of rights would remove any
such alleged discrimination at a single stroke, and so eliminate a second
source of resentment, namely, the resentment of majorities in regard to
minorities.4
4
2
Since the five peace treaties (with Hungary, Romania, Italy, Finland, and Bulgaria) written in Paris
in 1946 did not specifically abolish the minority rights guaranteed after World War I, the question
arose whether or not the clauses concerning the protection of minorities were still valid. Drawing
the attention of the United Nations Economic and Social Council to document C.L.110, 1927
(Annex) of the League of Nations, which reproduces "a large number of texts of treaties and
declarations relating to international obligations undertaken to combat discrimination and to
protect minorities," the United Nations Human Rights Commission at its second session held in
Geneva in December, 1947, requested the Council "to consider the question whether, and to what
extent, these treaties should be regarded as being still in force, at least in so far as they would
entail between contracting States rights and obligations, the existence of which would be inde-
pendent of their guarantee by the League of Nations."
The sixth session of the Economic and Social Council held in New York in March, 1948
resolved to charge the Secretariat with preparing a study on this subject. [116 C(VI)]. Submitted
on April 7, 1950, to the sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights, this "Study on the
Legal Validity of the Undertakings Concerning Minorities" (E/C n.4/367) unequivocally stated that
"reviewing the situation as a whole, one is led to conclude that between 1939 and 1947 circum-
stances as a whole changed to such an extent that, generally speaking, the [League of Nations]
system [of international protection of minorities] should be considered as having ceased to exist."
Commenting on the British amendment to the draft of a peace treaty with Romania which provided
for specific guarantees for minority groups [C.P. (Rou. P) Doc. 9], the Romanian Delegation on
September 7, 1946, declared before the Political and Territorial Commission for Romania at the
Paris Peace Conference that if such an amendment were adopted "Romania would be subject to
a humiliating trusteeship system conceivable only in the case of backward nations" [C.P. (Rou. P)
Doc. 13].
4
See "Minorities after...