His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have had under
consideration their position in relation to the Optional Clause of
the Statute of the Permanent Court of International justice. In
the present circumstances it would not appear practicable to carry
out the procedure of meeting of the members of the League of
Nations such as was suggested in paragraph 3 my telegram 24th
December, 1938 [2], and in any event it appears to His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom that whether there were such a
meeting or not it will be sufficiently directed [3] by means of
governing forces under covenant have so far broken down as to
justify us in releasing ourselves from our obligations under the
Optional Clause as regards disputes arising out of events
occurring during the present hostilities.

It is accordingly proposed to address the Secretary General of the
League of Nations [4] a letter in the following terms:-

'I am directed by Viscount Halifax [5] to inform you that His
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland have found it necessary to consider the problem
[6], in the existing circumstances, of their acceptance of the
Optional Clause of the Statute of Permanent Court of International
justice. Their acceptance of the Clause was for ten (10) years
from the date of ratification, which took place on 5th February,
1930.

2. The condition under which His Majesty's Government gave their
signature to the Optional Clause was described in a memorandum
issued at the time, miscellaneous No. 12, 1929, a copy of which is
enclosed for the convenience of reference. [7] Paragraphs 15-22 of
that memorandum state the considerations which then satisfied His
Majesty's Government, that they could accept the Optional Clause
without making a reservation (which they would have been fully
entitled to make) as to the dispute arising out of events
occurring during a war in which they might be engaged. Those
considerations were, in brief, that by the building up of a new
International system based on the Covenant of the League of
Nations and Pact of Paris, a fundamental change had been brought
about in regard to the whole question of belligerent or mutual [8]
rights.

In the only circumstances in which it was contemplated that His
Majesty's Government could be involved in war, other members of
the League, so far from being in the position of neutral with a
right to trade with our enemy, would be bound under Article 16 of
the Covenant to sever all relations with him.

The effect of this at the time of His Majesty's Government's
signature was that the condition which might produce a justifiable
[9] dispute between United Kingdom as a belligerent and another
member of the League as a neutral would not exist, since other
members of the League would either fulfil their obligations under
Article 16 of the Covenant or, if they did not, would have no
grounds upon which to protest against the measures which His
Majesty's Government might take to prevent action on their part
which was inconsistent with those obligations.

3. It is unfortunately clear that these conditions no longer
exist. It has become evident that many of the members of the
League no longer consider themselves bound to take action of any
kind under the Covenant against an aggressor state.

At the League Assembly of September, 1938, note was taken of the
expression of opinion, and it became clear that sanctions against
an aggressor under the terms of the Covenant could not be regarded
as obligatory. There remained only a general understanding that
members should consult one another in the event of aggression
against another member and that such aggression could not be
treated with indifference.

4. For reasons which His Majesty's Government appreciate it has
not proved possible, in the present crisis, to give any practical
effect even to so limited an understanding as that just described.

Not only has there been no attempt at action under Articles 16 or
17 of the Covenant, but no action has even been taken under
Article 11, and in advance of hostilities a number of States
members of the League have announced their intention to maintain
strict neutrality as between the two belligerents. It is not the
intention of His Majesty's Government to make any complaints about
the state of affairs, but it can only mean that the Covenant has,
in the present instance, completely broken down in practice, that
the whole machinery for preservation of peace has collapsed and
that the conditions in which His Majesty's Government accepted the
Optional Clause no longer exist.

This situation, so fundamentally changed from that which existed
at the time of their signature of the Optional Clause, was
mentioned as a possibility in paragraph 22 of the memorandum of
1929, and it was then stated that His Majesty's Government could
not conceive that in the general collapse of the whole machinery
for the preservation of peace, the one thing left standing should
be the Optional Clause and commitment of the signatories
thereunder.

5. I am, therefore, directed to notify you that His Majesty's
Government, believing themselves to be firmly defending the
principles on which the Covenant was made, but realizing the
general breakdown of the means by which such principles were
intended to be applied, will not regard their acceptance of the
Optional Clause as covering the dispute arising out of the events
occurring during the present crisis.

6. I am to request that this notification may be communicated to
the Governments of all States which have accepted the Optional
Clause, and to the Registrar of the Permanent Court of
International justice.'
His Majesty's Government will be grateful for information as to
any action which may be taken by other members of the British
Commonwealth.

SECDO