Nevertheless I submit that the whole idea of the possibility of Signatories to the Protocol who are non-Members of the League, is fundamentally contrary to the whole principle, spirit and terms of the Protocol itself.
In the first place, the Protocol is intended as a development of the Covenant; the Protocol is meant to be a temporary paper; its provisions are to be merged in the Covenant itself by amendment of that Document. How then can a State become a party to this temporary and provisional paper if it is not a party to the permanent and definitive document?
If we examine the detailed provisions of the Protocol, the logical conclusion is equally certain. Surely a non-Member of the League cannot really "make every effort" to secure "introduction into the Covenant of amendments" (Article 1). Is this a matter for non-Members of the League?
Article 3 of the Protocol contemplates that the Signatories thereto shall accede to the special protocol regarding the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court. But if we turn to the provisions regarding the Permanent Court we find that such States as Russia and Mexico and Egypt are not entitled to accede to that special protocol at all, before entering the League.[3] Accordingly, if any one of these three States, non-Members of the League, should sign and ratify the Protocol of Geneva, it could not legally carry out the engagements of Article 3 thereof.
All the provisions of Articles 4 to 6 inclusive of the Protocol of Geneva relate to disputes between the Signatories and contemplate the possible submission of any such dispute to the Council or Assembly of the League of Nations. But such submission can take place only under the provisions of the Covenant; and under Article 17 of the Covenant a non-Member of the League may not come within the provisions of the Covenant except upon invitation by the Council and upon terms stated.
Without going into further detail, I repeat that the obligations contemplated by the Protocol are, in theory, no more than interpretations, or future elaborations, of the obligations of the Covenant. It seems to me logically impossible to suppose that such interpretations or amplifications may be made applicable to States which are free from the obligations in their primary form.