Paris Peace Conf. 185.1/15
1. Nature and purpose
2. Machinery and procedure
4. Adherence of non-signatories
1. Publication of future treaties and international
2. Publication of all existing treaties and
3. Status of non-published treaties
4. Procedure of publication
2. Contiguous states
3. Self-governing dominions
4. Colonies, protectorates, and spheres of influence
1. Time of peace—public ships—private ships
2. Time of war
Effect of proposed association of nations upon laws of maritime
Belgium will ask for some changes in the German frontier, so as to
include some districts claimed to be Belgian.
Belgium will ask for changes in the Dutch frontier and a revision of the
status of the Scheldt. As Holland is a neutral, the question of the
consideration by the Peace Conference of such request is presented.
5. The Rhine Provinces
These provinces, with the bridgeheads on the Rhine, being in occupation
of the United States and the Allies, provision for their future will be
necessary in the Treaty of Peace.
7. The Aland Islands
Now a part of Finland, the question of their cession to Sweden is raised,
involving the continuance of former agreements as a non-fortification,
and to some extent, the control of the Baltic.
With the former Russian Province of Poland, the territory of the new
state may include:
The whole question of the Vistula and of the future of Dantzig is
Territory of Austria and of Hungary.
The statements recently presented by the Czecho-Slovaks include demands
10. The Adriatic
Extent of territory in Austria and in Hungary (aside from boundary with
12. Balkan boundaries
14. Constantinople and the Straits
16. Finland-Russia boundary
Finland has made some efforts for a rectification of this frontier in her
Finland and Poland are not here included.
Bessarabia has become united to Roumania.
It is deemed impracticable to attempt a list of the possible boundary and
territorial questions which may be involved in Russia.
These islands, held by Italy, will be claimed by Greece. They are
assigned by the Pact of London7 to Italy.
Formerly tributary to Turkey; a protectorate was declared by Great
Britain December 18, 1914. The new status, when recognized, will bring
up questions of:
“Occupied and administered” by Great Britain under treaty of June 4,
1878,8 Cyprus was annexed to
Great Britain November 5, 1914.
Internationally a sort of no man’s land.
Reported to be occupied by British Naval forces.
Discovery of high grade iron ores is also reported.
The status and perhaps the boundaries of Persia may be raised in
connection with the existing unfortunate situation of that country.
It is understood that some of the Powers are dissatisfied with the
present administration of the Government of Liberia, and it is not
impossible that some agreement may be proposed regarding this
26. Kiau Chau
Leased to Germany by China for 99 years in 1898 and declared a
protectorate of the German Empire.
Occupied by Japanese and British forces in November, 1914, and reported
to be under administration of Japan since that time.
Reports are that China will request its restoration to her.
The islands of Savai and Upoly became German dependencies in 1899–1900.
They are now held by New Zealand.
28. Pacific islands north of the equator
Of these groups the Caroline, Pelew, and Marianne Islands (Ladrones) were
acquired by Germany from Spain in 1899.
All of these islands excepting the small island of Nauru, which is being
developed by a British Company, are now held by Japan.
29. Pacific islands south of the equator
This group of possessions consisting of the German part of New Guinea,
the Bismarck Archipelago, and the German Solomon Islands, have been in
German possession since 1884–5.
They are now held by Australia.
30. German colonies in Africa
Under this title are considered all payments by way of restitution,
reparation, etc. to be made by the Central Powers.
1. As a whole
2. Separable parts
4. Denunciation or abrogation
1. To entire treaty
2. To separable parts
3. Act of adherence by non-signatories
Signatories to the Treaty of Peace
The assumption upon which the following observations are based is
that there will be a general treaty ending the state of
belligerency; a treaty which will include the President’s Program as
well as the settlement of the war.
Within the limits thus set forth, the determination of the Powers to
be signatories to the Treaty of Peace may be approached as
I. The following belligerents opposed to one or more of the Central
Powers should be signatories:
- Great Britain
- United States
The above list of belligerents does not include all of the Powers
which have been at war with the Central Powers. Each of the
exclusions must be separately explained:
a. Costa Rica
Costa Rica is not included, for the reason that no government exists
in that country which is recognized by the United States.
Montenegro is not separately included, for the reason that it now
seems probable that Montenegro will be included in the greater
Serbia which is to be established by the Yugo-Slavs. The shifting of
political power in Montenegro might call for some
Russia is not included, although from the point of view of the
Allies, the peace negotiations conducted with the Central Powers by
persons purporting to represent the Russian people have never had
any validity, and the resulting treaties are to be regarded as
wholly null and void since the armistice with Germany, if not
independently of it. No government is recognized to exist in Russia
which could join in the execution of the Treaty of Peace on behalf
of the Russian people.
Each of the inclusions in the above list must be separately
explained, for no general principles are applicable to all of
As an active belligerent vitally interested in many of the larger
problems of the settlement, Belgium’s inclusion calls for no
Though not very active as a belligerent, Brazil is interested in some
of the problems of the settlement, particularly in German
immigration to South America, and her position among Latin-American
Powers necessitates her joining in the execution of the Treaty of
The termination of German influence in the Far East would alone be
sufficient to warrant the inclusion of China, even if her position
did not require her assent to any agreement made respecting Far
Eastern affairs. Some difficulty may arise because of the uncertain
position of the Chinese Government and of the contest between the
North and South, and interim developments must be taken into account
for this reason.
Though a minor and somewhat inactive belligerent, Cuba has identified
herself with the policy of the United States in the war, and must,
therefore, be included.
The inclusion of France calls for no comment.
6. Great Britain
The inclusion of Great Britain need be discussed only with reference
The Egyptian Government seems to have broken relations with Germany
and Austria in 1914 by dismissing their diplomatic representatives.
The British Protectorate in Egypt has been recognized by France,
Belgium, Servia, Greece and Portugal. In the declaration of the
Protectorate, the British Government announced that “as regards
foreign relations, His Majesty’s Government deem it most consistent
with the new responsibilities assumed by Great Britain that the
relations between Your Highness’ Government and the Representatives
of Foreign Powers should henceforth be conducted through His
Majesty’s representative in Cairo.” It seems probable that in line
with this announcement, the British Government will deem itself
competent to represent Egypt in the execution of the Treaty of
The reasons for the inclusion of Greece are obvious, and call for no
8.10. Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras
The position of Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras will be that of
inactive, minor belligerents, with slight interest in the general
peace, beyond the preservation of their own independence. Their
participation in the Peace Conference would seem to be an interest
of the United States, and consequently they should be signatories to
the Treaty of Peace. If not represented at the Peace Conference,
these Powers might well be excluded from participation in the
execution of the Treaty of Peace.
The inclusion of Italy is for obvious reasons and calls for no
The inclusion of Japan is for obvious reasons and calls for no
The special interest of Liberia in the Central African situation
calls for her inclusion and her special relation to the United
States should assure this to her.
The position of Nicaragua with reference to her inclusion is like
that of Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras.
If the Treaty of Peace should include any provisions affecting the
use of the Panama Canal, Panama might very well claim a special
interest which would necessitate her inclusion, apart from her
position as a minor and inactive belligerent.
As an active belligerent, with special interests in Africa,
Portugal’s inclusion calls for no comment.
The refusal of the Allies to recognize the validity of the treaties
made at Bucharest with the Central Powers by the Roumanian
Government, and the Roumanian Government’s repudiation of those
treaties as soon as it was freed from German domination, make it
clear that Roumania is still to be regarded as a belligerent, and
her vital interest in many of the important problems of the
settlement calls for her inclusion as a signatory to the Treaty of
As one of the active and principally concerned belligerents, the
reasons for Serbia’s inclusion are obvious. The Government of
Greater Serbia has perhaps established for itself a position which
will warrant [Page 308] its being
accepted as the representative of the Yugo-Slavs. Greater Serbia
will probably include Montenegro, though this may still be open to
reconsideration to be based upon interim developments.
Though an inactive belligerent, Siam’s interest in the Far Eastern
and Pacific situations clearly justifies her inclusion.
20. United States
The inclusion of the United States is for obvious reasons.
II. Of the Central Powers, the following States may be signatories to
the Treaty of Peace:
All of the Central Powers are interested in the big problems to be
covered in the settlement, and all should be represented. The
President’s Program seems to involve their participation in a
general Peace Conference. The Germany of the future may have little
interest in the particular arrangements affecting Turkish territory,
but Germany and Turkey will share with other states a common
interest in the public law of the future. While the United States is
not at war with Bulgaria and Turkey, the practical situation does
not preclude her joining in a general Treaty of Peace which deals
with the adjustment of their relations with Powers which are at war
The chief difficulty in dealing with the Central Powers and in
relying on their execution of the Treaty of Peace arises out of the
extreme uncertainty of the relative strength of political groups in
Germany and in what was formerly Austria-Hungary. To guard against
the possibility of having the participation of these Powers in the
execution of the Treaty of Peace later repudiated by some political
group which might consider itself not to have been represented, and
therefore not bound, it may be necessary to insist that the agents
who act for Germany and Austria and Hungary in signing the Treaty of
Peace, shall derive their authority directly from a constituent
assembly or from all political parties in each country at the time.
If complete anarchy should prevail in Germany, with no prospect of
its abatement, it might become necessary to execute treaties with
the other Central Powers, leaving the situation with Germany open
until order can be established.
The participation of these states in the execution of the Treaty of
Peace calls for separate comment as to each:
It is now doubtful whether any Government exists in Austria, capable
of representing the Austrian people. The possibility of a complete
disappearance of Austria as an independent state is also to be
mentioned. If the Peace Conference should recognize the annexation
of German Austria by Germany, there would be no occasion for
Austria’s executing the Treaty of Peace as a signatory.
Even though separatism in Germany should not proceed so far as to
lead to Bavaria’s complete independence of the rest of the Empire,
the independent role recently assumed by the Bavarian Government, as
well as its historic position in the Empire, seems to justify the
separate inclusion of Bavaria among the signatories. This would seem
also to be a desirable precaution to be taken against the
possibility of a future separatist movement in South Germany.
Developments may have to be awaited, before such a decision can be
Though it has recently undergone a radical change in form, the
Bulgarian Government now seems stable enough to represent the
Bulgarian people, and their adherence to any general regime in the
Balkans is essential.
At this time, no political group in Germany seems to have sufficient
political power or responsibility to represent the German people and
to bind them to the Treaty of Peace. Interim developments must be
The dissolution of the union between Austria and Hungary seems to
have been effectively and finally accomplished as a result of the
declaration of the Hungarian Diet of 17 October, 1918, and that of
the Karolyi Government of 2 November, 1918. It will doubtless be
recognized during the progress of the Peace Congress, and the
position of Hungary in Europe together with her interest in many of
the problems of the settlement seems to involve her being a
Though its territory will doubtless be changed by the Peace
Conference, it seems probable that some jurisdiction will be left to
a Turkish [Page 310] Government which
should be included among the signatories to the Treaty of Peace.
III. The neutral countries which have been invaded may be
Both of these countries will doubtless present claims for damages
suffered during invasion, and some measures may be necessary in each
to uproot German influences established during the occupation.
The future independent existence of Luxemburg is so uncertain that no
definite statement can be made as to its being a signatory. Its
spokesmen are quite certain to be heard at the Peace Conference, but
if it is to be joined to some other state by action taken during the
Peace Conference, its consent might be manifested in some separate
way without its executing the Treaty of Peace. On the other hand, if
Luxemburg is to continue its independent existence, whether under
neutralization or not, it seems desirable that it should be a
The situation in Persia is likely to be covered by provisions in the
Treaty of Peace. The independence of Persia was mentioned in the
Treaties which the Central Powers purported to conclude with Russia.
In May, 1918, Persia denounced the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907,
which had been previously denounced by the Bolshevik Russian
Government. It seems improbable that the independent status of
Persia will be discontinued by the Peace Conference, and her assent
to any provisions in the Treaty of Peace affecting her ought to be
manifested by her as a signatory.
IV. The new Powers, created or recognized to exist by the Peace
Conference, should be signatories. These may include:
- Bohemia (Czecho-Slovak State)
If the new states are recognized by the Peace Conference, their
joining in the covenants as signatories to the Treaty of Peace would
[Page 311] be desirable.
Presumably, their spokesmen will have been heard by the Conference,
though they may have had no formal representation. Some such states
may be placed under some sort of international tutelage which might
make it undesirable to give them the position of signatories.
Practical difficulties may arise in making sure that these new States
are represented in executing the Treaty of Peace in such a way that
their act will not be repudiated by rival political groups, and this
may have to be safeguarded by assurances that all responsible
political groups participate in the representation at the time of
The attempt to establish a State of Albania in 1912–1914 met with
such incomplete success that it seems not inaccurate to put Albania
into this class of possible new States. Whether it will exist in the
future as a separate political entity, and whether it will be left
by the Peace Conference free from such outside control as will make
it a dependent government, are too uncertain for any statement to be
made as to Albania’s being a signatory to the Treaty of Peace.
2. Bohemia (Czecho-Slovak State)
The recent recognitions of the de facto
government by the United States and the Allies, and their success in
gaining control of their Government, make it practically certain
that their State will be recognized at the Peace Conference. Nor do
uncertain political groupings among them present any obstacle to
this new State’s being a signatory to the Treaty of Peace.
The independence of Finland rests upon a very different practical and
historical basis from that of other separatist movements in Russia.
Finland’s independence has been recognized by several States, and
likely to be recognized also at the Peace Conference if the civil
war which has been raging in Finland is brought to an end. Even if
it is not represented at the Conference, the recognition of an
independent Finland would call for her inclusion as a signatory to
the Treaty of Peace because of her intimate interest in many
problems of the settlement.
It is very uncertain whether Iceland is independent. The recent
declaration of the “independence” of Iceland seems to have been
agreed to by the Danish Government, though an independent Iceland
has not been recognized by any other country. Iceland’s interest in
[Page 312] the problems to be
discussed at the Peace Conference is remote, and it seems probable
that the Conference will not be called upon to take any action which
would necessitate either the recognition of Iceland or her joining
in the execution of the Treaty of Peace as a signatory.
The existence of a Polish State is certain to be recognized by the
Peace Conference. The only difficulty in including Poland among the
signatories to the Treaty of Peace will arise out of the disturbed
political situation among the Poles. It may be necessary to insist
that the various political parties in Poland should take part in a
choice of the representatives who will bind the new State by
executing the Treaty of Peace.
The large number of nationalist groups which are now making claim to
political independence will doubtless ask a hearing at the Peace
Conference. Whether any new States will be recognized, as desired by
these respective groups, is so uncertain that it seems unnecessary
to have them included among possible signatories to the Treaty of
In Russia, particularly, separatist movements have been numerous. The
Ukraine has succeeded in establishing some measure of independence,
and purported to deal independently at Brest-Litovsk. Georgia claims
an independent existence, which the Germans and Russians purported
to recognize in the agreements drawn up at Berlin, 27 August, 1918.
Other groups in the Caucasus have attempted to set up the Don
Republic, the Tartar Republic, the Republic of Turkestan, the
Republic of Kazan and the Yokatsk Republic. The independent
Moldavian Republic in Bessarabia purports to have been united with
Roumania. In Siberia, some groups are claiming independence also.
Lithuania, Courland, Livonia and Esthonia, all possessing some
degree of local autonomy, have an uncertain future.
In Turkey also separatism has been at work. The separate kingdom of
Hedjaz has to some extent been recognized by Great Britain, and
independence is claimed for Armenia. It is possible that an
independent State may be created in Palestine, but also possible
that all of the peoples redeemed from Turkish domination will desire
some connection with existing States.
In Austria the recent establishment of the so-called Silesian
Republic is to be mentioned.
It seems unlikely that any of these nationalist groups will be
included as signatories to the Treaty of Peace whatever plan is
adopted for their expression of their assent to provisions for their
V. Some technically neutral Powers which have broken diplomatic
relations with the Central Powers may be signatories to the Treaty
of Peace. These include:
While none of these Powers has actually gone to war with the Central
Powers, some of them have rendered valuable assistance to the
associated Governments. Uruguay particularly has aided the United
States. The position of these Powers differs very little from that
of Guatemala, for instance, which will probably be a signatory
because a technical belligerent. On 4 February, 1917, the United
States appealed to these Governments to discontinue relations with
the Central Powers,10 and in view of the subsequent
discontinuance of such relations by these Powers, this appeal
constitutes a recognition of their interest in the problems involved
in the Peace.
1. Santo Domingo has not been included because her foreign relations
are completely controlled by the United States.
VI. The more important neutrals may be signatories to the Treaty of
Peace. These include:
If the general Treaty of Peace is to include the agreements
establishing the international regime of the future, these important
neutrals ought to be admitted as signatories. It may be desirable to
devise a scheme by which they can act as signatories to certain
parts of the Treaty of Peace, those covering the League of Nations
and Declarations of Public Law. But the extent of the interest of
these neutrals is not so limited. Many of them are interested in the
payments to be exacted from the Central Powers, for they and their
[Page 314] nationals have
suffered damages as the result of the conduct of the war,
particularly by Germany. To this extent practically all of those
named, except perhaps Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, and Venezuela will
be directly interested in the provisions for the settlement of the
The following States have been omitted from the above list of
- San Marino
Abyssinia has no place in the Society of Nations though classed as
Afghanistan’s foreign policy is practically controlled by Great
3–8. Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Nepal, San
Marino and Oman
If Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Nepal, Oman and San Marino are to
be considered as members of the Society of Nations, they are all of
1–2. Argentine and Chile
The place occupied by Argentine and Chile in Latin America is so
important that their adherence to the League of Nations is
essential, if it is to embrace Latin America. Both are interested in
German influence in South America, and in the problems arising out
of the interruption of their commercial relations with various
countries during the war.
Colombia has only the general interest of Latin American countries in
a League of Nations, and the Public Law of the future.
With other Scandinavian countries, Denmark shares a vital interest in
many of the problems growing out of the settlement of the war, and
she has a special interest in the settlement of the future of
As a neutral which has borne much of the inconvenience and burden of
the operations of the war, with her interests in boundary
ratifications [Page 315] which may be
sought by Belgium and Germany, Holland is a necessary signatory.
Holland also has a special interest in whatever may be done in
regard to the River Scheldt.
While Mexico has slight interest in the problems arising out of the
settlement of the war, it is perhaps to the interest of the United
States that any scheme for a League of Nations should have the
assent of Mexico.
Norway’s particular interest is in receiving payment for her shipping
which had been sunk during the war, and in the future of sea
Paraguay has only the general interest of Latin American countries in
a League of Nations, and the Public Law of the future.
Spain has a special interest in the indemnity problems arising out of
the conduct of the war, as well as sharing with other States an
interest in the establishment of a League of Nations. Spain still
claims interest also in Morocco.
Sweden has a special interest in the Aland Islands, in Finland, and
in other territorial problems of the Baltic. She has a special
interest also in the indemnity problems arising out of the conduct
of the war, and she shares the general interest in the organization
Military operations of various countries have cast heavy burdens on
Switzerland with reference to interned armies, which gives
Switzerland a special interest in the settlement of the war. As a
small state desiring to be assured of continued access to the sea,
and of protection against European neighbors, she is particularly
interested in the League of Nations.
The interest of Venezuela in the Peace does not differ from that of
other minor Latin American countries.