Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Chapter II. The Baltic Minorities' Rights. Their relation to Municipal and International Law. Lecture delivered at the Grotius Society in London, November 1921
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has been proofread at least once.
(diff)
(history)
Denna sida har korrekturlästs minst en gång.
(skillnad)
(historik)
The lecture was followed by a discussion. The Chairman, Sir
Alfred Hopkinson, spoke on two different points; he dwelt first of all,
on the Russia of the future. It was out of the question that, after
over-coming the present crisis, Russia would not reclaim, either by
federation or incorporation, her Baltic provinces and regain her two
ice-free ports in the Baltic, Libau and Windau. It should be
abundantly clear that Russia was bound to do so, in defence of her vital
interests. Moreover, self-determination was a principle still subject
to much criticism. It could not be unconditionally admitted, as no
community could determine political independence for itself, without
the consent of those parties interested and closely involved.
In answer to Mr. Bewes, Baron Heyking said that the Letts were
chiefly Lutherans. The colonisation of Latvia and Estonia might be
compared with that of Eastern Prussia by the Teutonic Order, with
this difference that in Eastern Prussia the Prussians disappeared, but
in Latvia and Eesti the new comers allowed the latter to retain
their racial individuality. The natives now say that no one should
be a citizen except a Lett. That is not self-determination. It is true
that anyone may be naturalised. But naturalisation is denied to many.
It is also a fact that these countries had serfdom. But, although they
had lost their independeence, serfdom was abolished in 1816, whereas
in Russia it lasted until 1861.
Mr. Henriques asked whether under the Treaty a recommendation
might not be made by the League of Nations to confer equal rights.
Baron Heyking explained that there was no right of appeal except
through one of the three delegates of the State, or by a delegate of
some other State. England has agreed to protect Latvian commercial
interests. But the Minorities wanted their rights. A Commission had
recently been appointed at Vienna by the Union of Associations to
consider all questions of minorities and to report to the League.
Master Jelf suggested that self-determination was not a part of
International law. The other nations ought to help these minorities
which possessed no rights as against States, and this should be done
by way of counsel through diplomatic medium. We objected to a
State of the British Empire going to the League with a complaint,
i. e. Ireland.
Mr. Henriques however, contended that if a State denied rights
to certain of its subjects, such subjects must have a right to come to
the League.
Baron Heyking pointed out that self-determination had been recognised
in treaties and therefore it came within International law. Latvia
and Eesti were on the point of concluding a treaty with the League on
these rights. The League had received an enormous number of
complaints, but unless the delegates took them up, the minorities were
powerless.
Mr. Cole asked whether an old feud did not exist between the
native populations of Latvia and Eesti and the Balts. The lecturer
replied that the Letts and Ests thought that there was reason for
animosity on their side because of the ill-treatment they had received in
times past. They had indeed passed through the unhappy stage of
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
