Chapter 1. Early Forms of International Administration
A. Th e Saar Basin and the Free City of Danzig
Th e League of Nations was in charge of the administration of the Saar Basin between 1922 and 1935. After the end of the First World War, and after long negotiations between the Allied Powers, France obtained the right to exploit the mines in the German Saar Basin for 15 years, as compensation for the dam- age caused to the coalmines in Northern France during the War. Although the majority of its population was German or at least spoke German, the Saar Basin had always been disputed territory between France and Germany. Th e appoint- ment of an independent and neutral ‘Governing Commission’ of the League of Nations to administer it for 15 years has to be regarded as a practical solution impeding French aspirations to annex the territory, which they had demanded during the negotiation of the Versailles Peace Treaty.20
20 During the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the French delegations wanted to create a buff er zone between Germany and France, with the Rhine as a natural border. Th e creation of an
As the territory itself was not transferred to France, it was decided, on an American proposal, to establish an interim administration, the ‘Governing Commission’, for the 15-year period. Th e American, and to a lesser extent the British, delegation viewed the League of Nations as an adequate instrument for holding back Germany, and were convinced that the annexation of the Saar Basin by France would leave Germany with a sense of frustration, which could lead to another war. Th e administration of the Saar Territory was thus strictly limited in time, contrary to that of the Free City of Danzig, which was intended to become a permanent ‘internationalised’ territory. Th e appointed Saarland Governing Commission had broad governmental powers. Th e Versailles Treaty endowed the Commission with “all the powers of government hitherto belong- ing to the German Empire, Prussia, or Bavaria, including the appointment and dismissal of offi cials, and the creation of such administrative and representative bodies as it may deem necessary”.21 Although a local Landesrat, which consisted of elected representatives, had been created, the Governing Commission did not rely on this local Assembly. Neither was the Commission bound by the advice of the Landesrat.22 Formally, the Saar Basin remained a part of the German ter- ritory as article 49 of the Versailles Treaty stated that “Germany renounces in favour of the League of Nations, in the capacity of trustee, the government of the territory defi ned above”. Th e Saar Basin was thus not under the sovereignty of the League of Nations, which was merely the administrative authority for the territory.23 Th is division between sovereignty and exercise of state competences by an international organisation is very similar in the case of Kosovo.
Th e administration of the Saar Basin by the Governing Commission lasted the envisaged 15 years, pending the organisation of a plebiscite, as provided for by the Versailles Peace Treaty.24 Th e plebiscite was to function as an evaluation of the transitional period in which the population would decide between union with France, reunion with Germany, or the status quo, in other words continu-
independent and neutral Rhine State had also been envisaged, which, together with the neutral States of Belgium and Luxembourg, would have formed an adequate safeguard against any possible future German invasion. Th e French indeed argued that the Rhine had always been the borderline between Gaul and Germany, and that its annexation could also be regarded as adequate reparation for the damage caused by Germany. See in general on the negotiations on the Saar Basin: MacMillan, M., Paris 1919: Six months that changed the world (New York:
Random House Trade, 2002), pp. 169 et s.
21 Para. 19, Chapter II, Annex to the articles 45–50, Peace Treaty of Versailles (28 June 1919).
22 Walters, F. P., A History of the League of Nations (London / New York / Toronto: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1952), p. 586.
23 See Strupp, K. (ed.), Wửrterbuch des Vửlkerrechts (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960–1962), pp. 128–133.
Contra: Ydit, supra note 11, pp. 44–46.
24 Versailles Peace Treaty, para. 34, Annex to Article 50.
ation of the regime of international administration.25 Th e plebiscite resulted in an overwhelming majority of 90.8 % in favour of reunion with Germany.26
Th e administration of the Saar Basin was far more signifi cant than that of Danzig, although both had been agreed upon in the same period. History shows that Danzig had always been disputed territory between Prussia, later Germany, and Poland, as Danzig was preponderantly German in character but Poland needed to maintain a passage to the sea. In 1466 and again in 1807, the city had already been constituted as a Free City or Free State with, inter alia, the right to enter into international agreements. Following a long period of systematic annexation and cession by both Poland and Prussia, the Versailles Treaty reconstituted Danzig as a ‘Free City’.27
Th e Versailles Treaty placed Danzig “under the protection of the League of Nations”.28 Th e powers granted to the League of Nations were to be exercised together with Poland, which was responsible for the conduct of Danzig’s external aff airs. Danzig was also included in the Polish customs regime. A ‘High Com- missioner’ and a ‘Commission’ were appointed, both of which had only very specifi c powers, most of them being relative to the implementation of the statute as embodied in the Versailles Treaty. Th e High Commissioner had two main areas of responsibility. His fi rst main task was the elaboration of the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig. Th e second was to deal in the fi rst instance with all diff erences arising between Poland and the Free City of Danzig with regard to the Versailles Treaty or any arrangements or agreements made in accordance with the Versailles Treaty.29 Notwithstanding its success in the elaboration of the Constitution, the League of Nations gradually lost its interests in Danzig, and this led to the annexation of the territory by Germany before the Second World War. For almost ten years however, the League of Nations had duly fulfi lled its mandate.
In the case of Danzig, the mediation role of the League of Nations was still preponderant to the administering role, as the limited administrative tasks of the High Commissioner were merely transitional pending the adoption of a
25 Para. 34 of the annex to article 50, Versailles Peace Treaty: “At the termination of a period of fi fteen years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, the population of the territory of the Saar Basin will be called upon to indicate their desires in the following manner: A vote will take place by communes or districts, on the three following alternatives: (a) maintenance of the regime established by the present Treaty and by this Annex; (b) union with France;
(c) union with Germany.”
26 Walters, supra note 22, pp. 586–598.
27 See for an overview: Verzijl, J. H. W., International Law in Historical Perspective, Part II – International Persons (Leyden: A. W. Sijthoff , 1969), pp. 501–502 and Ydit, supra note 11, pp. 186 et s.
28 Article 102 Versailles Peace Treaty.
29 Article 103 Versailles Peace Treaty.
constitution. After the adoption of the Constitution by the League of Nations Council, the High Commissioner’s tasks were limited to being the arbitrator in disputes arising between Danzig, Poland and Germany. Th e High Com- missioner was fi nally expelled by the Germans after their reoccupation of the territory.30 Th e Danzig administration was not as impressive as that in the Saar Basin. Th e major diff erences between the two cases are probably the consequence of their diff ering purposes. Th e settlement of the fi nal status of the territories placed under international administration had a direct infl uence on the scope of administrative powers. Danzig was indeed intended to become a completely independent territory, and the temporary administration provided by the League of Nations was envisaged to facilitate its transition towards independence, while guaranteeing its international status. Th e competences of the Danzig Commis- sion and the High Commissioner were limited in scope, as the future territorial status of the territory was pre-defi ned. Th e Saar Basin on the other hand had no pre-defi ned fi nal status and was never expected to achieve independence. It was therefore almost logical that the Governing Commission would have all the governing powers until the fi nal status of the territory was decided according to the results of the plebiscite.