In the case of 'Iraq this led to an acute dispute with Turkey in regard to the northern boundary. It was eventually settled by a special commission appointed by the League, at the instance of Great Britain. The southern frontiers were the subject of an agreement with the sultan of Nejd, and an Anglo-French agree ment determined the frontiers with Syria. The French in northern Syria had similar difficulties with Turkey, to whom they ceded Cilesia. In the Cameroons a joint commission was set up to de termine the precise boundaries, while as regards Ruanda, the mandatory (Belgium) complained that the agreed boundary in volved the loss to King Musinga of a considerable part of his territory. The British at once agreed that this area should be restored to him, and the consequent changes in the mandates were approved by the council. In south-west Africa a "neutral zone" had long existed between the German and Portuguese colonies, which has now been replaced by a precise demarcation, embodied in a treaty between the Union of South Africa and the Portuguese Government.
Wider issues are raised by such questions as the nature and extent of sovereignty exercised by a mandatory and the inter national status of the inhabitants of a mandated territory. The former—which has been much debated by American publicists— is rather academic and juridical than of practical interest. It suffices for practical purposes that the mandatory has the absolute right to make and enforce laws, to raise troops, to set up tribunals, to appoint officials and to raise and spend revenues. Sovereignty was not ceded by the Treaty of Versailles to the League, but to the victorious Allies—indeed the highest court in South Africa has recorded the opinion that the territories were not ceded at all, but placed by Germany at the disposal of the Allies, to be admin istered under mandate—a status new to international law.
The mandatory's powers are exercised "in its capacity as such." It has, for instance, been satisfactorily established by the Man dates Commission that such terms as "Crown (or State) lands" and dornaines d'etat, where they appear in local ordinances, refer only to lands which are the property of the mandatory as such, in other words, to the mandated territory, and that any action on the part of the mandatory which had for its object (or would ultimately involve) annexation—as for instance the acquisition of large monopolistic rights, or of essential public services—would be contrary to the spirit of the Covenant and the mandate.
mandate." This confers no juridical status, and no privilege of citizenship, but Art. 327 of the treaty stipulates that they should be entitled to the diplomatic protection of the mandatory when outside the mandated territory, and individuals may if they so desire become naturalized subjects of the mandatory.
The application to mandated territories of special conventions, entered into by a mandatory Power, has also been the subject of investigation and recommendation by the Mandates Commission, in order to ensure that "persons protected under mandate" shall not be in a less favourable position in regard to their persons and property and their economic interests than the inhabitants of a protectorate or colony.
The revocation of a mandate for maladministration, though theoretically possible, is in practice unthinkable. The terms of the Covenant therefore contemplate self-government as the natural fruition of the mandate—in the case of the A class at no distant date. The new State would then take its place as a member of the League.
The mandate system accords, for the first time in history, in ternational sanction to the principle of trusteeship, and of public responsibility to a supervising authority for the obligations laid down in the trust deed in regard to mandated territories. The annual report forms an ' effective means of inviting a popular verdict on the fulfilment of the trust, and this supervision consti tutes a fundamental distinction from annexation, whatever the degree of assimilation to other possessions of the mandatory. The League exercises supervision but not control, for the ultimate authority to which the stewardship of the mandatory is submitted is the public opinion of the civilized world. The standards of the Covenant must obviously in the future be regarded as principles of general application. The mandate system is an international acknowledgment of the responsibility which the advantages of a superior intellectual culture and 20 centuries of Christian ethics no less than the physical superiority conferred by the monopoly of firearms impose upon those Powers which have accepted con trol of backward races. (See LEAGUE OF NATIONS.) BIBLIOGRAPHY.-The mandates section of the League secretariat has issued a List of Books and Pamphlets relating to the Mandates System and to Territories under Mandate. A bibliography has also been prepared by the Royal Colonial Institute. See especially Freda White, Mandates, etc. (1926) ; D. P. W. Van Rees, Les Mandats Internationaux (1927) ; L. M. Palacios, Los Mandatos Internacionales de la Sociedad de Naciones (1927). (LU.)