THE AALAND ISLANDS QUESTION

The main uncontested facts in the case are as follows: The Aaland Islands are situated
at the entrance of the Gulf of Bothnia, and are separated from Sweden by about 50
kilometers, and from Finland by about 70. They are about 300 in number, with an area
of approximately 1,442 square kilometers, and a population of 25,000 inhabitants,
almost entirely Swedish. The islands contain many excellent harbors for big ships.
Until the year 1809, except for a short period of Russian domination at the beginning
of the Eighteenth Century, the Aaland Islands were part of the Kingdom of Sweden.
They were then conquered by Russia and incorporated, with Finland, into the Russian
Empire. By the Treaty of Paris in 1856 the islands were ''demilitarized," that is to say,
in the interests of Sweden and other nations of Europe, it was forbidden to fortify
these strategic islands. Russia saw fit, however, during the recent war to fortify them
without protest from either her allies or adversaries.
Finland declared its independence as a nation on the 15th of November, 1917; was
formally recognized by the Soviet Government of Russia on the 4th of January, 1918,
and by the Swedish Government on the same date. It appears that as early as the 20th
of August, 1917, delegates of the communes of the Aaland Islands assembled at
Finstrom and decided to bring to the notice of the Swedish Government and
Parliament that the population of the islands for special reasons keenly desired that
the islands should be reunited to the Kingdom of Sweden. This resolution was
communicated to the Swedish Government on the 27th of November. By subsequent
plebiscites about 95 per cent, of the population declared in favor of reunion with
Sweden. A deputation was received by the King of Sweden on the 3rd of February,
1918. A fact of much significance was the landing of Swedish troops on the islands at
the request of the inhabitants to secure the removal of the Russian troops who would
not depart unless the Finnish "White" troops also left at the same time. The Swedish
troops then withdrew likewise.
Already on the 16th of January, 1918, the King of Sweden, in the speech from the
throne to the Rikstag, had expressed his conviction that the independence of Finland
would facilitate a satisfactory settlement of the Aaland Islands question. After private
negotiations, Sweden formally requested the Government of Finland in November,
1918, to arrange for a plebiscite to decide the political fate of the islands. Such a
plebiscite would naturally have been almost unanimously for Sweden, and was refused
by Finland on the general ground that it is essential to the economic and the military
security of Finland to retain the islands. The Finnish Government furthermore
declared that: "In opposing the Swedish Government's proposal to submit the question
of the future status of the islands to a plebiscite of the population, [it] is following the
principles according to which several territorial questions were decided by the Peace
1

Conference, in cases of conflict, as here, between the wishes of a minority and the
economic and military security of a nation. ' ' J
The question was brought to the attention of the Council of the League of Nations by
the inhabitants of the Aaland Islands and by the Swedish Government, and the
following resolution was unanimously adopted by the Council with the assent of
Sweden and Finland on the 12th of July 1920 :
An International Commission of three jurists shall be appointed for the purpose of
submitting to the Council, with the least possible delay, their opinion on the following
points :
(1) Whether, within the meaning of paragraph 8 of Article 15 of the Covenant, the case
presented by Sweden to the Council with reference to the Aaland Islands deals with a
question that should, according to International Law, be entirely left to the domestic
jurisdiction of Finland.
(2) The present position with regard to international obligations concerning the
demilitarization of the Aaland Islands.
This commission was organized as follows: Professor F. Larnaude, Dean of the Faculty
of Law at Paris, President ; Professor A. Struycken, Councillor of State of the Kingdom
of the Netherlands; and Professor Max Huber, Legal Advisor of the Swiss Political
Department. M. G. Kaeckenbeeck, of the Legal Section of the Secretariat of the League
of Nations, was appointed secretary of the commission.
The conclusions of the commission, announced on the 5th of September, 1920, after
hearing the statements of both parties to the dispute were as follows :
(1) The dispute between Sweden and Finland does not refer to a definitive established
political situation, depending exclusively upon the territorial sovereignty of a State.
(2) On the contrary, the dispute arose from a de facto situation caused by the political
transformation of the Aaland Islands, which transformation was caused by and
originated in the separatist movement among the inhabitants, who invoked the
principle of national self-determination, and certain military events which
accompanied and followed the separation of Finland from the Russian Empire at a
time when Finland had not yet acquired the character of a definitively constituted
State.
(3) It follows from the above that the dispute does not refer to a question which is left
by international law to the domestic jurisdiction of Finland.
2

(4) The Council of the League of Nations, therefore, is competent, under paragraph 4 of
Article 15, to make any recommendations which it deems just and proper in the case.
To summarize this decision, it merely amounts to a statement that there is no absolute
right of self-determination; that the fate of the Aaland Islands, as in the case of the
Trentino or Poland, is to be determined ultimately by the concert of Powers. The
commission remarks, concerning the recognition of new States during the late war,
that :
In many cases they were only recognitions of peoples or nations, sometimes, even,
mere recognitions of Governments. The precise determination of the territorial status
of these States was usually left to the great diplomatic reconstruction of Europe which
would follow the conclusion of peace, just as, in some cases, were certain peculiarities
of their political constitution and legislation, especially concerning the protection of
minorities, which were thus reserved for international settlement.
On the general question of national self-determination, the commission appears to
incline to the point of view of Finland when it says :
The fact must, however, not be lost sight of that the principle that nations must have
the right of self-determination is not the only one to be taken into account. Even
though it be regarded as the most important of the principles governing the formation
of States, geographical, economic and other similar considerations may put obstacles
in the way of its complete recognition. Under such circumstances, a solution in the
nature of a compromise, based on an extensive grant of liberty to minorities, may
appear necessary according to international legal conception and may even be dictated
by the interests of peace.
Though the commission seems to hold that revolution and insurgency is solely of
domestic concern, it pronounced the following extraordinary obiter dictum, which has
a portentous bearing on the question of the right of the League of Nations to intervene
in such abnormal situations :
The Commission . . . does not give an opinion concerning the question as to whether a
manifest and continued abuse of sovereign power, to the detriment of a section of the
population of a State, would, if such circumstances arose, give to an international
dispute, arising therefrom, such a character that its object should be considered as one
which is not confined to the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned, but comes
within the sphere of action of the League of Nations.
In regard to the question of the demilitarization of the Aaland Islands, the commission
decided that:
3

(1) The provisions of the Convention and Treaty of Peace of 30th March, 1856,
concerning the demilitarization of the Aaland Islands are still in force.
(2) These provisions were laid down in European interests. They constituted a special
international status relating to military considerations for the Aaland Islands. It
follows that until these provisions are duly replaced by others, every State interested
has the right to insist upon compliance with them. It also follows that any State in
possession of the Islands must conform to the obligations binding upon it arising out of
the system of demilitarization established by these provisions.
In denying the claim put forward by Sweden that the convention of 1856 definitely
created a "real servitude" attaching to the Aaland Islands, the commission went so far
as to question in general the existence of international servitudes and cited in support
of this the decision in the North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration. The commission would
seem to have failed at least to appreciate the nature of a "negative servitude" such as
the demilitarization of these islands would appear to be. However squeamish one may
be concerning the use of the term servitude, with its unpleasant etymological
connotation, there exist peculiar international situations constituting a distinct
impairment of sovereignty which must be given a special classification. As Oppenheim
remarked : "It is hardly to be expected that this opinion of the Court (Fisheries
Arbitration) will induce theory and practice to drop the conception of State servitudes
which is of great value."
In reaching its conclusion that the special status of the Aaland Islands was of general
European concern and not merely a domestic concern of Finland, the commission took
note of the fact that the Soviet Government notified the Council of the League of
Nations on the 3rd of October, 1919, and the 1st of July, 1920, that no decision
concerning the disposition of the Aaland Islands could have any value unless Russia
gave its assent.