WORLD PEACE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 51, Issue 127, 11 March 1931, Page 5

WORLD PEACE.

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION. \ SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN'S VIEWS. (United Press Association—Copyright). LONDON, March 9. In the debate, in the House of Commons on the General Act, Sir Austen Chamberlain asked, could territorial questions or our position in Egypt or the desire of some other Power to take over our Palestine mandate be referred to arbitrators ? The most difficult and dangerous international disputes were not legal questions. Why did the Covenant of the League Council exist if not to deal with such issues? if these were taken away they might as well tear the Covenant to pieces. The Government was asking the Nation to take over most vital interests, risks they would not take in their own party affairs. They were ignoring limitations which practical experience placed to the utility of compulsory arbitration. Sir Herbert Samuel said that the General Act, instead of superseding either the Covenant of the League or the Council's functions, was the League's own proposal to the world for settling disputes. The Government had properly reserved the right in certain cases to invoke the conciliation of the Council instead of arbitration. The acceptance of Sir Austen Chamberlain's amendment would leave the international machinery patently incomplete, would amaze the peaceloving Dominions, would create the impression that thcrt- was a sinister purpose which they were ashamed to confess, would strengthen the reactionary and militarist elements throughout the world, 'and prejudice the Disarmament Conference. He admitted that there were some risks in arbitration, but if we refused them we were accepting the risks of war. Sir Austen Chamberlain asked if territorial questions, or our position in Egypt, or the desire of some other Power to take over our Palestine mandate could be referred to arbitrators? The most difficult and dangerous international disputes were not legal questions. Why did the League Council Covenant exist, if not to deal with such issues ? If these were taken away they might as well tear the Covenant to pieces. The Government was asking the nation to'take risks over the most vital interests which it would not take in its own party affairs. Sir Austen Chamberlain's amendment was negatived by 231 votes to 139.

TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT. • (Received This Day, 10.45 a.m.) LONDON, March 10. The text of Sir Austen Chamberlain's amendment to the motion, relating to the General Act reads: "The House, while reaffirming adherence to the Covenant of the League, of Nations and the Pact of Paris, declines to accept the General Act of 1928, which diminishes the authority of the Council of the League and substitutes a procedure tending to encourage international disputes." The White [Paper pointed out that, as the Pact of Paris provided no machinery for the pacific solution of disputes, signature of the Optional Clause and accession to the General Act are the logical sequence to acceptance of the Pact. The Government, however, could only accede to the General Act on conditions corresponding closely to those made regarding the Optional Clause. These reservations are : (1) Disputes arising prior to accession to the. General Act, or relating to situations or facts prior to accession. (*2) Disputes regarding which, the parties to the dilute have agreed, or shall agree, to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement. (3) Disputes between the Government of any other member of the League who is a member of the British Commonwealth, all of which disputes shall be settled in such' manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree. (4) Disputes concerning questions which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the States concerned. (5), Disputes with any party to tlTc General Act who is net a member of the League.