SPITZBERGEN TREATY

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25085, 17 January 1947, Page 7

SPITZBERGEN TREATY

SOVIET CONTENTION OF INVALIDITY OTHER TREATIES SIGNED BY ENEMY POWERS (Rec. 9 p.m.) LONDON, Jan. 16. Commenting on the Soviet contention that the 1920 Spitzbergen Treaty is invalid because the signatories include powers who fought against the Allies in the recent war, specifically Japan and Italy, the diplomatic correspondent of "The Times" points out that on this basis many of the international treaties now in force could be considered invalid including the Hague and Montreux Conventions and the Tangier Statute. It is not denied in London that this is an untidy state of affairs, the correspondent says. Mr Bevin himself, in Parliament, has referred to the existence of enemy signatures on the Montreux Convention as one reason for its revision, but the Convention, like the Spitzbergen Treaty, is still in force and must remain so until modified or terminated by its non-enemy signatories. It is true, the correspondent adds, that the Spitzbergen Treaty was signed without the Soviet’s knowledge or participation, but the rights of Russian nationals in Spitzbergen were reserved, and ‘five years later, namely in March, 1925, the Soviet Government made official application through the French Government, for adhesion to the 1920 treaty. This constituted de facto recognition of Norway’s right to the sovereignty of Spitzbergen, and in 1935 the Soviet Government extended de lure recognition. The view now taken, therefore, is that the Soviet Government is as much bound by the 1920 treaty as any of its original signatories.