THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Cromwell Argus, Volume L, Issue 2649, 24 November 1919, Page 7

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Broadly speaking, there are two basic ideas underlying the phrase, "League of Nations." The first basic idea is that the nations of the world should enter into a covenant with each other to submit their disputes for settlement to an International Tribunal, or Council of Conciliation, which should be composed of representatives of each nation.

The second basic idea is that the nations composing this league should agree to join their national forces against any nation which makes war in breach of this agreement. Disarmament and an International Police Force are often discussed in connection with the League of Nations, but they are not essential to it, and whether they will in any form be finally adopted remains to be seen.

But that the League of Nations will go at least so far as applying the two basic principles above set out is absolutely certain. Let us, then, imagine that a League of Nations is formed and that the most limited application of the idea is that adopted. Let us imagine that the members of the League agree to make united war on any member of the League which takes up arms without first submitting its dispute to the International Court ; but that having submitted their disputes to the International Court, the nations concerned should afterwards be at liberty to take such steps, including war, as they might choose. This is the idea advocated by the League of Nations Society in the United States.

It is contended by those who think this plan unsatisfactory that its effect would be rather to postpone war than to enforce peace. On the other hand, it is maintained that such postponement would often, if not always, obviate war. Viscount Grey himself declared that a little delay gained in 191-1 would have prevented the war. The chief causes of war under the present system—i.e., the danger of sudden and unexpected attack, and ignorance as to the real issues at} stake —would be eliminated. The peoples would not be rushed into war through fear, and they would not be "bluffed" into wars of aggression, because they would have the real points of dispute placed before them.

The League of Nations Society in England goes a step farther. It advocates that the nations joining the League should definitely bind themselves to accept the decision of the International Tribunal on all matters covered by treaty or international law, and that in the event of any nation refusing to abide by such a decision, it should become the common enemy of all other nations. There is, however, a class of dispute which does not come under this heading, and in which the. English League of Nations Society would not make the decision of the International Tribunal necessarily binding. As examples of such disputes may be mentioned those arising through racial rivalry or prejudice, trade ambitions, questions of finance, territorial concessions, etc. In such cases war would still be "legal."

A third and more extreme school of thought advocates absolute obedience to the rulings of the League on every question and the "illegalization" of war among the members of the League.

At the same time, it is suggested that a provision should be made for mutual defence against possible attacks from any nation not a member of the League.