RENUNCIATION OF WAR

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 287, 4 September 1928, Page 8

RENUNCIATION OF WAR

4 THE MULTILATERAL TREATY A CORRESPONDENT’S QUERIES —AND A REPLY (To the Editor.) Sir, —From Article II of the Multilateral Anti-War Treaty, yesterday signed at Paris, read in conjunction with the preamble thereto, and the interpretation placed upon it by the United States of America, in the words of the American charge d’affairs in the invitation of June 23, as published in Saturday’s “Dominion,” it appears that the high contracting parties agree not to engage in a war of aggression. “There is nothing in the American draft of an anti-war treaty which restricts or impairs in any way the right of self-defence. That right is inherent in every sovereign State, and isimplicit in every treaty” (invitation clause 1). But the signatories are "convinced . . . that any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resorting to war should be denied the benefits furnished by the treaty” (preamble). What these benefits are is not defined beyond that “It is no less evident that resort to war in violation of the proposed treaty by one of the parties thereto would release the other parties from their obligations under, the treaty towards the belligerent State (invitation clause G). The benefits then from which the aggressor party to the treaty is denied are the benefits of having the other parties to the treaty under an obligation ot not attacking it. There is nothing in the treaty to limit its operation to an aggression by one party to it against another party. A party would equally violate the treaty if it attacked a State which is not a party, If then a non-party State attacked another non-party State whose neutrality is guaranteed by one or more party States a difficulty would appear to arise. Under the guaranty of neutrality the neutralised State has neutrality enforced upon it, while the guaranteeing States are bound to take up arms against any State which attacks it. Supposing then that a State or territory whose neutrality is guaranteed by one or more parties to the Anti-War Treaty, is attacked by a non-party State; what is the position of the guaranteeing Powers? Under the guarantee they are bound to take up arms,' although not themselves attacked, as Great Britain did in 1914 when the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by her in 1831 and 1839 was violated. Such a war is not a war of self-defence; it is exhypothesi a war of aggression against the State violating the neutrality of the State whose neutrality is guaranteed. As soon therefore as a guaranteeing Power which is a party to the Anti-War Treaty proceeds to honour its obligations under the guarantee it ipso facto violates the AntiWar Treaty, with the result that all the other parties are free to attack it. It would appear, therefore, that so long as any State capable of attacking a neutralised State is not a party to the Anti-War Treaty, those parties to the Anti-War Treaty who have already guaranteed the neutrality of _ another State may be placed in a position in which the violation of one or other of the treaties is inevitable, whatever their position might be if all States were parties. It was her liability under treaties guaranteeing neutrality which caused France to demur to the proposed AntiWar Treaty, and in spite of the fact that the United States was unable to see the force of the above argument, the objection seems a substantial, one. The only way in which the difficulty could be avoided would be by treating a war in discharge of a guaranty of neutrality as a war of self-defence. This may be the construction which the United States places upon the by no means lucid fourth section of the invitation of June 2.3. Great Britain no less than France has, by the Declaration of November 20, 1815, signed at Paris, guaranteed the neutrality of Switzerland. This guaranty is still in full force and effect, and unlike the guaranty of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg, has not been abrogated bv the Treaty of Versailles, 1919. Similarly ,the Suez Canal was neutralised by the Convention of Constantinople in 1888, revived by the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, and the Aaland Islands by the Convention of Geneva of October 21. 1921. So also are the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles neutralised’and guaranteed. To all these guarantees Great Britain and New Zealand, as a member of the British Empire, are parties. . It is therefore of importance to tins country to know how it stands in relation to the neutralised State or territories above-mentioned under the AntiWar Treaty should any of them be attacked by a non-party to the Anti-War Treaty. Can we be enlightened as to the view which the Government of this country takes of the apparent possibility of conflicting obligations under the treaties guaranteeing neutrality aud the Anti-War Treaty to which this country is a party? x . This is not the time to undermine men’s faith and hopes that the - .treaty but so recently signed will bring a consummation much to be desired to_ this war-sickened world; but I am of opinion that if such a question as I have asked is satisfactorily answered or otherwise disposed of, only the person who asked the question suffers by having disclosed his ignorance, while the aspirations ot the majority are thereby timely seasoned with a modicum of reason; and it the question cannot be well answered, then it has the salutory effect of delivering us from the dangers of a fool s paradise.—l am, etc., nEYTING Wellington, August 28.

When the above letter was referred fc the Prime Minister's Department, the following reply was made: —“Your correspondent’s point is that ‘if a State whose neutrality is guaranteed by one or more parties to the Treaty (for the Renunciation of War) is attacked by a non-party State’ those guaranteeing States who are parties to the Treaty would be unable to comply with their undertaking to come to the assistance of the neutralised State for the reason, according to your col-res-pondent that there is nothing in the Treaty to limit its operation to an aggression by one party to it against another partv’ and that ‘a party would equally violate the Treaty if it attacked a State which is not a party.’ “This is not the case—-the Treaty is definitely limited by Article I, under which the signatories renounce war as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. This last phrase has apparently escaped the notice of your correspondent, and in the case mentioned the party to the Treaty for the Renunciation of War would be under no obligations under that Treaty to a non-partv State, and could therefore implement its guarantee of neutrality without in any wav committing a breach o! ils undertiiking' under the Treaty for the' Renunciation of War. The application of the Treaty will, of course, become wider ns additional States adhere to it. “It would appear to be a sufficient answer to your correspondent, to call his attent.iofi to the concluding words of Article I.”