LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 86, 10 April 1924, Page 11

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

MR. A. CHAMBERLAINS WARNING

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE., .

(FROM OOR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) LONDdN, sth Eebruary.Mr. Austen Chamberlain, M.P., presiding ab a meeting in connection \yith the League of Nations, paid a tribute to the League's work, but pointed out the danger of placing upon it duties too heavy to bear. .._ ■ No one could doubt, he said, that it was an immense handicap to the League that the United States of' America should hold aloof. It might perhaps have been fitter, as we saw it now, if some of those amendments which were proposed and discussed in America had been accepted by President Wilson and by the League itself. If it were possible by. any changes—whether . he thought they were intrinsically important or not, whether on theii- merits he -would welcome them or not—to obtain the accession of the United States of America, so important did he think that accession to be that he would accept the amendments and make the sacrifices, if sacrifices were involved. (Cheers.) No Leaguer could fulfil the full purpose of a League of Nations while the United States of America, Germany, and Russia were all of them, voluntarily or by decree of the League, excluded, and we must hope some day, through some evolution which no man could now define or predict, to see all these nations united in that League,. (Cheers.) He hoped to see the League gradually develop in moral authority, and become a really imposing embodiment of the opinion of the civilised world.' But it would be dangerous at this moment to suppose that nations situated like ourselves could rely wholly for their defence or protection upoh-the League of Nations and its decisions, or that we must not still in peace preserve our strength and be prepared, if diplomatic means failed, to defend "our own interests and our own safety. The real pinch came, not when questions wore to .be - decided among minor Powers, but when the interests of some great-nation clashed with the opinions of the League. ' In the one case in which such" a 'position had ; arisen it could not be said that 'the results were wholly satisfactory to the well-wishers" of the League, orthat it had yet gained that authority in "Europe to which they air hoped it might presently succeed. It was a sad reflection that, five years after the i close of the Great War, not only had Europe made so little progress oh the path to recovery, but that so. little had been done to allay the bitterness which was created by the war, and which itself was the possible seed-bed of future wars. They could not afford in a, world where civilisation had received an immense shock to forego any method by which they could avert future strife, more horrible with every progress that science made, more deadly to human life, and more destructive to civilisation.. They must cling to all <the hopes that the League of Nations gave them. A GREAT LEAD BY FRANCE. Dr. Gilbert Murray, in a, letter to "The. Times," draws attention to the fact that in olause.6 of the new treaty between France and Czecho-Slovakia the governments agree that all future' disputes which may arise between them, and which cannot be settled by "agreement and diplomatic means, shall be submitted to the Court of International Justice or to special arbitrators. '.'When ii dispute'is once submitted to the Court," Dr. Murray points out, "the decision of^the Court is binding; consequently, in assenting to 'this clause, France has taken the first step towards a momentous decision—namely, general acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. The Protocol of compulsory jurisdiction has been adhered to by 20 smaller States, but not-at present by any' Great Power^ It is well known that for Great Britain, at any rate, the acceptance of this compulsory jurisdiction-involves certain risks. 'On the other hand, I am% convinced, from my experience at Geneva, that the first acceptance of this Protocol by one Great Power will mark an era in politicil history arid have a diplomatic value quite dutweighing trie possible risks. It will be that pledge of good faith, clearcut and undeniable, for which the smaller nations are so-wistfully and suspiciously waiting. Those who attended the Assembly of 1921 will remember M. Motta's impassioned appeal to some one great nation to_ accept the Protocol and show an example to the .world. While one cannot but rejoice to see this first step in the right direction taken by France and Czecho-Slovakia, it seems regrettable that there is no similar clause T-i the Treaty between Italy and Jugoslavia, and still more so that Great Britain has never yet mustered up faith and courage to take the pioneer position that should rightly be hers." . ' '