Evening Post. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1524. JAPAN'S RESERVATION

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 79, 30 September 1924, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1524. JAPAN'S RESERVATION

The unpleasant surprise which ! Japan was reported yesterday to have sprung upon the Assembly of the League of Nations presents a still more unpleasant appearance to-day. Baron Adachi's original proposal was that even after a dispute has been declared by the International Court of Justice "to. be solely within the domestic juris-.' diction of [one of] the nationrj concerned," the Council of thre League should be empowered to continue its conciliatory efforts. The words we have added in brackets must have dropped out oi: the messagfi, since the same matter could not be solely within t'ne domestic ' jurisdiction of rnor.e than one nation.' Article 6 of -the Protocol substitutes the Intel-national Court, for the' Council of the League as the referee in disputes between' members of tie League, but it is not desired that the Court any more than the Council shall be empowered or compeJled to inter-' ?T fe. in any. nation's' domestic affairs, even if they are distasteful to another nation. Article XV. of 'fhe Covenant freed the Council of the League from any such entangle'inent by the following clause.:—

If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and" is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter wnichby international law is solely" with-' m the domestic-jurisdiction- of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation •as to its .settlement. The Protocol proposes to limit the jurisdiction of the Court in the, same way, and Japan has seized the opportunity of objecting, not apparently'tothis limitation of the Court's power, but to the withholding from the Council of the j power of investigation and conciliation in a matter which the Court has ruled to be of purely domestic concern. : -••■-• , Thus baldly stated the matter did not appear to be of very great moment, and in deference to tb 6 opposition of the British and Australian representatives' Baron Adachi did ! not press his proposal £ut in withdrawing it he said that he would malre a reservation regarding the' Articles on which his timendment was based: The -nature of this reservation which is disclosed to-day, and of the arguments by which it is supported and intimation that, if defeated Japan will reject, the whole' Pro, toco, feave no room for doubt as to the gravity of tb.e issue The acquiescence of ther'Japanese delegates while the matter was in its committee stage/aid the inevitable inference that they are now acting unc/er express instructions, have enhanced the su.rprise and the si- Kmhoance of their p resen t attitude la form Baron Adachi's proposal will open the domestic concerns of f«y Member of the League to repew lay the Council, and his ar-ni-nients show that in substance hthis is the -effect his Government /desires to. produce. The first J clause of the statement which ho •-has submitted ojj behalf of the Japanese delegates reads as follows :—

,iie ciialt irotfjcol, however, does not make good tha gaps in the Covenu.tn th». connccfaon. inasmnd. as Artie c 15 of tho Covenant continues to permit a btate to escape an international invesli gallon, under the prete.U that tho m;liter is within its exclusive compete cc even , the matter infringes tKS urejtuhces, and vital interests of J X

It is of course the questfon of immigration which J slpan seeks to throw mto the international arena by her present action. This is the matter which at preVjnt vcmaius within the exclusive! competence of iho nation asked to admit immigrants from Mother State, but which Japan "considers to have been treated ; hy some other Stateg in a man to thafc i(lfl . inges I]Cl . Jionour^ prejudices, and vital 'interests, - It is easy to understand tne pirortificatiou engendered' in a ["■'ond and powerful nation by the policy of exclusion which 'some (other nations have been driven to adopt in self-defence. It is impossible to withhold our sympathy .when this policy is enforced in ishe wantonly inconsiderate and Und high-handed fashion which has : -recently found favour in the United ? States. But it is not easy to be- ! lieve that Japan can'expect anyI thing but mischief from tho pro- ! posal to make grievances of this kind the subject of formal proceedings before an international tribunal. The objections .taken to Article 1 of the draft Protocol have a still more ugly look. Article V obliges the signatories to refrain ' from action calculated to 'aggravate a dispute aud makes ' provision for economic and other penalties in the event of an infriugerncnt: The Japanese contention is that under this provision

Uio League, while abstaining from lending its pacific action to tlie State wronged, .threatens to consider that ytate an aggressor should it adopt measures, for the defence'of its legitimate interests.

Only one construction of these jvcrds is possible in the context. 'Tho State wro'uged" is the State figaiust whose nationals such a law .as that passed a few months ago by the Congress of the United States has ' be.en directed: The -'#*££»!«;«* for, $Jw tlcfsiice. p£ its

legitimate interests" which such a State n-cay think 'Jit to adopt of course include .war. And Japan objects t>j being deprived of this weapon by the declaration of the Coveu-ant and the Protocol that the domestic affairs of any of the sign.-i-tories are no concern of the

othfivs, and that the nation which see>.s to disturb the status quo by force or refuses to go by arbitration upon the issue .is to be.deemeci an aggressor. A State ' which refuses to submit its domestic pol*toy to arbitration.has, according to Japan, "rejected the supremacy of J international justice" and therei fore is not entitled to protection. A State which has " simply asked for the impartial application' of: justice," i.e., for an international investigation of another State's ■■ domestic affairs, and" failing that goes to war, is not to be condemned as an aggressor. It is a deplorable and ominous attitude which may wreck not only the proposed Protocol but a good many other1 things. The peacemakers of Europe must be blessing the. United States for this unforeseen menace to' their plans. An American President brings into being a League of Nations under a Cove--riant which is to a large extent unworkable. America, however, not only stays outside the League herself but passes legislation : which ■ threatens to'wreck a highly-pro-mising attempt to patch up the Covenant and prepare the way for the reduction of armaments. America's jealousy of Geneva's infringement of 'her peace-making patent may. prove to be ill-founded. The tactless arrogance of her ownLegislature has perhaps kept the ;way clear. ' ' - -