JAPANESE AMENDMENT

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 79, 30 September 1924, Page 7

JAPANESE AMENDMENT

ADAC.HI'S DECLARATION | ___ . i 'DEFINING AN AGGRESSOR IN i ■WAR. ' j (CXrrBB SRES3 ASSOCIATION.—COPXRIQHT.) .(RECTER'S TELEORAJI.) - ■ GENEVA, 29th September. I The First Committee, after a pro-! longed and animated discussion, adopted] the .chairman's report on the juridical! portion of the Protocol. An •unexpected | outcome was the exception taken by. the! Japanese to Article .6, relating to thai action of the Council in dealing with an| aggressor. Baron Adacbi read a de-j claratiqn of the Japanese delegation, j the substance of which is as follows:— i The ideal of the League is to: settle pacifically all'conflicts between' nations. The .draft Protocol, however, ' does'not make, good the gaps in .the" ■Covenant in this connection,' inasmuch as Article 15 of the Covenant continues to permit a State to escape an international investigation, under the pretext that the matter is within its .exclusive competence, even if the matter infringes' the honour, prejudices, and vital interestsl of another State. According to Article 7 of the .Protocol, the League, while abstaining from lending its pacific action to the State wronged, threatens to consider that a State is an aggressor should it adopt measures for the ' defence of its .legitimate interests. Thus th,e draft Protocol would lead to tlte protection of 'a State which' rejected the ■ supremacy of international justice, and would gondemn a State which simply asked for the impartial application of justice. The Japanese delegation, which has already .experienced great difficul- . ties in accepting Article 15 of the .Covenant, regrets it is unable to adhere to the illogical aggravation of the stipulation contained in Article' 6 of the Protocol; ' \

DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT Senor Fernandez (Brazil) said the amendment did-not favour the attainment of the object the Committee had in view; therefore he appealed for its withdrawal. M. Poli'tis (Greece), the chairman, favoured the amendment, pointing out that there Bad been .exaggeration on both sides. The present wording of Article 6 was tod rigid. ■ • • -. ■ M. Kollin (Belgium) declared the amendment .not destructive. Each State had the right to settle its own disputes.' There were several heated interludes in the course '.of .the discussion, and Signor SciaJoja (Italy) suggested the examination of the Protocol in a calmer atmosphere, by a ■committee of experts. M. Loucheur (France) declared that if the Council did not do its duty anypro-'l vision in tlie Protocol would be vain. IJe proposed that the Japanese amendment be referred to a sub-committee. Baron Adachi assented' to this, and the Committee rose. Artcile' 6 of the' Protocol is intended to complete Article 10' of the original Covenant of the League. Article 10 is as follows :- — ' "

"The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political' independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression, or in case of any threat ,or .danger of such aggression, the- Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled." '

i.v t' e*s of tlla Covenant, to which the Japanese referred, includes 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 which by international law is solely within the domestic' jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall'make no recommendation as to its settlement."