GENEVA PROTOCOL.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 8 December 1924, Page 8

GENEVA PROTOCOL.

THE JAPANESE AMENDMENT. PROFESSOR MURRAY’S OPINION. LONDON, October 24. According to > Professor-. Gilbert Murray, the fate of the Geneva Protocol may turn on two matters—the obligation it provides to uphold League decisions by force of arms, and the effect of the Japanese amendment. ___ Professor Murray holds that in-re-gard to obligations the Protocol only makes; existing undertakings, a little more '■ precise, ;• and that- individual nations still retain the right to accept or decline , the, performance of tasks assingned to them by the Council against the aggressor. The Japanese amendment is a more serious cause of misunderstanding, as- it may induce the Dominions, especially Australia, New Zealand, aild Canada, to refuse ratification. Air. Hughes’s recent speech clearly shows that it. makes American; co-operation rifore difficult. • Under the Covenant, if the Council finds that a dispute concerns matters within the domestic jurisdiction of either party, the League’s competence to interfere promptly lapses; but in the Protocol-, as amended, the. League will still be ; hound to mediate if a situation threatens war, even though the question is purely domestic. On the practical question of whether this change is likely to wreck, the chances of- the Protocol, and with-it: th© Disarmament Conference- contingently fixed for next year. Professor Murray; reserves his opinion. -. , . - ■ . .....

It appears that the possibility is being canvassed of limiting tbe Protocol to, European.. countries, thus securing its' immediately',useful. results ./without raising ,the, hopelessly contentious issue's, of pacific, migration. . Professor Murray asks that the matter of the Protocol should not be prejudiced In, the atmosphere -of the general election , but Lord' E'dkteee Petey; t ,M.P.,. points out in a letter to The . Times ;th'at the Prime Minister, continues to take, predit ter what he . calls a gteat advance, in the eausfe of . pbate. . Lqtd. Eustace Percy draws attention to the fact that Mr. Henderson has stated that the Protocol is based upon the principle of universal , compulsory, arbitration. “If these Wonds mean anything,” says .Lord Percy,, mfedn ;thbte, Tpe cbli. 'gatqry acceptanefe./iU. wdl .■international disputes of the findings of a tribunal, judical or diplomatic, in whose cfep : sioh; the parties to the dispute have, at say' rate in the last resort, no effective 1 voice. This principle is not ,to be-found heda|Use ;;its authors delibefatm.y -.-tojtetedSit. lor .teasons which appeared to them at the time to be cogent; it is a principle to which | ™m§ntitef; teq,; United States hajf, I?P, ea tedly;.expressed, ,a_ rooted bb*]betien -; -and; it ds fa?teept_ to 4jbre bf • the Demin-; ions-. 1 J “TFe-Leaghe principle,’’ which is eohteMed in Ytevenmit, is- the ob- , submission of all disputes to. 'M’fo&atfcjiFbf eofi&it&tidii, the obpending thejesultstef s.ucli arbitration Or- conciliation-.. If, as- Lord -Pafnioor appears to indicate-, tlte Protocol does no more than define and elaborate the procedure of -the Ebague- these limits as a .clear statement ;to that oEegt:: ik neeafed; ;buty. if Y afe jfc, Henderson’s speech appears to indicate, the Protocol,, introduces the other principle •bf ntemjftwsory arbitration properly so cUlled, Lord Parmoor surely knows too much vo£ .the history of previous negote iSteons to believe that such a departure will pass unchallenged.” . Jo 1 ; re P^y in g to Lord EUstace Percy’s Parmoor says that when arbitration or conciliation has been accepted in the settlement of disputes, the obligation to accept the findings of tee tribunal is, to his mind, a necessary consequence.

“It is hardly necessary to sav,” Lord Partnooi’ cMtihueS, ?‘that the Pact contains provisions under which the signatory nVeinhers undertake to submit diseither to arbitration or to the Council. This undertaking is obliga.^yjcarries with it the further obligation of the acceptance, of the of the tribunal.. All countries which recognisp-tho obligatory character treaty undertakings are under a eompui spry obligation to / respect the tribunal findings. “The matter, however, does not rest +i ere i» Under A F^ clgs 12 > 13. and 15 of the 1 act, the signatory members agree, m terms to accept the findings of the tubunal, subject to a liability for heavy sanctions. It makes no difference to the compulsory character that the findings . G tribunals under the different articles may import different sanctions. l will Lake the illustrations afforded by Articles 13 and 15. In Article 13 the signatory members of the League undertake to carry out in full good faith award that may he rendered and that they will not resort to war .against any member of the League which complies therewith. Article 15 deals with matter not submitted to arbitration under Article 13, but submitted to Council, In the case of a unanimous report by the Council the members of the League agree that they will pot go to war with any party to the dispute which complies with the recommendation of the report. Then comes Article . 16, which says that if any member of the League resorts to war in disregard of its covenants under the above Articles, it shall ipso facto he deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League, which thereby undertake immediately to subject it to all financial or commercial sanctions, ultimately to sanctions military or naval. This is compulsion enforced by stringent sanctions. It is impossible to denoto more directly the compulsory accentafce of the findings of the tribunals?’ • k} J'he course of a leading article on Trafalgar Day, the Morning Post refers to the Protocol. “The nebulous commitments sanctioned by Lord Parmoor and Mr. Henderson at Geneva,” says the writer, “have yet to he thrashed out in the House, of Commons, «nd in the various Legislatures of the Dominions. We are certain, however, that the country will stoutly oppose any attempt to transform into an international police force what is intended by the men who man it and the country which pays for it to be a sure shield for the defence of the British Empire. If in fulfilling its honourable task the Navy also helps to maintain the peace of the world, the most peaceloving Empire in history will be doubly grateful. But as the Navy is Britain’s glory, and proudest possession, jt will remain subject to only one master and will serve only one cause.”