Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1924 JAPAN AND THE LEAGUE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 3 October 1924, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1924 JAPAN AND THE LEAGUE

THE extraordinary proposals made by the Japanese delegates at Geneva, whereby they sought to create legislative machinery which would enable their Gov-’ eminent to bring their grievance againstthe United States of America officially before the League for the purpose of adjustment have created a profound impression, not only in countries which belong to the but in those which remain outside the League. Article XI. of the League Covenant declares it “to be the friendly right bf; each member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.’’ This was a 'somewhat broad but indefinite expression 'of the' functions of individual members of the League in reference to their bringing international disputes and difficulties before the Council and Assembly for settlement. The Japanese, smarting under the immigration law recently passed by the United States, which practically excludes the Japanese from emigrating to the States, proposed that in the Protocol which is being drawn up by the League members at Geneva, a clause should be inserted which would allow Japan to bring her dispute with the United States before the League. But this would have ineant sanctioning interference with a State’s right to manage its domestic affairs, such for instance as its right to say what foreigners should be admitted as immigrants. Clause V. of the Protocol as originally drawn, apparently at thb instance of Japan, gave power, it would seem, to the International Court at the Hague to decide whether a dispute was solely within a disputant’s domestic jurisdiction. - This immediately gave rise to opposition, and the stipulation, now made, appears to be,that if the Hague Court decides such' a case affirmatively, the disputo may bo referred to the League Council o>v Assembly, as provided in Article XI. of the League Covenant, part of which has been quoted .above. Article XI. of the Protocol would seem to provide a safeguard against a membet of the League from being classed as an aggressor against another member when a dispute is forced upon it in relation to a matter which is within its domestic jurisdiction; and a further amendment would appear to provide that in such circumstances the matter shall be submitted to the Council of the League; and further the clause would seem to provide that if the Council has decreed an armistice between the Stales wlni.li aro disputing, either of such States which shall violate the armistice shall be deemed to be an aggressor, and, as -sue!., subject to interference by the League. This would appear to safeguard- the rights of such members of the League as Australia and New Zealand from interference, under Article XI.» of the League Covenant and under Articles V- and VI of the proposed Protocol, in regard to disputes arising out of their domestic legislation ; provided they adhere 1 ig'< -

ly to the terms of the Covenant and of the Protocol, and are Hot guilty of such acts as may class them as aggressors. But- there would appear to be nothing in tlie proposed amendments which would prevent Japan from bringing be fore Hie Teague ally grievance which she may have in regal'd to the domestic laws of these countries. Oblivious of the fact that her owh domestic laws provide for the rigid exclusion of foreign ers who may desire to live permanently in Japan and acquire laud there, the Japanese Government seeks to arouse the sympathy of the nations of the League ott behalf of Japan's natiohals who may wish to emigrate to such countries as the tJnltcd States, Australia, and New Zealand) from Which they are at present excluded with Almost the same rigidity Us Americans, Australians, and New Zealanders are excluded from residing permanently in Japan. The Ja panese know full well that very few white people have any desire to emigrate to Japan, while quite a large number of Japanese wish to emigrate to California, if not to Australia and New Zealand. Therefore Japan has everything to gain by obtaining leave to refer to the Hague Court and to the Council or Assembly of the League any dispute arising out of the domestic laws of other countries, such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand.