THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1924. THE LEAGUE PROTOCOL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18888, 22 December 1924, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1924. THE LEAGUE PROTOCOL.

When- the League of Nations' fifth Assembly was called for September 1 of this year it was gene rally hoped that great things were in store. Since the covenant of the League had been framed in 1919 there had been but fitful progress toward the objective of universal peace. Some restlessness under the League's restraints had been manifested. Only a year previously, Italy had been sullenly defiant of the League's attitude to the Corf u crisis: Salandra had sat alone through the momentous discussions, biting his nails and fearing to voice the view he was sent to convey. In the interval a change had come over international affairs. To the reparations tangle a clue had been found in the Dawes and McKenna reports and the London Conference. American participation, although still unofficially exercised through "observers," had become practical. The will to peace had grown. Even the opposition shown to Lord Cecil's Pact of Mutual Assistance was pacifically based. Then, as the Assembly was summoned, it became known that the political heads of the great nations were no longer content to send minor representatives : they*meant to come themselves. Half a doz,en of them led their delegations, and almost every delegation in the Assembly had a foreign Ministe'r or a former foreign Minister among its members. Out of fifty-four States in the League, all but five participated. Never was a more promising opportunity of achieving something of the League's chief purpose. Something was achieved. It was not all plain sailing. There were tense moments, lengthening into days of stormy excitement and fears for the fate of even the League itself. But they passed, and the Assembly closed its work for world peace by the unanimous adoption of a resolution urging all Governments to ratify the Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Ten of the forty-seven States represented in the final phases of the month's discussion signed the protocol before adjournment. France, Portugal, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, Esthonia and Latvia. Much yet remained, and still remsiins, to be done before the protocol's prohibition of aggressive war, which it stigmatises as an international crime, can be more than a hope ; but the agreement reached in the League's Assembly was the finest triumph to date of international goodwill.

The protocol explains and extends the covenant of the League. The articles dealing with the World Court were deemed on investigation to be explicit and ample: it was to those intended to provide for national acceptance of arbitration that prolonged attention had to be given. In the result, the principle of obligatory arbitration was unanimously approved, and a long stride was taken toward the League's objective when the covenant's reference to aggressors was accepted as including any nation that refused the jurisdiction of the World Court, whether a member or non-member of the League. But unanimity was lost when the scope of this decision was considered. What was an international dispute? Did disputes not strictly international, disputes really domestic, come into the category? The French laid down the principle that, when the Council of the League was unanimous in declaring any question international or domestic, all the members of the League must accept the verdict or be regarded ais an aggressor in torms of the covenant. At this point Japan hurled a thunderbolt into the discussion. The Council having decided that a matter in dispute was domestic, that seemingly put an end to the Court's right or duty to adjudicate. The Japanese Ambassador offered an amendment declaring the new provisions to "leave unaffected the Council's duty of endeavouring to conciliate the parties so as to assure the maintenance of peace and of the good understanding between I nations." He therefore urged deleting Ihe "aggressor" clause of the protocol, under which a State would be outlawed on refusing to abide by an arbitral award declaring a dispute to be domestic. It was at once obvious that Japan's amendment aimed at remedying a situation in which she would be compelled to ceaso all efforts to agitate for the rights of her nationals in Australia, New Zealand, South America and the United States, as soon as the World Court had declared this question one of domestic concern. The Japanese spokesman did not mention the word "immigration," but the. proposed amendment aroused formidable opposition. It came from British, Australian and Brazilian delegates. They raised the objection of a sovereign State's rights against such a super-State as the League's Council would become under the proposal. The Japanese delegation offered to withdraw the amendment—and, to withhold Japan's signature to the protocol. Against all pleadings the Japanese delegation was adamant, and unanimity was reached only when the Assembly agreed that, although the World Court had declared a question to be domestic, the decision should not prevent consideration by the Council or the Assembly, and a State disregarding the Court's decision should not be 'regarded as an aggressor providing

it had previously submitted the question to the League. Clearly, this would prevent finality on such a question as Japanese migration to Australia or New Zealand, when once submitted by Japan to the World Court. The final acceptance of the,amendment was a diplomatic victory for Japan.

It ia evident that ratification of the protocol, so far as the British Empire is concerned, should not be given without the fullest discussion by the constituent parts of the Empire. For this reason, the news that the Empire's Prime Ministers will shortly be invited to a conference in London, expressly to consider the protocol, is welcome. Peace based upon a universal understanding is as much desired by the Dominions as by any nation on the face of the earth, and an instrument making arbitration obligatory carries no objection on the face of it. But the position raised by the Japanese point of view and its acceptance for peace sake by the League puts another complexion on the protocol, and its careful consideration has become a duty prior to that of cooperation to enforce it. As to that co-operation, there is a further need to pause. How far ishall the Dominions commit themselves /'to join in measures to enforce sanctions on an "aggressor" nation? There is txpressly stated in the protocol the obligation, on the part of every signatory, to defend the covenant "loyally and effectively. ' However, a safeguard is furnished —this affects both the employment of the British fleet and the co-operation of the Dominions—in the statement that each separate State remains in entire control of its own forces and fulfils its obligations according to its own assessment of what their adequate fulfilment entails. The need for full Imperial consultation is clearly first in precedence so far as Britain goes. It>f|nust not happen that 'a position taken up by the British Parliament should be imperilled by risk of a Dominion's refusal to respect it.