LAW OF NATIONS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21325, 28 October 1932, Page 8

LAW OF NATIONS

RULES TO PREVAT WAR y .. \ ' \ MERITS AND DEFECTS INTERESTING LEGAL ASPECTS 1| » -•»_ ■ \ The merits and shortcomings of the present body of international law were discussed by Mr. L. K. Munro in an address on "The Rule of Law Among Nations" at the League of Nations Union's luncheon at Milne and Cfcoyce's Reception Hall yesterday. Mr. W. T. G. A Airey presided. Mr. Munro said that the surprising . thing was not that the perfection of international law was proving a slow process, but that so much had already been nccom- ' plished in a comparatively short space of time. After referring to the pre-war attempts at establishing anti-war legislation, as typified by the Hague Convention of 1899 v and the Hague Conference of 1907, Mr. Munro outlined the implications of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the member States of which undertook to submit any dispute likely to lead to a rupture to arbitration, judicial settlement or / inquiry by the Council of the League, and promised ,in no case to resort to war until three months after the award of the arbitrators or decision of the Council was made known. It was interesting to note, said Mr. Munro, that when Italy occupied Corfu in 1923 a committee of jurists decided that the Covenant was not necessarily violated by Italy's use of coercive measures, the occupation not being regarded in the light of a war. This was undoubtedly a grave defect in the activilies of the League. People were prone to make much of the failures of the League, but it had to be remembered that there had been several outstanding successes, including the prevention of war between Greece and Bulgaria in 1925. The sanctions, which were by no means to be disregarded lightly, varied from mediation in a dispute to actual intervention. In the event of a nation resorting to war against the recommendations of the Council or the arbitrators' decision, all the members of the League undertook to subject it to the severance of all trade and financial relations and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between nationals of the offending State and nationals of any other State, whether a member of the League or not. The Pact of Paris, which was binding on all the principal countries of the world, including the United States and Russia, condemned recourse to war in settlement of international disputes. Like the Coven-, ant, it did not prohibit the right of a State to resort to armed force unless it actually amounted to war. The SmoJapanese operations provide! an interesting ciase in point. Dealing with the question of international justice, Mr. Munro said that after the Great War the League of Nations drew up a plan for a Permanent, Court of International Justice, consisting of 15 judges elected for nine years. The Court was bound to sit at least once every year. When it came to the question of. compulsory jurisdiction, the League felt that if the scheme was to be a success it should not be overpressed. Consequently,-; reference to the Court was made voluntary.? "The old text-books have treated war as an inevitable evil," said Mr. Munro, in referring to the recent Conference of the International Law Association. "Now, war, by the consensus of the, Powers, is illegal. Consequently the function of the international lawyer is to lay down principles for the maintenance of peace and the prompt and effective punishment of malefactors among States that disturb the peace. As a result, the elaborate conventions to govern the conduct of belligerents and neutrals in.warfare were jettisoned. There can be no 'such thing now *s neutrality. ,r -