WORLD DISARMAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20311, 20 January 1928, Page 7

WORLD DISARMAMENT

THE SECURITY COMMITTEE. MEMORANDUM FROM BRITAIN. tPrens Assooiation-By Telegraph—Copyright I LONDON, January 18. (Received Jan. 19, at 5.5 p.m.) • There are some questions which no country could safely submit to arbitration ’’ says a British memorandum to viie League of Nations apropos the forthcoming discussions of the Security Committee of the Disarmament Preparatory -om mittee. The memorandum adds. • Countries usually make reservati as when agreeing to arbitrate because tney know that there is a point beyond which they cannot count upon their own Peoples. Article 13 of the League of Nations Covenant recognises that there are limits beyond which States cannot bind themselves. The only sanction behind arbitration treaties consists in the worldpublic opinion. Premature development of the arbitration ideal would prejudice the movement in favour of arbitrate.., which is steadily advancing, and m,g U embitter the relations between the two countries' concerned instead of improving them. . . , , . . „ “It is not the giving of a decision which is important, but the acceptance thereof. An award which one party refused would give arbitration a set-back. The time is not yet ripe for a general system of sanctions for the enforcement of awards, and the only effective sanction suggested consists of an agreement with other States to employ force and compel acceptance. It is improbable that any powerful nation would undertake such a general obligation. Even the parties to the Locarno Treaty only gave an undertaking to comply with the proposals made by the League' Council. An arbitration treaty which outruns _ public opinion merely deceives the public. . The memorandum considers it is best to hasten slowly to enable the nations to ( understand each other better, and allow . respect for international law to develop.— A. and N.Z. Cable. SAFEGUARD FOR PEACE. network of local guarantees [ better than universal SCHEME. (British Official Wireless.) f (Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright.) RUGBY, January 18. (Received Jan. 19, at 7 p.m.) The British memorandum to the League of Nations dealing with arbitration treaties says that the lines along which progress seems possible towards a universal acceptance of unrestricted obligations to arbitration in justifiable disputes, even by States which cannot now accept such obligations, are, firstly, by the inclusion in particular treaties of an undertaking to arbitrate in disputes arising out of their interpretations; and, secondly, by widening the scope of the agreements dealing with justifiable disputes generally and pledging the parties in advance to submit such disputes to arbitration. In numerous cases Britain has already applied this procedure. The document says;—“lt may well be that the formula as to the vital interests of third Staffs, which was first adopted in arbitration treaties a quarter of a century ago, requires re-examination. Whatever changes may be recommended, however, it is clear that some limitations in the scope of a treaty of this kind are essential. Disputes, legal in their nature, may arise between two States with regard to matters falling exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of one of them. No State can agree to submission to an international tribunal of matters falling exclusively within the range of its national sovereignty.” The view is expressed that the method of signing a general undertaking, even when coupled with the power to make exceptions as to the categories of the dis putes to be arbitrated, lacks the flexibility which enables the measure of obligation to be varied in the case of the particular State towards which the obligation is being accepted. More progress is likely to be achieved through bilateral agreements than through general treatties.

Non-justifiable disputes, says the document, are less suitable for submission to a tribunal with power to give a binding decision, and the procedure of conciliation, as provided under the League Covenant, is in such cases alone possible at present. Regarding security agreements, it is recalled that the Locarno Treaty was designed to meet a specific danger in a specific area and imposes on all the parties concerned an equal obligation to preserve its integrity and to exeeute the decisions of the Council. It is in this way tar more efficacious than could be any more general system of guarantees under which the obligation would be spread over a much larger number of States, each of which would be included, quite naturally, to regard its individual obligation as being pro tanto reduced. The British Government is of the opinion that the Locarno Treaty, by virtue of the extent to which it is devised to met a specific danger and by its character and clarity of definition, constitutes the ideal type of security agreement, yet notwithstanding the hope expressed by the League Assembly that the principles embodied in the treaties of Locarno “ will be put into practice as soon as possible by all the States in whose interests it is to contract such treaties,” no further treaties on this model have been registered with tlie League. . In the same connection the League Council also placed its offices at the disposal of all the States desirous of •* concluding suitable agreements likelv to establish confidence and security,” but none have yet accepted the offer. The British Government looks forward to a gradual growth of this system, convinced, as it is, that the easiest way of attaining a universal sense, of security is is for each State to provide the necessary guarantees in that quarter where its main interests, and consequently its principal danger, lie If the system is gradually extended until it includes every State which feels that its security is not already amply safeguarded, there will eventually be woven a network of guarantees against a rupture of peace in any part of th e world. Such local guarantees, directed to a specific danger and based on well-defined obligations, are infinitely more satisfactory than any comprehensive or universal scheme, which must necessarily be drawn in vaguer and more gene ral terms, and of which, consequently, the modus operand! and probable efficacy must remain to some extent a matter of speculation. If the States which, owing to any doubt or suspicion, hesitate to open negotiations were mutually to agree to place themselves in the hands of the League Council and to conduct their conversations under its auspices, the conclusion of further agreements on the lines recommended would be greatly facilitated.