WORLD PEACE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20317, 27 January 1928, Page 9

WORLD PEACE

, SETTLING OF DISPUTES. ARBITRATION AS A METHOD. (Frau Association— By Telegraph—Copyright.* LONDON, January 25. Declaring that the Government’s memorandum is most disappointing regarding arbitration, Viscount Cecil says that the objection to “ all in ” arbitration could not be due to the Government thinking arbitration advisable with good people but wrong with bad people. The only other possible conclusion was that the Government preferred to arbitrate rather than to quarrel with powerful countries which were not of a very high-minded attitude. “I do not know the ground on which the Government argues that people would not support genera] arbitration. Will the Government subject the question to a free vote of the Commons or ask the League to remove such doubts? ’’ Britain’s signature w T as all-embracing. Arbitration would give the world a lead. Persistence in the present attitude was tantamount to guilt in maintaining that war was, the legitimate method of settling disputes.— The Times. 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, first, 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 States, which was first adopted in arbitration treaties a quarter of a century ago, requires re-examina-tion. 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 disputes to be armtrated, lacks the flexibility - hich 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 througn general treaties. 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, ft 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 execute the decisions of the Council. It is in this way far more efficacious thap 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 meet a specific danger and by its character and claritv of definition, constistitutes the ideal" type of security agreement, yet notwithstanding the hope expressed" by teh League Assembly, that the principles embodied in the treaties 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 the League. In the same connection the League Council also placed its offices at the disposal of all the States desirous of “ concluding suitable agreements likely to establish confidence and security,” but none have yet accepted the offer. The British Government looks forward tb a gradual growth of this system, convinced, as it is, that the easiest way of attaining a universal sense of security 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 the world. Such local guarantees, directed to a specific danger and based on well-defined obligations, are infinitely more satisfatory than any comprehensive or universal scheme, which must necessarily be drawn in vaguer and more general 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 anv 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.