The Waikato Times With which io Incorporated The Waikato Argue* FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1931. THE GENERAL ACT.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18341, 29 May 1931, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which io Incorporated The Waikato Argue* FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1931. THE GENERAL ACT.

The imperial Government has Issued an Important memorandum In which it explains and justifies its decision to adhere to the General Act, This Act may he described as the means devised by the League of Nations for transforming the aspirations and declarations of the Kellogg Pact into an effective Instrument of workaday politics. Under the Pact all civilised countries of the world have agreed that “the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts, of whatever nature or of whatever, origin they may he, which may arise between them shall never he sought except by pacific means.” No promise could be more definite or far-reaching, but there Is no provision in the Pact itself for any alternative to war as a means of settlement. This was, of course, no oversight, nor does It mean that the Pact is a worthless document. It would have achieved less had it tried to provide the machinery of settlement, because, although there is no difference of opinion amongst civilised nations about the duty of avoiding war, there may be, and in fact there Is, considerable disagreement about the best way of avoiding it. The Kellogg Pact had to be limited In order to be universal. This does not, however, mean that the oountrics which have signed It are free to go on as they were before, with no machinery ready to hand for settling troublesome disputes except the armies and the navies which they still maintain. Such a failure to apply the Pact would justify the taunt that the Kellogg Pact was a pious fraud to keep the public quiet while the politicians and the soldiers went on playing with Are. There can be no question of obligation to And some substitute for war as a means of settling disputes; the only question is whether in the General Act we have a satisfactory alternative. By the Kellogg Pact Britain has already promised to settle peacefully all disputes of whatever nature they may be. Disputes of a strictly legal naturo are already covered by the “Optional Clause," which remits them to the Permanent Court of International Justice for decision. The General Act deals with “disputes of every kind.” Clearly, then, between States, whioh have signed there Is provision for some sort of a peaceful solution to every difficulty. Is there reason to suppose that It will be a satisfactory solution? Conciliation Is the first step; only when conciliation fails is there resort to arbitration. The commissions in botli oases are to be acceptable to tho parties to the dispute, who are entitled to have their own representatives sitting on them, although the majority of the commissioners have to be neutrals. There is thus every reason to believe in the impartiality of tho tribunals and, which is equally important, in their competence as well, for it is hardly to be expected that the parties to a dispute would nominate or accept i commissioners not thoroughly up to their work. There is a further guarantee that justice will be done under the General Act. .Most into’*national disputes, taken at an early stage, are capable of satisfactory ( solution by impartial authority. It is i the progress of a dispute, the compii- ] cations brought about by measures of , retaliation or by the introduction of , new issues, which are apt to intensify | the difficulties. In the case of the

conciliation procedure the commission may recommend to the parties suitable provisional measures; if the dispute is obstinate enough to go to the lengtii of arbitration, the arbitration commission may order such measures to be taken. This possibility of isolating and limiting a grievance is one of the most valuable parts of the whole document. In international disputes delay, with arrested development, gives time for second thoughts, and this is fully safeguarded by the cautious procedure under the General Act. It would admittedly be very undesirable to introduce a litigious atmosphere into international affairs. This is sometimes used as an argument against the General Act, but it is not reasonable. The General Act only applies to disputes which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy. It begins where war used to begin. Nor is it correct to speak of a litigious atmosphere in the early stages of procedure under the General Act. Conciliation comes before arbitratiop, the honest broker before the impartial judge. And if a dispute should eventually have to be submitted to arbitration a court is less objectionable than a battlefield. A litigious atmosphere is better than a bloody one. In no respect does the General Aot (In the form in which Britain proposes to adhere to it) mean the replacement of a good form of procedure by a more imperfect. Disputes between members of the British Commonwealth of Nations are excluded, since they can count on settling these in the best of all ways, and usually with complete informality. Mr Henderson proposes, also, to reserve the right to submit any dispute to the League Council, and it may bp that some essentially political disputes will be best handled in that way. There is at the moment only one great flaw in the General Act. Just in its procedure, universal in its scope, it is poor in the number of its adherents. But that is a failing which can soon be remedied. The Scandinavian countries, zealous as ever in international good work, have led the way. Great Britain and the Dominions and France have now ratified, giving the Act the powerful backing of two Great (Powers, while Italy has promised its adherence. Thus the Disarmanent Conference will be aided in no small measure in the deliberations to come.