Untitled

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18236, 21 November 1924, Page 8

Our cables this morning make it clear that the British Government's request to the Council of the League of Nations to delay action regarding the proposed Protocol to the Covenant is intended to allow time for consultation with the Dominions. It was scarcely to be expected that the new Administration would summarily reject a proposal which has now gone before every member of the League for ratification or repudiation, and carries with it the hope of a further instalment of disarmament. But the way in which the Protocol was debated by the Assembly of the League showed that there were some States which were not greatly enamoured of it. Britain's judgment, we may be sure, will be affected by the judgment expressed by the Dominions. And what that will be in the case of New Zealand and Australia and South Africa will be determined largely by the view which their respective Parliaments take of the effect of the Protocol on their deliberate determination to exclude Asiatics from their territories. If it is shown that the Protocol takes a'way from a people the right to say whom they shall admit or refuse to admit to their country there is no doubt that it will be rejected.

There has been a good deal of confusion as to the actual obligations that would be incurred by signatories to the Protocol. The Australian delegates to the Assembly of the League were satisfied that the proposal did not in any way threaten the White Australia policy, and their opinion is confirmed by one who is in a better position' than they are to speak authoritatively on the matter since the. question involved is a legal one. We refer to Professor Charteris, who is Professor of International Law at Sydney University, and is an acknowledged authority on this and allied subjects. His opinion is that "it is hardly possible to bring a dispute arising out of the White Australia policy before the Permanent International Court under the proposals in the draft Protocol." These proposals, in so far as they may be considered to involve obligations not already laid upon signatories to the Covenant, are concerned with tho definition of "aggressor" and the compulsory arbitration of certain disputes "of a legal nature. It is the latter provision that some have interpreted as endangering a White Australia.

The effect of these provisions is to bind signatories to the Protocol to accept as obligatory tho at present optional method of compulsory arbitration by the International Court in legal disputes concerning—(l) the interpretation of a treaty; (2) any question of international law; (3) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; (4) the nature or extent of reparation to- be made for the breach of an international obligation. None of these cases for arbitration touches an exclusive immigration policy, for there is no treaty or "international obligation" concerned, and there is, in Professor Charteris's opinion, the best authority for saying that, where such obligations do not exist, international law regards immigration as falling within the sovereign laws of a State. No "question, of international law," therefore, could be involved. It is none the less important that all these issues should be carefully investigated before Parliament is invited to ratify the Protocol.