ARBITRATION AND SECURITY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 128, 28 February 1928, Page 9

ARBITRATION AND SECURITY

BRITISH MEMORANDUM PUBLISHED LORD CUSHENDUN’S COMMENTS Rugby, February 25. The Secretary of the League of Nations publishes the British memorandum on the report of M. Politis, reporter of the Committee on Arbitration and Security. In a memorandum Lord Cushendun criticises the various suggestions put forward to determine an aggressor by means of a majority vote of the Council of the League. By this means the points out it would be possible for members of the League to be called on to apply’ economic or military sanctions to enforce a decision with which they individually might not agree and might even have voted against. He declares that such methods would sap at the base of the principle of unanimity. In conclusion Lord Cushendun repeats that the British Government does not wish to go any further than her obligations under the League pact.— British Official Wireless. “TO WHAT PURPOSE” QUESTION OF MODEL TREATIES. By Telegraph. —press Association. Copyright. Geneva, February 26. “I should like somebodv to explain the object of these model treaties— I have no objection to dozens of them, but to what purpose?” Thus said Lord Cushendun after listening to M. Politis’s proposal to the Security Committee. Later, Lord Cushendun said that M. Politis had persuaded him that the movement towards arbitration might possibly be stimulated by model treaties, so he had acquiesced in their framing. The Committee accordingly authorised the Drafting Committee to submit a model for arbiration treaties, both bilateral and of general application, as well as treaties containing arbitration and conciliation. Lord Cushendun emphasised that the British viewpoint was that arbitration should be used in the settlemen of juridical disputes, while non-juridical disputes could be settled only by conciliation.