ARBITRATION AND SECURITY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 129, 29 February 1928, Page 11

ARBITRATION AND SECURITY

LONG DEBATE EMPHASISES DIFFICULTIES ARBITRATION DECISIONS BRITAIN AGAINST MAJORITY VOTE During a long debate at the Arbitration and Security Com ference Lord Cusheiidun oppos= ed any provision in regional pacts in which tlie League Council permitted to arbitrate enab. ling the council’s decision to be taken by a majority vote. Bri. tain, he declared insisted that the principle of unanimity must remain intact. BY Telegraph -Press association Copyright. (Rec. February 28, 9.35 p.m.) Geneva, February 28. Another long debate did not increase the difficulties regarding security, but it certainly emphasised them. Herr Von Simson declared that Germany objected to the general facts for the same reason as Britain because they asked governments to assume obligations they were unwilling to shoulder. He warned the committee of the possible danger of group treaties, which might take the form of an alliance against others, and urged that nothing should be done to increase the tension between the peoples. Lord Cushendun opposed any provision in regional pacts in which the League Council was permitted to arbitrate enabling the council’s decisions to be taken by a majority vote. He suggested that this was equivalent to giving the council power to declare war, and insisted that the principle of unanimity must remain intact. He also opposed the inclusion of a model regional treaty in anv provision authorising the League Council to declare an armistice in the event of an outbreak of war between signatories. He argued that such a provision, besides not being enforceable, might prevent States accepting the treaty in which it was embodied. The committee lengthily discussed the value of demilitarised zones as steps toward.s peace and disarmament. Naturallv the United States-Canada frontier’was quoted as an example, also the long stretch between Norway and Sweden. General de Marinis (Italy) opposed the recommendation of these zones, because States were unable now to impose them if they wished, presumably alluding to the Versailles Treaty. The discussion was adjourned.