SECURITY PACTS

Hokitika Guardian, 25 January 1928, Page 1

SECURITY PACTS

BRITAIN’S FEELING

RUGBY, Jan. 19

The memorandum on security sent by the Cabinet to the League of Nations was published yesterday. Dealing with' arbitration treaties it sets out the lines along which progress seems possible towards a universal acceptance of unrestricted obligations to submit to arbitration justifiable disputes, even by those States which cannot now accept such an obligation. These are: First by the inclusion in particular treaties of an undertaking to arbitrate or disputes that arise out of their interpretations; and secondly by widening the scope of agreements dealing with justiciable 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 he that the formula as to the vital interests such as honour and independence, and the interests of third States, which was first adopted in arbitration treatie a quarter of a century ago, requires re-examination. Whatever changes may be recommended, however, it is clear that some limitations in the scope of a treaty of this kind arc essential.

‘‘Disputes legal in their nature may arise between two States with regard to matters falling exclusively within fhe domestic jurisdiction of one of them. No State can agree to submit to ail international tribunal 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 ns to categories of disputes to be arbitrated upon, lacks the flexibility which enables Hie measure of the obligation to bo varied in the case of the particular State toward which the obligation is being accepted. Afore progress is likely to be achieved. the memorandum suggests, through bilateral agreements than through general treaties. "Xonjustieiablc disputes arc less suitable for submission to a tribunal with power to give a binding decision and the procedure of conciliation. as provided under the Covenant of the League, is in such cases alone jmssible at present. LOCARNO PREFERRED Regarding agreements for .security, it is recalled that the Treaty of Locarno was designed to meet a specific danger in a specific area, and it imposes on all parties concerned an equal obligation to preserve its integrity and to execute the decisions of the Counil. It is in this wav far more efficacious than could he any more general system of guarantees under which the obligation would he spread over a much larger number of States, each of which would lie inclined, quite naturally. I<> regard its individual obligation as being pro taiilo reduced.

The British Government. is of the opinion that the 'Treaty of Locarno. by virtue of the •■x'lent to which it is devised to meet a siiecifie danger, and by its character and clarity of definition constitutes the ideal true of security agreement. Yet notwithstanding the hope expressed Its' fbt‘ Assembly oi the Leagilc Unit the principles embodied in the treaties of Locarno “will be put into practice as .soon as possible by all tlie States in whose interests it is Co contract such treaties." no further treaties oil this model have been registered with the League. ‘‘Such local guarantees, directed to a specific danger and based oil welldefined obligations, are infinitely more satisfactory than any comprehensive or universal scheme, which must necessarily be drawn in vaguer and more general terms, and of which consequently the modus operandi and the probable efficacy must remain to some extent a matter of speculation.

•‘lf those States which owing to any doubt or suspicion hesitate to open negotiations were mutually to agree to place themselves in the hands of the Council of the League, and to conduct their conversations under its'Tinspices the conclusion of further agreements on the lines recommended would bo greatly facilitated.”