Evening star., 1932-08-09

|
for purposes of concihation, has or
several occasions proved a valuable
influence in the prevention OF war
Another important and benefcent re-
suit of the League organization has
been the regular conferences which
are held between the representatives
of the different nations. These discus
sions have proved to be effective agen-
cies for the settlement Of controversies
and thus for war prevention.
BY them there also has been developed
particularly among the nations OF
Europe. a community spirit which can
be evoked TO prevent war. In all Soi
these ways there has been produced
the beginning of a group sentiment
which is wholly at variance with some
Of the old doctrines in respect to war
Nine years later, In 1928. came the
still more sweeping step Of the Pact
of Paris, the Briand-Kellogg Pact. In
this treaty Substantially all the nations
of the world united in a covenant in
which they renounced war altogether
as an instrument of national policy in
/ their relations with one another and
agreed that the settlement of all dis
putes or conflicts of whatever nature
among them should never be sought
except by pacific means.
Of world public opinion toward former
customs and doctorines, which is evi-
! denced by these two treaties, is so
! revolutionary that 1t is not surprising
! that the progress has outstripped the
/ landmarks and orientation of many
observers. The treaties signalize a
revolution in human thought, but they
are not the result of impulse or
I thoughtless sentiment.
| At bottom they are the growth Of
necessity, the product Of a consciousness
! that unless some such step were taken
modern civilization would be doomed.
Under its present organization the
world simply could not go on recog-
nizing war, with its constantly growing
destructiveness. as one of the normal
instrumentalities of human life. HUI
man organization has become too COM
plex, too fragile, to be subjected to
the hazards of the new agencies Of
destruction turned loose under the
sanction of international law.
Whole Viewpoint Changed.
So the entire central point from
which the problem was viewed was
changed. War between nations was
renounced by the signatories Of the
Briand-Kellogg Treaty. This means
that it has become illegal throughout
practically the entire world. 1t is no
longer to be the source and subject
Of rights. 1t is no longer to be
the principle around which the
duties, the conduct and the rights
Of nations revolve. 1t is an illegal
thing. Hereafter when two nations
engage in armed conflict either one
or both Of them must be wrongdoers-
xIn Nf ~ Ary 1nv
We no longer draw a circle about them
and treat them with the punctilios Of
the duelists code. Instead We de-
nounce them as law breakers.
BY that very act we have made
obsolete many legal precedents and
have given the legal profession the
task of re-examining many of its
codes and treatises.
The language of the Briand- Kellogg
Treaty and the contemporaneous
statements Of its founders make its pur-
pose clear. Some of it's critics have as
serted that the pact was really not
treaty at all; that it was not in
tended to confer rights and liabilities:
that it was mere group of unilateral
statements made by the signatories,
declaring a pious purpose on the part
Of each, Of which purpose the sigma
IOIy was W DS LllC SOlc JuQSG anu
executor and for a violation Of which
no other signatory could call him to
account.
Pact Definite in Meaning.
If such an Interpretation were cor
rect. it would reduce the pact to a
mere gesture. II its promises conferred
no rights as between the members of
the community Of signatories, 1t would
be a sham. 1t would be worse than
nullity, for its failure would carry
down the faith of the world in other
efforts for peace.
But such critics are wrong There
is nothing in the language of the
pact nor in its contemporaneous hiss
tory to justify such an Interpretation.
On its face 1t is treaty containing
definite promises In its preamble it
expressly refers to the benefits fur
nished by this treaty" and states that
any signatory power violating its prom
ise shall be denied those benefits The
correspondence of the trainers of the
treaty show that they intended it to
be treaty which would confer bene-
fits, which might be lost by a vio,a-
ton thereof. During the period when
the treaty was under negotiatio Mr.
Kellogg declared in a public address:
IF war is to be abolished 1t must
be through the conclusion of a specific
treaty solemnly binding the parties not
to resort to war with one another. 1t
cannot be abolished by a mere declara-
tion in the preamble Of a treaty"
(Speech Of March IS. 1928, before the
Council on Foreign Relations at New
York;
Sought Clear Cut Text.
In drafting the treaty Mr.. Kellogg
rightly and tenaciously fought for
clear, terse prohibition Of war free
from any detailed definitions or reser-
vations. In his own words he sought
"a treaty so simple and unconditional
that the people of all nations could
understand it. a declaration which
could be rallying point for world
sentiment, foundation on which to
build a world peace" (Speech of
March %, 1890, before the League of
Political Education at New York;
Any other course would have opened
the door to technicalities and destruc-
tive limitations.
As it stands, the only Limitation to
the broad covenant against war is the
right OF seif-defense. This right is so
inherent and universal that it was
deemed unnecessary even to insert it
expressly IN the treaty. It Is also so
well understood that it does not weaken
the treaty. 1t exists In the case of the
individual under domestic law, as we'll
as in the case Of the nation and its
citizens under the law of nations.
Makes Deceit Difficult.
Its limits have been clearly defined
by countless precedents. A nation
which sought to mask imperialistic
policy under the guise of the defense
Of tts nation ale