be placed in an extraordinarily difficult position. Supposing that, on the momentous questions involved in the Protocol, the peoples of the British Dominions and the peoples of Continental Europe were to take radically different points of view, would it be possible for British statesmanship to discover a compromise acceptable to both parties? And if that did not prove possible, where would the United Kingdom stand? Continental Europe, on the one side, and the English-speaking peoples overseas, on the other, formed two distinct worlds, each of which was in a position to work out the problem of security and disarmament in its own way, as best might suit its own special conditions; but if these ways parted, which road was Great Britain to follow? Great Britain alone was an integral member of both worlds, and she alone would be unable, without grave inconvenience or even danger to herself, to remain outside any system of organized peace which either of these separate worlds might succeed in building up within its own circle. The measures taken by the British Government to cope with this problem will be recorded in the Survey of International Affairs for 1925. (vi) Bilateral Conciliation and Arbitration Agreements In the previous sections of this Part it has been recorded how the problem of Security and Disarmament was taken in hand by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers during the peace settlement after the War of 1914; and how, out of the double root of the negotiations for an Anglo-French Pact and the clauses envisaging the limitation of armaments which had been included in the Covenant of the League, there grew first the draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance and then the Geneva Protocol. At the close of the year 1924, the fate of the Protocol had not yet been decided by the States Members of the League, to whose Governments the document had been referred by their respective representatives at the Fifth Assembly, and it was, therefore, still doubtful what permanent results would be secured in this attempt to solve the problem on a field so broad that it included, not only all Europe, but countries situated in every region of the world. Naturally, these great transactions almost monopolized public attention at the time; yet this survey would be incomplete if it passed over those less ambitious and less obtrusive, but within narrower limits effective, steps towards a solution of the problem which were taken by certain minor states during the year 1924.1 In this year, while the draft Treaty and the Protocol were the subject of active but not yet conclusive international discussion, 1 For completeness' sake, it would have been desirable to give some account in this section of all the bilateral arbitration treaties concluded since the termination of the War of 1914. Lack of space, however, has made it necessary to confine the survey in this section to the single year 1924. The following (not exhaustive) list of similar treaties signed during the previous years may serve as a guide to readers who wish to pursue the subject further. Nature of Treaty. Treaty for establishment of a Peace Commission. Treaty for establishment of an Agreement renewing for five years arbitration treaty of 15 Feb., 1905. Agreement renewing arbitration treaty of 6 April, 1908. Arbitration treaty. Protocol regarding arbitration of the Landreau claim against Peru. Arbitration treaty. Convention for arbitration regarding claim of Norwegian shipowners against United States Government. Arbitration and 3 Dec., 1921 treaty. Great Britain-Costa Rica 12 Jan., 1922 Chile-Peru Sweden-Uruguay States of America United States of America Arbitration treaty. Arbitration treaty. conciliation Agreement renewing for five years Protocol regarding arbitration in Arbitration treaty. 20 July, 1922 24 Feb., 1923 28 Feb., 1923 Arbitration treaty. Great Britain-United 10 April, 1923 19 July, 1923 Arbitration treaty. Agreement renewing for five years Agreement renewing for five years Agreement renewing arbitration Agreement renewing arbitration treaty of 4 April, 1908. Switzerland signed eight bilateral conciliation or arbitration treaties after negotiations which, in every case, had been started on the initiative of the Swiss Government; and while it remained uncertain whether the work of the Fifth Assembly of the League would be crowned by a world conference for the reduction and limitation of armaments in 1925, the Danish Government set an example to others by introducing a Bill for the voluntary and unilateral liquidation of the Danish army and navy. It was not an accident that the two minor states which took these important initiatives both belonged to the group of European ex-neutrals; for the members of this group held a moral position which bore no proportion to their material power. The self-disarmament of Denmark is dealt with in the section that follows. The present section is concerned with the bilateral arbitration agreements signed in 1924, to eight of which, Switzerland, as has just been mentioned, was one of the parties.1 Before the War of 1914, Switzerland had been in the forefront of that movement for building up an international network of bilateral arbitration treaties which had grown out of the two Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907; but these pre-war treaties had not gone very far. Nearly all of them had expressly excepted from the scope of arbitration questions affecting the honour, independence, and vital interests of the contracting parties' and even then they had made resort to arbitration dependent, in each particular case that might arise, upon the previous negotiation of a compromis or agreed set of pleadings-an agreement which might often prove just as difficult as a direct settlement of the issue. After the War, the Covenant of the League and the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice had introduced several new principles of great importance-for example, the establishment of conciliation as a procedure to be employed in conjunction with arbitration; the resort to conciliation or arbitration at the request of one party to a dispute without the necessity for a compromis, and (in the Optional Clause' of the Statute) the principle of a priori compulsory jurisdic 1 For the texts of five of these treaties (namely, those with Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, Brazil, and Italy), together with the written messages in which the Federal Council presented them for the approval of the Federal Assembly, see the Swiss Feuille Fédérale, 1924, vol. iii, No. 45, Berne, 5th November, 1924; and for the texts of the three others (namely, those with Austria, Argentina, and Japan respectively) the same official publication, 1924, vol. iii, No. 46, 12th November, 1924; 1925, vol. i, No. 6, 11th February, 1925; 1925, vol. ii, No. 15, 15th April, 1925. 2 For the making of the Covenant and the Statute see the History of the Peace Conference of Paris, vol. vi, Ch. VI. tion, not dependent upon the express consent of the parties, or one of them, in each case. Switzerland joined the League as an original Member, and she was one of the twenty-one states (not counting Brazil)1 which had signed the 'Optional Clause' of the Statute of the Permanent Court before the close of the year 1924; but, as early as the 11th December, 1919, the Swiss Federal Council had taken an initiative of its own. In a report 2 which it presented on that date to the Swiss Assembly, it announced its intention to attempt to conclude with foreign countries arbitration treaties conceived on lines more modern [than the pre-war treaties] and more in harmony with the new fact of the existence of the League of Nations. Furthermore, as soon as circumstances permitted, it made overtures in this sense to a whole series of states which had not recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice (either because they did not wish to try an experiment which seemed to them to compromise the future too greatly, or else because, having remained outside the League of Nations, they had not had to take up a position with regard to the principle of compulsory arbitration in the terms in which it is presented by Article 36 of the International Court of Justice).3 In putting this programme into action, the Swiss Government had the principles of the League of Nations before its eyes. It is well known what a preponderant role has been reserved for arbitral or judicial settlement and for conciliation in the Covenant of the League of Nations, which has made these two principles into elements in the juridical equipment of the civilized world. It now remains to develop them gradually in the direction of an increase in the obligations imposed upon the state. The interests of peace demand this. To work for the development of arbitration within the community of nations, to work for bringing the relations between states more and more under the aegis of the spiritual force of law, is not by any means the pursuit of a chimera, as some imagine it to be, but is, on the contrary, an eminently practical activity. In participating to the utmost possible extent in the movement in favour of arbitration, in attempting to accomplish, in this domain, whatever is capable of being accomplished to-day, Switzerland-a small country whose principal strength lies in the goodness of her case-is serving her own interests as well as those of the community of states. Thus she cannot hesitate to tread the path which opens before her. Her past, her traditions, and her mission in the world forbid her.4 1 Brazil had made her adhesion to the Optional Clause' (adhesion to which meant acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in four classes of dispute which were susceptible of a juridical decision) conditional upon the adhesion of two states permanently represented on the Council of the League. 2 See Feuille Fédérale, 1919, vol. v, p. 809. 3 Résumé in the message of the Federal Council dated the 28th October, 1924, covering the Swiss-Hungarian Conciliation and Arbitration Treaty of the 18th June, 1924 (Feuille Fédérale, 1924, vol. iii, No. 45). 4 Message from the Swiss Federal Council quoted above. 1 The Swiss Government's first step in the pursuit of this policy had been the issue of instructions, in June 1921, to all Swiss diplomatic missions abroad to make overtures on the subject to the Governments to which they were accredited; and their first practical achievement had been the signature, on the 3rd December, 1921, of an arbitration treaty, on the new lines, between Switzerland and Germany. A favourable opportunity for opening similar negotiations with France could hardly present itself until the two countries had settled their controversy over the Savoy Free Zones ; but the frontier incident which disturbed the amicable relations between Switzerland and Italy during the earlier months of 1924 2 did not prevent the signature, on the 20th September, 1924, of a Swiss-Italian treaty for conciliation and judicial settlement. This treaty was remarkable, not only because it was negotiated immediately after a period of tension between the two countries, but for several other reasons. It was a treaty between neighbours between whom war was a physical possibility; 3 one of the two parties was a Great Power and the other a state of lesser calibre; the signature took place at a moment when the First and Third Committees of the Fifth Assembly of the League were completing the draft of the Geneva Protocol; and some of the most important features of the Protocol were here anticipated. Not content with having negotiated arbitration treaties with Italy and Germany-that is with two out of those three of her neighbours which still remained Great PowersSwitzerland signed, on the 18th June, 1924, a conciliation and arbitration treaty with Hungary-one of the two former constituents of the Dual Monarchy which had been Switzerland's fourth neighbour until it had broken up in 1918. Besides this, a Swiss-Swedish and a Swiss-Danish conciliation treaty were signed respectively on the 2nd and the 6th June, 1924; a Swiss-Brazilian treaty for judicial settlement on the 23rd June; a Swiss-Austrian conciliation treaty on the 11th October; a Swiss-Argentinian arbitration treaty on the 17th November; and a Swiss-Japanese treaty for judicial settlement on the 26th December. It is worth noting the main variations by which these several instruments were distinguished from one another. The Swiss 1 For the history of this controversy and an account of the Franco-Swiss conciliation and arbitration treaty of the 6th April, 1925, see the Survey for 1925. 2 See II. B (ii) below. 3 Whereas there was no possibility of military operations between Switzerland and Hungary or any of the Scandinavian or Latin American countries. |