THE GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR TEXT OF THE PACT AS SIGNED NOTES AND OTHER PAPERS distributed BY foreign police associate 18 EAST 4lst STREET, NEW YORK UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1928 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 15 CENTS PER COPY CONTENTS Page General Pact for the Renunciation of War. — Signed at Paris, August 27, 1928 1 Notes Exchanged between the United States and other Powers, June 20, 1927-August 27, 1928 4 Draft of pact of perpetual friendship between France and the United States, June 20, 1927 4 The Secretary of State to the French Ambassador (Claudel), December 28, 1927 5 The French Ambassador (Claudel) to the Secretary of State, January 5, 1928 . 6 The Secretary of State to the French Ambassador (Claudel), January 11, 1928 8 The French Ambassador (Claudel) to the Secretary of State, January 21, 1928 10 The Secretary of State to the French Ambassador (Claudel), February 27, 1928 12 The French Ambassador (Claudel) to the Secretary of State, March 30, 1928 15 Note of the Government of the United States to the Governments of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan, delivered at the respective Foreign Offices April 13, 1928 19 Draft of proposed treaty submitted by the Government of France to the Governments of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States on April 20, 1928 21 The German Minister of Foreign Affairs (Stresemann) to the American Ambassador (Schurman), April 27, 1928 23 The Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs (Mussolini) to the American Ambassador (Fletcher), May 4, 1928 25 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain) to the American Ambassador (Houghton), May 19, 1928 26 The Minister in Canada (Phillips) to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mackenzie King), May 22, 1928 29 The Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs (Tanaka) to the American Ambassador (MacVeagh), May 26, 1928 30 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain), on behalf of the Government of New Zealand, to the American Charg6 (Atherton), May 30, 1928 31 The Irish Free State Minister for External Affairs (McGilligan) to the American Minister (Sterling), May 30, 1928 32 The Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mackenzie King) to the American Minister (Phillips), May 30, 1928 32 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain), on be- half of the Commonwealth of Australia, to the American Charg6 (Atherton), June 2, 1928 34 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain), on behalf of the Government of India, to the American Charg6 (Ather- ton), June 11, 1928 35 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain), on behalf of the Union of South Africa, to the American Chargd (Atherton), June 15, 1928 35 iii IV CONTENTS Page Notes Exchanged between the United States and other Powers, June 20, 1927-August 27, 1928 — Continued. Note of the Government of the United States to the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, and South Africa, June 23, 1928 36 The Polish Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs (Wysocki) to the American Minister (Stetson), July 8, 1928 42 The German State Secretary (Schubert) to the American Ambassador (Schurman), July 11, 1928 43 The French Minister of Foreign Affairs (Briand) to the American Ambassador (Herrick), July 14, 1928 43 The Irish Free State Minister for External Affairs (McGilligan) to the American Minister (Sterling), July 14, 1928 45 The Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs (Mussolini) to the American Ambassador (Fletcher), July 15, 1928 46 The Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mackenzie King) to the American Minister (Phillips), July 16, 1928 46 The Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs (Hymans) to the American Ambassador (Gibson), July 17, 1928 46 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain) to the American Charg6 (Atherton), July 18, 1928 47 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain), on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia, to the American Chargd (Atherton), July 18, 1928 48 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain), on behalf of the Government of India, to the American Charg6 (Atherton), July 18, 1928 49 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain), on behalf of the Government of New Zealand, to the American Charge (Atherton), July 18, 1928 50 The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain), on behalf of the Union of South Africa, to the American Charg6 (Atherton), July 18, 1928 50 The Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Affairs (Bene§) to the American Minister (Einstein), July 20, 1928 51 The Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs (Tanaka) to the American Charg6 (Neville), July 20, 1928 53 Note of the United States on the subject of adherence to the General Pact for the Renunciation of War. — Addressed to Albania, Af- ghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Re- public, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, Guate- mala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panamd, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Portugal, Rumania, Salvador, Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, and Venezuela, August 27, 1928 54 Addresses of the Honorable Frank B. Kellogg, Secretary of State 57 The war-prevention policy of the United States 57 The French draft of the multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war.. 66 Negotiations for the conclusion of a treaty for the renunciation of war.. 69 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR.— SIGNED AT PARIS AUGUST 27, 1928 The President of the German Reich, the President of the United States of America, His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the Presi- dent of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, the President of the Republic of Poland, the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind; Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated; Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty; Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations of the world will join in this humane endeavor and by adhering to the present Treaty as soon as it comes into force bring their peoples within the scope of its beneficent provisions, thus uniting the civilized nations of the world in a common renunciation of war as an instru- ment of their national policy; Have decided to conclude a Treaty and for that purpose have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries : The President of the German Reich: D r Gustav Stresemann, Minister for Foreign Affairs; The President of the United States of America: The Honorable Frank B. Kellogg, Secretary of State; His Majesty the King of the Belgians: Mr. Paul Hymans, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister of State; The President of the French Republic: Mr. Aristide Briand, Minister for Foreign Affairs; 1 2 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India: For Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate Members of the League of Nations: The Right Honourable Lord Cushendun, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; For the Dominion of Canada: The Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs; For the Commonwealth of Australia: The Honourable Alexander John McLachlan, Member of the Execu- tive Federal Council; For the Dominion of New Zealand: The Honourable Sir Christopher James Parr, High Commissioner for New Zealand in Great Britain; For the Union of South Africa: The Honourable Jacobus Stephanus Smit, High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa in Great Britain; For the Irish Free State: Mr. William Thomas Cosgrave, President of the Executive Council; For India: The Right Honourable Lord Cushendun, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; His Majesty the King of Italy: Count Gaetano Manzoni, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni- potentiary at Paris. His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: Count Uchida, Privy Councillor; The President of the Republic of Poland: Mr. A. Zaleski, Minister for Foreign Affairs; The President of the Czechoslovak Republic: D r Eduard Benes, Minister for Foreign Affairs; who, having communicated to one another their full powers found in good and due form have agreed upon the following articles: Article 1 The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instru- ment of national policy in their relations with one another. GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR 3 Article 2 The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means. Article 3 The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington. This Treaty shall, when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other Powers of the world. Every instru- ment evidencing the adherence of a Power shall be deposited at Washington and the Treaty shall immediately upon such deposit become effective as between the Power thus adhering and the other Powers parties hereto. It shall be the duty of the Government of the United States to furnish each Government named in the Preamble and every Govern- ment subsequently adhering to this Treaty with a certified copy of the Treaty and of every instrument of ratification or adherence. It shall also be the duty of the Government of the United States tele- graphically to notify such Governments immediately upon the deposit with it of each instrument of ratification or adherence. In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty in the French and English languages both texts having equal force, and hereunto affix their seals. Done at Paris, the twenty-seventh day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight. [seal] Gustav Stresemann [seal] [seal] Frank B Kellogg [seal] [seal] Paul Hymans [seal] [seal] Ari Briand [seal] [seal] Cushendun [seal] [seal] W. L. Mackenzie King [seal] [seal] A J McLachlan [seal] [seal] C. J. Parr J S. Smit Liam T. MacCosgair Cushendun G. Manzoni UcHIDA August Zaleski D R Eduard Benes NOTES EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS, JUNE 20, 1927- AUGUST 27, 1928 Draft of pact of perpetual friendship between France and the United States 1 [Translation] June 20, 1927. The President of the French Republic and the President of the United States of America, Equally desirous of affirming the solidarity of the French people and the people of the United States of America in their wish for peace and in their renunciation of a recourse to arms as an instrument of their policy towards each other, And having come to an agreement to consecrate in a solemn act these sentiments as much in accord with the progress of modern democracies as with the mutual friendship and esteem of two nations that no war has ever divided and which the defense of liberty and justice has always drawn closer, Have to this end designated for their plenipotentiaries, to wit: The President of the French Republic : The President of the United States of America : Who, after having exchanged their powers, recognized in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions: Article 1 The high contracting powers solemnly declare, in the name of the French people and the people of the United States of America, that they condemn recourse to war and renounce it respectively as on instrument of their national policy towards each other. Article 2 The settlement or the solution of all disputes or conflicts, of what- ever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise be- tween France and the United States of America, shall never be sought by either side except by pacific means. 1 Transmitted to the Secretary of State by M. Briand through the American Ambassador at Paris. 4 NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 5 Article 3 The present act shall be ratified. The ratifications thereof shall be exchanged at as soon as possible and from that time it shall have full force and value. In witness whereof the above-named plenipotentiaries have signed the present act and have thereunto set their seal. Done at in two copies (each drawn up both in French and English and having equal force), the nineteen hun- dred and twenty-seven. (Signatures and seals) The Secretary of State to the French Ambassador ( Claudel ) Washington, December 28, 1927. Excellency: I have the honor to refer to the form of treaty entitled “Draft of pact of perpetual friendship between France and the United States,” which his excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs was good enough to transmit to me informally last June through the instrumentality of the American Ambassador at Paris. This draft treaty proposes that the two powers should solemnly declare in the name of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war, renounce it as an instrument of their national policy towards each other, and agree that a settlement of disputes arising between them, of whatsoever nature or origin they may be, shall never be sought by either party except through pacific means. I have given the most careful consideration to this proposal and take this occasion warmly to reciprocate on behalf of the American people the lofty sentiments of friendship which inspired the French people, through his excellency M. Briand, to suggest the proposed treaty. The Government of the United States welcomes every opportunity for joining with the other governments of the world in condemning war and pledging anew its faith in arbitration. It is firmly of the opinion that every international endorsement of arbitration, and every treaty repudiating the idea of a resort to arms for the settle- ment of justiciable disputes, materially advances the cause of world peace. My views on this subject find a concrete expression in the form of the arbitration treaty which I have proposed in my note to you of December 28, 1927, to take the place of the arbitration con- vention of 1908. The proposed treaty extends the scope of that convention and records the unmistakable determination of the two Governments to prevent any breach in the friendly relations which have subsisted between them for so long a period. In view of the traditional friendship between France and the United States — a friendship which happily is not dependent upon the exist- 12387—28 2 6 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR ence of any formal engagement — and in view of the common desire of the two nations never to resort to arms in the settlement of such controversies as may possibly arise between them, which is recorded in the draft arbitration treaty just referred to, it has occurred to me that the two Governments, instead of contenting themselves with a bilateral declaration of the nature suggested by M. Briand, might make a more signal contribution to world peace by joining in an effort to obtain the adherence of all of the principal powers of the world to a declaration renouncing war as an instrument of national policy. Such a declaration, if executed by the principal world powers, could not but be an impressive example to all the other nations of the world, and might conceivably lead such nations to subscribe in their turn to the same instrument, thus perfecting among all the powers of the world an arrangement heretofore suggested only as between France and the United States. The Government of the United States is prepared, therefore, to concert with the Government of France with a view to the conclu- sion of a treaty among the principal powers of the world, open to signature by all nations, condemning war and renouncing it as an instrument of national policy in favor of the pacific settlement of international disputes. If the Government of France is willing to join with the Government of the United States in this endeavor, and to enter with the United States and the other principal powers of the world into an appropriate multilateral treaty, I shall be happy to engage at once in conversations looking to the preparation of a draft treaty following the lines suggested by M. Briand for submission by France and the United States jointly to the other nations of the world. Accept [etc.] Frank B. Kellogg The French Ambassador ( Claudel ) to the Secretary of State [Translation] Washington, January 5, 1928. Mr. Secretary of State: By a letter of December 28 last, your excellency was kind enough to make known the sentiments of the Government of the United States concerning the suggestion of a treaty proposed by the Government of the Republic in the month of June 1927, with a view to the condemnation of war and the renunciation thereof as an instrument of national policy between France and the United States. According to your excellency, the two governments, instead of limiting themselves to a bilateral treaty, would contribute more fully to the peace of the world by uniting their efforts to obtain the NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 7 adhesion of all the principal powers of the world to a declaration renouncing war as an instrument of their national policy. Such a declaration, if it were subscribed to by the principal powers, could not fail to be an impressive example to all the nations of the world and might very well lead them to subscribe in their turn to the same pact, thus bringing into effect as among all the nations of the world an arrangement which at first was only suggested as between France and the United States. The Government of the United States, therefore, would be disposed to join the Government of the Republic with a view to concluding a treaty between the principal powers of the world which, open to the signature of all nations, would condemn war, would contain a decla- ration to renounce it as an instrument of national policy and would substitute therefor the pacific settlement of disputes between nations. Your excellency added that if the Government of the Republic agrees thus to join the Government of the United States and the other principal powers of the world in an appropriate multilateral treaty, your excellency would be happy to undertake immediately conversations leading to the elaboration of a draft inspired by the suggestions of M. Briand and destined to be proposed jointly by France and the United States to the other nations of the world. The Government of the Republic appreciated sincerely the favor- able reception given by the Government of the United States to the proposal of M. Briand. It believes that the procedure suggested by your excellency and carried out in a manner agreeable to public opinion and to the popular sentiment of the different nations would appear to be of such nature as to satisfy the views of the French Government. It would be advantageous immediately to sanction the general character of this procedure by affixing the signatures of France and the United States. I am authorized to inform you that the Government of the Republic is disposed to join with the Government of the United States in proposing for agreement by all nations a treaty to be signed at the present time by France and the United States and under the terms of which the high contracting parties shall renounce all war of aggres- sion and shall declare that for the settlement of differences of whatever nature which may arise between them they will employ all pacific means. The high contracting parties will engage to bring this treaty to the attention of all states and invite them to adhere. The Government of the Republic is convinced that the principles thus proclaimed cannot but be received with gratitude by the entire world, and it does not doubt that the efforts of the two governments to insure universal adoption will be crowned with full success. Accept [etc.] Claudel 8 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR The Secretary oj State to the French Ambassador ( Claudel ) Washington, January 11, 1928. Excellency: In the reply which your Government was good enough to make to my note of December 28, 1927, his excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs summarized briefly the proposal pre- sented by the Government of the United States, and stated that it appeared to be of such a nature as to satisfy the views of the French Government. In these circumstances he added that the Government of the Republic was disposed to join with the Govern- ment of the United States in proposing for acceptance by all nations a treaty to be signed at the present time by France and the United States, under the terms of which the high contracting parties should renounce all wars of aggression and should declare that they would employ all peaceful means for the settlement of any differences that might arise between them. The Government of the United States is deeply gratified that the Government of France has seen its way clear to accept in principle its proposal that, instead of the bilateral pact originally suggested by M. Briand, there be negotiated among the principal powers of the world an equivalent multilateral treaty open to signature by all nations. There can be no doubt that such a multilateral treaty would be a far more effective instrument for the promotion of pacific rela- tions than a mere agreement between France and the United States alone, and if the present efforts of the two Governments achieve ultimate success, they will have made a memorable contribution to the cause of world peace. While the Government of France and the Government of the United States are now closely in accord so far as the multilateral feature of the proposed treaty is concerned, the language of M. Briand's note of January 5, 1928, is in two respects open to an interpretation not in harmony with the idea which the Government of the United States had in mind when it submitted to you the proposition outlined in my note of December 28, 1927. In the first place, it appears to be the thought of your Government that the proposed multilateral treaty be signed in the first instance by France and the United States alone and then submitted to the other powers for their acceptance. In the opinion of the Government of the United States this procedure is open to the objection that a treaty, even though acceptable to France and the United States, might for some reason be unacceptable to one of the other great powers. In such event the treaty could not come into force and the present efforts of France and the United States would be rendered abortive. This unhappy result would not necessarily follow a disagreement as to terminology arising prior to the definitive approval by any Gov- ernment of a proposed form of treaty, since it is by no means un- NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 9 reasonable to suppose that the views of the governments concerned could be accommodated through informal preliminary discussions and a text devised which would be acceptable to them all. Both France and the United States are too deeply interested in the success of their endeavors for the advancement of peace to be willing to jeopardize the ultimate accomplishment of their purpose by incurring unnecessary risk of disagreement with the other powers concerned, and I have no doubt that your Government will be entirely agreeable to joining with the Government of the United States and the govern- ments of the other powers concerned for the purpose of reaching a preliminary agreement as to the language to be used in the proposed treaty, thus obviating all danger of confronting the other powers with a definitive treaty unacceptable to them. As indicated below, the Government of the United States would be pleased if the Govern- ment of France would agree that the draft treaty submitted by M. Briand last June should be made the basis of such preliminary discussions. In the second place, and this point is closely related to what goes before, M. Briand’s reply of January 5, 1928, in expressing the willingness of the Government of France to join with the Government of the United States in proposing a multilateral treaty for the re- nunciation of war, apparently contemplates that the scope of such treaty should be limited to wars of aggression. The form of treaty which your Government submitted to me last June which was the subject of my note of December 28, 1927, contained no such qualifi- cation or limitation. On the contrary it provided unequivocally for the renunciation by the high contracting parties of all war as an instrument of national policy in the following terms: Article 1 The high contracting powers solemnly declare, in the name of the French people and the people of the United States of America, that they condemn recourse to war and renounce it respectively as an instrument of their national policy towards each other. Article 2 The settlement or the solution of all disputes or conflicts, of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise between France and the United States of America, shall never be sought by either side except by pacific means. I am not informed of the reasons which have led your Government to suggest this modification of its original proposal, but I earnestly hope that it is of no particular significance and that it is not to be taken as an indication that the Government of France will find itself unable to join with the Government of the United States in proposing, as suggested above, that the original formula submitted by M. Briand which envisaged the unqualified renunciation of all 10 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR war as an instrument of national policy be made the subject of pre- liminary discussions with the other great powers for the purpose of reaching a tentative agreement as to the language to be used in the proposed treaty. If your Government is agreeable to the plan outlined above and is willing that further discussions of the terms of the proposed multi- lateral treaty be based upon the original proposal submitted to me by M. Briand last June, I have the honor to suggest that the Govern- ment of France join with the Government of the United States in a communication to the British, German, Italian and Japanese Gov- ernments transmitting the text of M. Briand’s original proposal and copies of the subsequent correspondence between the Governments of France and the United States for their consideration and comment, it being understood, of course, that these preliminary discussions would in no way commit any of the participating Governments pending the conclusion of a definitive treaty. Accept [etc.] Frank B. Kellogg The French Ambassador ( Claudel ) to the Secretary oj State [Translation] Washington, January 21, 1928. Mr. Secretary of State: Your excellency was pleased to inform me in your note of the 11th instant, of the considerations suggested to you by my letter of January 5 in answer to your communication of December 28, 1927. My Government has asked me to express to you its satisfaction at the harmonizing, thanks to your excellencj’, of the views of the two Governments concerning the best method of accomplishing a project upon the essential principles of which they apparently are in agreement. The original French proposal of June 1927, contemplating an act confined to France and the United States, appeared to the French Government to be both desirable and feasible by reason of the historical relations between the two Republics. The American Government was only willing, however, to embody the declaration proposed by the French Government in the preamble of the Franco-American arbitration convention now in process of renewal, and considered on the other hand, for reasons of its own which the French Government has not failed to take into account, that it would be opportune to broaden this manifestation against war and to make it the subject of a separate act in which the other powers would be invited to participate. The Government of the Republic was not opposed to this expansion of its original plan, but it could not but realize, and it felt bound to NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 11 point out that the new negotiation as proposed would be more complex and likely to meet with various difficulties. The question as to whether there would be any advantage in having such an instrument, of a multipartite nature, signed in the first place by France and the United States, or else first elaborated by certain of the principal powers of the world and then presented to all for their signature, is essentially one of procedure. The Government of the Republic offered a suggestion upon this point only because of its desire more speedily and more surely to achieve the result which it seeks in common with the United States. This is tantamount to saying that it is ready to concur in any method which may appear to be the most practicable. There is, however, a situation of fact to which my Government has requested me to draw your particular attention. The American Government cannot be unaware of the fact that the great majority of the powers of the world, and among them most of the principal powers, are making the organization and strengthen- ing of peace the object of common efforts carried on within the frame- work of the League of Nations. They are already bound to one another by a Covenant placing them under reciprocal obligations, as well as by agreements such as those signed at Locarno in October 1925, or by international conventions relative to guaranties of neutrality, all of which engagements impose upon them duties which they cannot contravene. In particular, your excellency knows that all states members of the League of Nations represented at Geneva in the month of Sep- tember last, adopted, in a joint resolution tending to the condem- nation of war, certain principles based on the respect for the reciprocal rights and duties of each. In that resolution the powers were led to specify that the action to be condemned as an international crime is aggressive war and that all peaceful means must be employed for the settlement of differences, of any nature whatsoever, which might arise between the several states. This is a condition of affairs which the United States, while a stranger thereto, cannot decline to take into consideration, just as must any other state called upon to take part in the negotiation. Furthermore, the United States would not in any way be bound thereby to the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The French proposal of June last looking to the conclusion of a bilateral compact, had been drawn up in the light of the century-old relations between France and the United States; the French Govern- ment still stands ready to negotiate with the American Government on the same conditions and on the same basis. It has never altered its attitude in that respect. But when confronted by the initiative of the United States in proposing a multipartite covenant, it had to 12 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR take into consideration the relations existing among the various powers which would be called upon to participate therein. This it has done, with the object of assuring the success of the treaty con- templated by the United States. Its suggestions of January 5 as to the terms of the multipartite treaty are inspired by the formula which has already gained the unanimous adherence of all of the states members of the League of Nations, and which for that very reason might be accepted by them with regard to the United States, just as it has already been accepted among themselves. This is the explanation of our proposal of January 5. The Government of the Republic has always, under all circum- stances, very clearly and without mental reservation declared its readiness to join in any declaration tending to denounce war as a crime and to set up international sanctions susceptible of preventing or repressing it. There has been no change in its sentiments in that respect: its position remains the same. Your excellency may there- fore be assured of its sincere desire to respond to the idea of the American Government and to second its efforts to the full extent compatible with the situation of fact created by its international obligations. It is this preoccupation which inspired the formula proposed on January 5, a formula which does indeed seem to be the most apt at this time to assure the accomplishment of the American project. The Government of the Republic accordingly can not but hope that the American Government will share this view. Subject to these observations, the Government of the Republic would, moreover, very gladly welcome any suggestions offered by the American Government which would make it possible to reconcile an absolute condemnation of war with the engagements and obligations assumed by the several nations and the legitimate concern for their respective security. Pray accept [etc.] Claudel The Secretary of State to the French Ambassador ( Claudel ) Washington, February 27, 1928. Excellency: Our recent discussions of the question whether the United States and France could join in suggesting to the other principal powers of the world the conclusion of a treaty proscribing war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations have been brought by your note of January 21, 1928, to a point where it seems necessary, if success is to be achieved, to examine the problem from a practical point of view. It is evident from our previous correspondence that the Govern- ments of France and the United States are of one mind in their NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 13 earnest desire to initiate and promote a new international movement for effective world peace, and that they are in agreement as to the essential principles of the procedure to be followed in the accom- plishment of their common purpose. As I understand your note of January 21, 1928, the only substantial obstacle in the way of the unqualified acceptance by France of the proposals which I submitted in my notes of December 28, 1927, and January 11, 1928, is your Government’s doubt whether as a member of the League of Nations and a party to the treaties of Locarno and other treaties guaranteeing neutrality, France can agree with the United States and the other principal world powers not to resort to war in their mutual relations, without ipso facto violating her present international obligations under those treaties. In your excellency’s last note this question was suggested for consideration. Without, of course, undertaking formally to construe the present treaty obligations of France, I desire to point out that if those obliga- tions can be interpreted so as to permit France to conclude a treaty with the United States such as that offered to me last June by M. Briand and offered again in your note of January 21, 1928, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they can be interpreted with equal justice so as to permit France to join with the United States in offer- ing to conclude an equivalent multilateral treaty with the other princi- pal powers of the world. The difference between the bilateral and multilateral form of treaty having for its object the unqualified renun- ciation of war as an instrument of national policy, seems to me to be one of degree and not of substance. A Government free to conclude such a bilateral treaty should be no less able to become a party to an identical multilateral treaty since it is hardly to be presumed that members of the League of Nations are in a position to do separately something they cannot do together. I earnestly hope, therefore, that your Government, which admittedly perceives no bar to the conclusion of an unqualified antiwar treaty with the United States alone, will be able to satisfy itself that an equivalent treaty among the principal world powers would be equally consistent with member- ship in the League of Nations. If, however, members of the League of Nations cannot, without violating the terms of the Covenant of the League, agree among themselves and with the Government of the United States to renounce war as an instrument of their national policy, it seems idle to discuss either bilateral or multilateral treaties unreservedly renouncing war. I am reluctant to believe, however, that the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations really stand in the way of the cooperation of the United States and members of the League of Nations in a common effort to abolish the institu- tion of war. Of no little interest in this connection is the recent adop- 12387—28 3 14 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR tion of a resolution by the Sixth International Conference of American States expressing in the name of the American Republics unqualified condemnation of war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations. It is significant to note that of the twenty-one states represented at the Conference, seventeen are members of the League of Nations. I trust, therefore, that neither France nor any other member of the League of Nations will finally decide that an unequivocal and unqualified renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy either violates the specific obligations imposed by the Covenant or conflicts with the fundamental idea and purpose of the League of Nations. On the contrary, is it not entirely reasonable to conclude that a formal engagement of this character entered into by all of the principal powers, and ultimately, I trust, by the entire family of nations, would be a most effective instrument for promoting the great ideal of peace which the League itself has so closely at heart? If, however, such a declaration were accompanied by definitions of the word “aggressor” and by exceptions and qualifications stipulating when nations would be justified in going to war, its effect would be very greatly weakened and its positive value as a guaranty of peace virtually destroyed. The ideal which inspires the effort so sincerely and so hopefully put forward by your Government and mine is arrest- ing and appealing just because of its purity and simplicity; and I cannot avoid the feeling that if governments should publicly acknowl- edge that they can only deal with this ideal in a technical spirit and must insist upon the adoption of reservations impairing, if not utterly destroying the true significance of their common endeavors, they would be in effect only recording their impotence, to the keen disappointment of mankind in general. From the broad standpoint of humanity and civilization, all war is an assault upon the stability of human society, and should be sup- pressed in the common interest. The Government of the United States desires to see the institution of war abolished, and stands ready to conclude with the French, British, Italian, German and Japanese Governments a single multilateral treaty open to subse- quent adherence by any and all other governments, binding the parties thereto not to resort to war with one another. The precise language to be employed in such a treaty is a matter of indifference to the United States so long as it clearly and unmistakably sets forth the determination of the parties to abolish war among themselves. I therefore renew the suggestion contained in my note of January 11, 1928, that the Government of France join with the Government of the United States in transmitting to the British, Italian, German and Japanese Governments for their consideration and comment the NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 15 text of M. Briand’s original proposal, together with copies of the subsequent correspondence between France and the United States as a basis for preliminary discussions looking to the conclusion of an appropriate multilateral treaty proscribing recourse to war. Accept [etc.] Frank B. Kellogg The French, Ambassador ( Claudel ) to the Secretary of State [Translation] Washington, March 80, 1928. Mr. Secretary of State: In reply to your note of February 27 last regarding the proposal for a multilateral treaty proscribing war, I have the honor to inform your excellency that M. Briand has been pleased to find in the observations which you have submitted for his consideration a new and cordial affirmation of the common inspira- tion which animates our two Governments equally anxious to coop- erate in an international movement toward the effective establish- ment of peace in the world. Assured of such a solidarity in the pursuit of an identical purpose, M. Briand remains convinced, as does your excellency, that a mutually acceptable formula may well result from the exchange of views which has taken place up to now between our two Governments, if on both sides there is a disposition to adhere to those essential realities which must be preserved in this discussion, by subordinating thereto those differences of form to which questions of terminology not affecting the substance of the discussion may upon analysis be reduced. That is to say, that the French Government at this point of the discussion, when all the aspects of the problem have been examined, proposes to adopt as practical a point of view as possible and to facilitate as far as it can the effort of the American Government in the direction of an immediate decision. The observations which M. Briand has ventured to offer in support of his last suggestion were inspired by a very sincere desire to facilitate in a practical manner the realization of the proposal for the contem- plated multilateral treaty by pointing out the conditions best adapted to bring about the consent thereto of all the Governments whose agreement is necessary. The French wording, therefore, tending to limit to war of aggression the proscription proposed in the form of a multilateral rather than a bilateral treaty, was intended to obviate in so far as the American plan was concerned those serious difficulties which would assuredly be encountered in practice. In order to pay due regard to the international obligations of the signa- tories, it was not possible, as soon as it became a question of a multi- lateral treaty, to impart thereto the unconditional character desired 16 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR by your excellency without facing the necessity of obtaining the unanimous adherence of all the existing states, or at least of all the interested states, that is to say, those which by reason of their situ- ation are exposed to the possibility of a conflict with any one of the contracting states. In the relations between the states of the Amer- ican Continent there are similar difficulties which led the American Government at the Pan American Conference at Habana to approve a resolution limited to the very terms “war of aggression” which the French Government felt compelled to use in characterizing the renunciation to which it was requested to bind itself by means of a multilateral treaty. To be sure, the same reservation does not appear in another resolution to which your excellency referred in your note of February 27, but it must be observed that this resolution in itself constituted only a kind of preliminary tending toward a treaty of arbitration with regard to which numerous reservations were formulated. Your excellency appears to have been surprised that France should not be able to conclude with all the powers in the form of a multilateral treaty the same treaty which she offered to conclude separately with the United States in the form of a bilateral treaty. My Government believes that it has explained this point with suffi- cient clearness in recalling the fact that the project of a treaty of perpetual friendship between France and the United States proposed last June was drafted in such a way as to limit strictly the mutual undertakings which it contained to those relations in law resulting from intercourse between the two signatory states alone. Within such limits an absolutely unconditional agreement might be entered into, since that agreement would not expose the signatories, as would a multilateral treaty, to juridical difficulties resulting from the respective positions of various powers with regard to one another, and since furthermore, as regards two countries like France and the United States morally united as they are by ties of time-honored friendship, other contractual engagements concluded by one or the other power could never constitute in fact anything but purely theoretical obstacles. In order to attain the result which your excellency has in view, you have considered it preferable to adhere to the conception of a multilateral treaty, and you have deemed it necessary to insist that even in the multilateral form the proposed treaty should include an unconditional pledge. If your excellency really believes that greater chances of success may be found in this formula in spite of the consequences which it involves, especially the necessity of attain- ing a treaty world-wide in its scope, the French Government would hesitate to discuss longer the question of its adherence to a plan NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 17 which the American Government originated and for which it is responsible. Without in any way losing sight of its international obligations, both as a member of the League of Nations and as a party to the treaties of Locarno or treaties guaranteeing neutrality, France, for the purpose of finding a common basis for initial nego- tiations, is wholly disposed, after a new examination of the proposals formulated by your excellency, to suggest immediately to the German, British, Italian and Japanese Governments that they join in seeking, in the spirit and in the letter of the last American note, any adjustments which in the last analysis may be forthcoming with respect to the possibility of reconciling previous obligations with the terms of the contemplated new treaty. The French Government notes at once with satisfaction that while advocating the conclusion among the Governments specifically mentioned of a treaty binding the signatories not to resort to war, the Government of the United States admits the participation in that treaty of all the other governments of the world. This concep- tion accords with a reservation actually necessary for obtaining a real instrument for the establishment of peace by means of a formal en- gagement among all powers among whom political controversies may arise. Such an engagement would in fact involve the risk of exposing the signatories to dangers and misunderstandings unless based upon the complete equality in the application of the treaty among them- selves of all the states with respect to other states and not only upon the equality of certain states among them. The treaty contemplated could not operate in respect of one power which is a party thereto unless the other states exposed to the possibility of grave controversies with that party were also signatories thereof. At the same time it is clear that in order not to turn an instrument of progress and peace into a means of oppression, if one of the signa- tory states should fail to keep its word, the other signatories should be released from their engagement with respect to the offending state. On this second point, as on the first, the French Government believes itself fully in accord with the Government of the United States. My Government likewise gathers from the declarations which your excellency was good enough to make to me on the first of last March, the assurance that the renunciation of war, thus proclaimed, would not deprive the signatories of the right of legitimate defense. Such an interpretation tends to dissipate apprehensions, and the French Government is happy to note it. If such is the attitude of the American Government on these three fundamental points, and if it is clearly understood in a general way that the obligations of the new pact should not be substituted for, or prejudice in any way, previous obligations contained in interna- tional instruments such as the Covenant of the League of Nations, 18 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR the Locarno agreements or treaties guaranteeing neutrality whose character and scope can not be modified thereby, then the differences of opinion which have appeared in the course of previous phases of the negotiation have to do more with words than with the reality of the problem facing the two Governments to-day. Hence, in accordance with the proposal contained in your note of January 11, which you kindly renewed in your note of the 27th of February, the French Government would be prepared forthwith to join with the Government of the United States in submitting for the consideration of the Governments of Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Japan, the correspondence exchanged between France and the United States since June 1927, and in proposing at the same time for the assent of the four Governments, a draft agreement essen- tially corresponding in purpose to the original proposal of M. Briand, in the multipartite form desired by the United States with the changes of wording made necessary by the new concept; the signatory powers of such an instrument, while not prejudicing their rights of legitimate defense within the framework of existing treaties, should make a solemn declaration condemning recourse to war as an instrument of national policy, or in other words as a means of carrying out their own spontaneous, independent policy. They would specifically undertake, among themselves, to refrain from any attack or invasion, and never to seek the settlement of any difference or conflict of whatsoever nature or origin which might arise between them save by pacific means. It would, however, be clearly understood that an obligation could only exist for the signa- tories in the event that the engagement were contracted by all states, that is to say, that the treaty, open to the accession of all powers, would only come into force after having received universal acceptance, unless the powers having signed this treaty or acceded thereto should agree upon its coming into force, despite certain abstentions. Finally, in case one of the contracting powers should happen to contravene the treaty, the other contracting powers would be automatically relieved, with respect to that power, of the obliga- tions contained in the treaty. It is in this form, it would seem, that the negotiation of a plan for a multilateral pact such as conceived by the American Government could be pursued with the greatest chances of success. Your excel- lency may be assured, in any case, in the conduct of this negotiation of the most sincere and most complete collaboration of my Govern- ment which is always ready to associate itself without ambiguity or reservation, with any solemn and formal undertaking tending to insure, strengthen or extend the effective solidarity of the nations in the cause of peace. NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 19 In responding to these ideas, whose happy inspiration cannot be gainsaid, France would feel confident that she was continuing the work to which she has never ceased to apply herself in her foreign policy, and, faithful to her previous international engagements of that nature, that she was contributing nobly, as your excellency has said, in “promoting the great ideal of peace which the League itself has so closely at heart.” Pray accept [etc.] Claudel Note oi the Government of the United States to the Governments of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan, delivered at the respective Foreign Offices April 13, 1928 As your excellency is aware, there has recently been exchanged between the Governments of France and the United States a series of notes dealing with the question of a possible international renun- ciation of war. The views of the two Governments have been clearly set forth in the correspondence between them. The Government of the United States, as stated in its note of February 27, 1928, desires to see the institution of war abolished and stands ready to conclude with the French, British, German, Italian and Japanese Governments a single multilateral treaty open to subsequent adherence by any and all other governments binding the parties thereto not to resort to war with one another. The Government of the French Republic, while no less eager to promote the cause of world peace and to cooperate with other nations in any practical movement towards that end, has pointed out certain considerations which in its opinion must be borne in mind by those powers which are members of the League of Nations, parties to the treaties of Locarno, or parties to other treaties guar- anteeing neutrality. My Government has not conceded that such considerations necessitate any modification of its proposal for a multilateral treaty, and is of the opinion that every nation in the world can, with a proper regard for its own interests, as well as for the interests of the entire family of nations, join in such a treaty. It believes, moreover, that the execution by France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and the LTiited States of a treaty solemnly renouncing war in favor of the pacific settlement of international controversies would have tremendous moral effect and ultimately lead to the adherence of all the other governments of the world. The discussions which have taken place between France and the L'nited States have thus reached a point where it seems essential, if ultimate success is to be attained, that the British, German, Italian and Japanese Governments should each have an opportunity formally to decide to what extent, if any, its existing commitments constitute a bar to its participation with the United States in an unqualified 20 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR renunciation of war. In these circumstances the Government of the United States, having reached complete agreement with the Govern- ment of the French Republic as to this procedure, has instructed me formally to transmit herewith for the consideration of your Govern- ment the text of M. Briand’s original proposal of last June, together with copies of the notes subsequently exchanged between France and the United States on the subject of a multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war. I have also been instructed by my Government to transmit here- with for consideration a preliminary draft of a treaty representing in a general way the form of treaty which the Government of the United States is prepared to sign with the French, British, German, Italian and Japanese Governments and any other Governments similarly disposed. It will be observed that the language of Articles 1 and 2 of this draft treaty is practically identical with that of the corresponding articles in the treaty which M. Briand proposed to the United States. The Government of the United States would be pleased to be informed as promptly as may be convenient whether your excellency’s Government is in a position to give favorable consideration to the con- clusion of a treaty such as that transmitted herewith, and if not, what specific modifications in the text thereof would make it acceptable. Suggested draft treaty The President of the United States of America, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, the President of the German Empire, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; Deeply sensible that their high office imposes upon them a solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind; Inspired by a common desire not only to perpetuate the peaceful and friendly relations now happily subsisting between their peoples but also to prevent war among any of the nations of the world; Desirous by formal act to bear unmistakable witness that they condemn war as an instrument of national policy and renounce it in favor of the pacific settle- ment of international disputes; Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations of the world will join in this humane endeavor and by adhering to the present treaty as soon as it comes into force bring their peoples within the scope of its beneficent pro- visions, thus uniting the civilized nations of the world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy; Have decided to conclude a treaty and for that purpose have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries: The President of the United States of America: The President of the French Republic: His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India: The President of the German Empire: His Majesty the King of Italy: His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: Who, having communicated to one another their full powers found in good and due form have agreed upon the following articles: NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHEE POWEKS 21 Article 1 The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. Article 2 The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means. Article 3 The present treaty shall be ratified by the high contracting parties named in the preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at This treaty shall, when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other powers of the world. Every instrument evidencing the adherence of a power shall be deposited at and the treaty shall immediately upon such deposit become effective as between the power thus adhering and the other powers parties hereto. It shall be the duty of the Government of to furnish each Govern- ment named in the preamble and every Government subsequently adhering to this treaty with a certified copy of the treaty and of every instrument of ratifica- tion or adherence. It shall also be the duty of the Government of telegraphically to notify such Governments immediately upon the deposit with it of each instrument of ratification or adherence. In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty in the French and English languages, both texts having equal force, and hereunto affix their seals. Done at the day of in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty Draft of 'proposed treaty submitted by the Government of France to the Governments of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States on April 20, 1928 [Translation] The President of the German Empire, the President of the United States of America, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of England, Ireland and the British Dominions, Emperor of India, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: Equally desirous not only of perpetuating the happy relations of peace and friendship now existing among their peoples, but also of avoiding the danger of war between all other nations of the world, Having agreed to consecrate in a solemn act their most formal and most definite resolution to condemn war as an instrument of national policy and to renounce it in favor of a peaceful settlement of international conflicts, 12387—28 4 22 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR Expressing, finally, the hope that all the other nations of the world will be willing to join in this humane effort to bring about the associa- tion of the civilized peoples in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, have decided to conclude a treaty and to that end have designated as their respective plenipotentiaries: The President of the German Empire: The President of the United States of America: The President of the French Republic: His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions, Emperor of India: His Majesty the Kang of Italy: His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: Who, after exchanging their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions: Article 1 The high contracting parties without any intention to infringe upon the exercise of their rights of legitimate self-defense within the framework of existing treaties, particularly when the violation of certain of the provisions of such treaties constitutes a hostile act, solemnly declare that they condemn recourse to war and renounce it as an instrument of national policy; that is to say, as an instrument of individual, spontaneous and independent political action taken on their own initiative and not action in respect of which they might become involved through the obligation of a treaty such as the Cove- nant of the League of Nations or any other treaty registered with the League of Nations. They undertake on these conditions not to attack or invade one another. Article 2 The settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts, of whatever nature or origin, which might arise among the high contracting parties or between any two of them, shall never be sought on either side except by pacific methods. Article 3 In case one of the high contracting parties should contravene this treaty, the other contracting powers would ipsojado be released with respect to that party from their obligations under this treaty. Article 4 The provisions of this treaty in no wise affect the rights and obli- gations of the contracting parties resulting from prior international agreements to which they are parties. NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 23 Article 5 The present treaty will be offered for the accession of all powers and will have no binding force until it has been generally accepted unless the signatory powers in accord with those that may accede hereto shall agree to decide that it shall come into effect regardless of certain abstentions. Article 6 The present treaty shall be ratified. The ratifications shall be deposited at ; within three months from the date of the deposit of the ratifications it shall be communicated by the Government of to all the powers with an invitation to accede. The Government of will transmit to each of the signa- tory powers and the powers that have acceded a duly certified copy of the instruments of accession as they are received. One year after the expiration of the three months’ period provided in Article 5, the Government of will send out a statement of the signatories and accessions to all the powers that have signed or acceded. In witness whereof the above-named plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty and sealed it with their seal. Done at in copies, drawn up in French and English and having equal force. , 1928. The German Minister of Foreign Affairs ( Stresemann ) to the American Ambassador ( Schurman ) [Translation] Berlin, A-pril 27, 1928. Mr. Ambassador: In the note of April 13 and its enclosures your excellency informed me of the negotiations between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of France re- garding the conclusion of an international pact for the outlawry of war. At the same time you asked me the question whether the German Government was disposed to conclude such a pact in accord- ance with the draft put forward by the Government of the United States or whether it considered certain changes in this draft necessary. The German Government has studied the question put by you with the care appropriate to the extraordinary importance of the matter. It was possible also in this study to take into consideration the draft treaty which had been drawn up in the meantime by the French Government and handed to the participating powers. As a result of this study I have the honor to inform your excellency of the follow- ing in the name of the German Government: 24 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR The German Government welcomes most warmly the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of an international pact for the out- lawry of war. The two main ideas on which are based the initiative of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs and the resulting proposal of the United States correspond fully to the principles of German policy. Germany has no higher interest than to see the possibility of armed conflicts eliminated and a development assured in the life of the nations which would guarantee the peaceful settlement of all international disputes. The conclusion of a pact such as the United States now has in view would certainly bring the nations a good deal nearer to this goal. As the need of the nations for the assurance of peace since the World War has already led to other international agreements, the necessity arises for the states concerned to make a decision as to the relationship in which the pact now being planned would stand to these international agreements which are already in effect. You have already, Mr. Ambassador, referred in your note to the con- siderations which were put forward in this connection by the French Government in its exchange of views with the Government of the United States. So far as Germany is concerned, the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Rhine pact of Locarno come into consideration as international agreements which might affect the substance of the new pact; other international obligations of this kind have not been entered into by Germany. Respect for the obli- gations arising from the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Rhine pact must in the opinion of the German Government remain inviolable. The German Government is, however, convinced that these obligations contain nothing which could in any way conflict with the obligations provided for in the draft treaty of the United States. On the contrary, it believes that the binding obligation not to use war as an instrument of national policy could only serve to strengthen the fundamental idea of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of the Rhine pact. The German Government proceeds on the belief that a pact after the pattern submitted by the Government of the United States would not put in question the sovereign right of any state to defend itself. It is self-evident that if one state violates the pact the other contracting parties regain their freedom of action with reference to that state. The state affected by the violation of the pact is there- fore not prevented from taking up arms on its own part against the breaker of the peace. In a pact of this kind to provide expressly for the case of a violation seems to the German Government unnecessary. In agreement with the Government of the United States and with the French Government, the German Government is also of the opinion that the ultimate goal must be the universality of the new NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 25 pact. In order to bring about this universality, the draft treaty of the United States seems to open a practical way. When the states first coming into question as signatory powers have concluded the pact it may be expected that the other states will thereupon make use of the right of adhesion which is assured to them without limitation or condition. The German Government can accordingly declare that it is ready to conclude a pact in accordance with the proposal of the Government of the United States and to this end to enter into the necessary negoti- ations with the Governments concerned. To this declaration the German Government adds, moreover, its definite expectation that the realization of a pact of such importance will not fail to make its influence felt at once in connection with the shaping of international relations. Therefore, this new guarantee for the maintenance of peace must give a real impulse to the efforts for the carrying out of general disarmament. And further still, the renunciation of war must as a necessary complement enlarge the possibilities of settling in a peaceful way the existing and potential conflicts of national interests. Accept fetc.l Stresemann The Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs ( Mussolini ) to the American Ambassador ( Fletcher ) [Translation] Rome, May 4, 1928. Mr. Ambassador: I have the honor to refer to my note of April 23d relative to the proposal of the United States Government regarding a multilateral antiwar treaty. I hardly need to assure you that Italy, adhering to the policy which she is constantly following, has welcomed with lively sym- pathy this initiative and offers very willingly her cordial collabora- tion towards reaching an agreement. Your excellency is aware of the fact that there is under considera- tion the proposal for a preliminary meeting of the legal experts of the powers whose direct interest in the proposed treaty has been enlisted. The Royal Government has adhered to this procedure, but has clearly pointed out that, in its opinion, such a meeting can only be effective if the participation of a legal expert of the Government of the United States is assured. In accordance with this order of ideas, I beg your excellency to communicate to Mr. Kellogg the live desire of the Royal Govern- ment that the participation of the United States in the preliminary meeting mentioned above be not lacking. I avail [etc.] Mussolini 26 GENERAL, PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ( Chamberlain ) to the American Ambassador ( Houghton ) London, May 19, 1928. Your Excellency: Your note of the 13th April, containing the text of a draft treaty for the renunciation of war, together with copies of correspondence between the United States and French Govern- ments on the subject of this treaty, has been receiving sympathetic consideration at the hands of His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain. A note has also been received from the French Government, containing certain suggestions for discussion in connexion with the proposed treaty, and the German Government were good enough to send me a copy of the reply which has been made by them to the proposals of the United States Government. 2. The suggestion for the conclusion of a treaty for the renuncia- tion of war as an instrument of national policy has evoked widespread interest in this country, and His Majesty’s Government will support the movement to the utmost of their power. 3. After making a careful study of the text contained in your excellency’s note and of the amended text suggested in the French note, His Majesty’s Government feel convinced that there is no serious divergence between the effect of these two drafts. This impression is confirmed by a study of the text of the speech by the Secretary of State of the United States to which your excellency drew my attention, and which he delivered before the American Society of International Law on the 28th April. The aim of the United States Government, as I understand it, is to embody in a treaty a broad statement of principle, to proclaim without restriction or qualification that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy. With this aim His Majesty’s Government are wholly in accord. The French proposals, equally imbued with the same purpose, have merely added an indication of certain exceptional circumstances in which the violation of that principle by one party may oblige the others to take action seeming at first sight to be inconsistent with the terms of the proposed pact. His Majesty’s Government appreciate the scruples which have prompted these suggestions by the French Government. The exact fulfilment of treaty engage- ments is a matter which affects the national honour; precision as to the scope of such engagements is, therefore, of importance. Each of the suggestions made by the French Government has been carefully considered from this point of view. 4. After studying the wording of Article 1 of the United States draft, His Majesty’s Government do not think that its terms exclude action which a state may be forced to take in self-defence. Mr. Kellogg has made it clear in the speech to which I have referred above NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 27 that he regards the right of self-defence as inalienable, and His Majesty’s Government are disposed to think that on this question no addition to the text is necessary. 5. As regards the text of Article 2 no appreciable difference is found between the American and French proposals. His Majesty’s Government are, therefore, content to accept the former if, as they understand to be the case, a dispute “among the high contracting parties” is a phrase wide enough to cover a dispute between any two of them. 6. The French note suggests the addition of an article providing that violation of the treaty by one of the parties should release the remainder from their obligations under the treaty towards that party. His Majesty’s Government are not satisfied that, if the treaty stood alone, the addition of some such provision would not be necessary. Mr. Kellogg’s speech, however, shows that he put for- ward for acceptance the text of the proposed treaty upon the under- standing that violation of the undertaking by one party would free the remaining parties from the obligation to observe its terms in respect of the treaty-breaking state. 7. If it is agreed that this is the principle which will apply in the case of this particular treaty, His Majesty’s Government are satis- fied and will not ask for the insertion of any amendment. Means can no doubt be found without difficulty of placing this understand- ing on record in some appropriate manner so that it may have equal value with the terms of the treaty itself. 8. The point is one of importance because of its bearing on the treaty engagements by which His Majesty’s Government are already bound. The preservation of peace has been the chief concern of His Majesty’s Government and the prime object of all their endeavours. It is the reason why they have given ungrudging support to the League of Nations and why they have undertaken the burden of the guarantee embodied in the Locarno treaty. The sole object of all these engagements is the elimination of war as an instrument of national policy, just as it is the purpose of the peace pact now pro- posed. It is because the object of both is the same that there is no real antagonism between the treaty engagements which His Majesty’s Government have already accepted and the pact which is now pro- posed. The machinery of the covenant and of the treaty of Locarno, however, go somewhat further than a renunciation of war as a policy, in that they provide certain sanctions for a breach of their obliga- tions. A clash might thus conceivably arise between the existing treaties and the proposed pact unless it is understood that the obligations of the new engagement will cease to operate in respect of a party which breaks its pledges and adopts hostile measures against one of its co-contractants. 28 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCLVTION OF WAR 9. For the Government of this country respect for the obligations arising out of the Covenant of the League of Nations and out of the Locarno treaties is fundamental. Our position in this regard is identical with that of the German Government as indicated in their note of the 27th April. His Majesty’s Government could not agree to any new treaty which would weaken or undermine these engage- ments on which the peace of Europe rests. Indeed, public interest in this country in the scrupulous fulfilment of these engagements is so great that His Majesty’s Government would for their part prefer to see some such provision as Article 4 of the French draft embodied in the text of the treaty. To this we understand there will be no objection. Mr. Kellogg has made it clear in the speech to which I have drawn attention that he had no intention by the terms of the new treaty of preventing the parties to the Covenant of the League or to the Locarno treaty from fulfilling their obligations. 10. The language of Article 1, as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, renders it desirable that I should remind your excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty’s Government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly understood that His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect. The Government of the United States have comparable interests any disregard of which by a foreign power they have declared that they would regard as an unfriendly act. His Majesty’s Government believe, therefore, that in defining their position they are expressing the intention and meaning of the United States Government. 11. As regards the measure of participation in the new treaty before it would come into force, His Majesty’s Government agree that it is not necessary to wait until all the nations of the world have signified their willingness to become parties. On the other hand, it would be embarrassing if certain states in Europe with whom the proposed participants are already in close treaty relations were not included among the parties. His Majesty’s Government see no reason, however, to doubt that these states will gladly accept its terms. Universality would, in any case, be difficult of attainment, and might even be inconvenient, for there are some states whose governments have not yet been universally recognized, and some which are scarcely in a position to ensure the maintenance of good order and security within their territories. The conditions for the inclusion of such states among the parties to the new treaty is a NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 29 question to which further attention may perhaps be devoted with advantage. It is, however, a minor question as compared with the attainment of the more important purpose in view. 12. After this examination of the terms of the proposed treaty and of the points to which it gives rise, your excellency will realise that His Majesty’s Government find nothing in their existing com- mitments which prevents their hearty cooperation in this movement for strengthening the foundations of peace. They will gladly cooperate in the conclusion of such a pact as is proposed and are ready to engage with the interested Governments in the negotiations which are necessary for the purpose. 13. Your excellency will observe that the detailed arguments in the foregoing paragraphs are expressed on behalf of His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain. It will, however, be appreciated that the proposed treaty, from its very nature, is not one which concerns His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain alone, but is one in which they could not undertake to participate otherwise than jointly and simultaneously with His Majesty’s Governments in the Domin- ions and the Government of India. They have, therefore, been in communication with those Governments, and I am happy to be able to inform your excellency that as a result of the communications which have passed it has been ascertained that they are all in cordial agreement with the general principle of the proposed treaty. I feel confident, therefore, that on receipt of an invitation to participate in the conclusion of such a treaty, they, no less than His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain, will be prepared to accept the invitation. I have [etc.] Austen Chamberlain The Minister in Canada ( Phillips ) to the Secretary of State for External Affairs ( Mackenzie King) 1 Ottawa, May 22, 1928. Sir: In the note which he addressed to the American Ambassador at London on May 19, 1928, Sir Austen Chamberlain was good enough to inform my Government that His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain had been in communication with his Majesty’s Governments in the Dominions and with the Government of India, and had ascertained that they were all in cordial agreement with the general principle of the multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war which the Government of the United States proposed on April 13, 1928. 1 A similar note was addressed by the Minister in the Irish Free State to the Minister for External Affairs, and by the Ambassador in Great Britain to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for transmission to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India. 12387—28 5 30 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR Sir Austen added that he felt confident, therefore, that His Majesty’s Governments in the Dominions and the Government of India were prepared to accept an invitation to participate in the conclusion of such a treaty as that proposed by the Government of the United States. I have been instructed to state to your excellency that my Gov- ernment has received this information with the keenest satisfaction. My Government has hoped from the outset of the present negotiations that the Governments of the Dominions and the Government of India would feel disposed to become parties to the suggested antiwar treaty. It is, moreover, most gratifying to the Government of the United States to learn that His Majesty’s Governments in the Dominions and the Government of India are so favorably inclined towards the treaty for the renunciation of war which my Government proposed on April 13, 1928, as to wish to participate therein indi- vidually and as original signatories, and my Government, for its part, is most happy to accede to the suggestion contained in Sir Austen Chamberlain’s note of May 19, 1928, to the American Ambassador at London. Accordingly I have been instructed to extend to His Majesty’s Government in Canada, in the name of the Government of the United States, a cordial invitation to become one of the original parties to the treaty for the renunciation of war which is now under considera- tion. Pursuant to my instructions I also have the honor to inform you that the Government of the United States will address to His Majesty’s Government in Canada, at the same time and in the same manner as to the other governments whose participation in the pro- posed treaty in the first instance is contemplated, any further com- munications which it may make on the subject of the treaty after it has been acquainted with the views of all the governments to which its note of April 13, 1928, was addressed. I avail [etc.] William Phillips The Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs ( Tanaka ) to the American Ambassador ( MacVeagh ) [Translation] Tokyo, May 26, 1928. Mr. Ambassador: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s note No. 336 of April 13 last, transmitting to me, under instructions from the Government of the United States, the preliminary draft of a proposed multilateral treaty representing in a general way a form of treaty which the Government of the United States is prepared to sign with the French, British, German, Italian, and Japanese Governments and any other governments similarly dis- posed, with the object of securing the renunciation of war. At the NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 31 same time 3 T our excellency enclosed a copy of the correspondence recently exchanged between the Governments of the United States and the French Republic commencing with a proposal put forward by Monsieur Briand in June 1927 ; and you intimated that the Government of the United States desired to be informed whether the Japanese Government were in a position to give favorable con- sideration to the conclusion of such a treaty as that of which you enclosed a draft — and if not, what specific modifications in the text would make it acceptable. I beg to inform your excellency that the Government of Japan sympathize warmly with the high and beneficent aims of the proposal now made by the United States, which they take to imply the entire abolition of the institution of war, and that they will be glad to render their most cordial cooperation towards the attainment of that end. The proposal of the United States is understood to contain nothing that would refuse to independent states the right of self-defense, and nothing which is incompatible with the obligations of agreements guaranteeing the public peace, such as are embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the treaties of Locarno. Accordingly, the Imperial Government firmly believe that unanimous agreement on a mutually acceptable text for such a treaty as is contemplated is well capable of realization by discussion between the six powers re- ferred to, and they would be happy to collaborate with cordial good will in the discussions with the purpose of securing what they are per- suaded is the common desire of all the peoples of the world — namely, the cessation of wars and the definite establishment among the nations of an era of permanent and universal peace. I avail [etc.] Baron Giichi Tanaka The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ( Chamberlain ), on behalf of the Government of New Zealand , to the American Charge (. Atherton ) London, May SO, 1928. Sir: In the note which Mr. Houghton was so good as to address to me on May 22d he extended on behalf of the Government of the United States an invitation to His Majesty’s Governments in the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and in the Union of South Africa, as well as to the Government of India, to participate individually and as original signatories in the treaty for the renuncia- tion of war which is now under consideration. 2. I now have the honor to inform you that His Majesty’s Govern- ment in New Zealand have received with warm appreciation the invitation addressed to New Zealand to become an original party to the treaty proposed by the Government of the United States for the 32 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OP WAR renunciation of war. His Majesty’s Government in New Zealand welcome the opportunity, in cooperation with His Majesty’s Govern- ments in other parts of the British Empire, of associating themselves with the Government of the United States in this movement to add greater security to the peace of the world and they will be happy to share in any negotiations leading to the conclusion of the proposed treaty. I have [etc.] (For the Secretary of State) R. L. Craigie The Irish Free State Minister for External Affairs ( McGilligan ) to the American Minister ( Sterling ) Dublin, May 30, 1928. Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your excellency’s note of 22d May referring to the draft treaty for the renunciation of war and extending an invitation from your Govern- ment to the Government of the Irish Free State to become one of the original parties to the proposed treaty. The Government of the Irish Free State warmly welcome the action of the United States Government in initiating this further advance towards the maintenance of general peace. They are in cordial agreement with the general principle of the draft treaty which they confidently hope will ensure the peaceful settlement of future inter- national disputes. Sharing the view expressed by the Secretary of State of the United States in his speech before the American Society of International Law that nothing in the draft treaty is inconsistent wuth the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Government of the Irish Free State accept unreservedly the invitation of the United States Government to become a party to the treaty jointly with the other states similarly invited. The Government of the Irish Free State will be glad therefore to participate in, and to further by every possible means, the negotia- tions which may be necessary for the conclusion of the pact. Accept [etc.] P. McGilligan The Canadian Secretary of State for External A fairs ( Mackenzie King ) to the American Minister ( Phillips ) Ottawa, May 30, 1928. Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge your note of May 22d, extending to His Majesty’s Government in Canada, in the name of the Government of the United States, an invitation to become one NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 33 of the original parties to the treaty for the renunciation of war now under consideration. The Government of Canada is certain that it speaks for the whole Canadian people in welcoming the outcome, in the proposed multi- lateral pact, of the discussion initiated almost a year ago between the Governments of France and of the United States. It is pleased to find that in this attitude it is in accord with all His Majesty’s other governments. The proposals of the United States Government, by their directness and simplicity, afford to the peoples of the world a new and notable opportunity of ensuring lasting peace. The Dominion of Canada, fortunate in its ties of kinship and alle- giance as well as in its historic and neighbourly friendships, and with half a continent as its heritage, is less exposed to the danger of attack or the temptation to aggression than many other lands. Yet the Great War, with its burdens of suffering and of loss, brought home the danger which all countries share, and led Canada to turn with hope to the efforts to build up effective barriers against war which took shape in the League of Nations; it will welcome the present proposals as a manifestation of the same striving for peace. The question whether the obligations of the Covenant of the League would conflict in any way with the obligations of the proposed pact has been given careful consideration. His Majesty’s Govern- ment in Canada regards the League, with all its limitations, as an indispensable and continuing agency of international understanding, and would not desire to enter upon any course which would prejudice its effectiveness. It is, however, convinced that there is no conflict either in the letter or in the spirit between the Covenant and the multilateral pact, or between the obligations assumed under each. The pre-eminent value of the League lies in its positive and pre- ventive action. In bringing together periodically the representatives of fifty states, it builds up barriers against war by developing a spirit of conciliation, an acceptance of publicity in international affairs, a habit of cooperation in common ends, and a permanently available machinery for the adjustment of differences. It is true that the Covenant also contemplates the application of sanctions in the event of a member state going to war, if in so doing it has broken the pledges of the Covenant to seek a peaceful solution of disputes. Canada has always opposed any interpretation of the Covenant which would involve the application of these sanctions automatically or by the decision of other states. It was on the initiative of Canada that the Fourth Assembly, with a single negative vote, accepted the interpretative resolution to which the Secretary of State of the United States recently referred, indicating that it is for the constitu- tional authorities of each state to determine in what degree it is bound to assure the execution of the obligations of this article by 34 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR employment of its military forces. The question of sanctions has received further consideration by later Assemblies. It is plain that the full realization of the ideal of joint economic or military pressure upon an outlaw power, upon which some of the founders of the League set great store, will require either an approach to the univer- sality of the League contemplated when the Covenant was being drawn, or an adjustment of the old rules of neutrality to meet the new conditions of cooperative defence. In any event, if, as would seem to be the case, the proposed multi- lateral treat} 7 does not impose any obligation upon a signatory in relation to a state which has not signed the treaty or has broken it, any decision taken to apply sanctions against a member of the League which has made war in violation of its Covenant pledges would not appear to conflict with the obligations of the treaty. His Majesty’s Government in Canada will have pleasure in cooperating in any future negotiations with a view to becoming a signatory to a treaty such as is proposed by the Government of the United States in the invitation which it has extended, and to recom- mending its acceptance to the Canadian Parliament. Accept [etc.] W. L. Mackenzie King The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ( Chamberlain ), on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia, to the American Charge {Atherton) London, June 2, 1928. Sir: In the note which Mr. Houghton was so good as to address to me on May 22d last, he extended on behalf of the Government of the United States an invitation to His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia to participate individually and as an original signatory in the treaty for the renunciation of war which is now under consideration. 2. I now have the honour to inform you that His Majesty’s Gov- ernment in the Commonwealth of Australia have received with appre- ciation the invitation to participate as an original party in the treaty for the renunciation of war which has been proposed by the Govern- ment of the United States of America. His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia have carefully and sympathetically examined the draft treaty submitted to them together with the cor- respondence that has so far been exchanged between the interested governments. They believe that a treaty such as that proposed would be a further material safeguard to the peace of the world and they will be happy to cooperate to the fullest extent in its successful conclusion. I have [etc.] (For the Secretary of State) R. L. Craigie NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 35 The British Secretary oj State f or Foreign Affairs ( Chamberlain ), on behalf of the Government of India, to the American Charge ( Atherton ) London, June 11, 1928. Sir: In the note which Mr. Houghton was so good as to address to me on the 22d ultimo, he extended on behalf of the Government of the United States, an invitation to the Government of India to participate individually and as an original signatory in the treaty for the renunciation of war which is now under consideration. 2. I now have the honour to inform you that the Government of India have requested that an expression of their warm thanks may be conveyed to the United States Government for this invitation which they are happy to accept. I have the honour to add that the Govern- ment of India desire to associate themselves with the note which I had the honour to address to Mr. Houghton on the 19th ultimo. I have [etc.] (For the Secretary of State) R. L. Craigie The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain) , on behalf of the Union of South Africa, to the American Charge (Atherton) London, June 15, 1928. Sir: With reference to the note which Mr. Houghton was so good as to address to me on the 22d May conveying an invitation to His Majesty’s Government in the Union of South Africa to become an original party to the proposed treaty for the renunciation of war, I have the honour to inform you that the following message has been received by telegraph from General Hertzog, Minister of External Affairs of the Union of South Africa, for communication to you: Through the good offices of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom the contents of the note addressed by your excellency to his excellency the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 22d May were duly con- veyed to me. On behalf of His Majesty’s Government in the Union of South Africa I beg to state that the cordial invitation of the Government of the United States extended to His Majesty’s Government in the Union of South Africa to participate individually and as an original signatory in the treaty for the renun- ciation of war which the United States Government proposed to various govern- ments on the 13th April last, is highly appreciated, and that His Majesty’s Government in the Union of South Africa will gladly take part therein, as invited, together with the other governments whose participation in the proposed treaty was invited in the first instance. In expressing their willingness to be a party to the proposed treaty His Maj- esty’s Government in the Union of South Africa take it for granted — (а) That it is not intended to deprive any party to the proposed treaty of any of its natural right of legitimate self-defence; (б) That a violation of any one of the parties of any of the provisions of the proposed treaty will free the other parties from obligation to observe its terms in respect of the party committing such violation; and 36 GENERAL PACT FOR THE EENUN CIATION OF WAR (c) That provision will be made for rendering it quite clear that it is not intended that the Union of South Africa, by becoming a party to the proposed treaty would be precluded from fulfilling as a member of the League of Nations its obligations towards the other members thereof under the provisions of the Covenant of the League. I have [etc.] (For the Secretary of State) It. L. Craigie Note of the Government oj the United States to the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, and South Africa, June 23, 1928 It will be recalled that, pursuant to the understanding reached between the Government of France and the Government of the United States, the American Ambassadors at London, Berlin, Rome and Tokyo transmitted on April 13, 1928, to the Governments to which they were respectively accredited the text of M. Briand’s original proposal of June 20, 1927, together with copies of the notes subsequently exchanged by France and the United States on the sub- ject of a multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war. At the same time the Government of the United States also submitted for con- sideration a preliminary draft of a treaty representing in a general way the form of treaty which it was prepared to sign, and inquired whether the Governments thus addressed were in a position to give favorable consideration thereto. The text of the identic notes of April 13, 1928, and a copy of the draft treaty transmitted therewith, were also brought to the attention of the Government of France by the American Ambassador at Paris. It will likewise be recalled that on April 20, 1928, the Government of the French Republic circulated among the other interested govern- ments, including the Government of the United States, an alterna- tive draft treaty, and that in an address which he delivered on April 28, 1928, before the American Society of International Law, the Secretary of State of the United States explained fully the construc- tion placed by my Government upon the treaty proposed by it, refer- ring as follows to the six major considerations emphasized by France in its alternative draft treaty and prior diplomatic correspondence with my Government : ( 1 ) Self-defense. There is nothing in the American draft of an antiwar treaty which restricts or impairs in any way the right of self-defense. That right is inherent in every sovereign state and is implicit in every treaty. Every nation is free at all times and regardless of treaty provisions to defend its territory from attack or invasion and it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defense. If it has a good case, the world will ap- plaud and not condemn its action. Express recognition by treaty of this inalien- NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 37 able right, however, gives rise to the same difficulty encountered in any eftort to define aggression. It is the identical question approached from the other side. Inasmuch as no treaty provision can add to the natural right of self-defense, it is not in the interest of peace that a treaty should stipulate a juristic conception of self-defense since it is far too easy for the unscrupulous to mold events to accord with an agreed definition. (2) The League Covenant. The Covenant imposes no affirmative primary obligation to go to w r ar. The obligation, if any, is secondary and attaches only when deliberately accepted by a state. Article 10 of the Covenant has, for example, been interpreted by a resolution submitted to the Fourth Assembly but not formally adopted owing to one adverse vote to mean that “it is for the constitutional authorities of each member to decide, in reference to the obligation of preserving the independence and the integrity of the territory of members, in what degree the member is bound to assure the execution of this obligation by employment of its military forces.” There is, in my opinion, no necessary inconsistency between the Covenant and the idea of an unqualified renuncia- tion of war. The Covenant can, it is true, be construed as authorizing war in certain circumstances but it is an authorization and not a positive requirement. (S) The treaties of Locarno. If the parties to the treaties of Locarno are under any positive obligation to go to war, such obligation certainly would not attach until one of the parties has resorted to war in violation of its solemn pledges thereunder. It is therefore obvious that if all the parties to the Locarno treaties become parties to the multilateral antiwar treaty proposed by the United States, there would be a double assurance that the Locarno treaties would not be vio- lated by recourse to arms. In such event it would follow that resort to war by any state in violation of the Locarno treaties would also be a breach of the mul- tilateral antiwar treaty and the other parties to the antiwar treaty would thus as a matter of law be automatically released from their obligations thereunder and free to fulfil their Locarno commitments. The United States is entirely willing that all parties to the Locarno treaties should become parties to its pro- posed antiwar treaty either through signature in the first instance or by imme- diate accession to the treaty as soon as it comes into force in the manner pro- vided in Article 3 of the American draft, and it will offer no objection when and if such a suggestion is made. (4) Treaties of neutrality. The United States is not informed as to the precise treaties which France has in mind and cannot therefore discuss their provisions. It is not unreasonable to suppose, however, that the relations between France and the states whose neutrality she has guaranteed are sufficiently close and intimate to make it possible for France to persuade such states to adhere season- ably to the antiwar treaty proposed by the United States. If this were done no party to the antiwar treaty could attack the neutralized states without violating the treaty and thereby automatically freeing France and the other powers in respect of the treaty-breaking state from the obligations of the antiwar treaty. If the neutralized states were attacked by a state not a party to the antiwar treaty, the latter treaty would of course have no bearing and France would be as free to act under the treaties guaranteeing neutrality as if she were not a party to the antiwar treaty. It is difficult to perceive, therefore, how treaties guaran- teeing neutrality can be regarded as necessarily preventing the conclusion by France or any other power of a multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war. (i 5 ) Relations with a treaty-breaking state. As I have already pointed out, there can be no question as a matter of law that violation of a multilateral antiwar treaty through resort to war by one party thereto would automatically release the other parties from their obligations to the treaty-breaking state. Any ex- press'recognition of this principle of law is wholly unnecessary. 38 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR (' 6 ) Universality. From the beginning it has been the hope of the United States that its proposed multilateral antiwar treaty should be world-wide in its application, and appropriate provision therefor was made in the draft submitted to the other governments on April 13. From a practical standpoint it is clearly preferable, however, not to postpone the coming into force of an antiwar treaty until all the nations of the world can agree upon the text of such a treaty and cause it to be ratified. For one reason or another a state so situated as to be no menace to the peace of the world might obstruct agreement or delay ratification in such manner as to render abortive the efforts of all the other powers. It is highly improbable, moreover, that a form of treaty acceptable to the British, French, German, Italian and Japanese Governments, as well as to the United States, would not be equally acceptable to most, if not all, of the other powers of the world. Even were this not the case, however, the coming into force among the above-named six powers of an effective antiwar treaty and their observance thereof would be a practical guaranty against a second world war. This in itself would be a tremendous service to humanity and the United States is not willing to jeopardize the practical success of the proposal which it has made by condi- tioning the coming into force of the treaty upon prior universal or almost uni- versal acceptance. The British, German, Italian and Japanese Governments have now replied to my Government’s notes of April 13, 1928, and the Gov- ernments of the British Dominions and of India have likewise replied to the invitations addressed to them on May 22, 1928, by my Govern- ment pursuant to the suggestion conveyed in the note of May 19, 1928, from His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain. None of these Governments has expressed any dissent from the above- quoted construction, and none has voiced the least disapproval of the principle underlying the proposal of the United States for the promotion of world peace. Neither has any of the replies received by the Government of the United States suggested any specific modification of the text of the draft treaty proposed by it on April 13, 1928, and my Government, for its part, remains convinced that no modification of the text of its proposal for a multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war is necessary to safeguard the legitimate interests of any nation. It believes that the right of self-defense is inherent in every sovereign state and implicit in every treaty. No specific reference to that inalienable attribute of sovereignty is there- fore necessary or desirable. It is no less evident that resort to war in violation of the proposed treaty by one of the parties thereto would release the other parties from their obligations under the treaty towards the belligerent state. This principle is well recognized. So far as the Locarno treaties are concerned, my Government has felt from the very first that participation in the antiwar treaty by the powers which signed the Locarno agreements, either through signa- ture in the first instance or thereafter, would meet every practical requirement of the situation, since in such event no state could resort to war in violation of the Locarno treaties without simultaneously violating the antiwar treaty, thus leaving the other parties thereto NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 39 free, so far as the treaty-breaking state is concerned. As your excel- lency knows, the Government of the United States has welcomed the idea that all parties to the treaties of Locarno should be among the original signatories of the proposed treaty for the renunciation of war and provision therefor has been made in the draft treaty which I have the honor to transmit herewith. The same procedure would cover the treaties guaranteeing neutrality to which the Government of France has referred. Adherence to the proposed treaty by all parties to these other treaties would completely safeguard their rights since subsequent resort to war by any of them or by any party to the antiwar treaty would violate the latter treaty as well as the neutrality treaty, and thus leave the other parties to the antiwar treaty free, so far as the treaty-breaking state is concerned. My Government would be entirely willing, however, to agree that the parties to such neutrality treaties should be original signatories of the multilateral antiwar treaty, and it has no reason to believe that such an arrangement would meet with any objection on the part of the other Governments now concerned in the present negotiations. While my Government is satisfied that the draft treaty proposed by it on April 13, 1928, could be properly accepted by the powers of the world without change except for including among the original signatories the British Dominions, India, all parties to the treaties of Locarno and, it may be, all parties to the neutrality treaties mentioned by the Government of France, it has no desire to delay or complicate the present negotiations by rigidly adhering to the precise phrase- ology of that draft, particularly since it appears that by modifying the draft in form though not in substance, the points raised by other Governments can be satisfactorily met and general agreement upon the text of the treaty to be signed be promptly reached. The Gov- ernment of the United States has therefore decided to submit to the fourteen other Governments now concerned in these negotiations a revised draft of a multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war. The text of this revised draft is identical with that of the draft pro- posed by the United States on April 13, 1928, except that the pre- amble now provides that the British Dominions, India, and all parties to the treaties of Locarno are to be included among the powers called upon to sign the treaty in the first instance, and except that the first three paragraphs of the preamble have been changed to read as follows : Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind; Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated; Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty; 40 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR The revised preamble thus gives express recognition to the principle that if a state resorts to war in violation of the treaty, the other con- tracting parties are released from their obligations under the treaty to that state; it also provides for participation in the treaty by all parties to the treaties of Locarno, thus making it certain that resort to war in violation of the Locarno treaties would also violate the present treaty and release not only the other signatories of the Locarno treaties but also the other signatories to the antiwar treaty from their obligations to the treaty-breaking state. Moreover, as stated above, my Government would be willing to have included among the original signatories the parties to the neutrality treaties referred to by the Government of the French Republic, although it believes that the interests of those states would be adequately safe- guarded if, instead of signing in the first instance, they should choose to adhere to the treaty. In these circumstances I have the honor to transmit herewith for the consideration of your excellency’s Government a draft of a mul- tilateral treaty for the renunciation of war containing the changes outlined above. I have been instructed to state in this connection that the Government of the United States is ready to sign at once a treaty in the form herein proposed, and to express the fervent hope that the Government of will be able promptly to indicate its readiness to accept, without qualification or reservation, the form of treaty now suggested by the United States. If the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, the Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa and the United States can now agree to conclude this antiwar treaty among themselves, my Government is confident that the other nations of the world will, as soon as the treaty comes into force, gladly adhere thereto, and that this simple procedure will bring mankind’s age-long aspirations for universal peace nearer to practical fulfilment than ever before in the history of the world. I have the honor to state in conclusion that the Government of the United States would be pleased to be informed at as early a date as may be convenient whether your excellency’s Government is willing to join with the United States and other similarly disposed Govern- ments in signing a definitive treaty for the renunciation of war in the form transmitted herewith. [Enclosure] Text of draft treaty The President of the United States of America, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the President of the Czecho- slovak Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, the President of the German Reich, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, the President of the Republic of Poland; NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 41 Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind; Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated; Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty; Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations of the world will join in this humane endeavor and by adhering to the present treaty as soon as it comes into force bring their peoples within the scope of its beneficent pro- visions, thus uniting the civilized nations of the world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy; Have decided to conclude a treaty and for that purpose have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries: The President of the United States of America: The President of the French Republic: His Majesty the King of the Belgians: The President of the Czechoslovak Republic: His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India: For Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations: For the Dominion of Canada: For the Commonwealth of Australia: For the Dominion of New Zealand: For the Union of South Africa: For the Irish Free State: For India: The President of the German Reich: His Majesty the King of Italy: His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: The President of the Republic of Poland: Who, having communicated to one another their full powers found in good and due form have agreed upon the following articles: Article 1 The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. Article 2 The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all dis- putes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means. Article 3 The present treaty shall be ratified by the high contracting parties named in the preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at This treaty shall, when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other powers of the world. Every instrument evidencing the adherence of a power 42 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR shall be deposited at and the treaty shall immediately upon such deposit become effective as between the power thus adhering and the other powers parties hereto. It shall be the duty of the Government of to furnish each Govern- ment named in the preamble and every Government subsequently adhering to this treaty with a certified copy of the treaty and of every instrument of ratification or adherence. It shall also be the duty of the Government of telegraphically to notify such Governments immediately upon the deposit with it of each instrument of ratification or adherence. In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty in the French and English languages, both texts having equal force, and hereunto affix their seals. Done at the day of in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty The Polish Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs ( WysocTci ) to the American Minister ( Stetson ) [Translation] Warsaw, July 8, 1928 } Mr. Minister: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note No. 1175 of June 23 last which you were good enough to send me, to which was attached the draft of a multilateral pact against war, as proposed by his excellency Mr. Kellogg. The principles which Mr. Kellogg has emphasized in the draft above mentioned being entirely conformable with the objectives that Poland never ceases pursuing in its foreign policy, I have the honor to com- municate to you the fact that the Polish Government accepts the text of the above-stated pact and declares itself ready to affix its signature thereto. As regards the interpretation of the pact in question which you have been good enough to give in your note of June 23 and which confirms the fact that the pact is destined to insure the consolidation of peaceful relations between states on the basis of the existing inter- national obligations, the Polish Government takes note of the follow- ing statements: (1) That the pact does not affect in any way the right of legitimate defense inherent in each state; (2) That each state signatory to the pact which may endeavor to realize its national interests by means of war shall be deprived of the benefits of the said pact; (3) That no incompatibility exists between the stipulations of the pact against war and the obligations deriving from the Covenant of the League of Nations for states which are members of the latter. This statement results from the very fact that the pact proposed by Mr. Kellogg stipulates the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. 1 Although dated July 8, 1928, the note was not presented to the American Minister until July 17. NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 43 These precisions as well as the opportunity given to all states to adhere to the pact, are of a nature to assure to Poland the possibility of satisfying her international obligations. The Polish Government permits itself to express the hope of seeing the realization in the near future of this great common work of peace and stabilization destined to assure its benefits to all mankind. Please accept [etc.] Andrew Wysocki The German State Secretary {Schubert) to the American Ambassador {Schurman) [Translation) Berlin, July 11, 1928. Excellency: I acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s note of June 23, 1928, regarding the conclusion of an international pact for the renunciation of war, and have the honor to reply thereto as follows on behalf of the German Government: The German Government has examined with the greatest care the contents of the note and the revised draft of the pact which was enclosed. The Government is pleased to state that the standpoint of the Government of the United States of America as set forth in the note corresponds with the fundamental German conception as it was communicated in the note of April 27, 1928. The German Government also agrees to the changes in the preamble of the draft of the pact. It is therefore pleased to be able to state that it takes cognizance of the statements made by the Government of the United States of America contained in your excellency’s note of June 23, that it agrees to the interpretation which is given therein to the provisions of the proposed pact, and that it is accordingly ready to sign this pact in the form now proposed. Accept [etc.] Schubert The French Minister oj Foreign Affairs { Briand ) to the American Ambassador {Herrick) [Translation) Paris, July 14, 1928. Excellency: By your letter of June 23 last your excellency was good enough to transmit to me a revised text of the draft treaty for the renunciation of war, accompanied by the interpretations given to it by the Government of the United States. 44 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR I beg you to convey to the Government of the United States all the interest with which the Government of the Republic has taken cognizance of this new communication, which is suited to facilitate the signature of the treaty whose successful conclusion is equally close to the hearts of the French and American nations. First of all it follows from the new preamble that the proposed treaty indeed aims at the perpetuation of the pacific and friendly relations under the contractual conditions in which they are to-day established between the interested nations; that it is essentially a question for the signatory powers of renouncing war “as an instru- ment of their national policy,” and also that the signatory power which hereafter might seek to promote its own national interests by itself resorting to war, should be denied the benefits of the treaty. The Government of the Republic is happy to declare that it is in accord with these new stipulations. The Government of the Republic is happy, moreover, to take note of the interpretations which the Government of the United States gives to the new treaty with a view to satisfying the various observa- tions which had been formulated from the French point of view. These interpretations may be summarized as follows: Nothing in the new treaty restrains or compromises in any manner whatsoever the right of self-defense. Each nation in this respect will always remain free to defend its territory against attack or inva- sion; it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defense. Secondly, none of the provisions of the new treaty is in opposition to the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations nor with those of the Locarno treaties or the treaties of neutrality. Moreover, any violation of the new treaty by one of the contract- ing parties would automatically release the other contracting parties from their obligations to the treaty-breaking state. Finally, the signature which the Government of the United States has now offered to all the signatory powers of the treaties concluded at Locarno and which it is disposed to offer to all powers parties to treaties of neutrality, as well as the adherence made possible to other powers, is of a nature to give the new treaty, in as full measure as can practically be desired, the character of generality which accords with the views of the Government of the Republic. Thanks to the clarification given by the new preamble and thanks, moreover, to the interpretations given to the treaty, the Government of the Republic congratulates itself that the new convention is com- patible with the obligations of existing treaties to which France is otherwise a contracting party, and the integral respect of which of necessity is imperatively imposed upon her by good faith and loyalty. NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 45 In this situation and under these conditions, the Government of the Republic is happy to be able to declare to the Government of the United States that it is now entirely disposed to sign the treaty as proposed by the letter of your excellency of June 23, 1928. At the moment of thus assuring its contribution to the realization of a long-matured project, all the moral significance of which it had gauged from the beg innin g, the Government of the Republic desires to render homage to the generous spirit in which the Government of the United States has conceived this new manifestation of human fraternity, which eminently conforms to the profound aspirations of the French people as well as of the American people and responds to the sentiment, more and more widely shared among peoples, of inter- national solidarity. Please accept [etc.] Aristide Briand The Irish Free State Minister for External Affairs ( McGMligan ) to the American Minister (Sterling) 1 Dublin, July 14, 1928. Excellency: Your excellency’s note of the 23d June enclosing a revised draft of proposed treaty for the renunciation of war has been carefully studied by the Government of the Irish Free State. As I informed you in my note of the 30th May, the Government of the Irish Free State were prepared to accept unreservedly the draft treaty proposed by your Government on the 13th April, holding, as they did, that neither their right of self-defence nor their com- mitments under the Covenant of the League of Nations were in any way prejudiced by its terms. The draft treaty as revised is equally acceptable to the Govern- ment of the Irish Free State, and I have the honour to inform you that they are prepared to sign it in conjunction with such other governments as may be so disposed. As the effectiveness of the proposed treaty as an instrument for the suppression of war depends to a great extent upon its universal application, the Government of the Irish Free State hope that the treaty may meet with the appro- bation of the other governments to whom it has been sent and that it may subsequently be accepted by all the other powers of the world. Accept [etc.] P. McGilligan 1 Text as transmitted by telegram from the Minister in the Irish Free State. 46 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR The Italian Minister oj Foreign Affairs ( Mussolini ) to the American Ambassador ( Fletcher ) [Translation] Rome, July 15, 1928. Excellency: I have the honor to refer to the letter which, under instructions of your Government, your excellency addressed to me under date of the 23d of June last and to ask your excellency to inform your Government as follows: The Royal Government, which has attentively examined the last draft of a treaty for the elimination of war proposed by the United States, takes note of and agrees with the interpretation of the said treaty which the Government of the United States sets forth in the above-mentioned note of June 23 last and on this premise declares that it is disposed to proceed to the signature thereof. I am happy [etc.] Mussolini The Canadian Secretary oj State jor External Affairs ( Mackenzie King ) to the American Minister (Phillips) Ottawa, July 16, 1928. Sir: I desire to acknowledge your note of June 23 and the revised draft which it contained of the treaty for the renunciation of war, and to state that His Majesty’s Government in Canada cordially accepts the treaty as revised and is prepared to participate in its signature. Accept [etc.l W. L. Mackenzie King The Belgian Minister oj Foreign Affairs ( Hymans ) to the American Ambassador ( Gibson ) [Translation] Brussels, July 17, 1928. Mr. Ambassador: The Government of the King has examined with lively sympathy the letter of June 23 in which, acting under instruc- tions from your Government, you have been good enough to invite Belgium to conclude a multilateral treaty providing that the signa- tory states bind themselves to renounce war as an instrument of national policy. Belgium is deeply attached to peace. She has always worked actively for the realization of movements tending to consolidate peace. She is therefore happy to pay her tribute to the idea inspiring the draft treaty. The text prepared by the Government of Washington commands the full approbation of the Royal Government. This Government NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 47 notes with satisfaction the explanations and interpretations contained in your excellency’s letter. It is pleased to note that the proposed pact will maintain unimpaired the rights and obligations arising from the Covenant of the League of Nations and from the Locarno agree- ments which constitute for Belgium fundamental guaranties of security. The Belgian Government highly appreciates the action of the American Government which permits it to join in the great work destined to develop the spirit of peace throughout the world and to diminish in future the risk of new catastrophes. The Royal Government would be grateful if the Government of the United States would inform it as to the date and place which it may choose for the signing of the treaty. I avail [etc.] Hymans The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ( Chamberlain ) to the American Charge ( Atherton ) London, July 18, 1928. Sir: I am happy to be able to inform you that after carefully studying the note which you left with me on the 23d June, transmit- ting the revised text of the draft of the proposed treaty for the renunciation of war, His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain accept the proposed treaty in the form transmitted by you and will be glad to sign it at such time and place as may be indicated for the purpose by the Government of the United States. My Government have read with interest the explanations contained in your note as to the meaning of the draft treaty, and also the com- ments which it contains upon the considerations advanced by other powers in the previous diplomatic correspondence. You will remember that in my previous communication of the 19th May I explained how important it was to my Government that the principle should be recognised that if one of the parties to this pro- posed treaty resorted to war in violation of its terms, the other parties should be released automatically from their obligations towards that party under the treaty. I also pointed out that respect for the obliga- tions arising out of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of the Locarno treaties was the foundation of the policy of the government of this country, and that they could not agree to any new treaty which would weaken or undermine these engagements. The stipulation now inserted in the preamble under which any signatory power hereafter seeking to promote its national interests by resort to war against another signatory is to be denied the benefits furnished by the treaty is satisfactory to my Government, and is sufficient to meet the first point mentioned in the preceding paragraph. 48 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain do not consider, after mature reflection, that the fulfilment of the obligations which they have undertaken in the Covenant of the League of Nations and in the treaty of Locarno is precluded by their acceptance of the pro- posed treaty. They concur in the view enunciated by the German Government in their note of the 27th April that those obligations do not contain anything which could conflict with the treaty proposed by the United States Government. My Government have noted with peculiar satisfaction that all the parties to the Locarno treaty are now invited to become original signatories of the new treaty, and that it is clearly the wish of the United States Government that all members of the League should become parties either by signature or accession. In order that as many states as possible may participate in the new movement, I trust that a general invitation will be extended to them to do so. As regards the passage in my note of the 19th May relating to certain regions of which the welfare and integrity constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety, I need only repeat that His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect. I am entirely in accord with the views expressed by Mr. Kellogg in his speech of the 28th April that the proposed treaty does not restrict or impair in any way the right of self-defence, as also with his opinion that each state alone is competent to decide when circum- stances necessitate recourse to war for that purpose. In the light of the foregoing explanations, His Majesty’s Govern- ment in Great Britain are glad to join with the United States and with all other governments similarly disposed in signing a definitive treaty for the renunciation of war in the form transmitted in your note of the 23d June. They rejoice to be associated with the Government of the United States of America and the other parties to the proposed treaty in a further and signal advance in the out- lawry of war. I have [etc.] Austen Chamberlain The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ( Chamberlain ), on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia, to the American Charge (. Atherton ) London, July 18 , 1928 . Sir: In the note which you were so good as to address to me on June 23 last you stated that the Government of the United States would be glad to be informed whether His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia were willing to join with the United States and other similarly disposed governments in signing a defin- itive treaty for the renunciation of war in the form of the draft treaty enclosed in your note. NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 49 2. I now beg leave to inform you that His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia have given the most careful consideration to your note above mentioned and to the revised draft treaty which accompanied it, and that they accept the assurance given by the United States Secretary of State that the right of self- defence of a signatory state will not be impaired in any way by acceptance of the proposed treaty. 3. The Commonwealth Government have further observed that it is stated in your note of June 23 that the preamble to the revised treaty accords expressed recognition to the principle that if one signatory state resorts to war in violation of the treaty, the other signatory states will be released from their obligations under the treaty to that state. They accept this declaration that the preamble in this respect is to be taken as a part of the substantive provisions of the treaty itself. 4. They have also particularly examined the draft treaty from the point of view of its relationship to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and in this connexion have come to the conclusion that it is not inconsistent with the latter instrument. 5. His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia add that the foregoing are the only questions to which the proposed treaty gives rise in which they are especially interested. As the text of the treaty which has now been submitted is completely satisfactory to them so far as these specific points are concerned, they will be quite agreeable to signing it in its present form. I have [etc.] Austen Chamberlain The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs {Chamberlain) , on behalf of the Government of India, to the American Charge ( Atherton ) London, July 18, 1928. Sir: In the note which you were so good as to address to me on June 23 last you stated that the Government of the United States would be glad to be informed whether the Government of India were willing to join with the United States and other similarly disposed governments in signing a definitive treaty for the renunciation of war in the form of the draft treaty enclosed in your note. 2. I now beg leave to inform you that the Government of India associate themselves whole-heartedly and most gladly with the terms of the note which I have had the honour to address to you to-day notifying you of the willingness of His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain to sign a multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war as proposed by the Government of the United States. I have [etc.] Austen Chamberlain 50 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ( Chamberlain ), on behalf of the Government of New Zealand, to the American Charge ( Atherton ) London, July 18, 1928. Sir: In the note which you were so good as to address to me on June 23 last you stated that the Government of the United States would be glad to be informed whether His Majesty’s Government in New Zealand were willing to join with the United States and other similarly disposed governments in signing a definitive treaty for the renunciation of war in the form of the draft treaty enclosed in your note. 2. I now beg leave to inform you that His Majesty’s Government in New Zealand desire to associate themselves with the terms of the note which I have had the honour to address to you to-day notifying you of the willingness of His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain to sign a multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war as proposed by the Government of the United States. His Majesty’s Govern- ment in New Zealand desire me to add that they will have the utmost satisfaction, in cooperation with His Majesty’s governments in other parts of the British Empire, in joining with the Government of the United States and with all other governments similarly dis- posed in signing a treaty in the form proposed. I have [etc.] Austen Chamberlain The British Secretary of State for Foreign A fairs ( Chamberlain ), on behalf of the Union of South Africa, to the American Charge {Atherton) London, July 18, 1928. Sir: In the note which you were so good as to address to me on June 23 last you stated that the Government of the United States would be glad to be informed whether His Majesty’s Government in the Union of South Africa were willing to join with the United States and other similarly disposed governments in signing a definitive treaty for the renunciation of war in the form of the draft treaty enclosed in your note. 2. I now beg leave to inform you that the following message has been received by telegraph from General Hertzog, Minister of Exter- nal Affairs of the Union of South Africa, for communication to you: On behalf of His Majesty’s Government in the Union of South Africa I have the honour to inform you that my Government have given their most serious consideration to the new draft treaty for the renunciation of war, submitted in your note of 23d June, and to the observations accompanying it. My Government note with great satisfaction (a) that it is common cause that the right of legitimate self-defence is not affected by the terms of the new draft; (f>) that, according to the preamble, any signatory who shall seek to NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 51 promote its national interests by resort to war shall forfeit the benefits of the treaty; and (c) that the treaty is open to accession by all powers of the world. My Government have further examined the question whether the provisions of the present draft are inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations by which they are bound, and have come to the conclusion that this is not the case, and that the objects which the League of Nations was constituted to serve can but be promoted by members of the League of Nations participating in the proposed treaty. His Majesty’s Government in the Union of South Africa have therefore very great pleasure in expressing their willingness to sign, together with all other powers which might be similarly inclined, the treaty in the form proposed in your note under reference. I have [etc.] Austen Chamberlain The Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Affairs ( Benes) to the American Minister ( Einstein ) [Translation] Prague, July 20, 1928. Mr. Minister: I have had the honor of receiving your excellency’s letter of June 23 by which the Government of the United States invites the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic to sign the proposed treaty for the renunciation of war. The same invitation was transmitted to our representative in Washington. The letter contains in addition to the integral text of the proposed treaty a commentary on the text which explains the remarks of the French Government and indicates in detail the meaning and the significance which the Government of the United States attaches to the multi- lateral treaty in the event of the treaty’s signature, ratification and enactment. I have the honor to transmit to your excellency by this note the reply of the Czechoslovak Government. 1. First I would very respectfully thank the Government of the United States for having addressed its invitation to us. From the beginning we have followed the negotiations between the French and American Governments on the subject of the pact for the renunciation of war with the greatest sympathy and attention, and were ready at any moment to associate ourselves with this noble undertaking, which marks a memorable date in the history of the world after the war. In our negotiations which I have had the honor, during the last few months, to carry on with the representatives of the United States, France and Great Britain, I have several times emphasized the importance of this act and the political necessity of associating thereto the other powers also and especially those who have assumed obliga- 52 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR tions by their negotiations at Locarno in 1925. The Government of the United States, agreeing fully in this with the other powers, has been good enough to recognize the justice of this point of view and addressed to us its invitation. The Czechoslovak Government attributes thereto a considerable political importance and warmly thanks the Washington Government. 2. In accordance with the negotiations prior to the signing of the treaty, as well as by the changes made in the preamble from the original text, and from the explanations contained in your excellency’s letter of June 23, 1928, it is clear that there is nothing in this treaty in opposition either to the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations, or to those of the Locarno treaties or the neutrality treaties, or, in general, to the obligations contained in existing treaties which the Czechoslovak Republic has hitherto made. 3. From the explanations given in your excellency’s letter it is further brought out that any violation of the multilateral treaty by one of the contracting parties would free entirely the other signatory powers from their obligations towards the power which might have violated the stipulations of this treaty; it is furthermore apparent that the right of self-defense is in no way weakened or restricted by the obligations of the new treaty and that each power is entirely free to defend itself according to its will and its necessities against attack and foreign invasion. 4. As thus defined both in the text of the preamble and in the statements of your excellency’s letter, the goal of the new treaty, according to the opinion of the Czechoslovak Republic, is to consoli- date and maintain peaceful relations and peaceful and friendly col- laboration under the contractual terms in which these have to-day been established between the interested nations. By their signature, the contracting parties will renounce war as an instrument of their national policy aimed to satisfy their selfish interests. This would be an immense benefit for humanity; and the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic rejoices to see that the American Government is ready to offer participation in this treaty on the one hand to the powers who are parties to the neutrality treaties and on the other to all other powers in order to invest it with as universal a character as possible. 5. The Government of the Czechoslovak Republic having noted everything contained in your excellency’s note expresses its point of view on this subject as shown in the foregoing, thus confirming the explanations of your note of June 23, 1928. It is very happy to be able to reply in the affirmative to the invitation of the Washington Government and thanking it again and most particularly for its generous efforts toward consolidating and maintaining world peace declares that it is now ready to sign the text of the multilateral treaty NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 53 in accordance with the proposition of his excellency Mr. Kellogg as set forth in your excellency’s letter of June 23, 1928. I venture to add that the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic gladly associates itself with all those who have rendered warm homage to the noble manifestation for world peace made by the Government of the United States and that the foreign policy of our country sees therein the realization of the ends which it has pursued for ten years. Pray accept [etc.] Eduard Benes The Japanese Minister jor Foreign Affairs ( Tanaka ) to the American Charge ( Neville ) [Translation] Tokyo, July 20, 1928. Mr. Charge : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 23d ultimo in which you recall to my attention your Gov- ernment’s identic note of the 13th of April of this year, enclosing, togetherwith certain correspondence, the preliminary draft of a treaty, and inquiring whether this Government were in a position to give favorable consideration to the latter. Your note under reply further recalls that on the 20th of April the Government of the French Republic circulated among the interested governments an alternative draft treaty, and that on the 28th of April the Secretary of State of the United States of America explained fully the construction placed by that Government on their own draft, in view of the matter emphasized in the French alternative. You now further inform me that the British, German, and Italian Governments have replied to your Government’s notes of the 13th April last, and that the Governments of the British self-governing dominions and of India have likewise replied to invitations addressed to them on the suggestion of His Britannic Majesty’s Government in Great Britain; and you observe that none of these Governments has expressed any dissent from the construction above referred to, or any disapproval of the principle underlying the proposals, nor have they suggested any specific modifications of the text of the draft; and you proceed to reenforce in detail the explanations made by the Secretary of State in his speech of the 28th April. You then transmit for the consideration of this Government the revised draft of a multilateral treaty, which takes in the British self- governing dominions, India, and all parties to the Locarno treaties, as original parties, and in the preamble of which is included a state- ment which is directed to recognizing the principle that if a state goes to war in violation of the treaty, the other contracting powers are released from their obligations under the treaty to that state. 54 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR Such a multilateral treaty as so revised, you are instructed to state your government are ready to sign at once, and you express the fer- vent hope that this Government will be able promptly to indicate their readiness to accept it in this form without qualification or reservation. You conclude by expressing the desire of the Govern- ment of the United States to know whether my Government are prepared to join with the United States and other similarly disposed governments in signing a definitive treaty in the form so transmitted. In reply, I have the honor to inform you that the Japanese Govern- ment are happy to be able to give their full concurrence to the alter- ations now proposed, their understanding of the original draft sub- mitted to them in April last being, as I intimated in my note to his excellency Mr. MacVeagh, dated the 26th of May 1928, substan- tially the same as that entertained by the Government of the United States. They are therefore ready to give instructions for the signa- ture, on that footing, of the treaty in the form in which it is now proposed. I can not conclude without congratulating your Government most warmly upon the rapid and general acceptance which their proposals have met with. The Imperial Government are proud to be among the first to be associated with a movement so plainly in unison with the hopes everywhere entertained, and confidently concur in the high probability of the acceptance of this simple and magnanimous treaty by the whole civilized world. I beg [etc.] Baron Giichi Tanaka Note of the United States on the subject of adherence to the General Pact for the Renunciation of War. — Addressed to Albania, Afghani- stan, Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panamd, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Portugal, Rumania, Salvador, Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, and Venezuela 1 August 27, 1928. I have the honor to inform you that the Governments of Ger- many, the United States of America, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Irish Free State, India, Italy, Japan, Poland, and Czechoslovakia have this day signed in Paris a treaty binding them to renounce war as an 1 The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was invited to adhere by the French Government through the French Ambassador at Moscow. NOTES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 55 instrument of national policy in their relations with one another and to seek only by pacific means the settlement or solution of all disputes which may arise among them. This treaty, as your excellency is aware, is the outcome of nego- tiations which commenced on June 20, 1927, when M. Briand, Min- ister of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic, submitted to my Government a draft of a pact of perpetual friendship between France and the United States. In the course of the subsequent negotiations this idea was extended so as to include as original signatories of the antiwar treaty not only France and the United States but also Japan, the British Empire and all the Governments which participated with France and Great Britain in the Locarno agreements, namely, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy and Poland. This pro- cedure met the point raised by the British Government in its note of May 19, 1928, where it stated that the treaty from its very nature was not one which concerned that Government alone, but was one in which that Government could not undertake to participate other- wise than jointly and simultaneously with the Governments in the Dominions and the Government of India; it also settled satisfactorily the question whether there was any inconsistency between the new treaty and the treaty of Locarno, thus meeting the observations of the French Government as to the necessity of extending the number of original signatories. The decision to limit the original signatories to the powers named above, that is, to the United States, Japan, the parties to the Locarno treaties, the British Dominions and India, was based entirely upon practical considerations. It was the desire of the United States that the negotiations be successfully concluded at the earliest possible moment and that the treaty become operative without the delay that would inevitably result were prior universal acceptance made a condition precedent to its coming into force. My Government felt, moreover, that if these powers could agree upon a simple renuncia- tion of war as an instrument of national policy there could be no doubt that most, if not all, of the other powers of the world would find the formula equally acceptable and would hasten to lend their unquali- fied support to so impressive a movement for the perpetuation of peace. The United States has, however, been anxious from the beginning that no state should feel deprived of an opportunity to participate promptly in the new treaty and thus not only align itself formally and solemnly with this new manifestation of the popular demand for world peace but also avail itself of the identical benefits enjoyed by the original signatories. Accordingly in the draft treaty proposed by it the United States made specific provision for partici- pation in the treaty by any and every power desiring to identify itself therewith, and this same provision is'found in the definitive instru- 56 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR ment signed to-day in Paris. It will also be observed that the powers signing the treaty have recorded in the preamble their hope that every nation of the world will participate in the treaty, and in that con- nection I am happy to be able to say that my Government has already received from several Governments informal indications that they are prepared to do so at the earliest possible moment. This convincing evidence of the world-wide interest and sympathy which the new treaty has evoked is most gratifying to all the Governments con- cerned. In these circumstances I have the honor formally to communicate to your excellency for your consideration and for the approval of your Government, if it concurs therein, the text of the above-men- tioned treaty as signed to-day in Paris, omitting only that part of the preamble which names the several plenipotentiaries. The text is as follows: [Here follows the text of the treaty.] The provisions regarding ratification and adherence are, as your excellency will observe, found in the third and last article. That article provides that the treaty shall take effect as soon as the ratifi- cations of all the powers named in the preamble shall have been de- posited in Washington, and that it shall be open to adherence by all the other powers of the world, instruments evidencing such adherence to be deposited in Washington also. Any power desiring to partici- pate in the treaty may thus exercise the right to adhere thereto and my Government will be happy to receive at any time appropriate notices of adherence from those Governments wishing to contribute to the success of this new movement for world peace by bringing their peoples within its beneficent scope. It will be noted in this connection that the treaty expressly provides that when it has once come into force it shall take effect immediately between an adhering power and the other parties thereto, and it is therefore clear that any Government adhering promptly will fully share in the benefits of the treaty at the very moment it comes into effect. I shall shortly transmit for your excellency’s convenient reference a printed pamphlet containing the text in translation of M. Briand’s original proposal to my Government of June 20, 1927, and the com- plete record of the subsequent diplomatic correspondence on the sub- ject of a multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war. I shall also transmit, as soon as received from my Government, a certified copy of the signed treaty. ADDRESSES OF THE HONORABLE FRANK B. KELLOGG, SECRETARY OF STATE The War-Prevention Policy of the United States 1 Mr. Chairman: It has been my privilege during the past few months to conduct on behalf of the Government of the United States negotiations having for their object the promotion of the great ideal of world peace. Popular and governmental interest in the realization of this ideal has never been greater than at the present time. Ever since the World War, which spelled death to so many millions of men, spread desolation over so much of the Continent of Europe and shocked and imperiled neutral as well as belligerent nations, the minds of statesmen and of their peoples have been more and more concerned with plans for preventing the recurrence of such a calamity. Not only has the League of Nations been preoccupied with studies of security and world peace, but members of the League of Nations have concluded additional special treaties like those signed at Locarno in 1925, and recently at Habana the United States and 20 other American States, including 17 members of the League of Nations, expressed by formal declaration their unqualified condemnation of war as an instrument of national policy, and agreed to call a conference to draft appropriate treaties of com- pulsory arbitration. The Government of the United States will never be a laggard in any effective movement for the advancement of world peace, and the negotiations which I have recently been carrying on have grown out of this Government’s earnest desire to promote that ideal. They have had a dual character, having been concerned in part with the framing of new arbitration treaties to replace the so-called Root treaties, several of which expire by limitation this year, and in part with the antiwar treaty which M. Briand proposed to me last sum- mer. I welcome the opportunity which you have afforded me to express before this audience my views on these questions and to explain the objects and aims of the Government of the United States with respect thereto. In the first place it should be clearly understood that the treaty of arbitration which was signed last month with France has no 1 Address delivered before the Council on Foreign Relations, at New York City, March 15, 1928. 58 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR relation whatsoever to the proposal submitted by M. Briand for a treaty declaring against war and renouncing it as an instrument of national policy. It is true that the preamble to the arbitration treaty recites that France and the United States are “eager by their example not only to demonstrate their condemnation of war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations, but also to hasten the time when the perfection of international arrangements for the pacific settlement of international disputes shall have elimi- nated forever the possibility of war among any of the powers of the world,” but a preamble is not a binding part of a treaty. If war is to be abolished it must be through the conclusion of a specific treaty solemnly binding the parties not to resort to war with one another. It cannot be abolished by a mere declaration in the preamble of a treaty. Even though without legal effect, however, a formal expres- sion of the peaceful aspirations of the Governments and their com- mon desire to perfect a mechanism for the pacific settlement of justiciable disputes, such as that found in the preamble of the arbi- tration treaty, is, I believe, very helpful since it publicly defines the positions of the two Governments in a matter the importance of which is hard to exaggerate. The arbitration treaty itself I regard as a distinct advance over any of its predecessors, and I hope it can serve as a model for use in negotiations with other governments with which we have no present arbitration treaty or where the existing Root treaties shortly expire. I have already instituted negotiations with the British, Ger- man, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, and Spanish Governments on the basis of the draft treaty which I submitted to France last December, and I have indicated to all inquiring governments that I shall be pleased to conclude with them new treaties similar to that recently signed with France. If a comprehensive series of such bilateral treaties can be put into effect between the United States and the other nations of the world, I feel that a very effective mecha- nism for the pacific settlement of justiciable disputes will have been established. I attach such importance to the treaty just concluded with France that I shall discuss its provisions briefly before pro- ceeding to a discussion of the correspondence which has been ex- changed with France on the subject of the so-called Briand proposal Article 1 of the new arbitration treaty contains the language of the first paragraph of the first article of the Bryan treaty of 1914 pro- viding for investigation and report by a permanent international commission of all disputes not settled by diplomacy or submitted to arbitration. My purpose in including this reference to the Bryan treaty was to recognize anew the efficacy of the procedure established under the Bryan treaties and to unite by reference in one document the related processes of conciliation and arbitration. The force and ADDRESSES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 59 effect of the Bryan treaty with France has in no sense been impaired by the new treaty, nor was it intended that it should be. This is the understanding of both Governments and notes to that effect have been exchanged. So far as the legal effect of the new treaty is con- cerned, Article 1 could be left out entirely and mention of the Bryan treaty made only in Article 2 where there is reference to the con- ciliation procedure under that treaty. Article 2 provides that — All differences relating to international matters in which the high contracting parties are concerned by virtue of a claim of right made by one against the other under treaty or otherwise, which it has not been possible to adjust by diplomacy, which have not been adjusted as a result of reference to the above-mentioned Permanent International Commission, and which are justiciable in their nature by reason of being susceptible of decision by the application of the principles of law or equity, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration estab- lished at The Hague by the convention of October 18, 1907, or to some other competent tribunal, as shall be decided in each case by special agreement, which special agreement shall provide for the organization of such tribunal if necessary, define its powers, state the question or questions at issue, and settle the terms of reference. It also contains a clause providing that the special agreement must in each case be ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate. This is the usual practice in the United States and I do not know of a single case where the Senate has refused to consent to any special agreement of arbitration. Article 3 excludes from arbitration under the treaty disputes the subject matter of which is within the domestic jurisdiction of either of the parties, involves the interests of third parties, depends upon or involves the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine, and depends upon or involves the observance of the obligations of France under the Covenant of the League of Nations. It is difficult for me to see by what claim of right any government could properly request arbitration of disputes covered by these exceptions since few, if any, would present questions justiciable in their nature. As a practical matter, therefore, I do not feel that the general applicability of the new treaty is materially restricted by the four clauses of exclusion. The Root treaty which it supersedes contained a clause excluding from its scope questions affecting “the vital interests, the independ- ence or the honor” of the contracting states. This clause was borrowed from an Anglo-French arbitration treaty of 1903 and represented the reservations generally regarded as necessary 25 years ago. Arbitration has repeatedly proved its worth since then, and inasmuch as such vague and all-inclusive exceptions can be construed to cover almost any substantial international dispute and might well operate to defeat the very purpose of an arbitration treaty, I decided to eliminate them and to specify with particularity the questions 60 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR excluded from arbitration. In this respect the new treaty is a much more satisfactory and practical instrument for the adjustment of justiciable international controversies, and it is only justiciable questions that are susceptible to arbitration. I do not agree with the pronouncement of many organizations and publicists engaged in the discussion of international arbitration to the effect that every question between nations should be arbitrated. This is a very simple and all-inclusive formula but it will not stand the test of careful examination, and never has and never can be uni- versally adopted. Let us consider for a moment what questions are susceptible of arbitration and can be submitted by nations to the decision of an international court. They are exactly the same kind of questions as can be arbitrated between citizens of the United States or submitted to the decision of a local court under our form of government; that is to say, they are questions arising under con- tract or under the law of the land. Applying this analog} 7 in inter- national relations, we find that the questions which are susceptible of arbitration or impartial decision are those involving rights claimed under a treaty or under international law. A political question can- not be arbitrated because there are no principles of law by which it can be decided, and unless there are relevant treaty provisions requiring construction, no nation can agree to arbitrate purely do- mestic questions like tariff, taxation, immigration, and, it may be said, all political questions involving the exercise of sovereignty within the nation’s territorial limits. There are no positive rules of international law applicable to such questions to guide arbitrators in reaching a decision. I am confident that the enthusiastic supporters of the theory that all questions between nations should be submitted to arbitration have not realized the vital difference between justiciable and political questions. Take, for example, the question of immigration which at times arouses bitter feelings between nations. On what principle could a government arbitrate this question, and what rules could be applied to guarantee justice to the disputants? It seems to me we must realize that so long as the world is composed of separate, sovereign nations, only those questions can properly be submitted to arbitration which, being justiciable in their nature, are susceptible of determination by the application of recognized rides of law or equity. Non-justiciable or political questions must, if they threaten to bring on hostilities, be adjusted through other means, such as conciliation, where a disinterested effort is made to reconcile con- flicting points of view without finding necessarily that either party was in the wrong. It is when arbitration cannot or will not be invoked by the parties that conciliation treaties have their greatest value for adjusting ADDRESSES OK THE SECRETARY OF STATE 61 international irritations tending to inflame public opinion and im- peril the peace of the world. One of the first of our treaties estab- lishing a procedure for conciliation was the so-called Knox treaty of 1911. That treaty, which was also a treaty of arbitration, was never proclaimed by the President because of certain reservations attached by the Senate in advising and consenting thereto. These reservations, however, did not affect the conciliation provisions of the treaty and need not be discussed in this connection. Our next conciliation treaties were the Bryan treaties to which I have already referred. The first of these was signed in 1913 and there are 18 of them now in force. In 1923 we became parties to two other con- ciliation treaties, namely, that signed at Washington on February 7, 1923, between the United States and the five Central American Republics, and that signed at Santiago on May 3, 1923, between the United States and 15 Latin American countries. Both of these treaties have been ratified by the United States. They are similar to the Bryan treaties, the principal point of difference being as to the manner of constituting the commissions of inquiry. The Bryan treaties provide, you will recall, that any dispute shall, when ordinary diplomatic proceedings have failed and the parties do not have recourse to arbitration, be submitted for investigation and report to a Permanent International Commission composed of five members, two of whom, a national and a non-national, being desig- nated by each of the two Governments, and the fifth member by agreement. The commission is bound to report within a year from the date on which it takes jurisdiction of the case, and the parties agree not to resort to any act of force prior to the commission’s report, reserving, however, full liberty of action with respect to the report itself. The United States has been a party to conciliation treaties for 15 years, and while there has never yet been an occasion for invoking them, I know of no reason why this country should object to an inquiry by a commission of conciliation if war is threatened. It is claimed in some quarters that purely domestic questions might be inquired into by these commissions of conciliation. While I cannot conceive that any government would feel justified in demanding an inquiry by the commission into a matter solely within the domestic jurisdiction of another government, I do not feel that the point is material. The object which is sought to be attained by conciliation treaties is the prevention of war, and in my opinion any government can well afford to submit to inquiry any question which may threaten to involve it in the horrors of war, particularly when, as in the Bryan and other treaties I have just mentioned, the findings of the com- 62 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR mission have no binding force and to be effective must be voluntarily accepted. The world is more and more alive to the necessity of preventing war, and I think it is significant that the Sixth International Con- ference of American States which recently concluded its labors at Habana adopted two antiwar resolutions one of which contains the unqualified statement that “the American Republics desire to express that they condemn war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations,” which, it is interesting to note, is the language of M. Briand’s original proposal to me. The other resolution contains the statement that “war of aggression constitutes an international crime against the human species” and the declaration that “all aggression is considered illicit and as such is declared prohibited . ” It is the former resolution that I regard as of the greatest inter- est at this time because, of the 21 states represented at the Habana Conference, 17, while members of the League of Nations, were not prevented by such membership from joining in an unquali- fied declaration against war. This general resolution is also impor- tant because it endorses the principle of compulsory arbitration for justiciable disputes and provides for the calling of a conference in Washington within a year to draft appropriate treaties of arbitration and conciliation. I have discussed at some length the provisions of the new arbitra- tion treaty with France. I have also outlined the scope and purpose of the many conciliation treaties which the United States has con- cluded with other governments. I know of but one other form of treaty which can be concluded for the purpose of preventing war and that is a treaty in which the parties specifically bind themselves not to resort to war. It is this kind of treaty which people have in mind when they discuss treaties for outlawing war, and it is a novel idea in modern international relations. As you are all aware, in a communication dated June 20, 1927, M. Briand proposed to the United States the conclusion of a bilateral treaty under the terms of which France and the United States would agree to renounce war as an instrument of their national policy towards each other. This treaty provided, first, that — The high contracting powers solemnly declare, in the name of the French people and the people of the United States of America, that they condemn recourse to war and renounce it respectively as an instrument of their national policy towards each other. and, secondly, that — The settlement or the solution of all disputes or conflicts, of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise between France and the United States of America, shall never be sought by either side except by pacific means. ADDRESSES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 63 This important and inspiring proposal was carefully and sympa- thetically studied by the Government of the United States. While we might well have hesitated to take the initiative in proposing such a treaty to Europe, the invitation from France afforded us an opportunity to examine anew the whole question of world peace and to determine in what practical manner we could best cooperate. We made that examination, and, in my note of December 28, 1927, after expressing the sincere appreciation of the United States for the offer which France had so impressively submitted, I warmly seconded M. Briand’s proposition that war be formally renounced as an instrument of national policy, but suggested that instead of giving effect thereto in a bilateral treaty between France and the United States, an equivalent multilateral treaty be concluded among the principal powers of the world, open to adherence by any and all nations, thus extending throughout the world the benefits of a covenant originally suggested as between France and the United States alone. The powers which I suggested be invited in the first instance to join with France and the United States in such a treaty were Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan. France, I am happy to say, promptly agreed in principle to the idea of a multilateral treaty. France suggested, however, that the treaty provide only for the renunciation of wars of aggression, explaining that while France could conclude a bilateral treaty with the United States providing for the unqualified renunciation of war, the con- clusion of a similar multilateral treaty presented certain difficulties in view of the obligations of France under the Covenant of the League of Nations, treaties such as those signed at Locarno in Octo- ber 1925 and other international conventions relating to guaranties of neutrality. The French Government also pointed out that in September 1927 the members of the League of Nations adopted a resolution condemning aggressive war as an international crime. In these circumstances France expressed the opinion that the common object of the two Governments could best be attained by framing the proposed antiwar treaty so as to cover wars of aggression only. I have not been able to agree to that reservation. My objection to limiting the scope of an antiwar treaty to mere wars of aggression is based partly upon a very real disinclination to see the ideal of world peace qualified in any way, and partly upon the absence of any satisfactory definition of the word “aggressor” or the phrase “wars of aggression.” It is difficult for me to see how a definition could be agreed upon which would not be open to abuse. The danger inherent in any definition is recognized by the British Government which in a memorandum recently submitted to the Subcommittee on Security of the Preparatory Committee on Dis- armament of the League of Nations discussed attempted definitions 64 GENERAL, PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR of this character, and quoted from a speech by the British Foreign Secretary in which Sir Austen said : I therefore remain opposed to this attempt to define the aggressor because I believe that it will be a trap for the innocent and a signpost for the guilty. I agree with Sir Austen on this point. It seems to me that any attempt to define the word “aggressor” and by exceptions and qualifications to stipulate when nations are justified in going to war with one another, would greatly weaken the effect of any treaty such as that under consideration and virtu- ally destroy its positive value as a guaranty of peace. And in my last note to the French Government I stated expressly that I could not avoid the feeling that if governments should publicly acknowl- edge that they could only deal with this ideal of world peace in a technical spirit and must insist upon the adoption of reservations impairing if not utterly destroying the true significance of their common endeavors, they would be in effect only recording their im- potence to the keen disappointment of mankind in general. In my note of February 27, 1928, I also discussed at some length the question raised by the Government of France whether, as a member of the League of Nations and as a party to the treaties of Locarno and other treaties guaranteeing neutrality, France could agree with the United States and the other principal world powers not to resort to war in their mutual relations -without ipso facto violating their present obligations under those treaties. I pointed out that if those obligations could be interpreted so as to permit France to conclude with the United States alone a treaty such as that proposed by M. Briand, it was not unreasonable to suppose that they could be interpreted with equal justice so as to permit France to join with the L'nited States in offering to conclude an equivalent multilateral treaty with the other principal powers of the world. I stated that it seemed to me that the difference between the bilateral and multilateral form of treaty having for its object the unqualified renunciation of war, was one of degree and not of substance, and that a government able to conclude such a bilateral treaty should be no less able to become a party to an identical multilateral treaty, since it could hardly be presumed that members of the League of Nations were in a position to do separately something that they could not do together. In these circumstances I expressed the earnest hope that France, which admittedly perceives no bar to the conclusion of an unqualified antiwar treaty with the United States alone, would be able to satisfy itself that an equivalent treaty among the principal world powers would be equally consistent with membership in the League of Nations, adding that if members of the League of Nations could not, without violating the terms of the Covenant, agree among themselves and ADDRESSES OP THE SECRETARY OF STATE 65 with the United States to renounce war as an instrument of their national policy, it seemed idle to discuss either bilateral or multi- lateral treaties unreservedly renouncing war. In that connection I called attention to the fact that the 21 American States represented at the recent Habana Conference adopted a resolution unqualifiedly condemning war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations, and to the fact that 17 of the 21 States represented at that Conference are members of the League of Nations. I concluded my note with the unequivocal statement that the Government of the United States desires to see the institution of war abolished and stands ready to conclude with the French, British, Italian, German, and Japanese Governments a single multilateral treaty open to subsequent adherence by any and all other govern- ments binding the parties thereto not to resort to war with one another. This is the position of the Government of the United States, and this is the object which we are seeking to attain. I cannot believe that such a treaty would violate the terms of the League Covenant or conflict necessarily with the obligations of the members of the League. Even Article 10 of the Covenant has been construed to mean that League members are not inescapably bound thereby to employ their military forces. According to a recent state- ment by the British Government, many members of the League accept as the proper interpretation of Article 10 a resolution sub- mitted to the Fourth Assembly but not formally adopted owing to one adverse vote. That resolution stated explicitly: It is for the constitutional authorities of each member to decide, in reference to the obligation of preserving the independence and the integrity of the territory of members, in what degree the member is bound to assure the execution of this obligation by employment of its military forces. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the present negotiations looking to the conclusion of an unqualified multilateral antiwar treaty may ultimately achieve success, and I have no doubt that if the principal powers of the world are united in a sincere desire to consummate such a treaty, a formula can be devised which will be acceptable to them all. Since, however, the purpose of the United States is so far as possible to eliminate war as a factor in international relations, I cannot state too emphatically that it will not become a party to any agreement which directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, is a military alliance. The United States cannot obligate itself in advance to use its armed forces against any other nation of the world. It does not believe that the peace of the world or of Europe depends upon or can be assured by treaties of military alliance, the futility of which as guarantors of peace is repeatedly demonstrated in the pages of history. 66 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR Mr. Chairman, I must not claim that treaties of arbitration and conciliation, or even treaties explicitly renouncing war as an instru- ment of national policy, afford a certain guaranty against those conflicts between nations which have periodically broken out since the dawn of world history. In addition to treaties there must be an aroused public conscience against the utter horror and fright- fulness of war. The peoples of the world must enjoy a peaceful mind, as it has been said, and treaties such as those I have dis- cussed this evening, and the efforts of statesmen to advance the cause of world peace, can only be regarded as a portion of the problem. I am not so blind as to believe that the millenium has arrived, but I do believe that the world is making great strides toward the pacific adjustment of international disputes and that the common people are of one mind in their desire to see the abolition of war as an institution. Certainly the United States should not be backward in promoting this new movement for world peace, and both personally and officially as Secretary of State, I shall always support and advo- cate the conclusion of appropriate treaties for arbitration, for con- ciliation, and for the renunciation of war. The French Draft of the Multilateral Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1 * Mr. President, Mr. Ambassador, Ladies and Gentlemen: . . . Last year M. Briand made a great proposition to the United States, and M. Briand, the French Ambassador and I are now trying to negotiate a multilateral treaty denouncing war and agreeing not to resort to it for the settlement of international disputes. I wish to pay my sincere tribute to the great ideals and the high-mindedness and patriotism of M. Briand in his work for peace. I also want to pay tribute to the Ambassador who has so loyally cooperated with him. We have different view’s, to be sure, and if you will bear with me for a few 7 moments I would like to outline the present situation. There seem to be six major considerations w’hich the French Gov- ernment has emphasized in its correspondence and in its draft treaty; namely, that the treaty must not (1) impair the right of legitimate self-defense; (2) violate the Covenant of the League of Nations; (3) violate the treaties of Locarno; (4) violate certain unspecified treaties guaranteeing neutrality; (5) bind the parties in respect of a state breaking the treaty; (6) come into effect until accepted by all or substantially all of the powers of the world. The views of the United States on these six points are as follows: ( 1 ) Selj-dejense. There is nothing in the American draft of an antiwar treaty w'hich restricts or impairs in any w 7 ay the right of self- 1 Excerpt from an address delivered before the American Society of Inter- national Law, Washington, April 28, 1928. ADDRESSES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 67 defense. That right is inherent in every sovereign state and is implicit in every treaty. Every nation is free at all times and regard- less of treaty provisions to defend its territory from attack or inva- sion and it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defense. If it has a good case, the world will applaud and not condemn its action. Express recognition by treaty of this inalienable right, however, gives rise to the same difficulty encountered in any effort to define aggression. It is the identical question approached from the other side. Inasmuch as no treaty provision can add to the natural right of self-defense, it is not in the interest of peace that a treaty should stipulate a juristic conception of self-defense since it is far too easy for the unscrupulous to mold events to accord with an agreed definition. (J8) The League Covenant. The Covenant imposes no affirmative primary obligation to go to war. The obligation, if any, is secondary and attaches only when deliberately accepted by a state. Article 10 of the Covenant has, for example, been interpreted by a resolution submitted to the Fourth Assembly but not formally adopted owing to one adverse vote, to mean that “it is for the constitutional authori- ties of each member to decide, in reference to the obligation of pre- serving the independence and the integrity of the territory of mem- bers, in what degree the member is bound to assure the execution of this obligation by employment of its military forces.” There is, in my opinion, no necessary inconsistency between the Covenant and the idea of an unqualified renunciation of war. The Covenant can, it is true, be construed as authorizing war in certain circumstances but it is an authorization and not a positive requirement. (3) The treaties of Locarno. If the parties to the treaties of Locarno are under any positive obligation to go to war, such obliga- tion certainly would not attach until one of the parties has resorted to war in violation of its solemn pledges thereunder. It is therefore obvious that if all the parties to the Locarno treaties become parties to the multilateral antiwar treaty proposed by the United States, there would be a double assurance that the Locarno treaties would not be violated by recourse to arms. In such event it would follow that resort to war by any state in violation of the Locarno treaties would also be a breach of the multilateral antiwar treaty and the other parties to the antiwar treaty would thus as a matter of law be automatically released from their obligations thereunder and free to fulfil their Locarno commitments. The United States is entirely willing that all parties to the Locarno treaties should become parties to its proposed antiwar treaty either through signature in the first instance or by immediate accession to the treaty as soon as it comes into force in the manner provided in Article 3 of the American draft, and it will offer no objection when and if such a suggestion is made. 68 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR (4) Treaties oj neutrality. The United States is not informed as to the precise treaties which France has in mind and cannot there- fore discuss their provisions. It is not unreasonable to suppose, however, that the relations between France and the states whose neutrality she has guaranteed are sufficiently close and intimate to make it possible for France to persuade such states to adhere season- ably to the antiwar treaty proposed by the United States. If this were done no party to the antiwar treaty could attack the neutralized states without violating the treaty and thereby automatically freeing France and the other powers in respect of the treaty-breaking state from the obligations of the antiwar treaty. If the neutralized states were attacked by a state not a party to the antiwar treaty, the latter treaty would of course have no bearing and France would be as free to act under the treaties guaranteeing neutrality as if she were not a party to the antiwar treaty. It is difficult to perceive, therefore, how treaties guaranteeing neutrality can be regarded as necessarily pre- venting the conclusion by France or any other power of a multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war. (5) Relations with a treaty-breaking state. As I have already pointed out, there can be no question as a matter of law that violation of a multilateral antiwar treaty through resort to war by one party thereto would automatically release the other parties from their obli- gations to the treaty-breaking state. Any express recognition of this principle of law is wholly unnecessary. 0 6 ) Universality . From the beginning it has been the hope of the United States that its proposed multilateral antiwar treaty should be world-wide in its application, and appropriate provision therefor was made in the draft submitted to the other governments on April 13. From a practical standpoint it is clearly preferable, however, not to postpone the coming into force of an antiwar treaty until all the nations of the world can agree upon the text of such a treaty and cause it to be ratified. For one reason or another a state so situated as to be no menace to the peace of the world might obstruct agreement or delay ratification in such manner as to render abortive the efforts of all the other powers. It is highly improbable, moreover, that a form of treaty acceptable to the British, French, German, Italian and Japanese Governments, as well as to the United States, would not be equally acceptable to most, if not all, of the other powers of the world. Even were this not the case, however, the coming into force among the above-named six powers of an effective antiwar treaty and their observance thereof would be a prac- tical guaranty against a second world war. This in itself would be a tremendous service to humanity and the United States is not willing to jeopardize the practical success of the proposal which it has made by conditioning the coming into force of the treaty upon prior universal or almost universal acceptance. ADDRESSES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 69 Negotiations for the Conclusion of a Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1 Mr. Chairman: . . . It is known to all of you that in June 1927 M. Briand, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, made an historic proposal to the United States. He suggested that our two countries conclude a treaty condemning war and renouncing it as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations. That proposal was carefully considered by the United States, and the more it was examined, the more we were convinced that to realize its greatest usefulness M. Briand’s inspiring idea should be enlarged so as to make it possible to bring within the scope of such a treaty not only France and the United States, but also all the other nations of the world. The French Government was informed of our views and for several months we exchanged notes with France on this general subject. Finally on April 13, 1928, the United States with the full approval of France transmitted for the consideration of the British, German, Italian, and Japanese Governments the texts of the diplo- matic notes previously exchanged by the two Governments. At the same time the United States submitted to those Governments on its own initiative a preliminary draft of a treaty for the renunciation of war, representing in a general way the form of treaty which it was prepared to sign. The four Governments addressed were asked whether they were in a position to conclude such a treaty. Encouraging replies have now been received from them all. They have all expressed cordial approval of the principle underlying the proposal of the United States, and have indicated a sincere desire to collaborate in the conclusion of an appropriate treaty for the re- nunciation of war. The British Government, in addition to inform- ing the United States that it found it had no commitments which would prevent signing a treaty such as we suggested, indicated that the Dominion Governments and the Government of India would be glad to become original signatories of the treaty, and appropriate invitations were thereupon sent to the Governments of Canada, the Irish Free State, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and the Government of India. The replies which we have received demon- strate that the several governments heartily endorse the plan and are ready and willing to join in the negotiation of a treaty such as that proposed by the United States. Other governments have also informally indicated their desire to participate in a treaty for the renunciation of war and I earnestly hope that we shall soon succeed in reaching an agreement as to the precise text to be employed. The force of public opinion in this country and abroad has already made 1 Excerpt from an address delivered at the banquet in connection with the tercentenary commemoration of the founding of the First Reformed Dutch Church in 1628 on the Island of Manhattan, at New York City, June 11, 1928. 70 GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR itself felt. The peoples of the world seem unquestionably to want their governments to renounce war in the most effective way possible. The antiwar treaty which the United States has proposed, and which as I have said has its origin in the suggestions made by M. Briand a year ago, is simple and straightforward. That grand con- ception of the French Foreign Secretary undoubtedly had its inspira- tion in the deep-seated desire of the French people, as well as all the people of Europe, to avoid another great cataclysm of war. It is significant that Europe since the Great War has been engaged in efforts of various kinds to assuage national and racial animosities, to settle international disputes, and to prevent war. What I believe, and I am convinced that the leaders of the governments believe, is that there should be one more step in this effort, and that is, a simple declaration against war as an institution for the settlement of inter- national controversies. Since this discussion commenced between France and the United States, the idea has appealed with increasing force to the public opinion of the world. As one looks back over the history of the four years of that unparalleled carnage, which left its trail of desolation and death, one cannot believe that the nations will hesitate to commit themselves in the most unqualified and solemn terms to the renunciation of recourse to war. There are, of course, cynical individuals who decry all efforts to lessen the likelihood of war and belittle in particular the present negotiations. There are others who believe in war as an institution and whose support, if any, will be cold and grudging. But I am convinced that those of us who believe wholeheartedly in this move- ment are no less realistic. We know that the peoples of the world desire peace and dread any new international conflict. We know that the peoples of the world are becoming more and more articulate and that governments are becoming more and more responsive to their wishes. We now find peoples and governments united in a common and sincere desire to prevent so far as possible the outbreak of any war anywhere and seriously considering the best form of multilateral treaty to give effect to their aspirations. It is a most impressive manifestation of the spiritual nature of man. With the passage of time the emphasis in our present negotia- tions is being placed not on narrow technical considerations of a legalistic nature, but on the broad principles underlying the entire idea. It is peace, not war, that we are seeking to perpetuate and I am firmly convinced that the simple, straightforward, unequivocal declaration against war which the United States borrowed from M. Briand and incorporated in its draft treaty is the one that has the greatest moral value and the one that will in the long run com- mend itself to all the peoples concerned. It has no hidden meaning. It is easily understood. The interpretation placed upon it by the ADDRESSES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 71 United States has been publicly stated in the address which it was my privilege to deliver a few weeks ago before the American Society of International Law. The accuracy of this interpretation has been contested by no government. On the contrary, many governments have indicated that they agree with the conclusions set forth in that address. In these circumstances is it too much to hope that all may find themselves in the near future able to sign with the United States a treaty under which we all declare in the names of our re- spective peoples that we condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in our relations -with one another, and agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among us, shall never be sought except by pacific means? I do not think that it is too much to hope that such a treaty will be signed. I am persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made, to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between the peoples of the world may be perpetuated. I am convinced, more- over, that all changes in these relations should be sought only bv pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process; and any nation which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits and guaran- ties furnished by the proposed treaty. This is the object of the negotiations in which fifteen world powers are now engaged, and in the name of the Government of the United States I bespeak the continued support of this and every other church in the present movement for the promotion of world peace. o (