Suchergebnisse

Few treaties have been the object of such different and contradictory constructions as the Pact for the Renunciation of War. For some writers, the Pact constitutes a mere gesture and has only a moral value. For others, it condemns any act of force whatever and imposes upon the contracting parties a positive obligation to settle all disputes by pacific means. There are still others who take a stand between these two extreme views, but they are far from reaching an agreement as to the exact meaning of the Pact. Such a divergence of opinion is largely due to the fact that this treaty has been generally contemplated from a political rather than from a legal point of view. While the opponents of the Pact have endeavored to minimize its importance, the supporters have been at pains to enlarge its scope by means of an extensive interpretation. Instead of attempting to examine carefully the legal issues involved and to arrive at a conclusion as a result of an objective investigation, both camps have striven to find arguments likely to support their preconceived opinions. Owing to the personal authority of certain writers who have taken a part in this discussion, some arguments which they have advanced have made considerable impression and have been adopted uncritically by a large body of opinion, although they lack any legal foundation.

The General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at Geneva, September 26, 1928, is intended to provide for the final settlement of every dispute, of whatever nature it may be. Chapter II is evoted to legal disputes, while Chapter III, Articles 21-28, lays down rules concerning the settlement of non-legal disputes. This idea of a recourse to arbitration for the settlement of purely political conflicts, which Chapter III puts forward, may appear to be inconsistent with a long evolution which has tended to emphasize the judicial character of arbitration. It is true that occasionally states have submitted such conflicts to an arbitral tribunal, but it is for the first time that a provision to this effect has been inserted in a multipartitetreaty. A treaty of this kind has a legislative character and exercises a great influence upon the development of international law. The importance of the General Act is all the greater since some twenty states, including three great Powers, have already ratified it. This treaty, which may be compared only to the Hague Convention,could largely contribute to a revision of the common conception of arbitration. Does it attempt to do so, or is it rather intended to leave this conception unchanged and to create a new method of pacific settlement? In either case, how should the new conception of arbitration be defined? Since purely political disputes cannot be settled by the application of a rule of law, are the powers of the tribunal unlimited? These questions deserve closer consideration, especially since the relevant provisions of Chapter III of the General Act have already inspired certain opinions which, it is believed, are not only contrary to the true meaning of this treaty, but also,if generally adopted, would destroy the very foundations of international arbitration. Now, one of the essential ideas underlying the General Act is not to impair in the least what has already proved useful, but to develop the existing means for the pacific settlement of disputes. Chapter III constitutes an important step forward. Its evolutionary character and its exact meaning can best be realized in the light of the practice of statesand of the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals.