As the Minister was not here at the time, and as he is now present, I would like to explain that Senators are anxious to have an explanation of the reservations and to know whether they could be regarded in some degree as a justification for the use of poisonous gases in warfare.
Public Business. - Approval of Conventions and Protocols—(Resumed).
The reservations are based on the principle of reciprocity. Pretty nearly all the nations that have signed did so with the same two conditions. I might call attention to the Geneva attitude on these matters. Reciprocity is never regarded as a reservation. It is regarded as something which strengthens a protocol or convention. If everybody signs with this particular type of reservation everybody is bound. This is not counted a reservation as such. It is regarded in Geneva as a strength because it gives an incentive to other nations to sign. As far as practice is concerned, the fact that we signed these two reservations does not indicate that we intend to make preparation for the use of poisonous gases or any such asphyxiating type of warfare. But we would want to know what is the exact legal position under this type of convention in the event of the two items referred to in the reservation happening.
All I have to say in this matter is that I think it is quite right to have these reservations, but, as to the whole affair, I have no trust in it. During the great war every rule laid down by the International Courts, and every agreement was torn up, simply because it suited certain people to do so. I have not the least doubt that the same thing will happen again. I have no objection to the reservations.
The whole purpose of the League of Nations is to get rid of the mentality of the type to which the Senator refers.
I should like to know what is meant by "other gases" mentioned in the motion.
Cathaoirleach
Gases that are not asphyxiating.
Tear gas and analogous gases.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Seanad approves of the Protocol for the Revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva on the 14th day of September, 1929, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 7th day of May, 1930, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps for its ratification.
I second.
I should like the Minister to explain more clearly the reason why we signed the resolution before the Court of International Justice without any reservation. In the case of South Africa, they put in two reservations, one providing that disputes concerning the Government of any other member of the British Commonwealth of Nations would be settled in such a manner "as the parties have agreed or shall agree." In moving the adoption in the House of Assembly in South Africa, General Hertzog said: "Ireland was the exception, but that practically amounted to nothing, as none of the other members of the British Commonwealth were subject to the Court in so far as a dispute with Ireland was concerned. Therefore, if Ireland had a difference with South Africa, she would not be able to bring them before the Court. Ireland had the fullest right to do what she did, but he thought the way the Union had taken was the best." It seemed, therefore, that if we had a dispute with South Africa, and we found it necessary to take the question to the Court of International Justice, we would find nobody there to answer us. That being so, I think the Free State was at a disadvantage.
I should hope that the discussion which is to take place will not range round the question of the reservations and our allegiance to the Permanent Court, because this particular motion deals rather with a revision of the statute, and it seems to me the statement made by the last Senator is aside from this motion. If that is taken as a guide, the discussion here might be on entirely wrong lines.
In answer to Senator Johnson, what is under discussion is a motion by Senator Milroy to approve of the Protocol for revision of the statute of the Permanent Court. Senator The McGillycuddy of the Reeks referred to the absence of a reservation accompanying our signature accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court. That is an entirely different matter. As it has been raised, I would like to get an opportunity of replying, and possibly the matter might be raised by the Senator on my External Affairs Vote on the Appropriation Bill. As it has been raised, I would like to have an early opportunity of replying.
Cathaoirleach
Perhaps the Senator would raise it on the Appropriation Bill?
I will.
I see this Protocol for the revision of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice is dated Geneva, 14th September, 1929. On the same date there was a Protocol of the accession of the United States of America to the Protocol and their signature to the statute of the International Court of Justice.
Cathaoirleach
We are not concerned with that.
What I want to know is whether this Protocol for revision was issued after the United States had declared their accession or not, or whether it would be again necessary for the United States to declare their accession to the revision of the Protocol.
Cathaoirleach
If the Minister desires he can answer that question but I do not think it arises under the motion.
As I understand the position, there was for a long time a desire that the United States should come within the scope of this Permanent Court, but certain objections were raised in the United States to what was involved in the statute of the Permanent Court. After a considerable amount of discussion, and inasmuch as the United States was not within the League, it was only by diplomacy and not by open discussion that takes place at the League that there was approval and a tentative agreement arrived at whereby if the statute of the Permanent Court were revised in a particular way, that would make it possible for the United States to accept the statute of the court. That revision took place, and at the same time a Protocol was signed agreeing to the accession of the United States, so that the two things are very closely involved. As to the revision, while it is important I do not think it affects our position as against the Court. I desire to approve of it, particularly in view of the fact that it was made possible for the United States of America to become parties to this system of international jurisdiction.
The Senator has covered the ground I desired to cover. A Protocol for the revision of statutes was a necessary condition precedent to the other Conventions. No. 5 allows for the accession of the United States. That accession was conditional, and as a matter of fact the United States has not yet taken any action. As to the second, in addition to the point to which Senator Johnson referred, and the point raised by Senator Comyn which deals with advisory opinions, a variety of other matters are dealt with. For instance, the number of judges is raised from eleven to fifteen by the elevation of temporary judges, and there are arrangements that the session of the courts should be always permanent, allowing for a judicial vacation, and there was also the question of fixing the salaries of judges. These questions have arisen after eight years' experience of the court. Jurists were set to work on the matter, and they brought forward this revision which all the States were asked to ratify as early as possible. The accession of the United States to the matter under No. 5 has yet to come.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Seanad approves of the International Convention with the object of securing the Abolition of Slavery and the Slave Trade, signed at Geneva on the 25th day of September, 1926, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 7th day of May, 1930, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps to accede to the said International Convention."
I second.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Seanad approves of the Protocol relating to the Accession of the United States of America to the Protocol of Signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva on the 14th day of September, 1929, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 7th day of May, 1930, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps for its ratification."
I second.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Seanad approves of the International Convention and Protocol relating to Economic Statistics, 1928, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 28th day of May, 1930, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps to ratify the said International Convention and Protocol.
I second.
I would like if the Minister would tell us what the effect of this would be on the report of the economic statistics published in the Free State. I have an idea the form that has been adopted not only for the publication but the gathering of statistics in this State has been in accord with the majority of the recommendations, and that the purpose of this Convention is rather to enable proper comparisons to be made between one country and another. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us on this point, as to whether what has been done hitherto in this State will require any considerable alteration in the future, and what are the actual expectations he has of the effect of the ratification of the Convention.
We are in the happy position that our statistics, so far as material, method of compilation, form of publication, and all these things are concerned, are in line with what is required under the Convention. In one respect only is there any important change, and that is a change we are making experimentally. From the results of that particular experiment certain other forms may be decided on. At present, the trade statistics of imports and exports are compiled with a view to the country of consignment for a twelve months' period. We are making experiments and trying to collect imports not merely from the country of import, but from the country of production. We are trying to discover the country not merely of consignment, but the country of final consumption. It is a very difficult task, and could only be done in an experimental way. In every other way, as I have said, we are quite in line. This, however, will ensure that the statistics in future will be better compiled, more regular in appearance, and more comparable.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Seanad approves of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of and Traffic in Obscene Publications, 1923, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 4th day of June, 1930, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps to ratify the said International Convention."
I second.
I think I am correct in stating that this represents the efforts of a very considerable number of years, and that it is a very decided step forward. The great difficulty in dealing with obscene publications has been that there is lack of international joint action on the part of the principal States, and this procedure may go a long way to prohibit not only their circulation but to make their production practically impossible. I know that this is not absolutely all we would want. It is not altogether all that we would like, but it is something to be hailed by reformers as a very marked step towards joint action, the lack of which has been a source of failure in the past.
Senator Douglas is quite correct in what he has said. Our legislation is quite in line with what is required by the Convention. This is an administrative measure, and each country ratifying is, and shall be, the competent authority in its area, and will collect and transmit to the central offices certain things demanded, namely, notification of any legislation dealing with this matter, notification of punishment imposed by legislation, and notification of measures taken to prevent the passage of obscene publications through the State. Under that particular agreement we have established a department as the competent authority, and the Minister for Justice has been designated in that way and has undertaken the duties. It is a good step forward, and is the fruit of many years' efforts and agitation in these matters.
Question put and agreed to.