I desire to reply to Senator Johnson on one or two points. I have very little to dispute as regards what the Senator has said, particularly in regard to the details. I would frame any objection I have merely in this way, that I would not like to have it understood when he speaks of the persistence of the older imperialistic view that because the British do give evidence of persistence in that point of view that it is accepted. It is quite right that there is a school which dislikes intensely all the movements that have taken place since the war in regard to the independence of the Dominions. I think the signature to the optional clause, although the Senator is quite right in saying that it is of less value than if the British had not made Reservation I, and had signed unreservedly, nevertheless, has marked a step forward, because, remember, if it had to be considered at any time that there was an Irish Free State point of view, and an older British point of view, the odds, on material considerations, would be rather in favour of the British point of view. But South Africa has as strong a national viewpoint as we ourselves have, and the Dominion of Canada, although its origins are different, in the position in which it now is, has as strong a national point of view and as independent a point of view as we have, and we must take that point of view into consideration in regard to the signing of the optional clause.
I count as a gain that from that discussion at Geneva we got, first of all, the declaration from the British Foreign Secretary that members of the Commonwealth were "international units individually in the fullest sense of the term," and further we get these two statements, one from Canada and one from South Africa. The South African delegates expressed themselves in this way:
"With regard to the reservation as to disputes between members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, I wish to state that, although in the view of my Government such disputes are justiciable by the International Court of Justice, my Government prefers to settle them by other means—hence the reservation."
That is a clear and distinct statement by the Government of South Africa, that disputes arising between the South African Government and the Government of Great Britain are regarded not as domestic quarrels but as international matters. On that South Africa and ourselves have the same point of view, but the occasion of signing the optional clause was the first time that a declaration was made indicating that attitude on the part of South Africa, and I count it a gain, that it was made and made so explicitly.
The representative of Canada made the following statement:
"The Dominion of Canada has excluded from the purview of the Court legal disputes with other members of the British Commonwealth for the sole reason that it is its expressed policy to settle these matters by some other methods...."
I want to pause at that. That declaration was made just after the South African declaration; it was the last declaration made, and it was made after full consideration of what our attitude had been and expressed in public to be, and after the consideration of what South Africa had expressed as to their viewpoint. They followed up the South African statement by saying that Canada excluded certain matters "for the sole reason that it is its expressed policy to settle these matters by some other methods." If the Seanad will refer back to the context and go into the whole circumstances of last September it will be quite clear that that Canadian declaration has to have read into it the exact words of the South African Government, and hence equally clearly that they regard disputes as between the Dominion of Canada and the Government of Great Britain as justiciable by the International Court of Justice. They made the reservation regarding certain disputes for the sole reason that they preferred to settle them by some other means.
The Dominion of Canada went on to make a further point:—
and it has deemed opportune to include its will as a reservation, although a doubt may exist as to such reservation being consistent with Article 36 of the Statute of the Court.
The last phrase throws doubt upon the whole reservation, a reservation which I thought at the time, being so advised at the time, and which I now consider, having been more recently and more deliberately advised, to be not merely out of accord with the spirit of the optional clause but to be illegal, to be definitely null and void. As a valid reservation it may have to be tested, and if it does come to be tested its validity will be tested by the International Court itself.
So too with regard to the White Paper, if the circumstances are taken into consideration I claim that it is in our favour. The White Paper referred to by Senator Johnson was published on behalf of the British Government only. It is a British Stationery Office paper. It says: "This new agreement among His Majesty's Governments concerning the vital question of international arbitration marks a further step in the acceptance of common principles for the conduct of foreign policy." Remember that this quotation is from the last page of a pamphlet which has gone through the whole circumstances of the optional clause and has referred to the fact that we signed without reservation and that the other two States made certain statements, and in the end it says "This new agreement among His Majesty's Governments concerning the vital question of international arbitration marks a further step in the acceptance of common principles for the conduct of foreign policy." What is the agreement? The agreement was this, and this only—that the optional clause should be signed. There was no agreement on the incidents of signature for we signed without reservation, and Canada and South Africa, while agreeing to the British reservation, refuted the principles on which the British based their reservation and accepted the reservation only on grounds of expediency and policy. On one point was there common agreement, that the optional clause should be signed, in other words, we shared the view that there should not be recourse to war to settle disputes that seem to be capable of being settled by arbitration or by some judicial method. And it is of no little importance and value that the British Government should come to that point. If the British Government had not advanced so far the optional clause would not have received so many signatures as it did last year and as it has received since. In so far as that White Paper has been brought in in evidence—and I am not sure I regard it as a good thing that it has been brought in evidence at all on this matter, because it indicates a tendency to accept evidence from what might be a biassed source—but in so far as it has been brought in it tells rather in my favour than against any of my contentions. It says that there was agreement concerning the vital question of international arbitration, as there was—to the extent I have explained—and that this marked a further step in the acceptance of common principles for the conduct of foreign policy. The common principle accepted is that there should not be a resort to war but a resort to the International Court.
With regard to Prof. Berriedale Keith, I only hope that Professor Berriedale Keith will continue to write as he has written heretofore. He has a knack of finding out small points of procedure which have come down from antiquity, and it is a good thing to have these brought forward and exposed so that we can take the earliest opportunity of having them changed. I think one of the best ways of finding what progress has been made in Dominion affairs is to take some of the older works of Prof. Berriedale Keith and some of his later editions and see how his theories and explanations have had to change, even despite his evident desire and his stubborn fight to keep alive the older imperialistic ideas. It is to be hoped that Professor Berriedale Keith will continue to write and will unearth more relies, if there be any, on which Imperialists might rely to prove that the old Imperial system still continues. Even our own research might fail to discover these, and it is better that they should be discovered so that we may take them up and have them harmonised with the new order of things. The optional clause at the moment has either been signed and ratified or signed and some progress made towards ratification on the part of forty States out of fifty-four. There has been progress in this matter ever since I stated in the Dáil that 25 countries had definitely bound themselves to the optional clause. We hope to be the next to be added to that list.
The British Government's attitude to us as an international unit has been raised in this discussion. I am not at all sure that it can be properly related to the persistence of the old imperialistic ideas. I think it might better be related to that portion of the reservation which envisages other methods being found for the settlement of disputes arising between members of the Commonwealth of Nations. On that I spoke previously and in case there should be any doubt arising from my previous statement I would like to cover the point again. Recognising a definite and special relationship between ourselves and the other States members of the Commonwealth, we would like to see established any means of securing the settlement of disputes between members of that Commonwealth of Nations rather than the method of war. We would even accept something other than the Permanent Court, but we do believe that we are entitled to have the Permanent Court to fall back upon and as good members of the League we feel that we should be favourably disposed towards the Permanent Court unless and until some special circumstances establish a claim for some other tribunal. We know nothing in practice of the details of that Court, who the judges would be, what law they will administer, or what legal conventions they will follow when decisions are being taken, and it may be that in an actual trial before that Court we may regret the step which we have taken. But at the moment there is a case for the Permanent Court, though as between the States of the Commonwealth something other than the Permanent International Court may be found acceptable. If there are suggested any other methods of resolving disputes as between ourselves and the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and if we believe that these other methods will give us an impartial tribunal we will not hesitate to consider the suggestions and try out that other tribunal, but we believe that the Permanent Court should be there in the last resort. In the meantime, until such other tribunal is approved by us, we stand by the Permanent Court.
