500.A15/663: Telegram

The Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) to the Secretary of State


5. Remarks which I propose to make in opening session may or may not lead to debate. Should they do so, I may be questioned on certain points. I now foresee some of the questions which may be asked, and I should be pleased to have your instructions in order that my own understanding may be quite clear.

Question may be raised that for complete renunciation of war it would have been sufficient to have said that the parties renounce all war as between themselves; that use of expression “renounce war as an instrument of national policy” [apparent omission] for a certain limitation or modification of a complete renunciation of war.
Questions may be asked in regard to joint or reciprocal nature of the obligation in a treaty which is multilateral; in other words, should nation A violate treaty with relation to nation B, have the right of nations C and D been violated thereby? Should violation of A towards B take place, does any obligation still rest on C and D, or does A’s aggression against B result in automatically relieving them of all obligation under the treaty?