500.A15/663: Telegram
The Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
[Paraphrase]
Geneva, March 12, 1928—10
p.m.
[Received 10:30 p.m.]
[Received 10:30 p.m.]
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.
- 1.
- 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.
- 2.
- 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?
Gibson