IT will be recalled that, pursuant to the understanding reached between the Government of France and the Government of the United States, the American Ambassadors at London, Berlin, Rome and Tokyo transmitted on the 18th April, , to the Governments to which they were respectively accredited the text of M. Briand's original proposal of the 20th June, , together with copies of the notes subsequently exchanged by France and; the United States on the subject of a multilateral treaty for tile renunciation of war.
At the same time the Government of the United States also submitted, for consideration, a preliminary draft of a treaty representing in a general way the form of treaty which it was prepared to sign, and enquired whether the Governments thus addressed were in a position to give favourable consideration thereto.
The text of the identic notes of the 18th April, , and a copy of the draft treaty transmitted therewith were also brought to the attention of the Government of France by the American Ambassador at Paris. It will likewise be recalled that, on the 20th April, , the Government of the French Republic circulated among the other interested Governments, including the Government of the United States, an alternative draft treaty, and that, in an address which he delivered on the 28th April, , before the American Society of International Law, the Secretary of State of the United States explained fully the construction placed by my Government union the treaty proposed by it, referring as follows to the six major considerations emphasized by France in its alternative draft treaty and prior diplomatic correspondence with my Government That right is inherent in every sovereign State and is implicit in every treaty.
Every nation is free at all times and regardless of treaty provisions, to defend its territories from attack or invasion, and it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defence. If it has a good case, the world will applaud and not condemn its action. Express recognition by treaty of this inalienable right, however, gives rise to the same difficulty encountered in any effort to define aggression.
It is the identical question approached from the other side. In this respect, no treaty provision can to the natural right of self-defence. It is not in the interest of peace that a treaty should stipulate a juristic conception of self-defence, since it is far too easy for the unscrupulous to mould events to accord with an agreed definition. The obligation, if any, is secondary, and attaches only when deliberately accepted-by a State. Article 10 of the Covenant has, for example, been interpreted by a resolution submitted to the Fourth Assembly, but not formally adopted owing to one adverse vote, to mean that: 'It is for the constitutional authorities of each member to decide, in reference to the obligation of preserving the independence and the integrity of the territory of the members, in what degree the member is bound to assure the execution of this obligation by employment of its military forces.
