SECTION 7. THE ST. GERMAIN CONVENTION OF 1919

The launching of a separate convention on the control of trade in arms and ammunition by the Peace Conference at Paris was inspired by a desire to revise the international legislation pertaining to the African possessions of European States. It was not due, primarily, to any appreciation of the importance of such control in connection with general international relations, and, though the convention of September 10, 1919, contains some provisions of general application, it must be viewed chiefly as a continuation of an effort to regularize a situation in Africa which, as a result of the war, had already become greatly changed.

Three draft conventions, prepared by the British and French delegations, seem to have been placed before the Peace Conference: 10 a draft convention for control of the trade in arms and ammunition, a draft convention relating to liquor traffic in Africa, and a draft convention revising the general act of Berlin of 1885 and the general act of Brussels of 1890. It was only at a later stage in the work of the Conference that a commission was created to consider these draft conventions, on June 25, 1919.11 This Commission on the Revision of the General Act of Berlin of 1885 and the General Act of Brussels of 1890, as it was called, devoted seven meetings between July 8 and July 25, 1919, to the draft convention on trade in arms and ammunition, and its work led to the signing of a convention on September 10, 1919.12

The preamble of the Convention refers to the Brussels Act of 1890, and to the need for "more elaborate provisions applicable to a wider area in Africa" and for "the establishment of a corresponding regime in certain territories in Asia." In line with this statement of purpose, article 6 of the convention described certain "prohibited areas" in Africa, Transcaucasia, Persia, Gwadar, the Arabian Peninsula, and the old Turkish Empire, and it delimited a special maritime zone including the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Persian Gulf, and the Sea of Oman. Special licenses were to be required for the importation of arms and ammunition into these areas or this zone, and the greater part of the convention (arts. 2, 6-22) was devoted to the prohibitory system adopted for such areas and maritime

zone.

From a more general point of view, the convention is now of interest chiefly for its provisions relating to other parts of the world outside the prohibited areas and maritime zone. By article 1, the parties undertook to prohibit the export of certain categories of arms and ammunition, except as licenses may be issued for the export of arms not prohibited by international law to meet the needs of a Government of one of the parties to the convention. This provision was weakened, however, by the freedom reserved to each State to say whether, "in the case of firearms and ammunition adapted both to warlike and also to other purposes ", the prohibition of export was

10 This information is taken from the introduction to Beer's African Questions at the Paris Peace Conference (1923), pp. xxvii ff.

11 The records of the Peace Conference on this subject have not been published; it is known, however, that a volume exists entitled "Procès-verbaux et Rapport de la Commission pour la Révision des Actes Généraux de Berlin et de Bruxelles.'

For the text of the convention, see 7 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 331: 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 323. The text is also reproduced in Appendix II of this report, p. 72.

applicable. By article 4, the parties undertook to grant no licenses for export to a country placed under the tutelage of any state. By article 5, a Central International Office was to be established under the control of the League of Nations, " for the purpose of collecting and preserving documents" exchanged by the parties in reference to the trade covered by the convention. Each party was to publish an annual report on the licenses issued, showing the quantities and destination of exports licensed, and copies of such reports were to be sent to the Central International Office and to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Each party, also, was to send "full statistical information as to the quantities and destination of all_arms and ammunition exported without license" to the Central International Office and to the Secretary-General.

The Convention of St. Germain was originally signed on behalf of some 20 states: United States of America, Belgium, Bolivia, British Empire (including Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India), China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Greece, Hedjaz, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, SerbCroat-Slovene State, Siam, and Czechoslovakia. It was ratified by only four of the original signatories, however: by Greece, August 24, 1920; by Siam, March 30, 1921; by China, June 7, 1922; and by Portugal, July 17, 1922. It was also ratified by certain states which do not seem to have been original signatories: by Venezuela, May 20, 1921; by Chile, August 9, 1921; and by Brazil, April 27, 1922. It was adhered to by eight states which were not signatories: by Guatemala, January 22, 1920; by Peru, January 31, 1920; by Haiti, March 3, 1920; by Persia, March 27, 1920; by Muscat, June 9, 1921; by Finland, June 30, 1921; by Bulgaria, September 13, 1921; and by Estonia, October 17, 1923.13

Article 26 of the convention provided that each signatory should be bound by the convention from the date of the deposit at Paris of its ratification, with respect to other states which had deposited their ratifications. Hence, the convention may be said to have entered into force between Greece and Siam on March 30, 1921. Guatemala, Peru, Haiti, and Persia also became bound by it on that date, other states becoming bound as of the date of the deposit of their ratifications or adhesions.14 By a protocol annexed to the convention, however, it was declared that it would be contrary to the intention of the signatories and to the spirit of the convention if pending the convention's entry into force any signatory should adopt measures. contrary to its provisions. Moreover, on July 28, 1920, an informal agreement between Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan was reached through the Conference of Ambassadors at Paris, for observing the provisions of the convention relating to prohibited areas and the maritime zone. It must also be noted that by the various treaties of peace of 1919 and 1920 Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria undertook to "accept and observe" the St. Germain Convention.

Even if the convention as a whole may be said to have entered into force, however, the fact that it was not ratified by many of the States chiefly interested in the international trade in arms and ammunition

18 Information supplied by the Secretariat of the League of Nations.

14 The convention was registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations on Jan. 9, 1922.

robbed it of any great significance. No definitive steps were ever taken toward creating the Central International Office provided for by article 5,15 and though in 1920 some effort was made by the Secretary General of the League of Nations to procure statistics, as provided for in the convention, it may be said that the provisions of the convention were never put into operation.

The preamble of the convention provided that it was subject to revision in the light of the experience gained, on the recommendation of the Council of the League of Nations, after a period of 7

years.

SECTION 8. THE FAILURE OF THE ST. GERMAIN CONVENTION

Over a period of several years, from 1920 to 1923, a determined effort was made to bring about a more general acceptance of the St. Germain Convention. To some extent this effort centered upon the attitude of the Government of the United States of America. When the matter was under consideration by the First Assembly of the League of Nations in 1920 Sir Cecil Hurst reported to a committee of the Assembly as follows:

16

The full execution of the convention and the protocol has been hindered by the absence of the necessary statutory authority over the control of exports of arms in the United States of America, a country where arms are manufactured on a large scale, In the case of arms which belonged to the American Government the executive authorities were in a position to carry out the provisions of the convention, but the export of arms and munitions by private firms could not be controlled except to certain destinations, e. g., Mexico, Turkey, and Soviet Russia. This circumstance has rendered it impossible to obtain the enforcement of the provisions of the convention and protocol by the other signatory powers, as their governments did not feel justified in inflicting severe losses on the manufacturing industries of their country by prohibiting manufacture and export when the effect of such action would not terminate the trade in arms but would merely divert it into other hands.

On December 14, 1920, the First Assembly adopted a resolution noting the value of the St. Germain Convention "as an instrument of civilization ", and emphasizing "the evils which would ensue from its nonobservance." The Assembly therefore called upon the signatory states to "proceed without delay to ratification and to the establishment of the International Office of Control contemplated by the convention."

Again, in 1921, the Second Assembly stressed the "urgent importance of ratifying the convention at the earliest possible moment", and suggested that all nonsignatory states be invited to adhere to it. Such insistence was frequently voiced also by the Temporary Mixed Commission for the Reduction of Armaments, set up in 1921. In 1921 the Council of the League of Nations suggested the consideration of the matter by the Conference on Limitation of Armaments, then about to be held in Washington; but it was not placed on the agenda of the Washington Conference.

15 The early budgets of the League of Nations contained provisions for the Central Office, however. On Feb. 25, 1921, also, the Council requested the Belgian Government to entrust the Bureau International set up under the Brussels act "with the application of the measures relating to the traffic in arms and munitions" and in principle the Belgian Government agreed to this course.

10 Records of the First Assembly, Committees, II, p. 346.

100463-35- -2

From 1920 to 1922 the attitude of the United States of America seems to have been the controlling factor in the situation with reference to the St. Germain Convention. The resolution adopted by the Second Assembly on October 1, 1921, was communicated to the Government of the United States on November 21, 1921. On July 28, 1922, the Secretary of State of the United States replied that "while the Government of the United States is in cordial sympathy with efforts to restrict traffic in arms and munitions of war, it finds itself unable to approve the provisions of the convention and to give any assurance of its ratification." 17 No reasons were stated for this attitude, however.

At the Third Assembly of the League of Nations, in 1922, the view was taken that the United States reply "puts an end to the hopes that the Convention of St. Germain, in its present form, would receive general acceptance"; and on September 27, 1922, the Assembly adopted a resolution as follows:

(a) The Assembly considers it highly desirable that the Government of the United States should express the objections which it has to formulate to the provisions of the Convention of St. Germain, as well as any proposals which it may care to make as to the way in which these objections can be overcome. (b) The Assembly is of the opinion that the Temporary Mixed Commission should be instructed to prepare a scheme for the control of the international traffic in arms, to be considered by the conference which is to deal with the private manufacture of arms.

On May 1, 1923, the President of the Council of the League of Nations addressed a letter to the Secretary of State of the United States, seeking further information as to the attitude of the American Government. The Secretary of State of the United States replied to this letter on September 12, 1923, stating the following grounds for the refusal to ratify the convention:

18

While the application of the convention to certain designated areas or zones, extending in effect the Brussels Convention, may fulfill a useful object, the plan is not a provision for a general limitation of armament but the creation of a system of control by the signatory powers of the traffic in arms and munitions, these signatory powers being left free not only to meet their own requirements in the territories subject to their jurisdiction but also to provide for supplying each other with arms and munitions to the full extent that they may see fit.

There is particular objection to the provisions by which the contracting parties would be prohibited from selling arms and ammunitions to States not parties to the convention. By such provisions this Government would be required to prevent shipment of military supplies to such Latin-American countries as have not signed or adhered to the convention, however desirable it might be to permit such shipments, merely because they are not signatory powers and might not desire to adhere to the convention.

It should be observed also that the acceptance by the United States of an agreement of the nature and scope of the Convention of St. Germain would call for the enactment of legislation to make it operative and particularly for the imposition of penalties applicable to private arms-producing concerns as a means of establishing an effective control. This Government is not in a position to undertake to obtain the enactment of such legislation.

Finally, it may be observed that the provisions of the convention relating to the League of Nations are so intertwined with the whole convention as to make it impracticable for this Government to ratify, in view of the fact that it is not a member of the League of Nations.

From this time on, the effort to have the Convention of St. Germain more generally ratified was abandoned, and in line with a resolu

17 League of Nations Official Journal, 1922, p. 1124.

18 League of Nations Document C. 758. M. 258.1924.IX. (C. C. O. 2).

tion adopted by the Fourth Assembly on September 29, 1923, attention was given to drafting a new convention to replace the St. Germain Convention.

SECTION 9. PREPARATION OF A NEW CONVENTION TO REPLACE THE ST. GERMAIN CONVENTION

By 1923 it was clear that the St. Germain Convention could not be generally ratified. Though various States expressed themselves as willing to proceed to its ratification, the refusal to ratify by the United States of America, whose cooperation was essential, foreclosed any possibility of general action.

In the interim between 1919 and 1923, the St. Germain Convention was given an importance which it may not have deserved. The primary object for which it had been drafted was the control of shipments of arms into certain African territories; at the Peace Conference in 1919, the convention had been looked upon as a revision of part of the Brussels Act of 1890. The attainment of that object was not a satisfactory basis for permanent international regulation on a general scale, and it is not surprising that the general parts of the St. Germain Convention proved unsatisfactory. Yet this convention had one merit which stood out, and which has been shown by subsequent events to have been essential, viz., the provisions for creating a Central International Office.

In 1924 the British Government proposed that two separate conventions on arms traffic be drawn up, "one dealing with the general or world-wide traffic in arms, and the other, of more limited scope, dealing with the supply of arms to certain territories such as are dealt with in article 6 of the St. Germain Convention" (Document C. 758. M. 258. 1924. IX, p. 147). Unfortunately very scant attention was given to this proposal at the time (id., p. 126); its adoption might have greatly advanced the possible success of international effort in both fields.

When the revision of the St. Germain Convention was first contemplated, it was thought that the subject of the control of the arms traffic should be combined with the cognate subject of control of the private manufacture of arms. An international conference to deal with the latter subject had been envisaged by the League of Nations Temporary Mixed Commission in 1921, and in 1923 the Temporary Mixed Commission recommended that the proposed conference be entrusted with the preparation of a new convention on trade in arms. This course was not taken, however, and in September 1923 the Assembly recommended that a new convention on trade in arms be drawn up in such a form that it might be "accepted by the governments of all countries which produce arms or munitions of war."

The task of preparing a draft of a new convention was entrusted to the Temporary Mixed Commission, which was assisted by the Permanent Advisory Commission of the League of Nations. The Government of the United States accepted an invitation to participate in the meetings of the Temporary Mixed Commission, and its representatives took an active part in the work. The Commission adopted the St. Germain Convention as a basis for its work, amending and completing it "in order to facilitate the adherence of the