« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
reduction of armaments as shall be fixed by the said Conference (International Conference for the Reduction of Armament, provided for in Article 17], the plan has not been carried out, the Council shall make a declaration to that effect. This declaration shall render the present Protocol null and void. ... A signatory State which, after the expiration of the period fixed by the Conference, fails to comply with the plan adopted by the Conference, shall not be admitted to benefit by the provisions of the present Protocol.” The General Assembly of the United Nations, too, recognized the relation between disarmament and security. Its Resolution 41 (I) concerning Regulation and Reduction of Armaments, adopted on 14 December 1946 contains the following statements: "The General Assembly, regarding the problem of security as closely connected with that of disarmament, recommends the Security Council to accelerate as much as possible the placing at its disposal of the armed forces mentioned in Article 43 of the Charter.” It must be noted that Article 43 of the Charter is still not implemented since it proved impossible to conclude the special agreements determining the contingents of the armed forces which the members were to place at the disposal of the Security Council. Hence, the security system intended by the Charter is still a fragment.
As is the case with the more general problem of international security, the problem of disarmament has two different aspects: a political aspect and a technical one. The political forces, responsible for the fact that the serious efforts during a quarter of a century to solve this problem have been without result, are well known and do not need to be discussed. The work of the League, continued by the United Nations, has shown that no insurmountable technical difficulties stand in the way of a satisfactory legal solution. With regard to the most difficult topic technically, that of the control of atomic energy, the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission declared: “We do not find any basis in the available scientific facts for supposing the effective control [of atomic energy] is not technologically feasible." 9
It is usual to distinguish between physical disarmament—referring to the external means by which war is waged, such as men, material and money; and moral disarmament—referring to the state of mind which tolerates and even leads to war. However, it is generally recognized that there is no physical disarmament without moral disarmament and no moral disarmament without physical disarmament.
Direct and indirect disarmament.-Physical disarmament may be brought about indirectly or directly. The indirect method consists in attempting to remove the causes of war and thus to create a situation in which disarmament will take place, so to speak, by itself.10 As pointed out in a previous connection,11 this is a utopian scheme. However, there is a particular cause of war upon which disarmament has a direct bearing: armament itself. There can be no doubt that armaments, although certainly not the only cause, are one of the causes of war, especially if the manufacture of war materials is in the hands of private firms.12 This view is evidently at the basis of Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Covenant of the League of Nations: "The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections.” It has been argued that the armaments of one country are caused by and hence directed against the armaments of a definite other country. They have the immanent tendency of increasing steadily and thus of imposing a financial burden upon the respective countries. When this burden becomes unbearable it may lead to the desperate attempt by one party to unburden itself by waging war against the other in the hope of disarming the opponent and forcing him to remain disarmed, thus removing, at least for a certain time, the main cause of the financially disastrous armaments race. The principle of preventing war by armaments—the slogan generally opposed to disarmament, si vis pacem para bellum—is in the author's opinion rather problematical. It cannot be denied that its application may in some cases have the desired effect; but neither can it be denied that it may under certain circumstances bring about just the opposite result.18
If armaments are a possible cause of war, the direct method of disarmament must be considered to be appropriate. It consists of bringing about the reduction, limitation and even prohibition and elimination of armaments by an international convention imposing upon the contracting parties corresponding obligations the fulfillment of which is guaranteed by adequate measures of control and sanctions.
The object of disarmament: armaments defined.-What is the meaning of the term "armaments"? What are the facts, factors or elements constituting armaments? There are three: a personal, a material and a financial element: the men (effectives), the materials and establishments used by them, and the expenditures required. With respect to disarmament, the distinction between peacetime and wartime armaments is of importance in so far as reductions, limitations and prohibitions may be restricted to peacetime armaments, or those referring to wartime armaments may differ from those referring to peacetime armaments. In this respect, as far as the personal element
is concerned, it is necessary to distinguish between the forces in actual service in peacetime—that is, the permanently organized armed forces—and the forces prepared for wartime—namely, the trained reserves; and, as far as the material element is concerned, to distinguish the war material and establishments actually used in peacetime from the material in reserve that is, the stock of war material and preparations of every description undertaken with a view to war. As to the trained reserves and the material in reserve, there are two opposite views. According to one, trained reserves and material in reserve are to be considered as wartime armaments and hence not to be subject to restriction and limitation. According to the other view, they are to be considered as peacetime armaments and hence to be subject to reduction and limitation. This divergence of opinion played an important role in the disarmament discussions within the League of Nations.14
In addition to the forces and material used in peacetime and prepared for wartime, those ultimate war forces must be considered which are created during hostilities by means of the general resources at the disposal of each country. These resources are not themselves armaments so-called.15 The forces of a country which can be transferred from peace to war aims are the elements which constitute the so-called war potential. In addition, there are other factors which must be taken into consideration in order to judge the war power of a nation, such as the size of the territory; the number of inhabitants; the military system—whether there is a voluntary and professional army or a conscript army based on obligatory military service; and certain imponderables such as patriotism, religious faith, internal cohesion, physical and moral courage, general and technical intelligence, tradition and strength of institutions and the like.16 There is a strong tendency to restrict disarmament efforts to permanent peace armaments whether they are dealing with effectives, materials or expenditures, since only these factors are susceptible to effective control.17
The “trained reserves” may include all persons who receive military (naval, air) or pre-military training either under or not under the control of the government and so-called para-military forces, men in the service of the merchant marine and in civil aviation. Men in arms factories may also be considered as belonging to the armed forces. 18
An important distinction is that between reducible and irreducible effectives. As "irreducible” effectives, the police force is considered to be necessary for the maintenance of internal order,19 but the police force may be included in the total of effectives if it has one or more of the following characteristics : “(a) Arms other than individual
(machine-pistols, Lewis guns, machine-guns and weapons of accompaniment, etc.); (b) Training of a military nature, other than close-order drill, physical training or technical training in the use of individual arms; (c) Transport, signalling or engineer equipment of a suitable nature and on a sufficient scale to enable it to be employed by units in tactical operations.” Cases which might appear to be doubtful may be decided by taking into account the following conditions: “(i) Quartering in barracks; (ii) Training in groups of 100 men or more; (iii) Organization on a military basis; (iv) Previous military training; (v) The possession of the arms referred to in sub-paragraph (a) above in such number as to permit of the tactical employment of the forces possessing them as military units." 20
With respect to the stationing of armed forces, those stationed in the homeland may be distinguished from those stationed overseas and those stationed in foreign countries.
War materials consist of arms (weapons), munitions and implements of war, as well as the raw material from which they are manufactured. There are three categories of arms and munitions: arms and munitions designed exclusively for land, sea and aerial warfare; arms and munitions capable of being used both for military and for other purposes; and arms and munitions having no military value. It is usual to distinguish between conventional armaments in contradistinction to atomic armaments and other armaments adopted to mass destruction.21
At present, arms of mass destruction are in the foreground of disarmament discussions. Arms of mass destruction are weapons "capable of destroying at a single blow a total number of human lives greatly exceeding, by a ratio to be established, those which a single conventional armament could destroy, or those which render the enemy incapable of fighting by means other than the effect of metals or of explosives.” 22
." 22 In particular, disarmament discussions revolve around nuclear (atomic and hydrogen) weapons as well as the raw or source material necessary for their manufacture: uranium and thorium, whether containing or not containing other important constituents, and the nuclear fuel, whether produced for beneficial or destructive purposes. Bacterial and chemical weapons and material also occupy an important place in contemporary disarmament proposals.
In order to be effective, disarmament conventions must deal not only with the use of arms, munitions and implements of war, but also with their manufacture and trade as well as with the production of the raw material, especially the location, mining, milling and dumping of nuclear source material (uranium and thorium ores).
As war is waged on land, at sea and in the air, land, sea and air armaments may be distinguished from each other but their interdependence must not be ignored. Nevertheless, there are tendencies to restrict disarmament to one of them or to apply different principles to the three different types of armaments. As a consequence of the differentiation between defensive and aggressive wars, armaments for defensive purposes may be distinguished from armaments for aggressive purposes. This distinction is of importance in so far as the aim of disarmament is considered to be to decrease the offensive power of arms, but to leave untouched the defensive power. Thus, the problem arises as to how to establish a reliable method of ascertaining that a force is organized for aggression or for defense only and especially how to find a criterion to distinguish between weapons whose character is offensive and those whose character is defensive, so that only the former can be prohibited and eliminated or reduced and limited.25 However, it has been argued that weapons of aggression per se do not exist, and that only weapons of mass destruction, whether tactical or strategic,26 should be defined and abolished. As to atomic weapons, there is a divergence of opinion. According to one view, atomic weapons are weapons of mass destruction but not weapons of aggression; they may be used for defensive purposes. According to the other, atomic weapons are not weapons of defense but weapons of aggression, for they are intended not for use in the defense of one's own territories, but in foreign territories; they are a threat not so much to armies in the field as to civilian populations. 27
A more general aspect of the problem is the distinction between the quantity and the quality of armaments and, consequently, between quantitative and qualitative disarmament—that is, between reducing and limiting only the numerical strength of the armed forces and the quantity of war material on the one hand or reducing, limiting or even prohibiting certain categories of armaments (armed forces and war material) on the other.28
As far as the financial aspect of disarmament is concerned, it is generally recognized that there is a certain relation between the size of armaments and the armaments expenditure—that is, the sums spent on the personal and material element of armaments, the so-called national defense expenditure or military budget. Reduction and limitation of expenditure are the most tangible proof of a reduction and limitation of armaments. This problem will be discussed later.29
THE AIM OF DISARMAMENT
Total or partial disarmament. There is a fundamental conflict between the view that disarmament should include not only peacetime