Armament > Conference for the control of the international trade in arms, munitions and implements of war

— 55 —
traffic The Convention of St. Germain was an agreement made between a number of manufac-
tnrinff States in order that they might avoid damaging their mutual interests. It was not a
Covenant for’the control of the arms traffic as understood by the Workers Group.
29. Article 2.
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to abstain and to prohibit all persons or
groups of persons, whether individuals or firms, which manufacture or trade in arms in
their respective territories from engaging in the sale of arms or munitions of war to any
persons or groups of persons, whether individuals or firms, other than Governments
purchasing through the agency of regularly accredited buyers. The powers of such
agents must be recognised as being in good and due form by the Government of the
High Contracting Party in which the vendor has his domicile. The said agents must give
details of purchases which they are authorised to effect and must certify that the goods
are bought on behalf of the Government in question.
“As regards purchases of sporting arms and ammunition, the buyer must bo
provided with an import licence issued by the Government of the country in which
he resides specifying in detail the goods which he is authorised to import.”
Mai or Hills said that this article forbade the sale of arms except to Governments. Viscount
Cecil however, had already shown that there might be cases when the sale of arms to persons m
rebeliion was legitimate and justifiable. Was M. Jouhaux prepared to say that all rebellions were
unjustified and that persons in rebellion should in all cases be prevented from obtaining arms .
The Commission should consider this question carefully. All countries had at some time passed
through revolutions. It was true that no country should be able to foster brigandage or disorder
in another country, but there were cases in which civilised opinion would be m favour ot rebellion.
M Touhaux said he recognised that revolt against oppression was the most sacred of human
rights The scheme which he had presented must, however, recognise existing facts. Hie Govern¬
ments were associated in the League of Nations and must remain responsible for the control
of the traffic in arms. Further, there would always be certain Governments which refused to
recognise the belligerents in question, who would thus be deprived of weapons.
Viscount Cecil did not think that M. Jouhaux had yet dealt with the question at issue. Ihe
Convention of M. Jouhaux contemplated the sale of arms in time of peace and also in time of war.
No arms were to be sold to anyone except to a Government in any circumstances.
Under such a convention, no group of persons which was unable to manufacture arms would
be able to obtain them. Was it possible to prohibit a country which had recognised certain persons
in rebellion as recognised belligerents to sell arms to those belligerents ? Such a provision might
outrage popular sentiment and lead to a breakdown of the Convention. A State should be able
to treat recognised belligerents as a Government in this respect. He was not sure how far tne
article went. It apparently prohibited the sale of arms except to Governments, even m the interior
of a country. This was an impracticable suggestion.
The Chairman said that Article 2 was perhaps the most important of all. It definitely estab’
lished a system which differed from that contained in the Convention of St. Germain. Was it
advisable to accord a privileged position to countries which did not adhere to the Convention ?
Countries which were not bound by the Convention could sell arms to any persons or groups
and would thus be in a privileged position as compared with countries that adhered. He was not
opposed to the further study of the question, but he reserved his opinion on the present article.
M. Dupriez said he would like to make a reservation in regard to arms of defence. These
arms should be regarded as arms for individual defence and therefore not as arms of war. It was
impossible to justify the provision whereby the sale of pistols and revolvers was prohibited in the
interior of a country. The control of this traffic was a matter of internal police.
He also pointed out that absolute prohibition of the international sale of these weapons
might act as a protective measure, which would have the effect of encouraging their domestic
manufacture.
M. Jouhaux pointed out that, if arms were necessary for defence, it was only because there
were arms in the possession of criminals. He was prepared to accept any amendments, especially
in the interests of individual liberty. He would observe, in reply to Viscount Cecil, that there
would have been less civil war in history if the principle of Government responsibility had been
sooner established. It was necessary to choose between two evils, and his formula was necessarily
imperfect.
M. Lohner said that in Switzerland there were many rifle clubs the members of which
possessed their own weapons. The schemes presented by Admiral de Magaz and M. Jouhaux
would suppress free trade within the country in such weapons in favour of a State monopoly.
He begged to draw attention to this inevitable consequence.
30. Article 3.
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to subject the export of arms and
munitions of every description, whether bought, sold or Manufactured by the State. or
by private enterprise, to a system of licences which shall conform to the following
conditions: