§ 12. Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the British delegation at the eighth Assembly of the League 1002 of Nations voted for the Polish resolution ordering that war of aggression is an international crime, that all wars of aggression are and shall always be prohibited, and that States members of the League are under an obligation to conform to these principles, and seeing that this resolution, unanimously passed by roll call of the Assembly, has now the binding force of an understanding of international law, was any definition of the term war of aggression reached by the Assembly before passing this resolution; and, if not, can he indicate the nature of the commitment undertaken on behalf of Great Britain by His Majesty's Government?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo definition of the term "war of aggression" was made by the Assembly. It was pointed out by several speakers that by subscribing to the Polish resolution, no fresh engagement was undertaken, since the undertaking not to wage wars of aggression is implicit in, and, indeed, is the very essence of the Covenant; but it was held that there was value in this solemn re-affirmation of an existing obligation.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs it not a fact that the words "of aggression" were only put in at the instance of His Majesty's Government, and that in the last Debate the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) said that no definition of these words existed?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINYes, Sir; and I think that the Assembly wisely refrained from attempting a definition. It is easier to recognise wars of aggression than to define them. Any attempt to define precisely in advance the tests by which the Council should judge or anyone should judge what a war of aggression is, would only be to frame a trap for what was quite possibly the innocent party.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYDo not these words weaken the resolution?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThese words are a solemn re-affirmation of the Covenant as it stands. They are not an amendment.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIf we cannot define aggression, what is the use of putting in the words?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThat is a matter for argument. I think it is far wiser not to attempt to define a war of aggression, but to leave the competent authority to decide who is the aggressor when the facts are before them.