By signing the Litvinov Protocol in Moscow on 9 February 1929, the Soviet Union and its western neighbours, including Romania, agreed to bring the Kellogg Briand Pact into force without waiting for ratification by other Western signatories.  The Bessararian question had made the agreement between Romania and the Soviet Union a challenge and the continuation of the dispute between the nations over Bessarabia.   I see the arbitration treaty itself as a significant step forward from one of its predecessors, and I hope that it can serve as a model for negotiations with other governments with which we do not have an arbitration agreement in place or for which existing root contracts are about to expire. I have already started negotiations with the British and Japanese governments, as well as with the Spanish, Norwegian and Italian governments, on the basis of the draft treaty I submitted to France last December, and I have informed all the requesting governments that I would be happy to conclude with them new contracts similar to those signed with France on 6 February. If a wide range of bilateral agreements of this kind between the United States and other nations of the world can come into force, I believe that a very effective mechanism for the peaceful settlement of fair disputes will have been put in place. I am so important to the treaty that has just been concluded with France that I will briefly discuss its provisions before moving on to a debate on the exchange of letters on the so-called Briand proposal with France. I am convinced that enthusiastic proponents of the theory that all issues between nations should be subject to arbitration have not understood the decisive difference between just and political issues. Take, for example, the issue of immigration, which sometimes arouses bitter feelings between nations. On what principle could a government pass on this question and what rules could be applied to ensure justice for the contested? I have the impression that we must be aware that, as long as the world is made up of separate and sovereign nations, only those issues which, by their very nature, can be dealt with by the application of recognized legal or judicial rules, can be properly submitted to arbitration.
Non-funesque or political issues, when they threaten to induce hostilities, must be adapted in another way, such as mediation. B, where selfless efforts are made to reconcile opposing points of view, without necessarily finding that one of the two parties was wrong. The world is increasingly living off the need to avoid war, and I think it is significant that the Sixth International Conference of American States, which recently completed its work in Havana, has adopted two anti-war resolutions, one of which contains the unqualified statement that “the American republics want to express that they condemn war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations. What is interesting is the language of Mr. Briand`s original proposal for me. The other resolution contains the assertion that “war of aggression is an international crime against the human race” and the statement that “any aggression is considered illegal and is declared prohibited as such.” This is the previous resolution which I consider to be of greatest interest at this stage, because of the 21 States represented at the Havana conference, 17, while the members of the League of Nations, were not prevented by such accession from participating in an unqualified declaration against the war. This general resolution is also important because it supports the principle of mandatory conciliation for fair litigants and provides for the convening of a conference in Washington within one year to develop appropriate arbitration and conciliation agreements.