Zu der Resolution 1890 (2009) des Sicherheitsrats der Vereinten Nationen, der NATO und dem Roten Kreuz; Teil III

 

 

[Beachte auch die Fußnoten (1, 2, 3, …) am Ende des Textes.]

 

Ein weiterer Beleg für die Rechtswidrigkeit von organisiert strukturierten Verteidigungsbündnissen zu Friedenszeiten stellt dar das Agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan, signed at London, July 13, 1911, das lautet wie folgt:

Preamble.

The Government of Great Britain and the Government of Japan,

having in view the important changes which have taken place in the situation since the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of the 12th August, 1905, and believing that a revision of that Agreement responding to such changes would contribute to general stability and repose, having agreed upon the following stipulations to replace the Agreement above mentioned, such stipulations having the same object as the said Agreement, namely:

(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India (1).

(b) The preservation of the common interests of all Powers in China by insuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China.

(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the High Contracting Parties in the Eastern Asia and of India, and the defense (2) of their special interests in the said regions;

Article I.

It is agreed that whenever, in the opinion of either Great Britain or Japan, any of the rights and interests referred to in the preamble of this Agreement, are in jeopardy, the two Governments will communicate with one another fully and frankly, and will consider in common the measures which should be taken to safeguard those menaced rights or interests.

Article II.

If by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action, wherever [sic!] arising, on the part of any Power or Powers, either High Contracting Party should be involved in war in defense of its territorial rights or special interests mentioned in the preamble of this Agreement, the other High Contracting Party will at once come to the assistance of its ally, and will conduct the war in common, and make peace in mutual agreement with it.

Article III.

The High Contracting Parties agree that neither of them will, without consulting the other, enter into separate (3) arrangements with another Power to the prejudice of the objects described in the preamble of this Agreement.

Article IV. (4)

Should either High Contracting Party conclude a treaty of general arbitration with a third Power, it is agreed that nothing in this Agreement shall entail upon such Contracting Party an obligation to go to war with the Power with whom such treaty of arbitration is in force.

Article V.

The conditions under which armed assistance shall be afforded by either Power to the other in the circumstances mentioned in the present Agreement, and the means by which such assistance is to be made available, will be arranged by the Naval and Military authorities of the High Contracting Parties, who will from time to time consult one another fully and freely upon all questions of mutual interest. (5)

Article VI.

The present Agreement shall come into effect immediately after the date of its signature, and remain in force for ten years from that date.

In case neither of the High Contracting Parties should have notified twelve months before the expiration of the said ten years the intention of terminating it, it shall remain binding until the expiration of one year from the day on which either of the High contracting Parties shall have denounced it. But if, when the date fixed for its expiration arrives, either ally is actually engaged in war, the alliance shall, ipso facto, continue until peace is concluded.

In faith whereof the Undersigned, duly authorized by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement, and have affixed thereto their Seals.

Done in duplicate at London, the 13th day of July, 1911.

E. Grey,
His Brittanic Majesty’s Principal
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Takaaki Kato,
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of His
Majesty the Emperor of Japan at the Court of St. James.”

Angesichts der offensichtlichen Involvierung der Streitkräfte der USA in diese Allianz wäre nun im Hinblick auf die bekannten Ereignisse im Rahmen des Zweiten Weltkrieges zwischen den USA und Japan freilich interessant zu wissen, ob und wann diese Übereinkunft gekündigt worden ist. Ich konnte nichts dazu finden.

Theoretisch wäre selbstverständlich auch denkbar (gewesen), dass ein Krieg um fernöstliche Territorien etwa auf europäischem Boden ausgetragen würde (6), sodass diese Allianz und die NATO eine Querverbindung zu einander aufweisen.

Um noch einiges interessanter ist die folgende Übereinkunft, die ich hier nach derselben oben zitierten Quelle in einer aus dem Französischen erfolgten englischen Übersetzung wiedergebe: Agreement between France and Japan. [Agreement in regard to the continent of Asia, June 10, 1907 (7).]

The Government of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan and the Government of the French Republic, animated by the desire to strengthen the relations of amity existing between them, and to remove from those relations all cause of misunderstanding for the future, have decided to conclude the following Agreement:

‘The Governments of Japan and France, being agreed to respect the independence and integrity of China, as well as the principle of equal treatment in that country for the commerce and subjects or citizens (i. e., ressortissants) of all nations, and having a special interest in having order and a pacific state of things guaranteed especially in the regions of the Chinese Empire adjacent to the territories where they have the rights of sovereignty, protection or occupation, engage to support each other for assuring the peace and security in those regions (8), with a view to maintaining the respective situation and the territorial rights of the two Contracting Parties in the Continent of Asia.”

In witness whereof, the Undersigned: His Excellency Monsieur Kurino, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan to the President of the French Republic, and His Excellency Monsieur Stephen Pichon, Senator, Minister for Foreign Affairs, authorized by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement and have affixed thereto their seals.

Done at Paris, the 10th of June 1907.

[L. s.] S. Kurino.

[L. s.] S. Piohon.

Simultaneously with the conclusion of this agreement was signed a declaration of which the following is the translation:

DECLARATION REGARDING MUTUAL MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT AS BETWEEN JAPAN AND FRENCH INDO-CHINA, JUNE 10, 1907.

The two Governments of Japan and France, while reserving the negotiations for the conclusion of a Convention of Commerce in regard to the relations between Japan and French Indo-China, agree as follows:

The treatment of the most favoured nation shall be accorded to the officers and subjects of Japan in French Indo-China in all that concerns their persons and the protection of their property; and the same treatment shall be applied to the subjects and protégés of French Indo-China in the Empire of Japan until the expiration of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation signed between Japan and France on the 4th of August 1896 (9).

Paris, the 10th of June, 1907.

[L. S.] S. Kurino.

[L. S.] S. Pichon.” (10)

 

Hier nahm einen Anfang, was in Artikel 51 der UN-Charta und deren Prinzip der friedlichen Streitbeilegung seine Folge fand.

Wer hier etwa an Eniwetok und die tragende Rolle Syriens bei der „Konstituierung“ des Trusteeship Council der Vereinten Nationen denkt, liegt wohl nicht allzu weit entfernt.

Nichts, was allein stünde; nichts, was so wäre, wie es scheint. – Wer also wird im Match gewinnen, das nächst bevorsteht?


(1) Bemerkenswert ist, dass die (zum Teil freilich erst durch den Ersten Weltkrieg wieder ins Interesse gerückten) Inselgruppen des Westpazifik hier nicht genannt sind.

(2) Man beachte die amerikanische Schreibweise und, dass zwar hier und sonst wo im operativen Text, nicht aber im Artikel I (siehe sogleich) die Hohen Vertrag schließenden Parteien nicht namentlich genannt sind!

(3) Das heißt, dass der Beitritt zu diesem Abkommen mit Dritten sehr wohl verhandelt werden durfte.

(4) Welch löbliche Animation zur friedlichen Streitbeilegung!

(5) Also keinerlei ständige Einrichtung.

(6) Man denke etwa an Hong Kong, das erst 1999 von Großbritannien an China zurückgegeben wurde.

(7) Diese Vereinbarung wurde somit vor jener geschlossen, die ich im Teil II dieser Abhandlung als unmittelbaren Vorläufer der NATO dargestellt habe.

(8) Auch wenn dies hier weniger deutlich gesagt wird: Auch hier ist ein Kriegsschauplatz etwa in Europa und die sich daran knüpfende Beistandspflicht denkbar.

(9) Unter http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k95886s# ist zu finden der Text dieses Vertrags nämlich bei Reinach, Recueil des traités conclus par la France en Extrême-Orient, Tome I, 1684-1902, (Paris 1902), S. 349.

(10) Siehe den französischen Originaltext dieser Übereinkunft samt Erklärung bei Reinach, Recueil des traités conclus par la France en Extrême-Orient, Tome II, 1901-1907, (Paris 1907), S. 135; bzw. unter: http://www.archive.org/details/recueildestrait00reingoog.

Kommentar verfassen

%d Bloggern gefällt das: