700.00116/230
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to
the Secretary of State
Paris, March 12,
1925.
[Received March 21.]
No. 4941
Sir: With reference to my telegram No. 170 of
March 11, 3 p.m.,85 I
have the honor to transmit herewith a copy and translation of the reply
from the French Foreign Office, dated March 10th, with regard to the two
conventions proposed at The Hague on February 12, 1923, for the Control
of Radio in Time of War and Rules for Aerial Warfare.
I am forwarding a copy of this despatch with its enclosures to the
American Embassy at Rome and the American Legation at The Hague for
their information.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure—Translation]
The French Minister of Foreign Affairs
(Herriot) to the American
Ambassador (Herrick)
Mr. Ambassador: Your Excellency was good
enough, in a letter dated February 4, 1924, to inform my predecessor
that the Government of the United States of America proposed to
incorporate in a new Convention the rules prepared by the Commission
of Jurists which met at The Hague from December 11, 1922 to February
19, 1923. The French Government recognizes the very deep interest
which this suggestion possesses, but an examination of the rules
that have been proposed has shown that most of them reproduce
solutions which have already been adopted by France and included
either in the International Conventions already in force, such as
The Hague Convention of 1907,86 or amongst the practices of international law
sanctioned by custom.
Other proposals, furthermore, would not be without objection,
because, on many points, the innovations which they imply are not in
conformity with certain principles, such as the freedom of the seas,
or are open to criticism from other points of view.
The provisions with regard to aerial warfare which the aforementioned
Commission has more especially endeavored to regulate, are already
included to a great extent in the Convention on Aerial
[Page 106]
Navigation of October 13,
1919,87 but at times have a tendency to
deviate therefrom.
The ratification by the United States of the Air Convention of 1919,
which they have already signed, would have the advantage of putting
immediately into practice the provisions already accepted for
several years and which have received a contractual basis, while the
present suggestion of the Government of the United States would risk
delaying their application by raising fresh discussions, either as
to fundamental principles or form, which might be lengthy, in view
of the number of States which would be called upon to take part
therein.
Please accept [etc.]
