The Question As to the Legality of the Ruhr Occupation

Extract

The question as to the legality of the Ruhr occupation is partly a question of fact and partly a question of law. It is common ground that the measures taken by the French and Belgian troops in the Ruhr valley could not have been authorized by the Treaty of Versailles if the Reparation Commission had not found as a fact that there had been “ voluntary default”(manquement volontaire) on the part of Germany. The question as to whether or not such voluntary default had in fact taken place is not one of those which under Sec. 13 of Annex II to Part VIII of the treaty requires a decision to be taken by a unanimous vote, and as the decision on that point was actually taken by a majority of three to one, the discussion as to the legality of the measures taken in consequence of such decision must proceed on the footing that “voluntary default” on the part of Germany had been established to the satisfaction of the Reparation Commission. The fact that Sir John Bradbury, the British representative on the Commission, gave an adverse vote cannot, however, be left out of consideration,as it proves that at least one eminent expert who, as the representative of his country, was bound to do his best to secure the payment of reparations from Germany, was of opinion that no voluntary default on Germany's part had been proved. The doubt thus thrown on the fact on which the application of sanctions depended ought to have been an additional reason for the utmost care in the endeavor to apply only such sanctions as were clearly provided for by the Treaty of Peace. I propose to show in the following pages that if that care had been applied the occupation of the Ruhr valley would not have taken place.