"الملف ٣/١٣ الاتجار بالأسلحة" [و‎‎١‎٥‎٧] (٦٠٨/٣١٣)

with the friction d,n<i expense involved.
In regard to M&skat f I am, in the first place , to o>-
-servo that if it can be held that the Sxi. tan is free to
prohibit the import of arms into his country. Sir E* G-rey
would advocate the course of introducing se' in original
inducing?) H4s Highness to take action to thio end, and
leaving it to the Procnh Government to summon him or bis
Majesty *3 Government to arbitration, since the practical
effect on the armr traffic would be greater fend mo ^ immed—
-late ; and if the case itself
rnty’s Government strong enough
taken |n accordance with their
also be justified , unless and
-tion pronounced against them.
In the present instance, ho%ever, an examination of the
arguments advanced in your letter last referred to does
not convince Sir E. Grey that they would hold good in an
international court. Taking these arguments in the order
in which they arc placed nn your letter. Sir E. Grey is of
opinion with regard tot —
i. That to hold that the arms traffic did not exist in
1844 and cannot therefore reasonably x- hold to bo covered
by the treaty of that year would if maintained , result
in cutting out of the benefits and a plications of the
treaty alb . .be , h vK : n exist in 1844 , and commerce
in anything that has been invented or discovered since
that time.
is considered by His M*jeefr~
for arbitration, action
view of the case would
until the iourt tff arbitra-
2. Sir E. Grey believes that the view which on the whole
find-, favour with international jurists at the re ent
day is that a Cci . ial treaty whish contains no provision-
tot termination or / mlnmEbm by one
without the consent of the other. Sir E. Grey is noe
prepared to maintain that this is without doubt a correct
interpretatioryof international .lav/ , but it is clear that
if it is the general view th<. probablitics are that it
would be Xtphold by a c^urt of arbitration