CC BY
106
УДК 341.213.6(41.4) : 94(420) «1918/»
ББК 67 : 63.3(0)6
E. Makarova
TRANSFORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS: BRITISH DOMINIONS IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY*
Статья посвящена проблеме трансформации государственно-правового статуса доминионов в составе Британского Содружества Наций после Первой мировой войны. Изменения в отношениях между доминионами и метрополией прослежены по основным документам, принятым в Лондоне в межвоенный период. Рассмотрена система государственных институтов, которые занимались проблемами взаимодействия между всеми составными частями Британского Содружества Наций.
Изменения государственно-правового статуса доминионов нашли отражение во внешнеполитической сфере, что проявилось в возможности доминионов формулировать собственную внешнюю политику, отличную от метрополии.
Ключевые слова:
Британское Содружество Наций, доминион, метрополия, государственно-правовой статус
In the first half of the 20th century, great changes occurred in the relations between Great Britain and its dominions. The latter made a significant step forward in their economic and political development. The growth of the capital
* Research for this article was supported in whole by Central European University ("CEU") Special and Extension Programs. The opinions expressed herein are the author's own and do not necessarily express the views of CEU.
Общество
Terra Humana
concentration and centralization was the basis for the strengthening of the centrifugal trends in the British Empire.
The change also happened in the political life of the Empire. It is noteworthy that the transformation of the political and legal status of the Empire started as early as at the end of the 19th century. The trend toward self-governing grew increasingly strong among the colonies. It was also accompanied by the growth of national self-consciousness. The incorporation of colonies into larger territorial units demanded more independence in their internal affairs. Thus in 1867, Canada, New Scotland and New Brunswick provinces were consolidated into the Canadian dominion (nominally, Canada was considered to be a confederation). Six of the Australian colonies created the Commonwealth of Australia in 1900 and four of the South African ones formed the South African Union1.
Obtaining the status of the British dominion did not mean becoming independent at once and beginning to conduct its own internal and external affairs differently from those of the metropolis. Such rights were not stated. In 1914, Great Britain declared a war on behalf of the whole Empire without any consultations with its colonies. Although the dominions entered the war automatically, they approved themselves effectively. During the war, the dominions began sharing the expenses of the Empire’s defense budget. Thus Canada started building its own navy2. The Imperial Military Cabinet consisting of both England’s representatives and the dominion’s Prime Ministers was set up. The Prime Ministers of the dominions gained the right to communicate directly with the metropolitan one and not through the colonial Ministry as it was done previously. The Imperial Conference Resolution of the year 19173 had recognized that the dominions were given the right to participate in the Imperial external affairs and decisionmaking, and the fact that such collaboration would be constructed on the basis of «permanent consultations and joint endeavors»4. Hence, the question of the independent international intercourse of the dominions arose.
Later the dominions took part in the Paris Peace Conference where they maintained their own delegations within the Imperial one and signed on their behalf The Treaty of Versailles. This foreign policy action initiated the process of transformation in the constitutional status of the dominions within the framework of the British Commonwealth. In 1920, the dominions gained an individual membership in the League of Nations5.
Changes in the relationship of the metropolis with its dominions could be observed through the documents passed during the interwar period in London. Under Lord Balfour’s supervision, the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee formulated the core principles of correlation into British Commonwealth of Nations that were agreed to at the Imperial Conference in 1926. The document, known as The Balfour Declaration, officially recognized the dominions’ complete independence in their external affairs. Balfour’s well known formula defined the dominions as the «autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations»6.
Therefore, The Balfour Declaration gave the British dominions the right to form and execute their own internal and external policies without any metropolitan supervision. In practice, it was expressed in terms of the dominion Parliaments’ right to decide whether to enter the war in which Great Britain was involved. The equality of all members of the Commonwealth with the metropolis in constitutional sense was stated as well. The Governor-generals were considered to be the Crown’s personal representatives, not those of the Parliament, and since then their relationships had to be constructed on the same principles as those between the Queen and the English Parliament. Since then the official intercourse between the British Government and the Dominion Governments was conducted not through the Governor-general Embassy, but directly on the «government to government» basis. The candidate to the Governor-general office could be appointed only with the Dominion Government’s consent given. Concerning the judicial branch of power, the Resolution stated that the Secret Council’s Judicial Committee then could examine the appeals of the cases initially heard by the dominion’s courts only with the approval of that part of Empire. Thus, the Dominion Parliaments received the right to decide whether to take actions on concrete appeal or not.
The decisions of the Imperial Conference had resulted in the revision of the constitutional grounds of the whole Empire through peaceful transformation of the inter-imperial relations. Since the old Empire dissolved, the Prime Minister of the SAU, General Herzog had said after the Conference, «All that remained was a free alliance of England and the six Dominions, co-operating as friends and, so to speak, forming their own League of Nations.»7
Another document that fixed the dominions’ achievements in gaining sovereignty was the 1931 act of the British Parliament, which provided no metropolitan statute to be applied in the dominion without the formal consent of the latter. The British Parliament, in its turn, had lost the right to revoke or change any laws passed in the dominions. This document, known as the Westminster Statute, had finally eliminated the judicial inferiority of the dominions. It was specifically mentioned that the term «colony» would never be used again. The term «dominion», fixed in the 1889 Act, had changed its political context. If earlier it was associated with «colony», now it was related to the statehoods such as Canada, South African Union, Irish Independent State and Newfoundland that had earned independence in their internal and external affairs. Furthermore, this document stated that the Order of Succession to the British Throne would henceforth be regulated by the Commonwealth members8.
During the interwar period, there occurred the transformation of those institutes that had dealt with the problems of interaction between all parts of the British Commonwealth. In 1925, in order to coordinate policies of both the dominions and the metropolis, the Dominions Office was established. This task was in charge of the Colonial Office before. In the process of communications between the metropolis and the dominions, the institute of the High Commissioner - the representatives of the dominions in the capital of the British Empire and those of the metropolis in the dominions - played a significant role. They transferred the information to the member states’ governments concerning the external and internal policy steps of the metropolis and the other dominions.
Общество
Terra Humana
All these changes in relations between England and the dominions resulted in creation of new features, which confirmed the transformation of the mentioned relations into the intergovernmental ones.
But the transition of the constitutional status demanded international recognition of the dominions’ sovereignty as well. «If our status is not recognized by other states, we do not merely exist as a nation!» Prime Minister General Herzog stated before the SAU Parliament in 19269. That is why the establishment of their own Ministries of Foreign Affairs became one of the most important steps made by the dominions towards recognition (in SAU it was established in 1927).
During the next 12 years and until the beginning of the Second World War, these MFA’s contributed a lot in the sphere of international relations. For instance, the network of the dominions’ diplomatic and trade representative offices was set up in Europe, Asia and America. Particularly, the Union of South Africa opened its embassies in Hague, Rome and Geneva; in 1935, its representative offices appeared in Lisbon, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Stockholm and different cities of Africa and Asia.
Hence by the mid-1930’s, the dominions became sovereign and independent states which could conduct their own internal and external affairs. The regional interests were asserted much more actively by the dominions than Imperial ones. However, a number of factors still tied the dominions with the metropolis, the chief one concerning the economic links within the Commonwealths. The system of economic preferences, large Great Britain’s capital investments into dominions’ economies and the fact that the gold and diamonds markets remained in London, played a huge role in keeping the Imperial ties. Dominions’ defense forces needed the Royal Navy to protect them. For SAU, it was vital to save the colonial possessions on the African continent with the help of the metropolis. The metropolis, in its turn, was interested in the colonial resource exploitation and strong outposts available in various regions of the world due to escalation of the international tension in the second half of 1930’s.
The most striking changes of the constitutional status happened in the sphere of foreign policy. In mid 1930’s, the situation in Europe changed dramatically, which generated tension. Hitler launched the armament machine with all its might. In 1935, Germany introduced compulsory universal military service; in March 1936, Wehrmacht units occupied demilitarized Rhine area and approached the French border, where opposite The Maginot Line, the Siegfried line was built. At the same time, the airfields from which Going’s Luftwaffe forces could strike London were placed in Rheinland.
For this reason, the British Army headquarters began to review their strategic priorities. The Defense Minister, Thomas Inskip, issued a memorandum on the «Defense Strategic Principles» conveying apprehension that there weren’t any prospects of a sudden knockout blow, and suggesting to rely on the long war with mobilization of all Britain’s and dominions’ resources in order to succeed.
However, since the last Imperial conference in 1930, a lot has changed in the relations within the British Commonwealth. There was no certainty among the British establishment that being under constitutional transition, the dominions would follow Great Britain in any foreign policy actions.
The best way to find out the moods and intentions of the dominions’ ruling circles relating to the issue of war was to establish another Imperial conference. Such conferences were the most efficient form of interaction between the Commonwealth members to form a common policy. With its closed sessions, this manner of contacts gave opportunities for wide inter-imperial discussion on the international situation, problems with Commonwealth defense, all other economic and political aspects. On the level of personal contacts, it was the best way to achieve the concordant imperial policy.
New Imperial conference was called in May 1937. Decisions of the conference clearly demonstrated the dominions’ desire to protect their own interests and their unwillingness to be involved in the new World War, which invoked strong isolating sentiments.
The Canadian position was mostly stipulated by its geographic location, its special relations with the USA and the policy of neutrality. In Mackenzie King’s words, there is no worse policy in the dominion than that, involving the country into possible war10.
According to the Australian delegation, Germany should achieve its goal and unite all German speaking population into one reich. Great Britain in its turn should stop resisting the Anschluss of Austria, if Hitler could attain it without bloodshed11.
New Zealand was an inconvenient exception for London’s politics, which had staked on the appeasement of aggressor rather than on collective security. However, since the security of this dominion depended on the metropolis, there weren’t any doubts that New Zealand would follow Great Britain in any cases12.
SAU was ruled by bourgeois Afrikaner, which had old relations with Germany. This pro-German orientation of the General Herzog’s cabinet was known to Great Britain. Private negotiations were carried on with both London and German representatives. South-African politics frequently showed Berlin their unwillingness to support Britain in a possible English-German war13.
Being the advocate of the policy of active pacification, General Herzog blamed the Treaty of Versailles for dictatorial regimes establishment in Germany and Italy, and stated that the peace in Europe could be guaranteed by the British readiness to act friendly towards Germany.
Serious discussion on issuing a communique arose. Most clauses were adopted with the stipulations of the Canadian and South-African Prime Ministers. They disagreed on the clause that the dominions based their policy upon the League of Nations principles, as it covered the collective security, in which they did not believe any more. Solution was found in the note recognizing the right of the Dominion’s Parliaments to define their foreign policy independently. Requirements on the unification of nations should be found in the cooperation, joint investigation and reconciliation method. Following these views, the nations were unanimous, and asserted that their own arms and forces would never be used for the purpose of aggression in contravention to the League of Nations’ principles. Simultaneously, it was noted that the Commonwealth would not risk being involved in any armed conflict supporting the authority of the League of Nations14.
One of the crucial issues was related to the defense and cooperation between the dominions and the metropolis. The Committee of Imperial Defense failed to
Общество
Terra Humana
elaborate a common imperial strategy in this sphere because the dominion representatives were allowed to attend at their sole discretion the Committee meetings dedicated to the defense questions.
The final communique didn’t contain any specific obligations or common defense schemes. SAU objected to common imperial agreement on defense. Despite the fact that the dominion needed royal navy, aviation and arm equipment, its leaders resisted any schemes of defense centralization, attempts to standardize Empire’s arm equipment and munitions. The conference evidenced that the Parliaments of the British Commonwealth could freely choose and implement their own defense policy. The security of each of these states could be enhanced through the exchange of information about navy, land and air forces, as well as through measures of cooperation in communications defense, etc15.
While both the metropolis and the dominions did not assume any definite obligations, the desire for continuation of the discussions and cooperation with each other in all vital issues were traced in all decisions throughout the conference. Although their own interests and needs undeniably prioritized, the dominions’ unwillingness to be drawn into World War II caused strong isolating sentiments. On the other hand, in the face of real threat of war, the necessity of common actions was also recognized. Dominions’ reaction to the British declaration of war in 1939 showed their freedom of action. The Australian and New Zealand’s Parliaments supported Great Britain and simultaneously declared war on the Axis nations on September 3, 1939. Canada entered the war on its own six days after Great Britain had done. SAU was split on the issue of war, and its Parliament voted for the country’s entry into war by a small majority. The Irish Free Sate remained neutral.
1 http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/krugosvet/article/krugosvet/5/1006516.htm
2 Захарова О.В. Имперская стратегия Британского парламента в Канаде: 1921-1931 гг. -Владимир, 2006 /www.vgpu.vladimir.ru/Pages/Doc/Zaharova.pdf
3 In 1887 the British Government invited all self-governing colonies to send their representatives to the Colonial Conference in London. Next decades such meetings were held on a periodical basis till 1907, when they were renamed into «Imperial Conferences». It was decided that all subsequent meetings should be held in the presence of the dominion and British Prime Ministers.
4 Dawson R.M. The Development of Dominion Status 1900-1936.- London, 1937. - P.105
5 Pienaar S. South Africa and International Relations Between Two World Wars. The League of Nation Dimension.- Johannesburg, 1987. - P.21
6 Judd D. Balfour and the British Empire. A Study in Imperial Evolution, 1874-1932. - London-New-York, 1968. - P.58
7 Pienaar S. South Africa...- P.23
8 Wheare K.C. The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status.- Oxford, 1938
9 Pienaar S. South Africa. - P.23
10 Hillmer N. The Pursuit of Peace: Mackenzie King and the Imperial Conference. - Toronto, 1977. - P.162
11 Ovendale R. Appeasement and the English Speaking World. - Cardiff, 1975. - P. 42
12 Ibid.
13 Watt D.C. South African Attempts to Mediate Between Britain and Germany, 1935-1938. -London, 1967. - P.412
14 Tamchina R. In Search of Common Cause: The Imperial Conference of 1937 // Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. - 1972. - Vol. I. - № 1. - P.84
15 Ovendale R. Appeasement and the English Speaking World. - P. 52
