Respuesta :
Kellogg–Briand PactGeneral Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National PolicySigned27 August 1928LocationQuai d'Orsay, Paris, FranceEffectiveJuly 24, 1929Negotiators Frank B. Kellogg, Secretary of State Aristide Briand, Minister of Foreign AffairsOriginal
signatories Australia Belgium Canada Czechoslovakia France Germany India Irish Free State Italy Japan New Zealand Poland Union of South Africa United Kingdom United StatesSignatories[show]31 signatories by effective date[show]9 countries once in force Kellogg-Briand Treaty at Wikisource
signatories Australia Belgium Canada Czechoslovakia France Germany India Irish Free State Italy Japan New Zealand Poland Union of South Africa United Kingdom United StatesSignatories[show]31 signatories by effective date[show]9 countries once in force Kellogg-Briand Treaty at Wikisource
The Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy[1]) is a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them".[2] Parties failing to abide by this promise "should be denied of the benefits furnished by [the] treaty". It was signed by Germany, France, and the United States on 27 August 1928, and by most other nations soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact renounces the use of war and calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Eleven years later after the Paris signing, World War II had begun. Similar provisions were incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties and it became a stepping-stone to a more activist American policy.[3] It is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand. The pact was concluded outside the League of Nations, and remains in effect.[4]
As a practical matter, the Kellogg–Briand Pact did not live up to all of its aims, but has arguably had some success. It did not end war or stop the rise of militarism, and was unable to keep the international peace in succeeding years.[5] The Pact has been ridiculed for its moralism and legalism and lack of influence on foreign policy. Moreover, it erased the legal distinction between war and peace because the signatories began to wage wars without declaring them.[6]
The pact's central provisions renouncing the use of war, and promoting peaceful settlement of disputes and the use of collective force to prevent aggression, were incorporated into the United Nations Charter and other treaties. Although civil wars continued, wars between established states have been rare since 1945, with a few exceptions in the Middle East.[3] One legal consequence is that it is unlawful to annex territory by force, although other forms of annexation have not been prevented. More broadly, some authors claim there is now a strong presumption against the legality of using, or threatening, military force against another country.[7] The pact also served as the legal basis for the concept of a crime against peace, for which the Nuremberg Tribunal and Tokyo Tribunal tried and executed the top leaders responsible for starting World War II.[8]
Many historians and political scientists see the pact as mostly irrelevant and ineffect.
hope it helps
<3
