CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

JAN ONDŘEJ – MAGDA UXOVÁ CYIL 11 (2020) issues were: a) establishment of a system of collective security , b) limitation of the strength of the armed forces c) limitation of war material , d) limitation of naval armaments, e) limitation of air armaments, f ) prohibition of chemical and bacteriological warfare, g) disarmament control, i.e. issues of supervision and guarantees of implementation of agreed commitments, h) reduction of war budgets, i) moral disarmament, j) weapons production and trade. Interesting was the notion of moral disarmament , 35 which meant replacing war thinking by the belief in the need for peace between nations. Under this item, the Conference 36 discussed issues related to education, cooperation between the intellectuals, the press, radio, theatre, and cinema. The Commission on Moral Disarmament has adopted a text stating that states should commit themselves to providing education in this area. From an overview of the topics addressed by the Conference on Disarmament , it is clear that in addition to the issues of arms control, there were also more general security issues. Issues of banning the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons were also included, i.e. issues belonging more to the law of war , but related to arms restrictions. The issue of disarmament itself was considered comprehensively. However, it was not disarmament in the true sense of the word. It was the collective name by which A. Hobza 37 referred all activities aimed at reducing armaments . These included arms reductions , which meant an agreement not to increase armaments and arms reductions, i.e. reductions in existing armaments, as well as control of trade in war material, control of private production of war material, exchange of information on armaments, and control of implementation of the disarmament regulations. Fulfilling most of the goals of the Disarmament Conference could have led to the strengthening of the then international security. However, the conference failed. One of the reasons was the approach of Germany, which called for equality in arms , which meant repealing the exceptional rules contained in the Treaty of Versailles. Germany expressed the disagreement by not attending the beginning of the second part of the Conference. The starting point was finally found in the agreement concluded by the five great powers (USA, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany) of 1932, in which Germany was granted fundamental equality, but only within a regime that would provide security for all nations. Germany returned to the disarmament conference on that basis. Disagreements between the great powers culminated in 1933, so much so that the Disarmament Conference could not successfully continue its work. The main obstacle 38 was the request of Germany for equality in arms, with immediate and complete effect, as opposed to after the end of the probation period, as originally proposed. The reason was also the reluctance of the USA to make formal commitments on sanctions for violations of the Disarmament Convention . On 30 June 1933, the conference was postponed to 16 October 1933. The failure of the Disarmament Conference culminated in the decision of Germany on 14 October 1933 to withdraw from the League of Nations, Germany also left the International 35 HOBZA, A. Úvod do mezinárodního práva mírového, Část II . [ Introduction to International Law of Peace. Part II. ] Praha: 1935, p. 448. 36 GOLDBLAT, J. Arms Control . London: Prio SIPRI, Sage Publications, 2002, p. 27. 37 HOBZA, A. Úvod do mezinárodního práva mírového. Část I . [ Introduction to International Law of Peace. Part I. ] Praha: 1933, p. 142. 38 Ibid., p. 147.

98