Views From My Space

Astronaut Tracy Caldwell, circling planet Earth every 90 minutes in the "International Space Station," will be able to hug astronauts Naoko Yamazaki, Stephanie Wilson and Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger as they enter the confined space ship tomorrow morning adding to the feminine total of 54 of the 517 spacefarers since Yuri Gagarin became the world's first space traveler in 1961. With the feminine gender aboard, the question of "law" in space becomes increasingly relevant, especially when on the 236 miles beneath them, the condition of anarchy and war mostly dominated by the male gender - an ancient "bonding" phenomenon - still persists on home base.

Are these humans of the female gender sufficiently aware of the legal codes dominating that minute space when whizzing by umpteen national frontiers at 17,180 mph about 16 times daily? And how will that influence their own political awareness once they debark on good old Mother Earth? Uncontrolled? And without national passports?

Is it not "world law" then which prevails between the space travelers, or "national law?" Are there tiny frontiers marked off on the ship which the various travelers must pass after being "controlled"? And by whom? What! No border guards on Space Shuttles?Absurd questions, right? What one word would characterize the "lawful" principle joining both the individual and collective activities of a spaceship crew? "Systemic." "All systems, go!"

Indeed, I for one am delighted that female members of our common humanity are "out there" systemically observing that beautiful celestial orb, covered 70% with water, every 1.30 hours at 17,180 mph. It's surely an enlightening and transforming experience as many astronauts have remarked upon their "return."

NASA Space Operations Chief, Bill Gerstenmaier, when apprised of the imminent women-in-space record, remarked that "Maybe that's a credit to the system, right? That I don't think of it as male or female. I just think of it as a talented group of people going to do their job in space."

Well "I'd love to have those numbers higher," replied Stephanie Wilson, who is making her third shuttle flight. "But I think that we have made a great start and have paved the way with women now being able to perform the same duties as men in space-flight."

Sisters of the world, YOU ARE ALSO WITH THEM IN SPIRIT! AND IN VISION! AND ESPECIALLY IN DE FACTO WORLD LAW! Please, for heaven's sake, take it to heart and mind. We World Citizens need your insight, support and strength.

Hallelujah!

But I would go further. First off, the name is all wrong. That incredible revolving marvel 236 miles above our collective heads is both in concept and in reality a "World Space Station." "International" indeed! So 18th century. Totally inadequate for our century of instant communication, satellites girdling the globe, permitting upwards of 3 billion to watch the Olympic Games and soccer and golf matches, with cell phones on every ear, plus 7-year-olds at schools worldwide operating individual computers on every desk, and, of course, Google, Yahoo, Bing, Nexis, Sogou, Yandex, and craigslist, etc.. .

Secondly, its empty interior, peopled by fellow humans and especially those of the feminine sex, is realistic and historic evidence of "world law" per se, that is OPERATING for those lucky persons inhabiting that off-planet space vehicle, however restricted. (See my blog on Space). Deny it not national presidents, prime ministers, border guards, spies, diplomats, CEOs of transnational corporations and lastly, those unfortunate armed largely male humans in various national uniforms ordered by frustrated and impotent national "leaders" to kill one another in the name of national "peace," the deadliest oxymoron of any century.

Finally, today is Easter for the Christian world. War President Barack Obama, caught in the web of an 18th century constitution when muskets and cannon balls were the epitome of weaponry, and sovereignty officially and artificially divided between the people and the president,* hailed "the "shared spirit of humanity" in his Easter message to the world of humans.

"On this Easter weekend," he lectured us, "let us hold fast to those aspirations we hold in common as brothers and sisters, as members of the same family - the family of man." When, in Berlin, addressing over 200,000 Berliners, as this space reported earlier, Obama id'd himself as a "citizen of the world" for which confession we, of the World Service Authority, issued to him an "honorary World Passport." No need here to expose the president's verbal contradictions when accepting the ill-suited Nobel Peace Laureate award.

Dear readers, the lesson is crystal-clear. Just as the mythical frontiers of nationalism are nakedly revealed as relative, passe and historically dysfunctional, so the immutable and eternal laws of unity are startlingly and celestially revealed by this whirling systemic space bus.

To the world's Christians, indeed He is risen!

As a "Citizen of the Universe."

====================================================

*Contrast Article 2, Section 2 with the Ninth Amendment.

Let's face it, should World War III explode, it would obviously be the end not only of the International Criminal Court but most if not all of the lower national courts. Needless to repeat (ad nauseam), it could also be the end of human civilization. Ho hum.

So this space boldly and irreverently poses this inconvenient if pertinent question: What has the ICC in particular to do, if anything, with world peace AS SUCH? If, as its Statute provides, it is designed to indict "Enemies of Humanity," and certainly those humans who have their itchy fingers poised above their respective nuclear triggers all pointing at WE, THE PEOPLE can legitimately be considered our mutual "enemies," should we not exercise our own due diligence to insist that our right to live is sacrosanct? And guess, with mind-boggling disbelief, who these noted humans are threatening our very lives? Why none other than our vaunted Heads of State and Prime Ministers, our fellow humans who we ourselves may have even elected (sometimes). How very, very odd (not to mention, insane).

Should not WE, THE PEOPLE then, who would become the victims of their ultimate folly, take full advantage of this "international criminal court," sitting there in the Hague with 15 members of our own human race no doubt wondering what in hell WE, THE PEOPLE (of the world community) are waiting for? I mean, are they even earning their salaries, which of course would cease along with them if any one of the 27,000 nuclear buttons were pushed?

I, for one, am willing to address this penultimate issue, in your name, to the ICC. Since, anyway, I am what all nations call "stateless," and have claimed, by virtue of the sovereign right of political choice*, to ally my personal sovereignty to humanity itself as of 1948, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain (if the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, accepts the indictment). Call it a "class-action suit in humanity's name." What could be more relevant to global peace-making? But what if The Honorable Moreno-Ocampo refuses to accept such a logical, and, if I may say so, legitimate suit against, say, heads of the nuclear states, what would we do then? Ah, again it's obvious.

WE WOULD CREATE OUR OWN WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!!

"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight Eisenhower
Commander-in-chief of
Allied forces in World War II

"We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community."
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
World War II President
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barak Obama will speak tonight to the American people, if rumors are correct, mainly about the dire U.S. economy with its $14+ trillion debt and $663 billion military budget (not including $9.1 billion for its nuclear program) for 2010. But while listening, contrast his words on September 23, 2009 to the assembled (and no doubt embarrassed) diplomats of the United Nations.
Here is a smattering of relevant excerpts (without comment) consistent with the quotes above of Obama's fellow presidents:
"Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General..determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad..
It is my deeply held belief that the energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it..
In the year 2009, more than any point in history, the interest of nations and people are shared..
In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future..
Because the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect, and our work must begin now..
We have sought-in word and deed-a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our responsibility for a global respect to global challenges..
..the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action..
The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation..
It cannot be a peace of large nations or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world..
No world order that elevates one nation or group over another will succeed..
Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides, coalitions of different faiths and creeds, or north and south, east and west; black, white, and brown..
..to serve the common interests of human beings..
..four pillars that are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: nonproliferation and disarmament, the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people..
..seek a world without (nuclear weapons)..
The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise..that the future does not belong to fear..
..the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings, the belief that the future belongs to those who build, not destroy..
But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service..
These are God's children. (Palestinians) And after all the political and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security..
And far too many people in far too many places live through the daily crises that challenge our common humanity..
I believe that the people of the world want this future for their children. And that is why we must champion those principles which endure that governments reflect the will of the people..
..democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I have discussed today..
Because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people rather than in the narrow interests of those in power..
The people of the world want change..
This Assembly's Charter commits each of us.."to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person..in the equal rights of men and women.." Among those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential..
..the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice..
There are basic principles that are universal..
There are certain truths which are self-evident."

My insistent question since 1948, as you might have guessed if you are a faithful reader, is simply what we, the citizens of the world, are doing to claim our planet before it disappears in a flash of nuclear flame? Roosevelt is said to have enjoined a group of irate citizens who were demanding something or other, "Make me do it!"

While Obama is a master wordsmith as other presidents have been before him, we, the citizens of the world, are the prime power of political change if we but knew it. Emerson wrote that "Politicians follow haltingly and at a distance the will of the people."

To this end, a new educational tool is presently online (but in construction: The World Government Foundation web site: www.worldcitizen.org (shortly to be changed to www.worldgovernmentfoundation.org) which will buttress the present World Government site presently at www.worldgovernment.org where you can register your innate world citizenship and learn how to exercise your sovereignty on the planetary level. The electronic tools are here and now.

Let's syntegrate! (To quote Stafford Beer).

**************************

Since in her gracious letter of November 30th [in response to mine of November 12th] wherein she mentioned "the important work of true citizenship," and urged me "to stay active by sharing (my) thoughts online, " the First Lady, Michelle Obama, addressed me informally as "Garry"; and as your fellow world citizen since 1921 (my birth year), I am honored and pleased to address you also in the same friendly manner.

Though you did not acknowledge my congratulatory letter of 11/9/08 on your election wherein we enclosed an Honorary World Passport due to your Berlin declaration of world citizenship, I am obliged to state boldly here that, given your present dilemma both as a declared World Citizen as well as Commander-in-chief of the United States army and navy, you need us as fellow world citizens and, reciprocally, we need you with respect to our common crises of war and immediate environmental disasters.

You will be attending the Copenhagen Klimaforum in two days with your fellow heads of state.

This morning I tuned into "Democracy Now" with Amy Goodman video-casting directly from Bella Hall. The news is not good Barack. Major disagreements abound despite our common and increasingly doomful problems.

Yesterday morning via Skype, I myself was interviewed by Edgar Kampers in the TV studio at the Klimaforum pavilion in Copenhagen. The subject was on global currency in relation to the problem of global warming by co2 emissions. I recalled Buckminster Fuller's notion of money as "crystallized energy" and suggestion in his book Critical Path that kilowatts should logically be the global unit of exchange between world citizens. Also his premier strategy of the "World Game" to link renewable energy resources around the world, that is, "all countries would interconnect their electric power grid systems between regions and neighbor nations, and tap the abundant renewable energy resources in each region." Fuller's key question is eminently relevant to today's global crises:

"How do we make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological damage or disadvantage to anyone?"

Then I quoted from the Klimaforum's Declaration itself that "We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world." That "everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world." That "The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live according to the principle of 'One among many.'"

Now back space to the crux of this note. Your acceptance speech at Oslo last week, in my view, underlying your rationale trying to justify "that war is sometimes necessary" as you put it, was actually a camouflaged appeal for world government! "To begin with," you said, "I believe that all nations-strong and weak alike-must adhere to standards that govern the use of force." "Governing the use of force" is the province of police force operating within the codes of social law..or government.

Then your opening words were addressed to "citizens of the world." That includes the world public as such. Taking your appeal literally and politically, world citizens by definition owe their prime allegiance to a government consistent with that status and with full recognition of fundamental human rights. In terms of human rights, article 21(3) provides that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government." "It was this insight," you said, "that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, (by 'a regime of law' as stated in the Preamble) peace is a hollow promise."

Your dilemma was further exposed by admitting that "America alone cannot secure the peace;" that "Intransigence must be met with increased pressure, and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one."

Finally, the primordial dichotomy of the national constitution which provincially requires you to attempt to justify a war stance in Afghanistan quite against all reason-not to mention human rights which per se condemns a resort to violence-is found in Article 2, Section 2 defining the powers of the president when "acting as the commander-in-chief of the army and navy in the active service of the state. " While you didn't quote the article, with evident reluctance, even embarrassment, you ponderously referred to your "duty" as "commander-in-chef" of a nation in danger, etc. In short, a blatant justification of war itself, as former presidents have claimed.

In an interview with Michael Amrine, reprinted in the New York Times Magazine, 23 June 1946, Einstein is quoted as saying that "a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels." "Often in evolutionary processes," Einstein continued, "a species must adapt to new conditions in order to survive. Today the atomic bomb has altered profoundly the nature of the world as we know it, and the human race consequently finds itself in a new habitat to which it must adapt its thinking. In the light of new knowledge, a world authority and an eventual world state are not just desirable in the name of brotherhood, they are necessary for survival."

In referring to "citizens of the world," therefore, you implicitly acknowledged Einstein's solution for the elimination of war, in short, world government-without which he insisted war would eliminate us as a species. How else, indeed, did the separate states in 1787 eliminate the condition of anarchy between them thus "making" peace for one and all within that revolutionary period?

E pluribus unum. It's more relevant than ever.

Your world friend,

Garry Davis

Tomorrow is "Veterans Day."

I am a veteran..of WWII, the "good war." B-17 bomber pilot.

Therefore I was trained to kill. Not only other soldiers, but people in cities. Described as "Targets." From 5 miles in the blue sky, with my buddies in that engine of destruction, I rained bombs down on women, children, old folks crouching in their cellars terrorized by our deadly "winning the war" game.

On one raid over Belgium, five miles from the prescribed target, a railway marshalling yard, our bombs fell suddenly from 35,000 feet "toggled" on the lead ship's, destroying, according to the navigator, a tiny Belgium village. Reason? The lead bombardier, a captain, we learned to our chagrin, had a date that night in London and refused to go over the target overshadowed black with "flak." So 12 B-17s, each carrying 3,500 lbs of fire incendiary bombs rained hell that day on a village of totally innocent peasants. On interrogation back at our UK base, when asked where the bombs dropped, no one dared mention the village's name. (To this day, it is blotted from my memory).

This was "murder" or "collateral damage" but no one was prosecuted because there was no law against it. (Familiar?)

I was also trained as an actor. Unity and joy was the "soul" and raison d'etre of that life.

Once a year five unknown white Norwegians, one male and four female, elected by the Storting, Norway's parliament, humiliate all 6 billion+ humans except for one (or maybe two) on whom they confer the "Nobel Peace Prize."

The only year that this exclusive group of super judges living in Scandinavia recognized that peace maybe was a result of law and that therefore world peace could only result from world law representing humankind was in 1904 when they awarded the coveted prize-to which was attached a handsome monetary bounty-to the Institut du Droit International, not quite a world law group but close enough for that pre-electronic, pre-computer, pre-space world. From then on no self-claimed world citizens were anointed unless you counted Fridtjof Nansen in 1922 who-authorized by the League of Nations- came close by issuing the first "world" passports to refugeed white Russians who fled the 1917 Communist revolution and found themselves in Europe in trouble without IDs.

From then on it was national presidents, national and international leaders and peaceniks, (Jane Adams, Lord Boyd Orr, Schweitzer, Mandela, Gorbachev, Aung San Sui Kyi, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, etc.), international organizations such as the Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF, spiritual leaders such as Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, Bishop Tutu, and so on.

Tagged with the title "Nobel Peace Laureate" for the rest of their lives, these men and women were guaranteed an audience among their peers wherever and whenever they deemed to speak out.

For what?

World peace?

Well, not exactly. Because to justify that supreme goal, they would have had to first acknowledge their own world citizenship, then the entire world citizenry of their fellow humans, then putting both "the one and the many", the 21^st century version of "E Pluribus Unum" into a viable political framework such as a, (OK, I'll say it!) a world government of, by, and for all the humans of the world community, peace would then prevail on our home planet.

Otherwise the Nobel Peace Prize show is only an elaborate but ominous and tragic warning of humanity's impending doom.

Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite who thereby became a multi-millionaire, salved his conscience for having invented such a destructive product which he claimed would "eliminate war" (bypassed, however, in 1945 by nuclear WMDs in magnitudes of "indiscriminate" power) by instituting a sort of global competition so long as world peace itself was not achieved. Once humanity had a peaceful world, there would obviously be no need for a "peace prize." So the Nobel "Peace Prize" is awarded only when and because the world is not at peace.

When the latest recipient is the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet with a 2009 military budget

of over $650 billion*, almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined, a total of 3376 domestic and foreign military bases, who, as the "Commander-in-chief", is in constitutional command of the U.S. Navy's 12 deployed nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), and over 6,000 nuclear weapons at his fingertips enough to wipe out humankind and every species on the planet hundreds of times over, yet with a policy of nuclear deterrence astoundingly "on the table," whatever his personal and public hopes and dreams of a peaceful world, his Nobel "peace prize" is stunningly revealed as a grotesque and humiliating travesty.

Bottom (world) line: Every human who registers as a World Citizen merits a noble (read: sovereign) "peace prize" for making peace with his/her fellow humans.

Critical to all present "Nobel Peace Laureates": In order to validate your world peace credentials, register asap with the World Government of World Citizens (See www.worldservice.org).

Personal note to "Peace Laureate" Obama: My declaration of world citizenship predates yours (Berlin, July 24, 2008) by 61 years. Isn't it time to activate yours?

Final note to Nobel Prize Committee: Don't give up your day job.

(Memorial to our brother Bud who died in the invasion of Salerno, September 9, 1943).

*The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2009 for about 21% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 24% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 31-37% of budgeted expenditures and 35-42% of estimated tax revenues. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000-2009. the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $651 billion in 2009 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation, higher than at any other point in American history.. This calculation does not take into account some other defense-related non-DOD spending, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and interest paid on debt incurred in past wars, which has increased even as a percentage of the national GDP. (Wikipedia)

The undersigned, a stateless World Citizen and WWII veteran, (88) respectfully addresses you in the name of the legally-registered* constituency of World Citizens.

By the recognized indiscriminate destructive nature of your current weaponry, you are pointing your nuclear WMD at us in the Global Commons thereby threatening our lives as well as future generations of humans.

Moreover, the launching of this weaponry in our world community risks to annihilate not only our species but other species co-inhabiting the planet.

In the name of justice, world law and the teachings of all of humanity's wisdom sages throughout history, we, of the living, cannot permit this suicidal madness.

According to the statute of the International Criminal Court, this constitutes a

GLOBAL FELONY

not to mention a violation of innumerable United Nations' General Assembly resolutions** as well as articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically 1, 3, 5, 28, and 30. (See www.worldservice.org/udhr.html)

What then is our global civic and legal recourse to prevent this potential holocaust?

With reference to the Nuremberg Principles*** in accordance with the statute of the ICC at The Hague, as heads of state directly responsible for your nuclear policy, you personally are criminally liable, therefore indictable.

A class-action suit will be filed at the ICC citing you, defendants, as "war criminals," and we, the world citizen constituency, plaintiffs, as potential victims.

Why then are we advising you beforehand of this action?

It is to clarify for the general world citizen public the fundamental difference between treaties of allegedly sovereign states and enforceable law agreed-upon by the sovereign world citizenry.

When, as a timely example, the president of the United States comments in a recent speech at the United Nations that "treaties must be enforced," he inadvertently is confessing to a flagrant yet common error in political/legalistic thinking which must be publicly exposed as a prelude to our legal action.****

In brief, treaties, by definition, are static documents between equally sovereign states; enforceable law, on the contrary, is dynamic agreement between equally sovereign citizens under a representative government. (Ref., Declaration of Independence, 1776).

Furthermore, wars between states are a result of the lawless condition between them-so-called international law to the contrary notwithstanding-despite innumerable treaties between them condemning war*****.

Examples of broken treaties between sovereign states are scattered historically throughout the wreckage of our war-torn planet.

Your national mandate, therefore, proven time and time again at the expense of the people of the world, is to preserve illegally that anarchic condition in the name of "national security" which has led to world wars beginning 95 years ago at an incalculable cost in human lives and money.

In the name of humanity,
Yours, in one world,
Garry Davis
World Coordinator
World Government of World Citizens

*World Service Authority. (www.worldservice.org)

**The General Assembly of the United Nations, November 24, 1961; Resolution 1653 (XV)
"Any State using nuclear or thermonuclear weapons is to be considered as violating the Charter of the United Nations, as acting contrary to the laws of humanity, and as committing a crime against mankind and civilization."
Resolution 33/71:December 14, 1978; Resolution 35/152-0D, December 21, 1980
"The use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity."
Genocide Convention, Article I
"..genocide committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they (contracting Parties) undertake to prevent and to punish."
Article IV
provides that
"Persons committing genocide shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals."
Resolution 96(I), December 11, 1966
"Genocide is a crime under international law.."
"Genocide" Definition:
"The deliberate and systemic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."
Webster's College Dictionary, 1991.

***Nuremberg Decisions of 1945: Principle I:
"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."
Principle VI:
"Crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity are punishable as crimes under international law."

**** Chapter IX: TREATY OR LAW, The Anatomy of Peace, Emery Reves:
"We have had thousands and thousands of peace treaties in the history of mankind. None of them has survived more than a few years. None of them could prevent the next war, for the simple reason that human nature, which cannot be changed, is such that conflicts are inevitable as long as sovereign power resides in individual members or groups of members of society, and not in society itself..If we seek peace between sovereign units, based on treaty agreements, then peace is an impossibility and it is childish even to think of it..Treaties are essentially static instruments. Law is essentially a dynamic instrument. Wherever we have applied the method of law to regulate human relationship, it has resulted in peace. Whenever we have applied treaties to regulate human relationship, it has inevitably led to war....Agreements and treaties between national governments of equal sovereignty can never last because such agreement and treaties are the products of mistrust and fear. Never of principles.."

*****The Geneva Conventions of 1949: "The Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" updated and strengthened the 1907 Regulations particularly with regard to requiring belligerents "to ensure the essential requirements for the health, safety and sustenance of the civilian population."
The Hague Convention of 1907 Regulations, No. IV Prohibits "wanton and indiscriminate destruction;" Forbids "the attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings or buildings that are undefended."
"..the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the laws of nations as they result from the usage established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience."
Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928
Art 1 Art 2 Art 3
"Treaty between the United States and other Powers providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. Signed at Paris, August 27, 1928; ratification advised by the Senate, January 16, 1929; ratified by the President, January 17, 1929; instruments of ratification deposited at Washington by the United States of America, Australia, Dominion of Canada, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Great Britain, India, Irish Free State, Italy, New Zealand, and Union of South Africa, March 2, 1929: By Poland, March 26, 1929; by Belgium, March 27 1929; by France, April 22, 1929; by Japan, July 24, 1929; proclaimed, July 24, 1929."
And etc.