The Gazette 1967/71

would also benefit from an authoritative clarifi cation of the political aims of the Communities. "It could now clearly be stated that the aim of the integration of Europe, of the approximating of economic policies of the Western European countries, is to guarantee peace in Europe, not to prepare for war. Co-operation with the 'neu trals' might promote this aim; that is peace and prosperity in Europe. They ought not to be looked upon in the East as collaborators in a military conspiracy or in the West as carriers of the bac teria of a neutralism which might contaminate the Communities. "An authoritative clarification by the organs of the E.E.C. would undoubtedly facilitate negoti ations as well as the acceptance of their outcome, which must be given by the competent constitu tional organs of applicant States." Speaking during the discussion, Judge Pescatore of the European Court, said it was the practice that escape clauses should be interpreted narrowly, and he said he really saw little chance of full membership for neutral countries. It was said that the obstacle for neutral countries was the political content of the Communities, and as little progress was being made towards political union this some how made things easier for neutral countries to adhere. (This was more or less the line taken in Dublin recently by Dr. Luns of the Netherlands when questioned about Ireland's "neutrality".) Judge Pescatore, however, said that entering even a customs union was a political act of prime importance. A common market was a relationship which was just short of federation or confedera tion. It was a very close tie which involved a common economic policy and a common attitude towards third countries. The main speaker at this discussion was Dr. Michael Gaudet, former director-general of the legal service of the E.E.C. He took this relation ship with third countries as his main theme, and dealt with the effects of Community membership on foreign policy. From a strictly legal point of view, he said, the Communities had but a limited responsibility in foreign affairs. Decisions could not extend bevond the economic and social matters defined in the Treaties, but everyone knew that although limited by the Treaties, the Communities had a profound influence on foreign policy. The process of economic integration had gradu ally affected the foreign policies of member States, as their national economic structure and capacity 107

under which Sweden is firmly decided not only not to participate in a war between other States and to apply should such a war occur, the law of neutrality, but also in time of peace, to avoid arrangements which would involve the country in a war or make it impossible strictly to apply the law of neutrality in time of war." Professor Eek said there seemed to be almost general agreement in legal writing that it would not be possible for any of the three neutrals to become a full member of the E.E.G. He cited two reasons generally offered for this view; the first was that the obligations of the Treaty of Rome would conflict with the demands for impartiality in commercial matters under the general law of neutrality. The second was that the Treaty did not provide for the suspension of obligations under it —it was concluded for "an unlimited period". He said the first argument was sometimes slated in very broad terms, even to the extent of saying that a neutral country could not jom a customs union with another State. But he argued that two "escape clauses" in the Rome Treaty could be redefined to give neutrals freedom of action. Article 223 provided that the Treaty should not adversely affect the right of a member State to take measures which it considered necessary for the protection of its security. Article 224 said that member States should consult one another for the purpose of taking common steps to prevent the functioning of the Common Market being affected by measures which a member State might be called upon to take in case of war or serious international tension, or in order to carry out undertakings into which it bad entered for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security. Professor Eek admitted that the Treaty did not provide for suspension of obligations in time of war—which would allow a member State to remain neutral in the legal sense. Could a State then leave the organisation? Professor Eek said it was obviously unrealistic to believe that even a clause in a treaty which clearly forbade its denun ciation by a party could always be enforced after the outbreak of a major war. He argued that it was possible to reformulate certain articles in the Treaty in order to safeguard the position of a member State wanting to stay neutral in the case of war. This presupposed clarification of the meaning of economic warfare. The position of States such as Sweden, he said,