for the implementation of those two Points through an amend-~
ment to the Compact (infra,
proposals,
be
Section III).
The implementation
as well as the Four Points in general,
submitted for the
must still
consideration of the Marshall
Islands
Government.
II.
The Validity and Legal Effects of Points One and Two
Under International Law
1.
There is nothing in international law which
would prevent the Governments of the Marshall Islands and the
United States from undertaking the obligaticns set forth in
Points
One
and Two.
In other words,
if Points One and Two
are embodied in certain provisions of the Compact,
there is no
norm of international law which would render such provisions
invalid solely by reason of their content.
Indeed,
treaties
containing obligations similar to those envisioned in Points
One
and Two
example,
are common in international
the Agreement Between the U.S.S.R.
Concerning the Aaland Islands,
l/
1/
relations.~—
For
and Finland
signed at Moscow on October 1l,
Treaty previsions analogous to Point One are those which
provide for the demilitarization of a certain territory, or prohibit the building of fortifications.
See, e.g., Article 42 of
the Treaty of Versailles, done on June 28, 1919, U.S. Treaty,
vol. III, p. 3351; Agreement Between the U.S.S.R. and Finland
Concerning the Aaland Islands, signed at Moscow on October Il,
1940, Article 1, 67 U.N.T.S., No. 872, pp. 140-151.
Treaty
provisions similar to Point Two can be found in treaties of
alliance.
See, e.g., Convention Between the United States and
Panama, done on November 18,
T.S. No. 431.
1903,
33
Stat.
2234
(1903-1905),
a