Front Page Titles (by Subject) THE PEACE CONFERENCE OF 1899 1 . - The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War
Return to Title Page for The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
THE PEACE CONFERENCE OF 1899 1 . - A. Pearce Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War 
The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War. Texts of Conventions with Commentaries, by A. Pearce Higgins, LL.D. (Cambridge University Press, 1909).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
THE PEACE CONFERENCE OF 18991 .
As the Second Peace Conference continued the work of the first and in certain respects was able to make additions to the results attained in 1899, it will be of assistance in the study of the Conventions adopted by the Powers at these two Conferences first to set forth the results of the Conference of 1899.
The first step towards the summoning of the Hague Conference of 1899 was taken when Count Mouravieff, the Russian Foreign Minister, on the 24th Aug. 1898, addressed a circular letter to the representatives of the Powers accredited to St Petersburg in which he referred to the desire which the Emperor had for “the maintenance of the general peace and a possible reduction of the excessive armaments which were burdening all nations.” Actuated by the wish to put an end to the increase of such armaments, and to seek for means to avoid the calamities which were threatening the whole world, the Tsar proposed to all the Governments whose representatives were accredited to the Court of St Petersburg to assemble in conference to consider this serious problem. This invitation to disarmament was received with coldness in several important quarters. Count Mouravieff therefore, on the 11th Jan. 1899, addressed another circular to the Russian ministers accredited to the states represented at St Petersburg in which he suggested the following topics for the consideration of the Conference, thereby considerably widening its scope. (1) The prohibition for a fixed term of any increase of the armed forces beyond those then maintained. (2) The prohibition of, or limitation in the employment of new firearms or explosives. (3) The restriction of the explosives already existing, and the prohibition of the discharge of projectiles or explosives of any kind from balloons or by any similar means. (4) The prohibition in naval warfare of submarine torpedo-boats or similar engines of destruction, and the ultimate abolition of vessels with rams. (5) The application to naval warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864 on the basis of the additional Articles of 1868. (6) The neutralisation of ships and boats employed in saving those shipwrecked during or after an engagement. (7) The revision of the unratified Brussels Declaration of 1874 concerning the laws and customs of war on land. (8) The acceptance in principle of the employment of good offices, of mediation and arbitration with the object of preventing armed conflicts between nations, and the establishment of a uniform practice in their employment.
An important limitation was placed on the discussion of these matters by the statement that all questions concerning the political relations of states and the order of things established by treaties and all questions which did not directly fall within the programme adopted by the Cabinets were to be absolutely excluded from the deliberations of the Conference.
The circular concluded by stating that the Tsar thought it advisable that the Conference should not meet in the capital of one of the great Powers “where so many political interests are centred which might, perhaps, impede the progress of a work in which all the countries of the universe are equally interested1 .”
The Dutch Government having assented to the proposed Conference being held at the Hague, invitations were addressed by it to the states designated by Russia. The Conference met on the 20th May, 1899, under the presidency of M. de Staal, the first Russian Plenipotentiary, and was attended by representatives of the 26 Powers enumerated in the Final Act. Difficulties had been raised as to the status of several Powers to whom invitations had been addressed. Italy declined to attend if the Papal representative was admitted. Great Britain as suzerain objected to the presence of a representative of the Transvaal. The representative of Bulgaria was only admitted in subordination to Turkey. Though the number of Powers represented was large, none of the American Republics, except the United States and Mexico were present. The delegates and their staffs numbered upwards of 100. The representatives were divided into three Committees: the first two being divided into two Sub-Committees. To the First Committee were assigned the matters dealt with in Articles 1-4 of Count Mouravieff’s circular of the 11th Jan. 1899; to the Second those comprised in Arts. 5, 6 and 7; and to the Third those comprised in Art. 8. The Sub-Committees and Committees held numerous meetings and reported to plenary meetings of the Conference of which there were 10 in all, the last being held on the 31st July. The Conference was thus in session for a little over two months.
The Final Act of the Hague Conference of 1899.The results of the labours of these two months were embodied in a Final Act which is not in itself a Convention, but rather a resumé of the work done by the Conference1 and as such was signed by all the Powers present, who thus affirmed the authenticity of the record, without binding themselves to sign each of the Conventions or adhere to each of the Declarations or Wishes contained in the Act.
The following are set forth in the Final Act as having been agreed upon for submission for signature by the Plenipotentiaries2 :
(a) Three Conventions: (1) For the pacific settlement of international disputes, (2) regarding the laws and customs of war on land, (3) for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864.
(b) Three Declarations: (1) To prohibit the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other similar new methods. (2) To prohibit the use of projectiles, the only object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases. (3) To prohibit the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope, of which the envelope does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.
The Conventions and Declarations to form so many separate Acts.
(c) One Resolution affirming “that the restriction of military budgets which are at present a heavy burden on the world is extremely desirable for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind.”
(d) Six Wishes (Vœux): (1) That a special Conference might be summoned by the Swiss Government for the revision of the Geneva Convention. (2) That the questions of the rights and duties of neutrals might be inserted in the programme of a Conference in the near future. (3) That questions regarding rifles and naval guns, as considered by the Conference, might be studied by the governments with the object of coming to an agreement respecting the employment of new types and calibres. (4) That the governments, taking into consideration the proposals made at the Conference, might examine the possibility of an agreement as to the limitation of armed forces by land and sea, and of war budgets. (5) That the proposal for the exemption of private property from capture in naval warfare might be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration. (6) That the question of the bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force might be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration.
As the subjects mentioned in Nos. 2, 5 and 6 were outside the programme of the Conference and as the delegates considered that the Swiss Government had a prior claim to take the initiative in the subjects mentioned in No. 1, the expression of the Wishes on these matters was all that was within the competence of the Conference.
Results of the Hague Conference of 1899.Such is a brief outline of the immediate results of the deliberations of the First Hague Conference. It did not do all that its “August Initiator” had desired, and the question of disarmament or even of the limitation of armaments and budgets which was in the forefront of Count Mouravieff’s second circular was found on examination to present “so many difficulties from a practical point of view that it was necessarily abandoned for the present1 .” The passing of a resolution endorsing in general terms the desirability of the restriction of military budgets, and the emission of Vœux Nos. 3 and 4 was the method in which this abandonment was notified to the world. But failure in this respect, a failure which had been foreseen from the first, did not mean that 26 Powers had assembled for two months for naught. Idealists had expected too much, and were dissatisfied with the results; but the solid work of the Conference as attested by the three Conventions, two of which were completions of work which previous gatherings1 had failed to accomplish, cannot but be viewed as marking an important epoch in the development of international law. It is true that a Conference known as La Conférence de la Paix had devoted the greater part of its labours to the elaboration of rules of war. The Emperor of Russia might have said of it, “I labour for peace, but when I speak unto them thereof, they make them ready for battle.” Many of the members of Peace Societies could not but view the results as discouraging. But it is not alone by these Conventions, Declarations and Vœux that the worth of the Conference is to be appraised. The results assume a truer perspective when viewed in the light of the years that have passed since the conclusion of the Conference.(i) The laws of war on land. The sanguine prophecy expressed by Sir Julian Pauncefote that the new century was destined to “open with brighter prospects of international peace” was not fulfilled. Almost before the ink on the Final Act was dry, war broke out between the South African Republics and Great Britain. Hardly had that terminated, before two of the signatory Powers (one of them the initiator of the Conference) were engaged in a prolonged and sanguinary struggle in the Far East. The Peace Conference had not maintained the peace of the world. Its work, however, in humanising the laws of war both on land and sea was now put to the test. The terms of the two Conventions were well observed, and the bureaux for information relative to prisoners of war, a new creation of the Conference (Art. 13, Regulations for the laws of war), came into existence and operation for the first time2 . Naturally deficiencies were discovered in the practical application of both Conventions, but in the main they were found to be workable. War on land was now conducted for the first time under rules previously agreed upon by the parties.
(ii) Pacific settlement of international disputes.The Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes is a greater mark of international progress than the two Conventions just referred to. This Convention was also put to the test between 1899 and 1907. Good offices and mediation of friendly powers were not appealed to to prevent the outbreak of war either in South Africa or the Far East, but twice during the Russo-Japanese war the value of the Convention was manifested. There is no doubt that the recourse to a Commission of Inquiry, with wider powers than those contemplated by the terms of Title iii. of the Convention1 , prevented the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Russia over the Dogger Bank affair of October, 1904. When it is remembered that this was a difference involving “honour and vital interests” which are expressly excluded from the competence of such Commissions by the Convention (Art. 9) the solution of the question in a peaceful manner is the more noteworthy. The long drawn-out struggle between Russia and Japan was ultimately closed by the Treaty of Portsmouth in 1905. It was doubtless the recommendation contained in the third Article of the Convention which furnished President Roosevelt with the means of initiating the negotiations which reached so successful a conclusion2 .
Cases before the Permanent Court at the Hague.The Permanent Court of Arbitration whose creation was provided for by Title iv. Chapter ii. of the same Convention soon got to work. The Powers nominated their representatives and since its establishment four cases have been heard and settled before a Court composed of Judges who were members of the Permanent Court.
(1) The Pious Fund of the Californias.The first case to come before the Court at the Hague was a claim of the United States of America against the Republic of Mexico3 . By the Compromis (agreement of reference) between these states dated the 22nd May, 1902, the subject of the dispute was defined, and terms of proceedings set forth. The question in dispute between the Powers had reference to a charity known as “The Pious Fund of the Californias” which had been instituted in the 17th and 18th centuries for the propagation of the Roman Catholic faith in unsettled portions of Spanish North America called the Californias. After the accomplishment of Mexican independence the administration of the Fund passed to Mexico, and the properties having been sold, the Republic undertook to pay 6 per cent. on the proceeds to the Church. War broke out between the United States and Mexico in 1846, and was terminated by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848, and Upper California was ceded by Mexico to the United States for 15 million dollars and other considerations. During the 20 years succeeding the treaty claims arose by citizens of each republic against the other for damages resulting from injuries of various sorts, and in July, 1868, a Convention was concluded between the two nations under which an international tribunal was constituted for the determination of such claims. Among the claimants were the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey for so much of the interest on the capital of the Pious Fund accrued since the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo as properly belonged to Upper California. The Arbitrators disagreed, and the question having been referred to the British Minister at Washington as Umpire, he signed an award in favour of the claimants for $904,070.79 in Mexican gold coin, being 21 years’ interest at 6 per cent. per ann. on one-half of the capital of the Pious Fund. This award was satisfied. Mexico subsequently made default in payment of the annual interest and the United States Government on behalf of the Bishops claimed payment thereof ($43,050.99) from the year 1868, and contended that the question of liability could not be re-opened as the matter was res judicata. In the alternative, the United States contended that if the Permanent Court at the Hague decided against the validity of the Umpire’s award, a much larger sum than that originally claimed was due and this was set forth and the method in which it was calculated. Mexico denied liability, and the finality and conclusiveness of the judgment of the Umpire. To this the United States filed a replication. The hearing of the case commenced on the 15th Sept. 1902 before Professor H. Matzen, President of the Danish Landthing, as Umpire and President of the Court, chosen by the Arbitrators, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, a former Lord Justice of Appeal in England, Dr F. de Martens, Privy Councillor of Russia, both nominated by the United States, and Dr T. M. C. Asser, Member of the Council of State of the Netherlands, and Dr A. F. de Savornin Lohman, former Minister of the Interior of the Netherlands, both nominated by Mexico. French was the language of the Tribunal, but the Tribunal decided that both parties might use English. Both states were represented by agents and counsel. The Court sat 11 times and the award was given on the 14th Oct. on the two following points:
1. Whether the claim of the United States on behalf of the Archbishop of San Francisco and the Bishop of Monterey was governed by the principle of res judicata in virtue of the decision of the 11 Nov. 1878 given by Sir Edward Thornton in his capacity of Umpire.
2. If not, whether the said claim was just; with power to give such judgment as seemed to the Court just and equitable.
The Court unanimously decided in favour of the claim of the United States on the ground that it was governed by the principle of res judicata as set forth in the Compromis, and awarded the sum of 1,420,682 Mexican dollars to the claimants, being the annual interest due from the 2nd Feb. 1869 to the 2nd Feb. 1902.
All friends of international arbitration will re-echo the words of Mr Ralston, the agent for the United States, who in addressing the Court after the delivery of the judgment said: “There has just been determined at the Hague a controversy over money,—a thing which we are told has been the ‘slave to thousands,’ and the love of which is described as ‘the root of all evil.’ If a judgment now meant nothing more than the transfer or nontransfer of money from one party to the other, however interesting this might be to those concerned, the world at large would look on with indifference. We believe, however, that a first step has been taken that will count largely for the good of future generations: that following this primal recognition of the existence of a Court competent to settle disputes between nations, will come general references to it, not alone of differences similar to the present, but of other controversies involving larger questions of individual rights and national privileges. We may hope that precisely as questions formerly believed to involve individual honour had in many countries entirely ceased, and in others are ceasing to be settled by formal exercise of force, the same revolution may gradually be effected in the affairs of nations. The Permanent Court of Arbitration, assisting this end, must tend to bring about that ‘peace on earth, good will toward men’ for which Christians hope1 .”
The members of the Court addressed to the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs a note in which they made certain reflections on the procedure before the Tribunal, and recommendations with a view to providing against possible difficulties in the working of the Court. These recommendations will be dealt with in discussing the Convention itself2 .
(2) Claims against Venezuela.The next case to come before the Tribunal was a dispute between Great Britain, Germany and Italy on the one side and Venezuela on the other3 . This case both as regards the questions raised, as well as the procedure to be followed, involved “larger questions of individual rights and national privileges” than the Pious Funds Case. In consequence of the inability of Great Britain, Germany and Italy to obtain satisfaction from Venezuela for claims made on behalf of their subjects, the ports of Venezuela were blockaded in 19024 . Ultimately on the intervention of the United States an agreement was arrived at whereby Venezuela recognised in principle the justice of the claims preferred by the three Governments on behalf of their subjects, and agreed for the purpose of their satisfaction to set aside 30 per cent. of the customs revenues of La Guaira and Puerto Cabello, and to submit claims for injury to persons and property to arbitration. Other Powers also claimed against Venezuela, and Protocols containing conditions for the settlement of claims against that country by a Mixed Commission were signed by her Government and those of the following Powers, in addition to the three already mentioned: the United States, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway and Mexico. Great Britain, Germany and Italy having claimed preferential treatment in payment of their claims it was agreed by an additional Protocol of 7th May, 1903, to submit the question of preferential or separate treatment to the Hague Tribunal, and, should it decide against the three Powers, to ask it to determine how the revenue derived from the 30 per cent. customs should be distributed. In consequence of the number of Powers involved the choice of Arbitrators was left to the Tsar (Russia being a disinterested Power), subject to the condition that nationals of interested Powers were to be excluded from membership of the Tribunal. Any nation, moreover, having claims against Venezuela, was allowed to join as a party in the arbitration. As all Venezuela’s other creditors had an interest in her success, the case resolved itself into an arbitration between Great Britain, Germany and Italy on the one side, and Venezuela, Belgium, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway and Mexico on the other. The Arbitrators were M. N. V. Mouravieff, Russian Imperial Secretary of State (President), Professor H. Lammasch, Member of the Upper House of the Austrian Parliament, and Dr F. de Martens, Russian Privy Councillor. The official language used was English in accordance with the terms of the Protocols. The hearing of the case occupied the Court for 13 days during the months of October and November, 1903, and a unanimous decision was given on the 22nd February, 1904, in favour of the three Powers who had claimed preferential treatment by reason of the blockade which they had carried out. This decision in no way affected the Protocols of the 13th Feb. 1903 between Great Britain, Italy and Venezuela for submission of the sums due to a Mixed Commission. The Judges in this case also addressed a note to the Dutch Foreign Minister, containing recommendations in regard to the procedure of the Court1 .
The third case to come before the Court was between Great Britain, France and Germany on the one side, and Japan on the other1 .(3) The case of the Japanese leases. The Protocols for submission were signed on the 28th Aug. 1902. The question for settlement in this case was the true intent and meaning of the provisions of certain treaties made between the three European Powers and Japan with reference to the exemption of land held under leases in perpetuity granted by Japan from imposts, taxes, charges, contributions or conditions other than those expressly stipulated in the leases in question. The Court consisted of three members, Professor Louis Renault (of Paris), nominated by the three European Powers, Dr Itchiro Motono, nominated by the Japanese Government, under the presidency of the Umpire, Mr G. Gram, a former Prime Minister of State of Norway, chosen by the two Arbitrators. In this case the Court announced that French would be the language of the Tribunal, but that the parties could use either English or French. At a subsequent sitting, a request was made on behalf of the three European Powers for permission to employ the German language, whereupon the Japanese agent (speaking in English) claimed for the Japanese language the same right as would be accorded to other languages, a claim which the Court admitted. It does not appear that the Japanese agent availed himself of this right. The Court held four sittings in November, 1904, and May, 1905. Judgment was delivered on the 22nd May, 1905. The Tribunal by two to one decided in favour of the contention of the European governments that the provisions of the treaties between them and Japan not only exempted the lands possessed under perpetual leases granted by the Japanese Government or in its name, but they also exempted buildings of every kind erected, or to be erected on these lands from all imposts, taxes, charges, contributions or conditions whatsoever, other than those expressly stipulated in the leases in question. The Japanese member of the Court dissented from this judgment and the reasons for it.
In this case the pleadings were all in writing, and it does not appear that Counsel addressed the Court on the actual points at issue between the parties.
(4) The Muscat Dhows Case.The fourth case to come before the Hague Tribunal was between Great Britain and France2 . The Compromis was signed on the 13th Oct. 1904. It stated that the Government of His Britannic Majesty and that of the French Republic had thought it right, by the Declaration of the 10th March, 1862, “to engage reciprocally to respect the independence” of His Highness the Sultan of Muscat, that difficulties had arisen (1) in relation to the issue by the French Republic, to certain subjects of the Sultan, of papers authorising them to fly the French flag, and (2) as to the nature of the privileges and immunities claimed by subjects of His Highness who are owners or masters of dhows, and in possession of such papers, or are members of the crews of such dhows, and their families, especially as to the manner in which such privileges and immunities affect the jurisdiction of the Sultan over his subjects, and that these questions should be referred to the arbitration of the Hague Tribunal. The Compromis provided that each Power should nominate one Arbitrator and these two should choose an Umpire, failing this the choice of the Umpire should be entrusted to the King of Italy. The Arbitrators and Umpire were not to be subjects or citizens of either Great Britain or France and should be chosen from among the members of the Hague Tribunal. It was further agreed that each party should prepare and deliver to the Tribunal a written or printed case supported by arguments and a file containing documents or other evidence on which he relied, and after the delivery of such cases, written or printed counter-cases, similarly supported, and that the Tribunal might require any further oral or written evidence, but in such case the other party had the right to reply. The British Government nominated the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States, the French Government nominated Dr A. F. de Savornin Lohman, a former Minister of the Interior of the Netherlands, and the King of Italy nominated Professor H. Lammasch, Member of the Upper House of the Austrian Parliament.
The Tribunal held its first meeting on the 25th July, 1905, and sat on four days, the last being the 8th August, when a unanimous decision of the Tribunal was given. The Court held that France by acceding to the General Act of the Brussels Conference of 1890 relative to the African slave trade, was not entitled to authorise vessels belonging to subjects of the Sultan of Muscat to fly the French flag except where their owners or fitters-out had been considered and treated by France as her protégés before 1863, or in the case of owners of dhows, who before 1892 had been authorised by France to fly the French flag, so long as France renews this authorisation to the grantee. On the second point the Court held that dhows of Muscat duly authorised to fly the French flag were entitled in the territorial waters of Muscat to the inviolability provided by the French-Muscat Treaty of 17th Nov. 1844; that the authorisation to fly the French flag could not be transmitted or transferred to any other person or to any other dhow, even if belonging to the same owner; that subjects of the Sultan of Muscat who are owners or masters of dhows authorised to fly the French flag or who are members of the crews of such vessels or who belong to their families, do not enjoy in consequence of that fact any right of exterritoriality exempting them from the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Sultan.
From the foregoing summary of the points at issue, and the decisions given in the cases which have so far come before the Hague Tribunal, its scope of operations and method of work may in some degree be appreciated. It is not necessary here to deal further with the questions involved.
It will thus be seen that within five years from the conclusion of the First Peace Conference at the Hague all three of the Conventions which emanated therefrom were put to the test. To deficiencies which became apparent in their working reference will be made in discussing the amendments adopted by the Second Conference.
(iii) The Declarations of 1899.The three Declarations were not adopted with unanimity; Great Britain signed none of them, but on the 30th Aug. 1907 she became a party to Nos. 2 and 3. The first lapsed after 5 years. The United States did not sign the second and third, and Portugal only signed on 29th Aug. 1907. Nevertheless Great Britain observed them all during the war in South Africa. They were all observed by Russia and Japan, both of whom had signed the Declarations.
(iv) The Vœux.The first Wish was realised in 1906 when a new Geneva Convention was adopted; the others (except No. 3, on which nothing appears to have been done) were discussed at the Second Peace Conference. The second, regarding the rights and duties of neutrals, and the sixth on the bombardment of unfortified towns by naval forces both resulted in Conventions in 1907.
The foregoing account of the results of the First Conference and their subsequent practical application is sufficient to justify the statement made at the time by Sir Julian Pauncefote that they “greatly surpassed the expectations of its most enthusiastic supporters.” The growth of international law has not infrequently been compared to that of municipal law, and in particular to that of the English Common law. As a scientific body of principles it is still in an early stage of development, custom is ripening slowly into law and in some departments of international relations, the work of codification has begun. The “enthusiastic supporters,” of whom the British Ambassador spoke, were those who, knowing how exceeding slow is the grinding of the wheels of progress, were prepared for the difficulties which only statesmen, historians and lawyers could fully appreciate; their expectations were chastened by knowledge and experience of the innumerable forces at work in the domain of high politics. It is, therefore, from such a standpoint that a view of the work of the Second Conference must be taken.
[1 ]The Peace Conference of 1899. There is a considerable literature on this subject. A few only of the sources of information are here mentioned as most of the modern Text-books deal with this subject. British Parl. Papers, Miscellaneous, No. 1 (1899); De Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités (2nd series), Vol. xxvi. pp. 1-920,—the Final Act is printed at p. 258; F. W. Holls, The Peace Conference at the Hague; Sir T. Barclay, Problems of international practice and diplomacy with special reference to the Hague Conferences, etc.; T. J. Lawrence, War and neutrality in the Far East; Idem, International Problems and Hague Conferences; G. de Lapradelle, La Conférence de la Paix; A. Mérignhac, La Conférence Internationale de la Paix; J. B. Scott, Texts of the Peace Conferences at the Hague; E. A. Whittuck, International Documents. See also F. Despagnet, La Guerre Sud Africaine; Sidney Low in The Nineteenth Century for September, 1899, p. 383; Prof. T. E. Holland, Some lessons of the Peace Conference, Fortnightly Review, Vol. lxvi. (N.S.), p. 944; S. Jules Enthoven in The Law Magazine and Review, Vol. xxiv. p. 457; La Revue Générale de Droit International Public, Vol. vi. pp. 846, 859, 879, 883; J. B. Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. vii. p. 78.
[1 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 1 (1899), p. 3.
[1 ]The “Acte Final” was described by Sir Julian Pauncefote as “an exposition of the work of the Conference presented to the various Governments for their information and approval” (Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury, 31 July, 1899, Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 1 (1899), p. 278).
[2 ]For text of Final Act, see post, p. 60.
[1 ]Letter of Sir Julian Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury, Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 1 (1899), p. 353. Great Britain was represented at the Conference by the Right Hon. Sir Julian Pauncefote and Sir Henry Howard, with Vice-Admiral Sir John Fisher, Major-Gen. Sir J. C. Ardagh and Lieut.-Col. C. à Court as technical advisers.
[1 ]The Conference of Geneva 1868, and the Brussels Conference 1874.
[2 ]The Japanese bureau was instituted by Imperial Ordinance No. 44 dated the 21st February, 1904, the Russian by Imperial Ordinance confirmed 18th May, 1904. See S. Takahashi, International Law applied to the Russo-Japanese War, p. 114.
[1 ]See post, pp. 167-9.
[2 ]Amos S. Hershey, The international law and diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, pp. 347-8.
[3 ]J. B. Moore, International Arbitrations, Vol. ii. pp. 1349-54; De Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités (2nd series), Vol. xxxii. p. 189.
[1 ]I am indebted to Dr L. H. Ruyssenaers, the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, for copies of the Recueil des Actes et Protocoles of the four cases here dealt with.
[2 ]See Sir T. Barclay, Problems, etc. pp. 273-7.
[3 ]Brit. Parl. Papers, Venezuela, No. 1 (1904) [Cd. 1949]. A. Mallarmé, L’arbitrage vénézuélien devant la Cour de la Haye, Rev. gén. de Droit inter. Vol. xiii. p. 423; J. B. Moore, Digest of International Law, § 967.
[4 ]See post, p. 185, for the circumstances of this blockade
[1 ]See Sir T. Barclay, Problems, etc. p. 278.
[1 ]Brit. Parl. Papers, Japan, No. 1 (1905), Vol. ciii. (1905), p. 301. Anon. L’arbitrage des baux perpetuels au Japon, Rev. gén. de Droit inter., Vol. xii. p. 492.
[2 ]Brit. Parl. Papers, Treaty Series, No. 3, 1905, Vol. ciii. (1905), p. 235; Muscat, No. 1 (1905), Vol. cxxxvi. (1906), p. 391. For a further discussion of the case see an Article by Prof. J. Westlake, K.C., in The Law Quarterly Review, Vol. xxiii. p. 83; see also M. Bressonnet, L’arbitrage franco-anglais dans l’affaire des boutres de Mascate, Rev. gén. de Droit inter. Vol. xiii. p. 145.