The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Front Matter: Preface
• List of Cases Cited
• Introduction
• Declaration of Paris, 1856 1
• Déclaration De Paris, 1856.
• The Declaration of Paris, 1856.
• Declaration of St Petersburg, 1868 1
• Geneva Convention, 1864 1
• Convention Pour L’amélioration Du Sort Des Militaires Blessés Dans Les Armées En Campagne.
• Convention For the Amelioration of the Condition of Soldiers Wounded In Armies In the Field.
• Articles Concerning Naval Warfare ( La Marine ).
• Geneva Convention, 1906 1
• Convention Pour L’amélioration Du Sort Des Blessés Et Malades Dans Les Armées En Campagne.
• Convention For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick In Armies In the Field.
• Chapitre Premier. —: Des Blessés Et Malades.
• Chapter I.—: The Wounded and Sick.
• Chapitre II.—: Des Formations Et Établissements Sanitaires.
• Chapter II.—: Medical Units and Establishments.
• Chapitre III.—: Du Personnel.
• Chapter III.—: Personnel.
• Chapitre IV.—: Du Matériel.
• Chapter IV.—: Material.
• Chapitre V.—: Des Convois D’Évacuation.
• Chapter V.—: Convoys of Evacuation.
• Chapter VI.—: Du Signe Distinctif.
• Chapter VI.—: The Distinctive Emblem.
• Chapitre VII.—: De L’application Et De L’exécution De La Convention.
• Chapter VII.—: Application and Carrying Out of the Convention.
• Chapitre VIII.—: De La Répression Des Abus Et Des Infractions.
• Chapter VIII.—: Prevention of Abuses and Infractions.
• Dispositions Générales.
• General Provisions.
• Protocole Final De La Conférence De Revision De La Convention De Genève.
• Final Protocol of the Conference For the Revision of the Geneva Convention.
• The Hague Peace Conferences 1899 and 1907
• The Peace Conference of 1899 1 .
• The Second Peace Conference of 1907 1 .
• Final Acts of the International Peace Conferences.
• The Conventions of the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 1 .
• I.: Convention For the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.
• 1.: Règlement Pacifique Des Conflits Internationaux.
• 1.: Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
• I.: Convention For the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 1 .
• II.: The Recovery of Contract Debts.
• II.: Convention Concernant La Limitation De L’emploi De La Force Pour Le Recouvrement De Dettes Contractuelles.
• II.: Convention Respecting the Limitation of the Employment of Force For the Recovery of Contract Debts.
• Convention No. 2. the Limitation of the Employment of Force For the Recovery of Contract Debts 1 .
• III.: Convention Relative to the Commencement of Hostilities.
• III.: Convention Relative à L’ouverture Des Hostilités.
• III.: Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities.
• Convention No. 3. The Commencement of Hostilities 1 .
• IV.: Les Lois Et Coutumes De La Guerre Sur Terre.
• II.: Convention Concernant Les Lois Et Coutumes De La Guerre Sur Terre.
• IV.: Convention Concernant Les Lois Et Coutumes De La Guerre Sur Terre.
• Règlement Concernant Les Lois Et Coutumes De La Guerre Sur Terre.
• Section I.: Des Belligérants.
• Section II.: Des Hostilités.
• Section III.: De L’autorité Militaire Sur Le Territoire De L’État Ennemi.
• Section IV.: Des Belligérants Internés Et Des Blessés Soignés Chez Les Neutres.
• IV.: The Laws and Customs of War On Land.
• II.: Convention With Respect to the Laws and Customs of War On Land.
• IV.: Convention Concerning the Laws and Customs of War On Land.
• Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War On Land.
• Section I.: Belligerents.
• Section II. Hostilities.
• Section III.: Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State.
• Convention No. 4. Concerning the Laws and Customs of War On Land 1 .
• Appendix to Note On the Laws and Customs of War On Land. Translation of the Draft of an International Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War Adopted By the Conference of Brussels, 27th August, 1874 1 .
• V.: Neutral Powers and Persons In Land Warfare.
• V.: Convention Concernant Les Droits Et Les Devoirs Des Puissances Et Des Personnes Neutres En Cas De Guerre Sur Terre.
• V.: Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons In War On Land.
• Convention No. 5. Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons In War On Land 1 .
• VI.: Enemy Merchant-ships At the Outbreak of Hostilities.
• VI.: Convention Relative Au Régime Des Navires De Commerce Ennemis Au Début Des Hostilités.
• VI.: Convention Relative to the Status of Enemy Merchantships At the Outbreak of Hostilities.
• Convention No. 6. Relative to the Status of Enemy Merchant-ships At the Outbreak of Hostilities 1 .
• VII.: Conversion of Merchant-ships Into War-ships.
• VII.: Convention Relative à La Transformation Des Navires De Commerce En Bâtiments De Guerre.
• VII.: Convention Relative to the Conversion of Merchantships Into War-ships.
• Convention No. 7. Convention Relative to the Conversion of Merchant-ships Into War-ships 1 .
• VIII.: Automatic Submarine Contact Mines.
• VIII.: Convention Relative à La Pose De Mines Sous-marines Automatiques De Contact.
• VIII.: Convention Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines.
• Convention No. 8. Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines 1 .
• IX.: Bombardment By Naval Forces In Time of War.
• IX.: Convention Concernant Le Bombardement Par Des Forces Navales En Temps De Guerre.
• IX.: Convention Respecting Bombardment By Naval Forces In Time of War.
• Convention No. 9. Respecting Bombardment By Naval Forces In Time of War 1 .
• X.: Conventions For the Adaptation of the Principles of the Geneva Convention to Maritime War (1899 and 1907)
• X.: La Convention De Genève Et La Guerre Maritime 1 .
• III.: Convention Pour L’adaptation à La Guerre Maritime Des Principes De La Convention De Genève Du 22 Août, 1864.
• X.: Convention Pour L’adaptation à La Guerre Maritime Des Principes De La Convention De Genève.
• X.: The Geneva Convention and Maritime Warfare 1 .
• III.: Convention For the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864.
• X.: Convention For the Adaptation of the Principles of the Geneva Convention to Maritime War.
• Convention No. 10. The Adaptation of the Principles of the Geneva Convention to Maritime Warfare 1 .
• A Convention Relating to Hospital Ships, Signed At the Hague, the 21st December, 1904 2 .
• XI.: Restrictions On Capture In Maritime War
• XI.: Convention Relative à Certaines Restrictions à L’exercice Du Droit De Capture Dans La Guerre Maritime.
• XI.: Convention Relative to Certain Restrictions On the Exercise of the Right of Capture In Maritime War.
• Convention No. 11. Relative to Certain Restrictions On the Exercise of the Right of Capture In Maritime War.
• XII.: Establishment of an International Prize Court.
• XII.: Convention Relative à L’Établissement D’une Cour Internationale Des Prises.
• XII.: Convention Relative to the Establishment of an International Prize Court.
• Annex to Article 15. Distribution of Judges and Deputy Judges By Countries For Each Year of the Period of Six Years.
• Convention No. 12. Relative to the Establishment of an International Prize Court 1 .
• XIII.: Neutral Rights and Duties In Maritime War.
• XIII.: Convention Concernant Les Droits Et Les Devoirs Des Puissances Neutres En Cas De Guerre Maritime.
• XIII.: Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers In Maritime War.
• Convention No. 13. The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers In Maritime War 1 .
• Declarations (1899 and 1907) Prohibiting Discharge of Projectiles, Etc. From Balloons
• Les Déclarations De 1899 Et 1907.
• Déclaration I.: Des Projectiles Et Des Explosifs Du Haut De Ballons.
• XIV.: Déclaration Relative à L’interdiction De Lancer Des Projectiles Et Des Explosifs Du Haut De Ballons.
• The Declarations of 1899 and 1907.
• Declaration I.: Projectiles and Explosives From Balloons.
• XIV.: Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives From Balloons.
• Declaration Ii (1899).
• Des Gaz Asphyxiants Ou Délétères.
• Asphyxiating Or Deleterious Gases.
• II.: Declaration Prohibiting the Use of Asphyxiating Or Deleterious Gases 1 .
• Declaration Iii (1899).
• Des Balles à Enveloppe Dure Etc.
• Bullets With a Hard Envelope Etc.
• III.: Declaration Prohibiting the Use of Expanding Bullets 1 .
• Annexe Au Premier Vœu émis Par La Deuxième Conférence De La Paix 1 .
• Projet D’une Convention Relative à L’Établissement D’une Cour De Justice Arbitrale.
• Draft Convention Relative to the Creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court.
• The Draft Convention Relative to the Creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court 1 .
• The Results of the Second Peace Conference.
• Table of the Deposits of Acts of Ratification and Accessions to the Conventions and Declarations Signed the 29th July, 1899, At the First Peace Conference.
• Table of Signatures.
• Final Protocol of the London Naval Conference.
• Protocole De Clôture.
• Final Protocol.
• The Declaration of London, 1909
• Déclaration Relative Au Droit De La Guerre Maritime.
• Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War 1 .
• General Report On the Declaration Presented to the Naval Conference On Behalf of Its Drafting Committee 1 . ( Translation 2 .)
• Appendix. Instructions to British Delegation At the Second Peace Conference.
• Addenda and Errata.

IV.

The Laws and Customs of War on Land.

II.

Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

1899

His Majesty the King of the Belgians; His Majesty the King of Denmark; His Majesty the King of Spain, and in his name Her Majesty the Queen-Regent of the Kingdom; the President of United States of Mexico; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; His Highness the Prince of Montenegro; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves; His Majesty the King of Roumania, His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, and His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria¹ ;

Considering that, while seeking means to preserve peace and prevent armed conflicts between nations, it is likewise necessary to have regard to cases where an appeal to arms may be caused by events which their solicitude could not avert;

Animated also by the desire to serve, even in this extreme case, the interests of humanity and the ever progressive needs of civilization;

Thinking it important, with this object, to revise the laws and general customs of war, either with the view of defining them more precisely, or of laying down certain limits for the purpose of modifying their severity as far as possible;

Inspired by these views which are enjoined at the present day, as they were twenty-five years ago at the time of the Brussels Conference in 1874, by a wise and generous foresight;

Have, in this spirit, adopted a great number of provisions, the object of which is to define and govern the usages of war on land.

According to the view of the High Contracting Parties, these provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war, so far as military necessities permit, are intended to serve as general rules of conduct for belligerents in their relations with each other and with populations.

It has not, however, been possible to agree forthwith on provisions embracing all the circumstances which occur in practice.

On the other hand, it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary judgment of military Commanders.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war can be issued, the High Contracting Parties think it expedient to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience;

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood;

The High Contracting Parties, desiring to conclude a Convention to this effect, have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after communication of their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following:—

IV.

Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

1907

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; &c.²

Considering that, while seeking means to preserve peace and prevent armed conflicts between nations, it is likewise necessary to have regard to cases where an appeal to arms may be caused by events which their solicitude could not avert;

Animated also by the desire to serve, even in this extreme case, the interests of humanity and the ever-progressive needs of civilization; and

Thinking it important, with this object, to revise the laws and general customs of war, either with the view of defining them more precisely, or of laying down certain limits for the purpose of modifying their severity as far as possible;

Have deemed it necessary to complete and render more precise in certain particulars the work of the First Peace Conference, which, following on the Brussels Conference of 1874, and inspired by the ideas dictated by a wise and generous forethought, adopted provisions, the object of which is to define and govern the usages of war on land.

According to the views of the High Contracting Parties, these provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war, so far as military necessities permit, are intended to serve as general rules of conduct for belligerents in their relations with each other and with populations.

It has not, however, been possible to agree forthwith on provisions embracing all the circumstances which occur in practice;

On the other hand, it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary judgment of military Commanders.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war can be issued, the High Contracting Parties think it expedient to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience.

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood.

The High Contracting Parties, desiring to conclude a fresh Convention to this effect, have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following:—

Art. 1.

The High Contracting Parties will issue to their armed land forces, instructions which shall be in conformity with the “Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land” annexed to the present Convention.

Art. 1.

(No change.)¹

Art. 2.

The provisions contained in the Regulations mentioned in Article 1 are only binding on the Contracting Powers, in case of war between two or more of them.

These provisions shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between Contracting Powers, a non-Contracting Power joins one of the belligerents.

Art. 2.

The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, are only binding between Contracting Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 3.

A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to make compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

Art. 4.

The present Convention, when duly ratified, shall replace, as between the Contracting Powers, the Convention of the 29th July, 1899, respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

The Convention of 1899 remains in force as between the Powers which signed it, but which do not ratify also the present Convention.

Art. 3.

The present Convention shall be ratified as speedily as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at the Hague.

A procès-verbal shall be drawn up recording the receipt of each ratification, and a copy, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel, to all the Contracting Powers.

Art. 5.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.

The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a Procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherland Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.

A duly certified copy of the Procès-verbal relating to the first deposit ofratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, as well as of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherland Government through the diplomatic channel to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have acceded to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph, the said Government shall inform them at the same time of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 4.

Non-Signatory Powers are allowed to accede to the present Convention.

For this purpose they must make their accession known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

Art. 6.

Non-Signatory Powers may accede to the present Convention.

A Power which desires to accede notifies its intention in writing to the Netherland Government, forwarding to it the act of accession, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.

The said Government shall immediately forward to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification as well as of the act of accession, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 7.

The present Convention shall take effect, in the case of the Powers which were parties to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the Procès-verbal recording such deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which shall ratify subsequently or which shall accede, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their accession has been received by the Netherland Government.

Art. 5.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Convention, such denunciation would not take effect until a year after the written notification made to the Netherland Government, and by it at once communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and affixed their seals thereto.

Done at the Hague, the 29th July, 1899, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to the Contracting Powers.

Annex to the Convention.

Art. 8.

In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Netherland Government, which shall immediately communicate a duly certified copy of the notification to all the other Powers, informing them of the date on which it was received.

The denunciation shall only operate in respect of the notifying Power, and only on the expiry of one year after the notification has reached the Netherland Government.

Art. 9.

A register kept by the Netherland Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 6, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 8, paragraph 1) have been received.

Each Contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts from it.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference.

Annex to the Convention.

Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

Section I.

Belligerents.

Chapter I.

The Qualifications of Belligerents.

Art. 1.

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to the army, but also to militia and corps of volunteers, fulfilling the following conditions:—

1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

2. That of having a distinctive emblem fixed and recognizable at a distance;

3. That of carrying arms openly; and

4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or corps of volunteers constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination “army.”

Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

Section I.

Belligerents.

Chapter I.

The Qualifications of Belligerents.

Art. 1.

(No change.)

(Cp. Brussels Draft Declaration, Art. 9.)

Art. 2.

The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Art. 2.

The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 10.)

Art. 3.

The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.

Art. 3.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 11.)

Chapter II.

Prisoners of War.

Art. 4.

Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not in that of the individuals or corps who captured them.

They must be humanely treated.

All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property.

Chapter II.

Prisoners of War.

Art. 4.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 23.)

Art. 5.

Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or any other locality, and are bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits; but they can only be confined as an indispensable measure of safety.

Art. 5.

Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or any other locality, and are bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits; but they can only be confined as an indispensable measure of safety, and only whilethe circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 24.)

Art. 6.

The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and capacities. Their tasks shall not be excessive, and shall have nothing to do with the operations of war.

Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.

Work done for the State shall be paid for according to the tariffs in force for soldiers of the national army employed on similar tasks.

When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons, the conditions shall be settled in agreement with the military authorities.

The earnings of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.

Art. 6.

The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war, other than officers, according to their rank and capacities. Their tasks shall not be excessive and shall have nothing to do with the operations of the war.

Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.

Work done for the State shall be paid for according to the tariffs in force for soldiers of the national army employed on similar tasks, or, if there are no such tariffs in force, at rates proportional to the work executed.

When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons, the conditions shall be settled in agreement with the military authorities.

The earnings of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.

(Cp. B. D. Arts. 25, 26.)

Art. 7.

The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is bound to maintain them.

Failing a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards food, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the Government which has captured them.

Art. 7.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 27.)

Art. 8.

Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State into whose hands they have fallen.

Any act of insubordination warrants the adoption, as regards them, of such measures of severity as may be necessary.

Escaped prisoners, recaptured before they have succeeded in rejoining their army, or before quitting the territory occupied by the army that captured them, are liable to disciplinary punishment.

Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping, are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any punishment for the previous flight.

Art. 8.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 28.)

Art. 9.

Every prisoner of war, if questioned, is bound to declare his true name and rank, and if he disregards this rule, he is liable to a curtailment of the advantages accorded to the prisoners of war of his class.

Art. 9.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 29.)

Art. 10.

Prisoners of war may be set at liberty on parole if the laws of their country authorize it, and, in such a case, they are bound, on their personal honour, scrupulously to fulfil, both as regards their own Government and the Government by which they were made prisoners, the engagements they have contracted.

In such cases, their own Government is bound not to require of nor to accept from them any service incompatible with the parole given.

Art. 10.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 31.)

Art. 11.

A prisoner of war cannot be forced to accept his liberty on parole; similarly the hostile Government is not obliged to assent to the prisoner’s request to be set at liberty on parole.

Art. 11.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 32.)

Art. 12.

Any prisoner of war, who is liberated on parole and recaptured bearing arms against the Government to which he had pledged his honour, or against the allies of that Government, forfeits his right to be treated as a prisoner of war, and can be brought before the Courts.

Art. 12.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 33.)

Art. 13.

Individuals who follow an army without directly belonging to it, such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers, contractors, who fall into the enemy’s hands, and whom the latter thinks fit to detain, have a right to be treated as prisoners of war, provided they can produce a certificate from the military authorities of the army they were accompanying.

Art. 13.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 34.)

Art. 14.

A Bureau for information relative to prisoners of war is instituted, on the commencement of hostilities, in each of the belligerent States and, should it so happen, in the neutral countries in whose territory belligerents have been received. The duty of this Bureau is to answer all inquiries about prisoners of war, it is furnished by the various services concerned with all the information to enable it to keep an individual return for each prisoner of war. It is kept informed of internments and changes, as well as of admissions into hospital and deaths.

It is also the duty of the Information Bureau to gather and keep together all objects of personal use, valuables, letters, &c., found on the battlefields or left by prisoners who have died in hospitals or ambulances, and to forward them to those interested.

Art. 14.

A bureau for information relative to prisoners of war is instituted on the commencement of hostilities in each of the belligerent States, and, should it so happen, in the neutral countries in whose territory belligerents have been received. The duty of this bureau is to answer all inquiries about prisoners of war, it is furnished by the various services concerned with all the information respecting internments and transfers, releases on parole, exchanges, escapes, admissions into hospital, deaths, as well as all other information necessary to enable it to make out and keep up to date an individual return for each prisoner of war. The bureau must state in this return the regimental number, surname and name, age, place of origin, rank, unit, wounds, date and place of capture, of internment, the wounds, and the death, as well as any observations of a special character. The individual return shall be sent to the Government of the other belligerent after the conclusion of peace.

It is also the duty of the Information Bureau to gather and keep together all objects of personal use, valuables, letters, &c., found on the battlefields or left by prisoners who have been released on parole, or exchanged, or who have escaped, or died in hospitals or ambulances, and to forward them to those interested.

Art. 15.

Relief Societies for prisoners of war, regularly constituted in accordance with the law of their country with the object of serving as the intermediaries for charity, shall receive from the belligerents, for themselves and their duly accredited agents, every facility, within the bounds of military necessities and administrative regulations, for the effective accomplishment of their humane task. Delegates of these Societies may be admitted to distribute relief at the places of internment, as also at the halting places of repatriated prisoners, if furnished with a personal permit by the military authorities, and on giving an engagement in writing to comply with all regulations for order and police which the latter may prescribe.

Art. 15.

(No change.)

Art. 16.

The Information Bureaux shall have the privilege of free postage. Letters, money orders, and valuables, as well as postal parcels destined for the prisoners of war or dispatched by them, shall be free of all postal rates, alike in the countries of origin and destination, as well as in those they pass through.

Gifts and relief in kind for prisoners of war shall be admitted free of all duties of entry and others, as well as of payments for carriage by the Government railways.

Art. 16.

(No change.)

Art. 17.

Officers taken prisoners shall receive, in proper cases, the full pay allowed them in this position by their country’s regulations, the amount to be repaid by their Government.

Art. 17.

Officers taken prisoners shall receive the same pay as officers of corresponding rank in the country where they are detained; the amount shall be repaid by their Government.

Art. 18.

Prisoners of war shall enjoy every latitude for the exercise of their religion, including attendance at their own church services, provided only they comply with the regulations for order and police issued by the military authority.

Art. 18.

(No change.)

Art. 19.

The wills of prisoners of war are received or drawn up on the same conditions as for soldiers of the national army.

The same rules shall be observed regarding certificates of death, as well as for the burial of prisoners of war, due regard being paid to their grade and rank.

Art. 19.

(No change.)

Art. 20.

After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall take place as speedily as possible.

Art. 20.

(No change.)

Chapter III.

The Sick and Wounded.

Art. 21.

The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, subject to any modifications which may be introduced into it.

Chapter III.

The Sick and Wounded.

Art. 21.

The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 35.)

Section II.

Hostilities.

Chapter I.

The means of injuring the Enemy, Sieges and Bombardments.

Art. 22.

The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Section II.

Hostilities.

Chapter I.

The means of injuring the Enemy, Sieges and Bombardments.

Art. 22.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 12.)

Art. 23.

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden:—

(a) To employ poison or poisoned arms;

(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;

(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy’s uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

(g) To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.

Art. 23.

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden—

(a) To employ poison or poisoned arms;

(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;

(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy’s uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

(g) To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(h)To declare extinguished, suspended, or unenforceable in a court of law the rights and rights of action of the nationals of the adverse party.

A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the adverse party to take part in the operations of war directed against their country, even when they have been in his service before the commencement of the war.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 13.)

Art. 24.

Ruses of war and the employment of methods necessary to obtain information about the enemy and the country, are considered lawful.

Art. 24.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 14.)

Art. 25.

The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is forbidden.

Art. 25

The attack or bombardment, by any means whatever, of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings which are not defended is forbidden.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 15; see also 9 H. C. 1907, Art. 1.)

Art. 26.

The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities of it.

Art. 26.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 16.)

Art. 27.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings devoted to religion, art, science and charity, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some special visible signs, which shall previously be notified to the assailants.

Art. 27.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings devoted to religion, art, science and charity, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some special visible signs, which shall previously be notified to the assailants.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 17; see also 9 H. C. 1907, Arts. 3 and 5.)

Art. 28.

The giving up to pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is forbidden.

Art. 28.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 18; see also 9 H. C. 1907, Art. 7.)

Chapter II.

Spies.

Art. 29.

An individual can only be considered a spy if, acting clandestinely, or on false pretences, he obtains, or seeks to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

Thus, soldiers not in disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of a hostile army to obtain information are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers or civilians, carrying out their mission openly, charged with the delivery of despatches destined either for their own army or for that of the enemy. To this class belong likewise individuals sent in balloons to deliver despatches, and generally to maintain communication between the various parts of an army or a territory.

Chapter II.

Spies.

Art. 29.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Arts. 19, 22.)

Art. 30.

A spy taken in the act cannot be punished without previous trial.

Art. 30.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 20.)

Art. 31.

A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage.

Art. 31.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 21.)

Chapter III.

Flags of Truce.

Art. 32.

A person is considered as the bearer of a flag of truce who is authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who comes with a white flag. He has a right to inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler, or drummer, the flag-bearer and the interpreter who may accompany him.

Chapter III.

Flags of Truce.

Art. 32.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 43.)

Art. 33.

The Commander to whom a bearer of a flag of truce is sent is not obliged to receive him in all circumstances.

He can take all steps necessary to prevent the bearer taking advantage of his mission to obtain information.

In case of abuse, he has the right to detain the bearer temporarily.

Art. 33.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 44.)

Art. 34.

The bearer of a flag of truce loses his rights of inviolability if it is proved in a clear and incontestable manner that he has taken advantage of his privileged position to instigate or commit an act of treachery.

Art. 34.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 45.)

Chapter IV.

Capitulations.

Art. 35.

Capitulations agreed on between the Contracting Parties must be in accordance with the rules of military honour.

When once settled, they must be scrupulously observed by both the parties.

Chapter IV.

Capitulations.

Art. 35.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 46.)

Chapter V.

Armistices.

Art. 36.

An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not fixed, the belligerent parties can resume operations at any time, provided always the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice.

Chapter V.

Armistices.

Art. 36.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 47.)

Art. 37.

An armistice may be general or local. The first suspends all military operations of the belligerent States; the second, only those between certain fractions of the belligerent armies and in a fixed radius.

Art. 37.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 48.)

Art. 38.

An armistice must be notified officially, and in good time, to the competent authorities and the troops. Hostilities are suspended immediately after the notification, or at a fixed date.

Art. 38.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 49.)

Art. 39.

It is for the Contracting Parties to settle, in the clauses of the armistice, what relations may be had, within the theatre of war, with the population and with each other.

Art. 39.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 50.)

Art. 40.

Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right to denounce it, and even, in case of urgency, to recommence hostilities at once.

Art. 40.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 51.)

Art. 41.

A violation of the terms of the armistice by individuals acting on their own initiative, only confers the right of demanding the punishment of the offenders, and, if necessary, indemnity for the losses sustained.

Art. 41.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 52.)

Section III.

Military Authority over the Territory of the Hostile State.

Art. 42.

Territory is considered to be occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation applies only to the territories where such authority is established, and can be exercised.

Section III.

Military Authority over the Territory of the Hostile State.

Art. 42.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 1.)

Art. 43.

The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Art. 43.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Arts. 2, 3.)

Art. 44.

Any compulsion[ ] on the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country is forbidden.

Art. 44.

Any compulsion on the population of occupied territory to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about his means of defence is forbidden.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 36.)

Art. 45.

Any compulsion on the population of occupied territory to take the oath to the hostile Power is forbidden.

Art. 45.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 37.)

Art. 46.

Family honour and rights, the lives of individuals and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty of worship, must be respected.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 46.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 38.)

Art. 47.

Pillage is formally prohibited.

Art. 47.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 39.)

Art. 48.

If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do it, as far as possible, in accordance with the rules in existence and the assessment in force, and will in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory on the same scale as that to which the legitimate Government was bound.

Art. 48.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 5.)

Art. 49.

If, besides the taxes referred to in the preceding Article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this can only be for military necessities or the administration of such territory.

Art. 49.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 40.)

Art. 50.

No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.

Art. 50.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Arts. 40, 41.)

Art. 51.

No contribution shall be collected except under a written order and on the responsibility of a Commander-in-chief.

This levy shall only take place, as far as possible, in accordance with the rules in existence and the assessment in force for taxes.

For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the payer.

Art. 51.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 41.)

Art. 52.

Neither requisitions in kind nor services can be demanded from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to imply for the population any obligation to take part in military operations against their country.

These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the Commander in the locality occupied.

Supplies in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged.

Art. 52.

Neither requisitions in kind nor services can be demanded from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to imply for the population any obligation to take part in military operations against their country.

These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the Commander in the locality occupied.

Supplies in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 42.)

Art. 53.

An army of occupation can only take possession of the cash, funds and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depôts of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property of the State which may be used for operations of war.

Railway plant, land telegraphs, telephones, steamers, and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritime law, as well as depôts of arms and, generally, all kinds of war material, even though belonging to companies or to private persons, are likewise means of a nature to be used in the operations of war, but they must be restored and indemnities for them regulated at the peace.

Art. 53.

An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depôts of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property of the State which may be used for operations of war.

All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods apart from cases governed by maritime law, depôts of arms, and, generally, all kinds of war material may be seized, even though belonging to private persons, but they must be restored and indemnities for them regulated at the peace.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 6.)

Art. 54.

Railway material coming from neutral States, whether the property of those States, or of companies, or of private persons, shall be sent back to them as soon as possible.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 6.)

Art. 54.

Submarine cables connecting a territory occupied with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They also must be restored and indemnities for them regulated at the peace.

Art. 55.

The occupying State shall regard itself only as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, immovable property, forests and agricultural undertakings belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct.

Art. 55.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 7.)

Art. 56.

The property of the communes, that of institutions dedicated to religious worship, charity, education, art and science, even when belonging to the State, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, and destruction, or intentional damage done to such institutions, historical monuments, works of art or science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.

Art. 56.

(No change.)

(Cp. B. D. Art. 8.)

Section IV.

The Internment of Belligerents and the Care of the Wounded in Neutral Countries.

Art. 57.

A neutral State which receives in its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war.

It can keep them in camps, and even confine them in fortresses or places assigned for this purpose.

It shall decide whether officers may be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory without permission.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 53.)

(Transferred to 5 H. C. 1907, Art. 11.)¹

Art. 58.

In the absence of a special Convention, the neutral State shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief which the dictates of humanity prescribe.

At the conclusion of peace, the expenses caused by the internment shall be made good.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 54.)

(Transferred to 5 H. C. 1907, Art. 12.)¹

Art. 59.

A neutral State may authorize the passage over its territory of wounded or sick belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry neither personnel nor material of war. In such a case, the neutral State is bound to adopt such measures of safety and control as may be necessary for the purpose.

Wounded and sick brought under these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the adverse party, must be guarded by the neutral State, so as to insure their not taking part again in the operations of war. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral State with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 55.)

(Transferred to 5 H. C. 1907, Art. 14.)¹

Art. 60.

The Geneva Convention applies to the sick and wounded interned in neutral territory.

(Cp. B. D. Art. 56.)

(Transferred to 5 H. C. 1907, Art. 15.)¹

Convention No. 4. Concerning the laws and customs of war on land¹ .

Codification of laws relating to land warfare.The rules for the conduct of hostilities on land are still in many cases to be sought for in historical treatises, the writings of publicists, and from “unwritten custom and tradition; but within the last forty years, attempts of two kinds have been made to deal with the topic in a more authoritative manner² .” National manuals have been compiled for the use of officers and armies in the field, and international Conventions have produced something like a Code of law which is almost universally accepted.

The starting-point for the codification of the rules of war on land is the “Instructions for the government of armies of the United States in the field” drawn up by Dr Francis Lieber and revised by a Board of officers of the United States Army at the instance of President Lincoln and issued from the office of the Adjutant-General to the army as General Order, No. 100, of 1863³ . It was “a deed of great moment in the history of international law and of civilisation,” and although Dr Lieber’s expectation that it would be adopted as a “basis for similar works by the English, French and Germans⁴ ” was not fully realised, its influence is to be seen in the attempts which ultimately were successful in 1899 in producing a Code acceptable to nearly all the members of the family of nations.

The Brussels draft Declaration¹ .The horror at the treatment to which prisoners of war had in some cases been subjected during the American Civil War, had led to the formation in France, in 1872, of a society for the amelioration of the condition of prisoners of war. In 1874 this society invited the Powers of Europe to send two delegates to a Conference to be held at Paris to endeavour to carry out their objects. Meantime the Tsar, Alexander II, proposed a Conference to consider the wider and more general question of the conduct of war. The first meeting of the Conference was held on the 27th July, 1874, at Brussels, and was attended by delegates of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Switzerland and Sweden. The Portuguese and Turkish delegates attended the later meetings of the Conference, but did not arrive in time to take part in the earlier meetings.

The Russian Plenipotentiary, Baron Jomini, was elected President. With the circular addressed to the Powers by the Tsar was enclosed a draft project for the consideration of the Conference, and this was taken as a basis. Dr Bluntschli, one of the German delegates, filled the post of Chairman of the Committee on Condification, and in preparing the final draft, considerable use was made of Dr Lieber’s “Instructions² .” The Conference terminated its labours on the 27th August, 1874, and the delegates signed the Projet de Déclaration merely as a record of the proceedings and without pledging their Governments³ . The Declaration was never ratified. Many causes have been assigned for this failure; among others, the British Government declined to accept the Declaration on the ground that the Articles contained many innovations, while Germany saw in some of its rules, a condemnation of her recent practices in the conduct of the Franco-German war. The Conference was held too soon after this war “which probably never had a rival in the violence of the passions which it excited¹ .” The sections on the occupation of belligerent territory, and the definition of combatants (especially Articles 9 and 10), were fought most keenly, the contest being chiefly between the great military Powers and the smaller ones. Though never forming part of international law, the Declaration has nevertheless had considerable influence, which is reflected in many of the Manuals prepared for the use of armies in the field. But what is even more important, it formed the basis of the “Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land” adopted as the annex to the Second Convention of the Hague Conference 1899² .

The Hague Conference 1899.The Circular of Count Mouravieff of 11th January, 1899, enumerated among the subjects for consideration by the Conference “the Declaration concerning the laws and customs of war elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels, which has remained unratified to the present day.” The Brussels Declaration was considered by the Second Sub-Commission of the Second Commission under the presidency of M. de Martens and after a prolonged examination and considerable protests, especially on the part of some of the smaller states, particularly as regards Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Declaration, the Convention concerning the laws and customs of war on land was agreed to. M. de Martens’ appeal to the Committee at the meeting on the 6th June, 1899, was a masterly summary of the reasons for the acceptance by the Powers of a set of rules for land warfare. He said that if their attempt was again to be unsuccessful the result would be fatal and disastrous in the highest degree to the whole of their work, for belligerent governments and their Generals would say, “Twice, in 1874 and 1899, two great International Conferences composed of the most competent and eminent men in the civilised world in this matter have met. They have not been able to determine the laws and customs of war. They have separated, leaving in absolute vagueness all these questions. These eminent men, in discussing these questions of occupation and the rights and duties over invaded territories, have found no solution but to leave everything vague and within the domain of the law of nations. How shall we, the Commanders-in-Chief of armies, we who are in the midst of action, find time to settle these disputes when they have been unable to do so in time of peace, when a profound calm reigned in the whole world, and when Governments had met to lay the solid foundation for a common life of peace and concord.” At the meeting on the 10th June, Sir John Ardagh on behalf of Great Britain said that in order to avoid a fruitless result of the Conference, it was better to accept the Declaration as a general basis for the instruction of the troops in the laws and customs of war without any express engagement to accept all the Articles which were accepted by the majority. M. de Martens said, “In order to clearly express what is, in the view of the Russian Government, the object of this Conference in this matter, I cannot find a better illustration than that of a ‘Mutual Insurance Society against the abuse of force in time of war.’ Well, gentlemen, one is free to participate or not in a Society, but for its existence Statutes are necessary. In such Insurance Societies as those against fire, hail, or other calamities the Statutes which anticipate such disasters do not legalise them, but state existing dangers. So it is that in founding by common agreement the ‘Society against the abuse of force in time of war’ with the object of safeguarding the interests of populations against the greatest disasters, we do not legalise the disasters: we only state them. It is not against the necessities of war, it is solely against the abuse of force that we wish to provide a guarantee¹ .”

The Conventions.These explanations appear to provide a sufficient reason for the unique character of the Conventions both of 1899 and 1907. Unlike the others, this Convention does not embody the rules of war to be observed by the belligerents, but a detached Règlement contains rules “suitable for communication, disencumbered of alien matter, to troops and others, who have no concern with the mechanism of diplomacy² .”

The object of the Convention is set forth in the preamble, namely “to revise the laws and general customs of war, either with the view of defining them more precisely, or of laying down certain limits for the purpose of modifying their severity as far as possible.” The wording of these provisions was “inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war so far as military necessities permit” and the Regulations “are intended to serve as general rules of conduct for belligerents in their relations with each other and with populations.” The Règlement is admittedly incomplete, and the “high contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established between civilised nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience.” It is in this sense, especially, that Articles 1 and 2 of the Règlement, over which so much controversy took place, are to be understood. By the Convention (Art. 1) the Parties agree to issue to their armed land forces instructions which shall be in conformity with the “Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land” annexed to the Convention¹ . The Regulations are therefore to form the basis of the instructions to be issued to the troops, but it was open to doubt whether they had the same literal binding force as if they had been embodied in a Convention, though the Convention binds the signatory Powers to an essential observance of all these rules² .

Changes in the Convention in 1907.The Convention of 1899 contained five Articles, that of 1907 contains nine. The change in Article 3 (1907) is important, a sanction is now provided for the Regulations. “A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.” This would appear to determine the obligatory character of the Regulations. This proposition was introduced by the German delegate, but as originally presented it made a distinction between the populations of belligerent states and neutral persons which appeared to be to the advantage of the latter³ , but the Conference recognised that in both cases there was a breach of law and that consequently reparation should as a rule be the same. It will be noticed that it is the government, and not the individual wrongdoer from whom reparation is to be demanded. The German draft fixed the time and mode of the settlement; in the case of violations of the laws of war as against a belligerent the settlement of the question was to be postponed until the conclusion of the war, but in the case of injuries to a neutral, the necessary measures were to be taken to assure the promptest reparation compatible with military necessities¹ .

The other changes in the Convention are in reference to the arrangements for accession and denunciation, and are in accordance with the scheme adopted in most of the other Conventions.

Change in the Regulations in 1907.The Second Committee of the Conference of 1907 was entrusted with the subjects comprised in the second paragraph of the Russian programme; the amelioration of the existing laws and usages of war as embodied in the Convention of the First Conference, together with additions relating thereto, such as questions relating to the commencement of war, rights of neutrals on land etc., and the Declarations of 1899. The work was allotted to two Sub-Committees: the first presided over by M. Beernaert (Belgium) took into consideration the Convention concerning the laws and usages of war of 1899 and the Declarations of 1899; the Reporter was Baron von Gieslingen (Austria-Hungary). The Report was presented to the Fourth Plenary Meeting of the Conference on the 17th August, 1907, when the amendments now to be referred to were adopted with certain reservations which will be mentioned subsequently. As Baron von Gieslingen states in his Report, the revision of the Convention and Regulations was not undertaken with a view of re-casting them but only in order to make amendments in points of detail, and the alterations make no very material changes in the work of the Conference of 1899. It was only at the last moment that amendments were forth-coming; when the Sub-Committee commenced its labours there were none before it. Questions affecting the position of neutral persons were transferred to the Second Sub-Committee, and Articles 57 to 60 (99) now form Articles 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the new Convention (No. 5) with regard to neutrals in land warfare.

Article 2. The amendment in this Article relating to levies en masse requires that in addition to respecting the laws and usages of war such persons as have not had time to organise themselves in accordance with Article 1 “must carry arms openly.” This amendment was inserted on the proposition of the German delegate. This was carried in Committee by 30 to 3, with 2 abstentions.

Article 5 relates to the internment of prisoners. There is a difference between internment and confinement² ; the latter is the more rigorous, and the Cuban amendment which was adopted unanimously¹ now provides that this closer form of detention of prisoners can only be continued so long as the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist.

Article 6. There are two slight changes in this Article. The first proposed by the Spanish delegate exempts officers who are prisoners of war from being compelled to work. The second proposed by the Japanese delegate provided for cases where the laws of states make no provision for payment to prisoners of war, and says that where no schedule of rates of payment exists, the remuneration shall be proportionate to the work done.

Article 14. Articles 14-20 (99) were additions to the Brussels Declaration and made provision for a Bureau for information relative to prisoners of war, and gave relief societies for prisoners facilities to carry out their objects. Certain defects in the working of these Bureaux which both Russia and Japan had established during the war were considered, and especially in the case of Article 14² . The Japanese and Cuban delegates proposed the amendments which were adopted, and which require additional details to be kept regarding prisoners of war, including those who have been released on parole, or exchanged or who have escaped.

Article 17. The alteration in this Article was also the result of a Japanese proposal slightly modified in Committee³ . Article 17 (99) provided that officers who were prisoners might receive, in proper cases, the full pay allowed them while in this position by the regulations of their own country, the amount to be repaid by their Government. There appear to have been doubts as to the actual meaning of this Article and some Governments, e.g. the United States, make no provision for such a case⁴ . The original Japanese draft left the matter in a very equivocal condition and the Sub-Committee, having referred to the corresponding Article in the Geneva Convention of 1906 as regards the pay of the personnel of the Medical Service in the enemy’s hands (Chapter iii. Art. 13)⁵ , proposed the Article in the form in which it now stands, so that officers taken prisoner receive the pay allowed to officers of the same rank of the country whose prisoners they are, the amount to be repaid by their Government.

Article 23 (paragraph h). This addition to Article 23 of the Regulations of 1899 which contains a list of seven acts a belligerent is forbidden to perform was made on the proposition of the German delegate. The meaning to be attributed to this clause is open to doubt. At the meeting of the Comité de rédaction of the First Sub-Committee of the Second Committee on the 3rd July the President asked for further information with reference to the proposal. Herr Göppert, the German delegate, explained that the proposal was intended not to confine the inviolability of enemy property to corporeal property and that it had in view the whole domain of obligations by prohibiting all legislative measures which, in time of war, would place the subject of an enemy state in a position of being unable to prosecute the execution of a contract before the courts of the adverse party. On the 13th July, in the First Sub-Committee, General Yermolow (Russian) proposed to introduce an amendment to the German proposition allowing in certain cases during the war the seizure of debts or documents (de saisir des créances ou des titres) belonging to the enemy which might assist in the continuance of the hostilities. This proposal was not accepted, and the text as it now stands was adopted. In the Report of Baron von Gieslingen to the Fourth Plenary Meeting of the Conference he states that “this addition [i.e. paragraph h] was considered to define in felicitous terms one of the consequences of the principles admitted in 1899¹ .” The introduction to the German Weissbuch states that by this paragraph “the principle of the inviolability in the department of justice is recognised. According to the legislation of some states the consequences of war are that the claims of states or their subjects against the nationals of the enemy are extinguished or suspended or inadmissible in a Court of Law. Such provisions are henceforth by Article 23 (h) declared to be invalid² .”

General Davis in discussing the meaning of this paragraph states that the purport of the whole Convention was to impose reasonable and wholesome restrictions upon the authority of commanding generals and their subordinates in the theatre of belligerent activity. “It is more than probable that this humane and commendable purpose would fail of accomplishment if a military commander conceived it to be within his authority to suspend or nullify their operation, or to regard their application in certain cases as a matter falling within his administrative discretion. Especially is this true where a military officer refuses to receive well grounded complaints, or declines to receive demands for redress, in respect to the acts or conduct of the troops under his command, from persons subject to the jurisdiction of the enemy who find themselves, for the time being, in the territory which he holds in military occupation. To provide against such a contingency it was deemed wise to add an appropriate declaratory clause to the prohibition of Article 23¹ .”

Professor Holland in commenting on this new prohibition remarks that “if this clause is intended only for the guidance of an invading commander it needs careful re-drafting: if, as would rather appear, it is of general application, besides being quite out of place where it stands, it is so revolutionary of the doctrine which denies to an enemy any persona standi in judicio that although it is included in the ratification of the Convention by the United States on March 10, 1908, and the signature of the same on June 29, 1908, by Great Britain, it can hardly, till its policy has been seriously discussed, be treated as rule of international law² .” In his introductory chapter to “The Laws of War on Land” Professor Holland cites this paragraph as an instance of the inconvenience of intermixing rules relating to the duties of belligerent Governments at home with those intended to serve for the guidance of armies in the field; he adds that the clause seems to require the signatory Powers to legislate for the abolition of an enemy’s disability to sustain a persona standi in judicio³ .

In favour of the view propounded by General Davis it may be pointed out that the instruction is one addressed to commanders of armies in the field, and therefore such a prohibition has only reference to their proceedings in an enemy country. Article 32 of Dr Lieber’s “Instructions for the government of the armies of the United States” provides that “a victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, may suspend, change or abolish, as far as the martial power extends, the relations which arise from the services due, according to the existing laws of the invaded country, from one citizen, subject or native of the same to another.” The object of this provision was to enable the Federal Generals to set aside slavery in the Confederate territory occupied, and the Article of the “Instructions” attributed to them a power which was not theirs by the general rules of law. The paragraph under consideration would have the effect of negativing the view contained in the Article of the “Instructions,” but it appears to do more than this. Dr Lieber’s Article refers to “relations...from one citizen, subject or native of the same to another”; Article 23 (h) of the present Convention refers to the “rights...of the adverse party.”

If the view taken by the German Weissbuch be correct, and so far as I have been able to ascertain from the official records of the proceedings at the Conference it was the only view expressed during the discussions, Article 23 (h) constitutes a reversal of a rule of the English and American Common Law that contracts entered into by British subjects and subjects of the belligerent states, before the outbreak of war, become extinguished or suspended according to their nature¹ ; in England it has been stated by writers of great authority that statutes of limitation run during a war as against enemies, though the contrary has been decided in the United States² . According to the strict wording of this paragraph some states may read it either with the restrictive meaning attached to it by General Davis, others with the more extended meaning given by the German Weissbuch³ if the latter view is taken by Great Britain legislation will probably be required to give it effect.

Article 23 (2nd paragraph) and Article 44. The alterations in these two Articles both have relation to the limits of compulsion which an invader may apply to the inhabitants of the invaded territory. They are dealt with together in the Report of Baron von Gieslingen.

The second paragraph of Article 23 is based on a proposal introduced by the German delegate. Originally it was intended to form a new Article between 22 and 23, and to take the place of Article 44; it is throughout the discussion referred to as 22a. As introduced by Germany the proposal was as follows: “A belligerent is also forbidden to compel the subjects (ressortissants)¹ of the enemy to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country (contre leur propre pays) even in cases where they are in the service of the other belligerent before the commencement of the war.” The Austro-Hungarian delegate moved to insert the words “as combatants” after the words “take part.” The Austrian amendment was opposed by the French, Belgian and Swiss delegates as legalising the employment of guides taken from the population of the invaded country.Forced guides. The Austro-Hungarian and Russian delegates supported this amendment on the ground that frequently in mountainous countries, maps were practically valueless, and local guides were essential to an invading army. The Austrian amendment was rejected by 11 to 2, and the German proposal accepted with a slight verbal alteration. The Committee decided to suppress Article 44 (99) and in its place to insert a Dutch proposal moved by General den Beer Poortugael as 44a. This proposal was as follows: “It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants (population) of an occupied territory to give information (éclaircissements) about their own army or the means of defence of their country.”

The German proposal for Article 22a was a development of the principle accepted in 1899, as regards the forced participation of the inhabitants of an occupied territory in military operations against their own country, by extending to all persons therein (ressortissants) the prohibition in which the Regulation did not expressly give them the benefit. It even extended it to foreign subjects who might have been in the service of the other belligerent before the commencement of the war. It was on account of the general application of the Article that the German delegate proposed its insertion in the 2nd section of the Regulations, relating to the means of injuring the enemy. The German proposal had an extensive character; the Austrian had a quite different meaning, as it permitted the compulsion of the inhabitants to render assistance of every kind short of fighting, and especially the employment of forced guides, and the giving of military information. The Austro-Hungarian delegate desired to draw a clear distinction between “operations of war” in which the inhabitants of the enemy state could not be compelled to take part, and “military services” which it was sought in exceptional cases to be able to impose on them² .

At the meeting of the Sub-Committee on the 24th July Baron von Gieslingen presented his report on the foregoing, and the President (M. Beernaert) summarised the position which had been reached. Baron von Gieslingen defended with considerable vehemence the Austrian amendment before mentioned. General Yermolow (Russia) again supported the Austrian view. “The services of the inhabitants,” he said, “are often indispensable to the army in the form of road mending, for camps, hospital trains, etc. Such services are already authorised by Article 52 which provides that they may be required from the inhabitants for the needs of the army. Consequently if the German proposal is accepted without the addition of the Austro-Hungarian amendment, there will be a contradiction to Article 52 and the whole question will be brought into ambiguity, obscurity and confusion. Either maintain the existing rules or accept Article 22a with the Austro-Hungarian amendment.”

General den Beer Poortugael (Holland) supported the recommendation of the Committee, and urged that it was immoral to authorise the practice of exacting the service of guides. General Amourel (France) spoke in the same sense, supporting the German and Dutch proposals, because their objects were to definitely forbid (de consacrer l’interdiction) the use of forced guides. Colonel Borel (Switzerland) also supported the German-Dutch proposal.

M. Beernaert (Belgium) with a view to combine the two proposals moved the following: “To replace Article 44 (or whatever be the number assigned to it) and Article 44a proposed by the Dutch delegate by the following: ‘It is forbidden to force the inhabitants (habitants) of an occupied territory to take part personally either directly or indirectly, collectively or individually in military operations against their country and to demand from them information in view of such operations¹ .’ ” The advantages claimed for this were that the word habitants was less equivocal than populations, and that the words “directly or indirectly, collectively or individually” left no doubt as to the meaning of “military operations.” The Russian delegate proposed to leave Article 44 (99) intact, and to place the German proposition 22a without the Austrian amendment in a chapter by itself headed “Des ressortissants d’un belligérant dans le territoire de la Partie adverse.” Baron von Gieslingen still maintained his point, but professed his willingness to accept the Russian amendment if his own failed to be carried. The Belgian compromise was finally carried by the small majority of 3 (18 for, 15 against), but this was not sufficient and once more the subject was sent to the Comité de rédaction which finally decided to retain the separate propositions 22a and 44a with the two following changes of “contre leur pays” instead of “contre leur propre pays” in Article 22a, and the substitution of the words les habitants for la population in Article 44a. M. Beernaert pointed out that the Russian amendment avoided the question of the employment of guides and forced information without providing a solution either way. General den Beer Poortugael then made an eloquent appeal in support of the proposed alteration. He pleaded that the greatest respect should be shown to the inhabitants of occupied districts, a principle on which Wellington had acted, and which inspired the proclamation of the King of Prussia issued at Saarbrücken in 1870. War was between states and not between individuals, the peaceful inhabitants must not be compelled to take part in it. The German proposition 22a was carried as was also the Dutch 44a, the latter by 23 to 9 with 1 abstention.

The Report came before the Conference at its Fourth Plenary Meeting on the 17th August, 1908, when Article 22a was accepted unanimously, but when Article 44a was reached Baron Marschall (Germany) explained that he was unable to accept it on the ground that it was impossible to specify particular instances of acts already prohibited by Article 22a [i.e. Article 23, par. 2 of the present Regulations]. In endeavouring to do this there was a risk either of unduly limiting the freedom of military action, or of producing an interpretation which according to the maxim “qui dicit de uno, negat de altro” would allow all acts being considered lawful which were not expressly forbidden¹ .

Reservations on Article 44.In signing the Convention, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Montenegro and Russia made reservations on the subject of this Article. In the introduction to the German Weissbuch the non-acceptance of Article 44 by Germany is explained as being due to the fact that it selects in an undesirable manner single instances from the cases to which the principles contained in Article 23, par. 2, are applicable² .

All the Powers, except China, Spain and Nicaragua, have signed this Convention and the signatory Powers in accepting these two amendments have registered a distinct advance in ameliorating the conditions of the inhabitants of invaded districts. As a result of these two Articles such persons cannot be compelled to take part in “operations of war.” This expression is unsatisfactorily vague, but from the discussions there can be no doubt that it was understood to include the employment of the enemy’s subjects as guides; and Article 44 forbids a belligerent to force the inhabitants of “occupied” territory to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defence, thus specifying in detail certain of the prohibitions expressed in more general terms in Article 23.

Article 44 (99) was ambiguous, and the employment of guides was by many authorities deemed not to be prohibited. The German General Staff treated their employment as permissible; Professor Holland also considered that their employment was not rendered unlawful by it: the Japanese resorted to this practice in their war against China¹ . Professor Holland considers that the question is still doubtful, but Article 44 of the new Convention is much more definite than the old Article, and the amendment moved by the Austrian delegate, and supported by the Russian, was with the express object of legalising the employment of forced guides which these delegates clearly thought was forbidden² . The new paragraph to Article 23 makes use of the phrase “operations of war” which may be taken to cover a wider range than “military operations.” The same expression is used in Article 52, to which reference was made by the Russian delegate, and it is therein provided that the services permitted to be demanded from localities or inhabitants can only be required for the needs of the army of occupation, and must be of such a nature as not to imply any obligation on the population to take part in “operations of war” against their country.

Under Article 2 of the Convention, the Regulations only apply as between the Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention. Germany, Austria, Japan, Montenegro and Russia have expressly refused to accept Article 44, but if the view above expressed is correct they are all now by virtue of their acceptance of the other Articles bound for the future to refrain from forcing inhabitants of an invaded enemy territory to act as guides to their armies.

In another direction, Article 23, par. 2, also makes an important alteration by providing that the subjects of a state in the service of the other belligerent before the outbreak of war cannot be compelled to take part in operations of war directed against their own country³ .

Article 25. The addition to this Article of the words “by any means whatever” was understood to cover the case of bombardment of undefended towns by projectiles from balloons. The first Declaration of 1899 against the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons, a Declaration which was not limited to undefended places, was renewed in 1907, but it has not been accepted by many of the great military Powers¹ . The words “by any means whatever” were introduced on the proposition of the French delegate, in order to make clear the illegality of employing such a method of attack against an undefended town. These words take the place of a much more lengthy proposal introduced by the Russian and Italian delegates. The prohibition is therefore of unlimited duration, whereas the Declaration lasts only until the termination of the next Conference, unless it is renewed by it.

Article 27. With a view of bringing the recommendation of the Second Committee into harmony with those of the Third Committee relating to naval bombardments² the Greek delegate suggested the inclusion of “historical monuments” in the list of buildings which are to be spared, as far as possible, in bombardments. This was unanimously accepted.

Article 52. M. Tcharkyow (Russia) proposed to complete this Article by a provision that commanders should be authorised to settle as soon as possible during the continuance of hostilities the receipts given for requisition. The wording of the addition was settled by the Comité de rédaction, leaving the time and mode of payment indefinite (le plus tôt possible).

Article 53, par. 2. This paragraph which deals with the property which an army of occupation may appropriate is based on a proposal made by the Austro-Hungarian delegate. His proposition was to add to the paragraph referring to the means of transport the words “sur terre, sur mer et dans les airs.” The Comité de rédaction proposed a new paragraph enumerating various modes of transport, but the Committee thought it advisable not to make a specific enumeration owing to the dangers of incompleteness. A general formula which did not lend itself to any ambiguity was thought preferable, and this was adopted. The military delegate of Japan raised the question of the appropriateness of including means of transport by sea in regulations for land warfare, but the Committee considered it advisable to retain the words “sur mer” as the right of maritime capture was applicable in land warfare in the case of ships seized in a port by a body of troops, especially as regards those destined for river navigation.

Article 54. This Article was originally proposed by the Danish delegate as a third paragraph to Article 53. It now takes the place of Article 54 (99) which related to neutral railway plant, and which is transferred to the 5th Convention, where it stands, with certain alterations, as Article 19¹ .

Submarine Cables.The subject of submarine cables was introduced at the Conference of 1899, when the Danish delegate proposed to add after the words “télégraphes de terre” the words “y compris les fils d’atterrissage établis dans les limites du territoire maritime de l’État.” This was objected to by the British delegate as involving the discussion of matters relating to maritime warfare, which were outside the scope of Articles dealing exclusively with land warfare. The Article then under discussion (which subsequently became Article 53 (99)) was drafted so as to include “câbles d’atterrissage.” In a Memorandum from the War Office to the Foreign Office of 19th July, 1899, on this subject, it was stated that “Lord Lansdowne does not consider that their exclusion [i.e. the exclusion of the words ‘câbles d’atterrissage’] affects military interests in any way, as the dominant military Power on land would, under any circumstances, have adequate control over the landing places of cables in an occupied territory, whether the words were inserted or not; and he is further of opinion that if submarine cables are dealt with internationally as a whole, the particular case of the ‘câbles d’atterrissage’ should be considered whenever that subject may come under discussion.” The words were subsequently excluded from the Article² .

The question was again raised in 1907 by the Danish delegate, and the proposal was accepted with the omission of the words “ou ennemi” after “occupé.” Submarine cables which connect an occupied territory with a neutral are not to be seized or destroyed except in case of absolute necessity. They must be restored and the compensation to be paid for them is to be arranged for on the conclusion of peace. This is the only international agreement affecting submarine cables in time of war. The Institut de Droit International devoted considerable attention to the subject, and at the meeting at Brussels in 1902 adopted five resolutions for the treatment of cables by belligerents³ . There appears to be a general agreement that cables connecting neutral territory are inviolable, that cables connecting enemy territory may be cut anywhere except in neutral waters, and that under this Article, in case of necessity, cables connecting an occupied enemy territory may be cut within such territory. The foregoing rules were adopted by the United States Naval Code of 1900, which was withdrawn in 1904. The International Convention for the protection of submarine cables of 1884 expressly states that its provisions in no way limit the liberty of actions of belligerents (Art. 15)¹ .

The changes made in the Regulations will be seen to be on the whole slight. The most important, namely, the additions to Article 23 and the alteration in Article 44, are open to different constructions, and the non-acceptance of the latter by several important military Powers prevents it from ranking as a rule of universal international law. The alterations in the other Articles are on points of detail, or are legitimate deductions from admitted principles. The changes are all in the direction of ameliorating the conditions of land warfare, and strengthening the terms of the “Policy of Insurance against the abuse of force in time of war.”

Signatory Powers.All the states present at the Conference have signed the Convention except China, Spain and Nicaragua, and the only reservations of importance made are those already referred to in connection with Article 23, par. 2. Turkey made a reservation as regards Article 3.

Appendix to Note on the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

Translation of the Draft of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War adopted by the Conference of Brussels, 27th August, 1874¹ .

Of Military Authority over the Hostile State.

Art. 1. A territory is considered as occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself. (See Art. 42 of Hague Regulations, No. 3, 1899.)

Art. 2. The authority of the legitimate power being suspended and having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety. (See Art. 43 of H. R., which combines Arts. 2 and 3.)

Art. 3. With this object he will maintain the laws which were in force in the country in time of peace, and will only modify, suspend or replace them by others if necessity obliges him to do so.

Art. 4. The functionaries and officials of every class who at the instance of the occupier consent to continue to perform their duties shall be under his protection. They shall not be dismissed or liable to summary punishment (punis disciplinairement) unless they fail in fulfilling the obligations they have undertaken, and shall be handed over to justice only if they violate those obligations by unfaithfulness. (Omitted from H. R.)

Art. 5. The army of occupation shall only levy such taxes, dues, duties and tolls as are already established for the benefit of the State, or their equivalent, if it be impossible to collect them, and this shall be done so far as possible in the form of and according to existing practice. It shall devote them to defraying the expenses of the administration of the country to the same extent as was obligatory on the legitimate government. (See Art. 48 of H. R.)

Art. 6. The army occupying a territory shall take possession only of the specie, the funds and realisable securities (valeurs exigibles) which are the property of the State in its own right, the depôts of arms, means of transport, magazines and supplies, and, in general, all the personal property of the State which is of a nature to aid in carrying on the war.

Railway plant, land telegraphs, steam and other vessels, not included in cases regulated by maritime law, as well as depôts of arms, and generally every kind of munitions of war, although belonging to companies or to private individuals, are to be considered equally as means of a nature to aid in carrying on war, which cannot be left by the army of occupation at the disposal of the enemy. Railway plant, land telegraphs, as well as the steam and other vessels above mentioned, shall be restored and indemnities be regulated on the conclusion of peace. (See Art. 53 of H. R.)

Art. 7. The occupying State shall only consider itself in the light of an administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural undertakings belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied territory. It should protect the capital of these properties (fonds de ces propriétés), and administer them according to the laws of usufruct. (See Art. 55 of H. R.)

Art. 8. The property of communes, institutions devoted to religion, charity and education, to arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, and destruction of, or intentional damage to such institutions, to historical monuments, works of art or science, should be made the subject of proceedings by the competent authorities. (See Art. 56 of H. R.)

Of those who are to be recognized as Belligerents; of Combatants and Non-combatants.

Art. 9. The laws, rights and duties of war apply not only to armies, but likewise to militia and corps of volunteers, fulfilling the following conditions:—

• 1. That they have at their head a person responsible for his subordinates;
• 2. That they wear some fixed distinctive badge recognizable at a distance;
• 3. That they carry arms openly; and
• 4. That in their operations they conform to the laws and customs of war.

In those countries where the militia form the whole or part of the army, they shall be included under the denomination of “army.” (See Art. 1 of H. R.)

Art. 10. The population of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops, without having had time to organize themselves in conformity with Article 9, shall be considered as belligerents, if they respect the laws and customs of war. (See Art. 2 of H. R.)

Art. 11. The armed forces of the belligerents may be composed of combatants and non-combatants. In the event of being captured by the enemy, both shall enjoy the rights of prisoners of war. (See Art. 3 of H. R.)

Of means of Injuring the Enemy.

Art. 12. The laws of war do not allow to belligerents an unlimited power as to the choice of means of injuring the enemy. (See Art. 22 of H. R.)

Art. 13. According to this principle are strictly forbidden—

• (a) The use of poison or poisoned weapons.
• (b) Murder by treachery of individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.
• (c) Murder of an enemy, who, having laid down his arms or having no longer the means of defending himself, has surrendered at discretion.
• (d) The declaration that no quarter will be given.
• (e) The use of arms, projectiles or material which may cause unnecessary suffering, as well as the use of the projectiles prohibited by the Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868.
• (f) Abuse of the flag of truce, the national flag, or the military insignia or uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention.
• (g) All destruction or seizure of the property of the enemy which is not imperatively required by the necessity of war. (See Art. 23 of H. R.)

Art. 14. Ruses of war and the employment of means necessary to procure intelligence respecting the enemy and the country (subject to the provisions of Article 36) are considered as lawful. (See Art. 24 of H. R.)

Of Sieges and Bombardments.

Art. 15. Fortified places are alone liable to be besieged. Towns, agglomerations of houses or open villages which are undefended, cannot be attacked or bombarded. (See Art. 25 of H. R.)

Art. 16. But if a town or fortress, agglomeration of houses, or village, be defended, the commander of the attacking forces should, before commencing a bombardment, and except in the case of surprise (l’attaque de vive force), do all in his power to warn the authorities. (See Art. 26 of H. R.)

Art. 17. In the like case, all necessary steps should be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings devoted to religion, arts, sciences and charity, hospitals, and places where sick and wounded are collected, on condition that they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate these buildings by special visible signs, to be notified beforehand by the besieged. (See Art. 27 of H. R.)

Art. 18. A town taken by storm shall not be given up to the victorious troops to plunder. (See Art. 28 of H. R.)

Of Spies.

Art. 19. An individual shall be considered as a spy if, acting secretly or under false pretences, he collects, or tries to collect, information in districts occupied by the enemy, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party. (See Art. 29 of H. R.)

Art. 20. A spy, if taken in the act, shall be tried and treated according to the laws in force in the army which captures him. (See Art. 30 of H. R.)

Art. 21. A spy who rejoins the army to which he belongs and who is subsequently captured by the enemy is to be treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts. (See Art. 31 of H. R.)

Art. 22. Soldiers (les militaires) not in disguise who have penetrated within the zone of operations of the enemy’s army, with the intention of collecting information, are not considered as spies.

In like manner, soldiers (and also non-military persons carrying out their mission openly) charged with the transmission of despatches, either to their own army or to that of the enemy, shall not be considered as spies if captured by the enemy.

To this class belong also, if captured, individuals sent in balloons to carry despatches, and generally to keep up communications between the different parts of an army or of a territory. (See Art. 29 of H. R.)

Of Prisoners of War.

Art. 23. Prisoners of war are lawful and disarmed enemies. They are in the power of the enemy’s Government, but not of the individuals or of the corps who made them prisoners.

They should be treated with humanity.

Every act of insubordination authorizes the necessary measures of severity to be taken with regard to them.

All their personal effects except their arms are considered to be their own property. (See Art. 4 of H. R.)

Art. 24. Prisoners of war are liable to internment in a town, fortress, camp, or any locality whatever, under an obligation not to go beyond certain fixed limits; but they may not be placed in confinement (enfermés) unless absolutely necessary as a measure of security. (See Art. 5 of H. R.)

Art. 25. Prisoners of war may be employed on certain public works which have no immediate connection with the operations on the theatre of war, provided the employment be not excessive, nor humiliating to their military rank if they belong to the army, or to their official or social position if they do not belong to it.

They may also, subject to such regulations as may be drawn up by the military authorities, undertake private work.

The pay they receive will go towards ameliorating their position, or will be paid to them at the time of their release. In this case the cost of their maintenance may be deducted from their pay. (See Art. 6 of H. R.)

Art. 26. Prisoners of war cannot be compelled in any way to take any part whatever in carrying on the operations of war. (See Art. 6 of H. R.)

Art. 27. The Government, in whose power are the prisoners of war, undertakes to provide for their maintenance.

The conditions of such maintenance may be settled by a mutual understanding between the belligerents.

In default of such an understanding, and as a general principle, prisoners of war shall be treated, as regards food and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the Government who made them prisoners. (See Art. 7 of H. R.)

Art. 28. Prisoners of war are subject to the laws and regulations in force in the army in whose power they are.

Arms may be used, after summoning, against a prisoner attempting to escape. If retaken, he is subject to summary punishment (peines disciplinaires), or to a stricter surveillance.

If, after having succeeded in making his escape, he is again made prisoner, he is not liable to any punishment for his previous escape. (See Art. 8 of H. R.)

Art. 29. Every prisoner is bound to declare, if questioned on the point, his true names and rank, and in the case of his infringing this rule he will incur a restriction of the advantages granted to the prisoners of the class to which he belongs. (See Art. 9 of H. R.)

Art. 30. The exchange of prisoners of war is regulated by mutual agreement between the belligerents. (Omitted from H. R.)

Art. 31. Prisoners of war may be released on parole if the laws of their country allow of it, and in such a case they are bound on their personal honour to fulfil scrupulously, as regards their own Government as well as that which made them prisoners, the engagements they have undertaken.

In the same case their own Government should neither demand nor accept from them any service contrary to their parole. (See Art. 10 of H. R.)

Art. 32. A prisoner of war cannot be forced to accept release on parole, nor is the enemy’s Government obliged to comply with the request of a prisoner claiming to be released on parole. (See Art. 11 of H. R.)

Art. 33. Every prisoner of war liberated on parole, and retaken carrying arms against the Government to which he had pledged his honour, may be deprived of the rights accorded to prisoners of war, and may be brought before the courts. (See Art. 12 of H. R.)

Art. 34. Persons who are with armies, but who do not directly form part of them, such as correspondents, newspaper reporters, sutlers, contractors, &c., may also be made prisoners of war.

These persons should, however, be furnished with a permit issued by a competent authority, as well as with a certificate of identity. (See Art. 13 of H. R.)

Of the Sick and Wounded.

Art. 35. The duties of belligerents with regard to the treatment of sick and wounded are regulated by the Convention of Geneva of the 22nd August, 1864, subject to the modifications which may be introduced into that Convention. (See Art. 21 of H. R.)

Of the Military Power with respect to Private Individuals.

Art. 36. The population of an occupied territory cannot be compelled to take part in military operations against its own country. (See Art. 44 of H. R.)

Art. 37. The population of occupied territories cannot be compelled to swear allegiance to the enemy Power. (See Art. 45 of H. R.)

Art. 38. The honour and rights of the family, the life and property of individuals, as well as their religious convictions and the exercise of their religion, should be respected.

Private property cannot be confiscated. (See Art. 46 of H. R.)

Art. 39. Pillage is formally forbidden. (See Art. 47 of H. R.)

Of Contributions and Requisitions.

Art. 40. As private property should be respected, the enemy will demand from parishes (communes), or the inhabitants, only such payments and services as are connected with the necessities of war generally acknowledged, in proportion to the resources of the country, and which do not imply, with regard to the inhabitants, the obligation of taking part in the operations of war against their own country. (Arts. 49-52 of H. R. are new, and deal with the subjects of Arts. 40-42.)

Art. 41. The enemy, in levying contributions, whether as equivalents for taxes (see Art. 5) or for payments which should be made in kind, or as fines, will proceed, as far as possible, according to the rules of the distribution and assessment of the taxes in force in the occupied territory.

The civil authorities of the legal government shall afford their assistance, if they have remained in office.

Contributions can be imposed only on the order and on the responsibility of the general-in-chief, or of the superior civil authority established by the enemy in the occupied territory.

For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the person furnishing it.

Art. 42. Requisitions shall be made only by the authority of the commander of the locality occupied.

For every requisition an indemnity shall be granted or a receipt given.

Of Flags of Truce.

Art. 43. An individual is considered as bearing a flag of truce who is authorized by one of the belligerents to confer with the other, on presenting himself with a white flag, accompanied by a trumpeter (bugler or drummer), or also by a flag-bearer. He shall have the right to inviolability as well as the trumpeter (bugler or drummer), and the flag-bearer, who accompany him. (See Art. 32 of H. R.)

Art. 44. The commander to whom a bearer of a flag of truce is despatched is not obliged to receive him under all circumstances and conditions.

It is lawful for him to take all measures necessary for preventing the bearer of the flag of truce taking advantage of his stay within the radius of the enemy’s position, to the prejudice of the latter; and if the bearer of the flag of truce is found guilty of such a breach of confidence, he has the right to detain him temporarily. (See Art. 33 of H. R.)

He may equally declare beforehand that he will not receive bearers of flags of truce during a certain period. Envoys presenting themselves after such a notification from the side to which it has been given forfeit their right to inviolability. (Omitted from H. R.¹ )

Art. 45. The bearer of a flag of truce forfeits his right of inviolability if it be proved in a positive and irrefutable manner that he has taken advantage of his privileged position to provoke or commit an act of treachery. (See Art. 34 of H. R.)

Of Capitulations.

Art. 46. The conditions of capitulations shall be discussed by the contracting parties.

These conditions should not be contrary to military honour.

When once settled by a convention they shall be scrupulously observed by both sides. (See Art. 35 of H. R.)

Of Armistices.

Art. 47. An armistice suspends warlike operations by a mutual agreement between the belligerents. Should the duration thereof not be fixed, the belligerents may resume operations at any moment; provided, however, that proper warning be given to the enemy in accordance with the conditions of the armistice. (See Art. 36 of H. R.)

Art. 48. An armistice may be general or local. The former suspends all warlike operations between the belligerents; the latter only those between certain portions of the belligerent armies, and within a fixed radius. (See Art. 37 of H. R.)

Art. 49. An armistice should be notified officially and without delay to the competent authorities and to the troops. Hostilities are suspended immediately after the notification. (See Art. 38 of H. R.)

Art. 50. It rests with the contracting parties to define in the clauses of the armistice the relations which shall exist between the populations. (See Art. 39 of H. R.)

Art. 51. The violation of the armistice by either of the parties gives to the other the right of terminating it (le dénoncer). (See Art. 40 of H. R.)

Art. 52. The violation of the clauses of an armistice by private individuals, on their own initiative, only affords the right of demanding the punishment of the guilty persons, and, if there is occasion for it, an indemnity for losses sustained. (See Art. 41 of H. R.)

Of Belligerents interned, and of Wounded interned, in Neutral Territory.

Art. 53. The neutral State which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, so far as possible, away from the theatre of war.

It may keep them in camps, or even confine them in fortresses or in places appropriated to this purpose.

It will decide whether the officers may be left at liberty on giving their parole not to quit the neutral territory without authority. (See Art. 57 of H. R.)

Art. 54. In default of a special convention, the neutral State shall furnish the interned with provisions, clothing, and relief which the dictates of humanity prescribe.

The expenses incurred by the internment shall be made good at the conclusion of peace. (See Art. 58 of H. R.)

Art. 55. The neutral State may authorize the transport across its territory of the wounded and sick belonging to the belligerent armies, provided that the trains which convey them do not carry either the personnel or matériel of war.

In this case the neutral State is bound to take the measures necessary for the safety and control of the operation. (See Art. 59 of H. R.)

Art. 56. The Convention of Geneva applies to the sick and wounded interned on neutral territory. (See Art. 60 of H. R.)

V.

Neutral Powers and Persons in Land Warfare.

V.

Convention concernant les Droits et les Devoirs des Puissances et des Personnes Neutres en cas de Guerre sur Terre.

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse, &c.¹

En vue de mieux préciser les droits et les devoirs des Puissances neutres en cas de guerre sur terre et de régler la situation des belligérants réfugiés en territoire neutre;

Désirant également définir la qualité de neutre en attendant qu’il soit possible de régler dans son ensemble la situation des particuliers neutres dans leurs rapports avec les belligérants;

Ont résolu de conclure une Convention à cet effet et ont, en conséquence, nommé pour Leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:—

V.

Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in War on Land.

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c.¹

With the view of laying down more clearly the rights and duties of neutral Powers in case of war on land and of regulating the position of belligerents who have taken refuge in neutral territory;

Being likewise desirous of defining the meaning of the term “neutral,” pending the possibility of settling, in its entirety, the position of neutral persons in their relations with belligerents;

Have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect, and have, in consequence, appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:—

Chapitre I.

Des Droits et des Devoirs des Puissances Neutres.

Art. 1.

Le territoire des Puissances neutres est inviolable.

Chapter I.

The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers.

Art. 1.

The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2.

Il est interdit aux belligérants de faire passer à travers le territoire d’une Puissance neutre des troupes ou des convois, soit de munitions, soit d’approvisionnements.

Art. 2.

Belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of a neutral Power troops or convoys, either of munitions of war or of supplies.

Art. 3.

Il est également interdit aux belligérants:

(a) D’installer sur le territoire d’une Puissance neutre une station radiotélégraphique ou tout appareil destiné à servir comme moyen de communication avec des forces belligérantes sur terre ou sur mer;

(b) D’utiliser toute installation de ce genre établie par eux avant la guerre sur le territoire de la Puissance neutre dans un but exclusivement militaire, et qui n’a pas été ouverte au service de la correspondance publique.

Art. 3.

Belligerents are also forbidden:

(a) To erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or any apparatus intended to serve as a means of communication with belligerent forces on land or sea;

(b) To make use of any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power, for purely military purposes and not previously opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4.

Des corps de combattants ne peuvent être formés, ni des bureaux d’enrôlement ouverts, sur le territoire d’une Puissance neutre au profit des belligérants.

Art. 4.

Corps of combatants cannot be formed, nor recruiting offices opened, on the territory of a neutral Power, in the interest of the belligerents.

Art. 5.

Une Puissance neutre ne doit tolérer sur son territoire aucun des actes visés par les articles 2 à 4.

Elle n’est tenue de punir des actes contraires à la neutralité que si ces actes ont été commis sur son propre territoire.

Art. 5.

A neutral Power ought not to allow on its territory any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4.

It is not bound to punish acts in violation of neutrality unless such acts have been committed on its own territory.

Art. 6.

La responsabilité d’une Puissance neutre n’est pas engagée par le fait que des individus passent isolément la frontière pour se mettre au service de l’un des belligérants.

Art. 6.

A neutral Power does not incur responsibility by the fact that persons cross the frontier singly in order to place themselves at the service of one of the belligerents.

Art. 7.

Une Puissance neutre n’est pas tenue d’empêcher l’exportation ou le transit, pour le compte de l’un ou de l’autre des belligérants, d’armes, de munitions, et, en général, de tout ce qui peut être utile à une armée ou à une flotte.

Art. 7.

A neutral Power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or fleet.

Art. 8.

Une Puissance neutre n’est pas tenue d’interdire ou de restreindre l’usage, pour les belligérants, des câbles télégraphiques ou téléphoniques, ainsi que des appareils de télégraphie sans fil, qui sont, soit sa propriété, soit celle de compagnies ou de particuliers.

Art. 8.

A neutral Power is not bound to forbid or restrict the employment on behalf of belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus whether belonging to it, or to companies or to private individuals.

Art. 9.

Toutes mesures restrictives ou prohibitives prises par une Puissance neutre à l’égard des matières visées par les articles 7 et 8 devront être uniformément appliquées par elle aux belligérants.

La Puissance neutre veillera au respect de la même obligation par les compagnies ou particuliers propriétaires de câbles télégraphiques ou téléphoniques ou d’appareils de télégraphie sans fil.

Art. 9.

Every restrictive or prohibitive measure taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be applied impartially by it to the belligerents.

The neutral Power shall see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private owners of telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.

Art. 10.

Ne peut être considéré comme un acte hostile le fait, par une Puissance neutre, de repousser, même par la force, les atteintes à sa neutralité.

Art. 10.

The fact of a neutral Power repelling, even by force, attacks on its neutrality cannot be considered as a hostile act.

Chapitre II.

Des Belligérants internés et des Blessés soignés chez les Neutres.

Art. 11.

La Puissance neutre qui reçoit sur son territoire des troupes appartenant aux armées belligérantes, les internera, autant que possible, loin du théâtre de la guerre.

Elle pourra les garder dans des camps, et même les enfermer dans les forteresses ou dans des lieux appropriés à cet effet.

Elle décidera si les officiers peuvent être laissés libres en prenant l’engagement sur parole de ne pas quitter le territoire neutre sans autorisation.

Chapter II.

Internment of Belligerents and Care of the Wounded in Neutral Territory.

Art. 11.

A neutral Power which receives in its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war.

It can keep them in camps, and even confine them in fortresses or places assigned for this purpose.

It shall decide whether officers may be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory without permission.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 57.)

Art. 12.

A défaut de convention spéciale, la Puissance neutre fournira aux internés les vivres, les habillements, et les secours commandés par l’humanité.

Bonification sera faite, à la paix, des frais occasionnés par l’internement.

Art. 12.

In the absence of a special Convention, the neutral Power shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief which the dictates of humanity prescribe.

At the conclusion of peace, the expenses caused by the internment shall be made good.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 58.)

Art. 13.

La Puissance neutre qui reçoit des prisonniers de guerre évadés les laissera en liberté. Si elle tolère leur séjour sur son territoire, elle peut leur assigner une résidence.

La même disposition est applicable aux prisonniers de guerre amenés par des troupes se réfugiant sur le territoire de la Puissance neutre.

Art. 13.

A neutral Power which receives prisoners of war who have escaped shall leave them at liberty. If it allows them to remain in its territory, it may assign them a place of residence.

The same rule applies to prisoners of war brought by troops taking refuge in the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 14.

Une Puissance neutre pourra autoriser le passage sur son territoire des blessés ou malades appartenant aux armées belligérantes, sous la réserve que les trains qui les amèneront ne transporteront ni personnel, ni matériel de guerre. En pareil cas, la Puissance neutre est tenue de prendre les mesures de sûreté et de contrôle nécessaires à cet effet.

Les blessés ou malades amenés dans ces conditions sur le territoire neutre par un des belligérants, et qui appartiendraient à la partie adverse, devront être gardés par la Puissance neutre de manière qu’ils ne puissent de nouveau prendre part aux opérations de la guerre. Cette Puissance aura les mêmes devoirs quant aux blessés ou malades de l’autre armée qui lui seraient confiés.

Art. 14.

A neutral Power may authorize the passage over its territory of wounded or sick belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry neither personnel nor material of war. In such a case, the neutral Power is bound to adopt such measures of safety and control as may be necessary for the purpose.

Wounded and sick brought under these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the adverse party, must be guarded by the neutral Power, so as to insure their not taking part again in the operations of war. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral Power with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 59.)

Art. 15.

La Convention de Genève s’applique aux malades et aux blessés internés sur territoire neutre.

Art. 15.

The Geneva Convention applies to the sick and wounded interned in neutral territory.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 60.)

Chapitre III.

Des Personnes Neutres.

Art. 16.

Sont considérés comme neutres les nationaux d’un État qui ne prend pas part à la guerre.

Chapter III.

Neutral Persons.

Art. 16¹ .

The nationals of a State which is not taking part in the war are considered to be neutrals.

Art. 17.

Un neutre ne peut pas se prévaloir de sa neutralité:

(a) S’il commet des actes hostiles contre un belligérant;

(b) S’il commet des actes en faveur d’un belligérant, notamment s’il prend volontairement du service dans les rangs de la force armée de l’une des parties.

En pareil cas, le neutre ne sera pas traité plus rigoureusement par le belligérant contre lequel il s’est départi de la neutralité que ne pourrait l’être, à raison du même fait, un national de l’autre État belligérant.

Art. 17¹ .

A neutral cannot claim the benefit of his neutrality:

(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;

(b) If he commits acts in favour of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties.

In such a case, the neutral shall not be more severely treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent State could be for the same act.

Art. 18.

Ne seront pas considérés comme actes commis en faveur d’un des belligérants, dans le sens de l’article 17, lettre (b):

(a) Les fournitures faites ou les emprunts consentis à l’un des belligérants, pourvu que le fournisseur ou le prêteur n’habite ni le territoire de l’autre partie, ni le territoire occupé par elle, et que les fournitures ne proviennent pas de ces territoires;

(b) Les services rendus en matière de police ou d’administration civile.

Art. 18¹ .

The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favour of one of the belligerents within the meaning of Article 17, letter (b):

(a) The furnishing of supplies or the making of loans to one of the belligerents, provided that the person so furnishing or lending neither lives in the territory of the other party nor in territory in the occupation of that party, and that the supplies do not come from these territories;

(b) The rendering of services in matters of police or of civil administration.

Chapitre IV.

Du Matériel des Chemins de Fer.

Art. 19.

Le matériel des chemins de fer provenant du territoire de Puissances neutres, qu’il appartienne à ces Puissances ou à des sociétés ou personnes privées, et reconnaissable comme tel, ne pourra être réquisitionné et utilisé par un belligérant que dans le cas et la mesure où l’exige une impérieuse nécessité. Il sera renvoyé aussitôt que possible dans le pays d’origine.

La Puissance neutre pourra de même, en cas de nécessité, retenir et utiliser, jusqu’à due concurrence, le matériel provenant du territoire de la Puissance belligérante.

Une indemnité sera payée de part et d’autre en proportion du matériel utilisé et de la durée de l’utilisation.

Chapter IV.

Railway Material.

Art. 19.

Railway material coming from the territory of neutral Powers, whether belonging to those Powers or to companies or private persons, and recognizable as such, shall not be requisitioned or utilized by a belligerent except in the case of and to the extent required by absolute necessity. It shall be sent back as soon as possible to the country of origin.

A neutral Power may likewise, in case of necessity, retain and make use of, to a corresponding extent, railway material coming from the territory of the belligerent Power.

Compensation shall be paid on either side in proportion to the material used, and to the period of usage.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 54.)

Chapitre V.

Dispositions Finales.

Art. 20.

Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne sont applicables qu’entre les Puissances contractantes et seulement si les belligérants sont tous parties à la Convention.

Chapter V.

Final Provisions.

Art. 20.

The provisions of the present Convention are only applicable between the Contracting Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 21.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée aussitôt que possible.

Les ratifications seront déposées à La Haye.

Le premier dépôt de ratifications sera constaté par un procès-verbal signé par les représentants des Puissances qui y prennent part et par le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas.

Les dépôts ultérieurs de ratifications se feront au moyen d’une notification écrite, adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et accompagnée de l’instrument de ratification.

Copie certifiée conforme du procès-verbal relatif au premier dépôt de ratifications, des notifications mentionnées à l’alinéa précédent, ainsi que des instruments de ratification sera immédiatement remise par les soins du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, ainsi qu’aux autres Puissances qui auront adhéré à la Convention. Dans les cas visés par l’alinéa précédent, le dit Gouvernement leur fera connaître en même temps la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 21.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.

The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherland Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.

A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relating to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, as well as of the instruments of ratification shall be immediately sent by the Netherland Government through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have acceded to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph, the said Government shall inform them at the same time of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 22.

Les Puissances non-signataires sont admises à adhérer à la présente Convention.

La Puissance qui désire adhérer notife par écrit son intention au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui transmettant l’acte d’adhésion, qui sera déposé dans les archives du dit Gouvernement.

Ce Gouvernement transmettra immédiatement à toutes les autres Puissances copie certifiée conforme de la notification ainsi que de l’acte d’adhésion, en indiquant la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 22.

Non-Signatory Powers may accede to the present Convention.

A Power which desires to accede notifies its intention in writing to the Netherland Government, forwarding to it the act of accession, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.

The said Government shall immediately forward to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification as well as of the act of accession, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 23.

La présente Convention produira effet, pour les Puissances qui auront participé au premier dépôt de ratifications, soixante jours après la date du procès-verbal de ce dépôt et, pour les Puissances qui ratifieront ultérieurement ou qui adhéreront, soixante jours après que la notification de leur ratification ou de leur adhésion aura été reçue par le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 23.

The present Convention shall take effect, in the case of the Powers which were parties to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the procès-verbal recording such deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which shall ratify subsequently or which shall accede, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their accession has been received by the Netherland Government.

Art. 24.

S’il arrivait qu’une des Puissances contractantes voulût dénoncer la présente Convention, la dénonciation sera notifiée par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, qui communiquera immédiatement copie certifiée conforme de la notification à toutes les autres Puissances, en leur faisant savoir la date à laquelle il l’a reçue.

La dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée et un an après que la notification en sera parvenue au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 24.

In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Netherland Government, which shall immediately communicate a duly certified copy of the notification to all the other Powers, informing them of the date on which it was received.

The denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power, and only on the expiry of one year after the notification has reached the Netherland Government.

Art. 25.

Un registre tenu par le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas indiquera la date du dépôt des ratifications effectué en vertu de l’article 21, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (article 22, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (article 24, alinéa 1).

Chaque Puissance contractante est admise à prendre connaissance de ce registre et à en demander des extraits certifiés conformes.

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires ont revêtu la présente Convention de leurs signatures.

Fait à la Haye, le 18 octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire, qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances qui ont été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix.

Art. 25.

A register kept by the Netherland Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 21, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 22, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 24, paragraph 1) have been received.

Each Contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts from it.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference.

Convention No. 5. Respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in war on land¹ .

The regulations on the laws and customs of war on land annexed to the Convention of 1899 contained four Articles dealing with neutrals. The subject was not further dealt with, but the Conference expressed a “Wish” that the question of the rights and duties of neutrals might be inserted in the programme of a future Conference and it appears under the second heading of suggested topics in Count Benckendorff’s circular. The subject was entrusted to the Second Sub-Committee of the Second Committee which was concerned with the laws of war on land. The object which the Committee kept in view was to effect a reasonable compromise between the interests of belligerents and the rights of neutrals, and it was also felt that it would be well not to endeavour to settle disputed points in the laws of neutrality, but to make a beginning in codification by converting into a written law such of the existing usages as regarded neutral Powers and persons as were of general acceptance.

The subject fell naturally into two divisions, (1) the position of neutral Powers, their rights and duties in regard to the belligerent Powers, and (2) the position of neutral persons and their relations with the belligerents.

The rights and duties of Neutral Powers.Chapter i., consisting of 10 Articles, is based on a draft presented by the French Delegation and explained by General Amourel on the 19th July, 1907. He stated that it contained only provisions generally admitted by publicists and established by usage. There were, undoubtedly, many cases not provided for, but if the draft was accepted it would form a starting-point for their discussions, and for future developments. One very important matter had to be settled before the examination of the subject could be undertaken. Should the provisions be addressed to neutral states marking out the conduct they should pursue, or should they be of a more general character addressed to all parties? It was thought preferable not only to provide that neutrals must prevent certain acts from being done on their territory, but to declare that belligerents are under a corresponding duty not to do such acts. The 10 Articles of Chapter i. commence with the fundamental principle inserted on the suggestion of the Belgian delegate of the inviolability of the neutral territory (Article 1). The second Article which is a direct consequence of the first was proposed by the British delegate and forbids belligerents to send troops and war material through neutral territory. The experiences of the Russo-Japanese War suggested the prohibition in Article 3. The Russians, having erected a wireless telegraphy apparatus on one of the hills of Port Arthur, had established a receiving station at Chefoo on the Chinese side of the Gulf of Pechili, and the besieged garrison at Port Arthur was thus enabled to communicate with their home Government and the outside world generally¹ . This Article forbids the establishment by a belligerent on neutral territory of a radio-telegraphic station, or the use by a belligerent of any such installation made by him “for purely military purposes” before the war on territory of a neutral and not previously opened for the service of public messages. The limitation in paragraph (b) “and not previously opened” is taken from the Radio-telegraphic Convention of 1906 and was for the purpose of enabling the British and Japanese delegates to abandon the reservations they had made on Articles 3 and 9. Article 4 forbids the formation of bodies of combatants for one of the belligerents on neutral territory and the establishment of offices there for the purpose of enlistment. A neutral Power by Article 6 does not incur any responsibility if persons cross the frontier singly from the neutral state and enlist with one of the belligerents. Article 5 lays a duty on neutral Powers corresponding to those imposed on belligerents by Articles 2-4 to prevent such acts as are enumerated in those Articles from being done on its territory. The Japanese delegate desired to extend the neutral obligation to territory over which a neutral had jurisdiction. This question of the rights of jurisdiction exercised by a state over territory not its own raised difficult points for solution which the Committee thought it unwise to attempt to solve. What, for instance, is the position of Cyprus or Wei-hai-wei? The complex problems relating to acts done on leased or “occupied” or “administered” territory had to be passed over in order to arrive at an agreement on generally accepted principles.

Articles 6-8 relate to acts for which a neutral state is not responsible. Articles 7 and 8 expressly provide that a neutral is not under any obligation to prevent the export of contraband of war by its subjects, nor to prevent belligerents using telegraphs or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to the neutral state or private individuals. It will be noticed that the installations prohibited by Article 3 are those which belong to belligerents. A neutral cannot in practice distinguish among the various persons who make use of telegraphic and other similar means of communication within its territory. Strict impartiality in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 is enjoined, and the duty is laid on the neutral Power to see that the use of privately owned telegraphic and other similar means of communication is regulated in the same impartial manner (Article 9). Neutrals are however under no obligation to allow belligerents to use such means of communication, but impartiality of prohibition is necessary. Lord Reay desired that it should be stated in the Report that the liberty of a neutral state to transmit despatches by land telegraphs or submarine cables or wireless-telegraphic apparatus does not imply the right of making use of them or of allowing them to be used in order to lend any assistance to one of the belligerents¹ . Article 10 recognises that the fact of a neutral Power repelling by force attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act. The Belgian delegate deemed this superfluous, but his objection was over-ruled and the foregoing 10 Articles received unanimous acceptance. The Danish delegate desired to add an Article providing that the mere fact of a neutral state mobilising its forces with a view to prevent infractions of its neutrality should not be considered a hostile act, but the Committee deemed it unnecessary, as each sovereign state has the indisputable right to take such steps within its own territory for its defence as it may deem fit.

Chapter ii. Belligerents interned, and wounded tended in neutral territory.Articles 11-15 are based upon Section iv. of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention on the laws and usages of war on land of 1899. Articles 11, 12, 14 and 15 are re-enactments of Articles 57, 58, 59 and 60 of these Regulations. Article 13 is new. An attempt was made by Japan to make a change in Article 11 (57 of the Regulations of 1899) by providing that officers and other members of the armed forces of a belligerent interned in a neutral state should not be given their liberty or authorised to return to their country except with the consent and under conditions laid down by the other belligerent, and that the parole given to a neutral state by such individuals should be deemed equivalent to a pledge given to the enemy. This was rejected, the Committee preferring to leave the Articles in their original form, and for special cases to be settled according to circumstances.

Article 13 deals with cases not covered by the Articles in the Convention of 1899. Prisoners of war escape and take refuge on neutral territory; belligerent troops that have taken refuge on neutral territory have with them prisoners of war; what is the duty of the neutral state? In the first case, it has long been a rule of international law that a prisoner of war escaping and taking refuge in a neutral state is free, but it was not settled whether the neutral state could restrain him from rejoining his army if he subsequently wished to do so¹ . The first paragraph of Article 13 leaves the neutral state liberty of action. It may receive escaped prisoners, and allow them to remain in its territory, and may assign them a place of residence. If the prisoner will not conform to neutral regulations is he at liberty to leave? The second paragraph was objected to by the Russian military delegate as being contrary to Article 59 of the Regulations for land warfare of 1899 and Article 15 of the Convention adapting to maritime warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1906, which require that sick and wounded belonging to belligerent armies and navies committed to the care of neutrals must be guarded by the latter and not allowed to take part again in the war. The case dealt with by this paragraph is quite different. A body of belligerent troops with prisoners of war enter a neutral territory with the object of avoiding surrender to the enemy² ; if such troops surrender to the enemy their prisoners are freed; the same rule now applies where they enter neutral territory and are interned. Their prisoners are dealt with in the same way as escaped prisoners of war.

Chapter iii. Neutral persons.Articles 16, 17 and 18 are all that remain of a German draft of 12 Articles originally intended to form Chapter v. of the Regulations for the laws of war on land. The failure of the German delegate to obtain acceptance for his proposals has already been referred to in discussing the Second and Third Vœux³ . The draft Articles proposed to establish a régime highly favourable both to the persons and property of neutrals in belligerent states. Great Britain, having large colonies with populations drawn from many states, would have been considerably handicapped if she had never been able to avail herself of the services of immigrants freely offered, who, not having resided long enough to acquire British nationality, still remained technically subjects of a neutral Power. The British delegate strongly objected to the German proposals and he was supported by the delegates of France, Russia and Japan, who also declined to accept the favoured position created for subjects of neutral Powers in belligerent states. The three Articles which found acceptance and which constituted the 1st Chapter of the German draft have not been accepted by Great Britain.

Chapter iv. Railway Material.Article 19 replaces Article 54 of the Regulations of 1899 and is a compromise between contradictory views. Luxemburg and Belgium denied the right of belligerents to requisition and make use of neutral railway material within their territory. Germany and Austria desired to have the right to use it admitted, on the understanding that an indemnity was paid for its use after the close of the war. France and Luxemburg as an alternative claimed both an indemnity and the right, in case of need, to retain and make use of a corresponding quantity of railway material coming from the territory of a belligerent state. The Conference took the middle course, allowing belligerents to requisition and use neutral railway material only when absolutely necessary, on condition that it be returned as soon as possible, the neutral being given a corresponding right over belligerent material within its territory, compensation to be paid by one party to the other in proportion to the material used and the period of use. The terms used in this Article leave the neutral very much at the mercy of the belligerent as regards the requisition and use of railway material. Who is to be the judge of the necessity, and what is the meaning of “as soon as possible”? M. Eyschen (Luxemburg) proposed that within a certain time after the outbreak of war all neutral railway material should be returned to the country of its origin. General von Gündell (Germany) objected that this would entirely disorganise the transport and mobilisation of troops in the belligerent country on the outbreak of war; the latter view prevailed.

This Convention affords within modest limits a starting-point for future Conferences, and a basis on which may be built further rules safe-guarding neutral interests. It contains on the whole well accepted principles which were ready for codification.

Signatory Powers.All the Powers except China and Nicaragua have signed this Convention, but Great Britain has made reservations in regard to Articles 16, 17 and 18 , and the Argentine Republic in regard to Article 18.

VI.

Enemy Merchant-ships at the outbreak of hostilities.

VI.

Convention relative au Régime des Navires de Commerce Ennemis au Début des Hostilités.

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse, &c.¹

Désireux de garantir la sécurité du commerce international contre les surprises de la guerre et voulant, conformément à la pratique moderne, protéger autant que possible les opérations engagées de bonne foi et en cours d’exécution avant le début des hostilités;

Ont résolu de conclure une Convention à cet effet et ont nommé pour Leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:—

VI.

Convention relative to the Status of Enemy Merchantships at the Outbreak of Hostilities.

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c.¹

Anxious to ensure the security of international commerce against the surprises of war and wishing, in accordance with modern practice, to protect as far as possible operations undertaken in good faith and in process of being carried out before the outbreak of hostilities;

Have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:—

Art. 1.

Lorsqu’un navire de commerce relevant d’une des Puissances belligérantes se trouve, au début des hostilités, dans un port ennemi, il est désirable qu’il lui soit permis de sortir librement, immédiatement ou après un délai de faveur suffisant, et de gagner directement, après avoir été muni d’un laissez-passer, son port de destination ou tel autre port qui lui sera désigné.

Il en est de même du navire ayant quitté son dernier port de départ avant le commencement de la guerre et entrant dans un port ennemi sans connaître les hostilités.

Art. 1.

When a merchant-ship of one of the belligerent Powers is at the commencement of hostilities in an enemy port, it is desirable that it should be allowed to depart freely, either immediately, or after a sufficient term of grace, and to proceed direct, after being furnished with a passport, to its port of destination or such other port as shall be named for it.

The same applies in the case of a ship which left its last port of departure before the commencement of the war and enters an enemy port in ignorance of the hostilities.

Art. 2.

Le navire de commerce qui, par suite de circonstances de force majeure, n’aurait pu quitter le port ennemi pendant le délai visé à l’article précédent, ou auquel la sortie n’aurait pas été accordée, ne peut être confisqué.

Le belligérant peut seulement le saisir moyennant l’obligation de le restituer après la guerre sans indemnité, ou le réquisitionner moyennant indemnité.

Art. 2.

A merchant-ship which, owing to circumstances of force majeure, may have been unable to leave the enemy port during the period contemplated in the preceding Article, or which may not have been allowed to leave, may not be confiscated.

The belligerent may only detain it, under an obligation of restoring it after the war, without indemnity, or he may requisition it on condition of paying an indemnity.

Art. 3.

Les navires de commerce ennemis qui ont quitté leur dernier port de départ avant le commencement de la guerre et qui sont rencontrés en mer ignorants des hostilités, ne peuvent être confisqués. Ils sont seulement sujets à être saisis, moyennant l’obligation de les restituer après la guerre sans indemnité, ou à être réquisitionnés, ou même à être détruits, à charge d’indemnité et sous l’obligation de pourvoir à la sécurité des personnes ainsi qu’à la conservation des papiers de bord.

Après avoir touché à un port de leur pays ou à un port neutre, ces navires sont soumis aux lois et coutumes de la guerre maritime.

Art. 3.

Enemy merchant-ships which left their last port of departure before the commencement of the war, and which are met at sea while ignorant of the hostilities, cannot be confiscated. They are only liable to be detained under an obligation to restore them after the war without indemnity, or to be requisitioned, or even destroyed, with indemnity and under the obligation of providing for the safety of the persons as well as the preservation of the papers on board.

After having touched at a port of their own country or at a neutral port, such ships are subject to the laws and customs of naval war.

Art. 4.

Les marchandises ennemies se trouvant à bord des navires visés aux articles 1 et 2 sont également sujettes à être saisies et restituées après la guerre sans indemnité, ou à être réquisitionnées moyennant indemnité, conjointement avec le navire ou séparément.

Il en est de même des marchandises se trouvant à bord des navires visés à l’article 3.

Art. 4.

Enemy cargo on board the vessels referred to in Articles 1 and 2 is likewise liable to be detained and restored after the war without indemnity, or to be requisitioned on payment of indemnity, with the ship or separately.

The same applies in the case of cargo on board the vessels referred to in Article 3.

Art. 5.

La présente Convention ne vise pas les navires de commerce dont la construction indique qu’ils sont destinés à être transformés en bâtiments de guerre.

Art. 5.

The present Convention does not affect merchant-ships whose construction indicates that they are intended to be converted into ships of war.

Art. 6.

Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne sont applicables qu’entre les Puissances contractantes et seulement si les belligérants sont tous parties à la Convention.

Art. 6.

The provisions of the present Convention are only applicable between the Contracting Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 7.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée aussitôt que possible.

Les ratifications seront déposées à La Haye.

Le premier dépôt de ratifications sera constaté par un procès-verbal signé par les représentants des Puissances qui y prennent part et par le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas.

Les dépôts ultérieurs de ratifications se feront au moyen d’une notification écrite, adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et accompagnée de l’instrument de ratification.

Copie certifiée conforme du procès-verbal relatif au premier dépôt de ratifications, des notifications mentionnées à l’alinéa précédent, ainsi que des instruments de ratifications, sera immédiatement remise par les soins du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, ainsi qu’aux autres Puissances qui auront adhéré à la Convention. Dans les cas visés par l’alinéa précédent, le dit Gouvernement leur fera connaître en même temps la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 7.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.

The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherland Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.

A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relating to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, as well as of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherland Government, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have acceded to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph, the said Government shall inform them at the same time of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 8.

Les Puissances non-signataires sont admises à adhérer à la présente Convention.

La Puissance qui désire adhérer notifie par écrit son intention au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui transmettant l’acte d’adhésion, qui sera déposé dans les archives du dit Gouvernement.

Ce Gouvernement transmettra immédiatement à toutes les autres Puissances copie certifiée conforme de la notification ainsi que de l’acte d’adhésion, en indiquant la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 8.

Non-Signatory Powers may accede to the present Convention.

A Power which desires to accede notifies its intention in writing to the Netherland Government, forwarding to it the act of accession, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.

The said Government shall immediately forward to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification as well as of the act of accession, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 9.

La présente Convention produira effet, pour les Puissances qui auront participé au premier dépôt de ratifications, soixante jours après la date du procès-verbal de ce dépôt et, pour les Puissances qui ratifieront ultérieurement ou qui adhéreront, soixante jours après que la notification de leur ratification ou de leur adhésion aura été reçue par le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 9.

The present Convention shall take effect, in the case of the Powers which were parties to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the procès-verbal recording such deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which shall ratify subsequently or which shall accede, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their accession has been received by the Netherland Government.

Art. 10.

S’il arrivait qu’une des Puissances Contractantes voulût dénoncer la présente Convention, la dénonciation sera notifiée par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, qui communiquera immédiatement copie certifiée conforme de la notification à toutes les autres Puissances en leur faisant savoir la date à laquelle il l’a reçue.

La dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée et un an après que la notification en sera parvenue au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 10.

In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Netherland Government, which shall immediately communicate a duly certified copy of the notification to all the other Powers, informing them of the date on which it was received.

The denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power, and only on the expiry of one year after the notification has reached the Netherland Government.

Art. 11.

Un registre tenu par le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas indiquera la date du dépôt de ratifications effectué en vertu de l’article 7, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (article 8, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (article 10, alinéa 1).

Chaque Puissance contractante est admise à prendre connaissance de ce registre et à en demander des extraits certifiés conformes.

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires ont revêtu la présente Convention de leurs signatures.

Fait à La Haye, le 18 octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances qui ont été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix.

Art. 11.

A register kept by the Netherland Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 7, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 8, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 10, paragraph 1) have been received.

Each Contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts from it.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference.

Convention No. 6. Relative to the status of enemy merchant-ships at the outbreak of hostilities¹ .

The third subject on the list of matters assigned to the Fourth Committee was that of “days of grace” (délai de faveur) to be granted to vessels to leave neutral or enemy ports after the commencement of hostilities.

Development of practice of “days of grace.”It is a well recognised rule of international law that private property belonging to the enemy on the sea is liable to capture. This rule applies to both ships and cargoes. At the beginning of the last century ships whether public or private in territorial waters of the enemy on the outbreak of war were also liable to capture, and it was no uncommon thing for a state to lay an embargo on ships belonging to the subjects of another state with which it was at variance in anticipation of the outbreak of war. This embargo was at first a civil embargo and equivocal in character, but if the dispute ended in war, its effect was retroactive and impressed a “hostile character on the original seizure² .” This practice has however not been followed during the past half-century. A custom has arisen according to which states, on the commencement of war, issue proclamations allowing enemy ships in harbour to depart within a specified time, either after loading, or unloading, and to be free from capture under certain specified conditions. Such proclamations often made provision for the freedom from capture of enemy ships which had sailed from foreign ports before the proclamation. Turkey in 1853 on the outbreak of war with Russia allowed Russian merchant-ships to leave her ports. France and Great Britain in 1854 allowed Russian ships of commerce six weeks, and granted concessions to those bound for their ports for a similar period. Russia made analogous concessions to French and British ships. Six weeks were also allowed by Prussia to Austrian ships in 1866. In 1870 France allowed 30 days to German merchant vessels in French ports, or which entered the ports in ignorance of the war. The most liberal concessions were those of the United States to Spanish ships at the outbreak of the war in 1898. President McKinley’s Proclamation issued on the 26th April allowed Spanish merchant-ships in American ports until the 21st May for loading their cargoes and departing, and such vessels were not to be captured on their voyage if it appeared from their papers that the cargoes were taken on board within the time allowed. There was an express exclusion of vessels having on board military or naval enemy officers, contraband of war, or despatches to or from the Spanish Government¹ . Spain was not so liberal in her concessions, and allowed only five days for American merchant-ships to leave her ports. The United States Proclamation received a liberal construction in the case of the Buena Ventura, a ship which had sailed before the outbreak of war and was captured the day before the issue of the Proclamation. Days of grace were also allowed by both Japan and Russia at the outbreak of the war of 1904 but the time allowed was very short. Japan allowed a week’s grace to Russian vessels in Japanese ports at the date of the Proclamation to enable them to discharge or load cargo and depart, and exempted such ships from capture, if they were provided with a certificate and proved that they were on their way back to the nearest Russian port or a leased port or their original destination² . The Russian concessions were still less favourable to enemy merchantmen found in Russian ports at the outbreak of war. They were allowed to remain “for a period of 48 hours from the time of publication of the declaration by the local authorities.” Carriage of contraband of war was prohibited by both states.

The foregoing instances represent the mitigations of the severity of the rule of capture of enemy ships at the commencement of war which had been introduced by various states since the Crimean War. The periods allowed varied from the liberal concessions made by the United States, to the period of 48 hours allowed by Russia. The granting of days of grace in the latter case was merely a formal acknowledgment of the existence of the practice.

Proceedings in Committee.The motive for the concession was that of “conciliating the interests of commerce with the necessities of war” and “of protecting in as large a measure as possible operations entered into in good faith and in process of being carried out before the war³ .” The question to be considered by the Committee was formulated by M. de Martens: “Is it a rule of war (Est-il de bonne guerre) on the opening of hostilities to detain and confiscate enemy merchant-ships in the ports of one of the belligerent states? Should the vessels be recognised as having a right to leave freely, within a given fixed time, the ports in which they were at the commencement of war, with or without their cargoes?”Russian proposals. Russia proposed four Articles declaring the granting of a period of delay to merchantmen in an enemy port at the outbreak of war to be obligatory, and that they should be allowed to complete their commercial operations and be free from capture till they reached the nearest port of their own country or a neutral port (Art. 1). Ships which in consequence of force majeure were unable to avail themselves of this advantage should not be confiscated (Art. 2). Merchant-ships on the high seas having left their port of origin or another port before the commencement of war are not to be confiscated, but if military circumstances demand it, they may be detained by the enemy for such a time as might be required by the necessities of war (Art. 3). Ships mentioned in the foregoing Article arriving in an enemy port to enjoy the periods of grace and immunities previously mentioned (Art. 4)¹ . Captain Qttley (Great Britain) contended that the allowance of time which Great Britain had accorded was only an act of grace, and must not be regarded as a right, and that it would be impossible to formulate any rule which would give satisfaction to every one under all circumstances. He put the case of a war between two Powers, one with a large mercantile navy, the other with but small commercial interests; the former would wish for as long a period as possible, the latter would be anxious to commence operations as soon as possible against the merchant-ships of its enemy² . (This was the case in the Russo-Japanese War.),French proposal. The Japanese delegate re-echoed the words of Captain Ottley. M. Renault (France) proposed to maintain the existing optional system, but desired to exclude from capture ships whose exit had been prohibited, allowing them to be requisitioned and indemnities to be paid. Dutch proposal. The Dutch delegate wished to fix the delay at not less than five days and to exempt from the concession vessels obviously designed or capable of being converted into ships of war, vessels which M. Lammasch had termed “hermaphrodites.”

Swedish proposal.The Swedish delegate proposed as a compromise to combine the Russian and French propositions, limiting them to an expression of the desirability of granting a period of grace. Four different propositions were therefore before the Committee, Russian, French, Dutch and Swedish, but the preliminary discussions turned entirely on the question whether the concessions to be made to enemy shipping should be made obligatory or left optional. The Swedish proposition formed the starting-point for the Examining Committee, the obligatory character of the concessions to be made having failed to receive a unanimous acceptance chiefly owing to the opposition of Great Britain, France and Japan¹ .British proposal. In the course of the examination of the Swedish draft the British Delegation presented a draft in five Articles. The draft Convention was adopted by the Committee, and subsequently by the Conference at its Seventh Plenary Meeting on the 27th September, 1907.

Article 1.The first Article states that it is desirable that merchant-ships belonging to one of the belligerents at the commencement of hostilities in an enemy port should be allowed to depart freely at once, or after a sufficient number of days of grace, and after being furnished with a pass to proceed direct to a port indicated. The words de faveur were added to délai at the request of the British delegate to show that the granting of the period of delay was not obligatory. By six to five, the Committee rejected the Swedish proposal to grant the days of grace for the purpose of allowing a ship to complete the unloading or loading of her cargo, other than contraband.

The practice of granting of days of grace remains therefore as it was before the Conference. The Powers have recognised its desirability, but no merchant-ship can demand it, nor will there be a legal ground of complaint if all enemy merchant-ships within a belligerent’s ports at the outbreak of war are ordered to leave immediately or after a “sufficient” period. Whether the expression “it is desirable” will be considered as equivalent to a command² remains to be seen. States will probably act in the future as they have acted in the past. Captain Ottley stated that the British Government had every intention of adhering to the practice which it had observed during the past 50 years in granting days of grace, subject always to the reservation that the time allowed should not compromise its national interests³ . It was doubtless with a similar mental reservation that the other Powers accepted this Article. States will in the future as in the past consult their own interests in this matter, but their interests may not infrequently involve a consideration for the interests of neutrals. Each state will determine for itself whether the desire to injure its enemy by detaining his merchant-ships, which might be of the greatest value as auxiliary ships for the fleet, will “prevail over the fear of offending neutrals by causing a great dislocation of trade in which some of them are sure to be interested¹ .”

The second paragraph of Article 1 recognises that it is desirable to allow days of grace to a ship which left its last port of departure before the commencement of the war and entered an enemy port in ignorance of the existence of hostilities. This has been the practice of states since the Crimean War. If such a ship has been visited by an enemy cruiser and an entry made in its log-book, that will be conclusive against its claim to any exemption from capture.

Article 2.Article 2 deals with the case of enemy ships of commerce unable to leave within the allotted time, or not permitted to leave. Such vessels would formerly have been liable to confiscation. Under this Article they cannot be confiscated, but are to be kept and handed back to the owners at the conclusion of the war, or if they are requisitioned, compensation is to be made.

Article 3.Article 3 exempts from capture enemy merchantmen met on the high seas which left their last port of departure before the outbreak of war and are in ignorance of its existence. They may be requisitioned or even destroyed subject to indemnities being paid. If they are aware of the outbreak of war, they can still be confiscated. This Article encountered considerable opposition from Germany and Russia, and at the Seventh Plenary Meeting of the Conference Baron Marschall von Bieberstein said: “The German Delegation is of opinion that these provisions establish an inequality between states in imposing financial burdens on those Powers which, in default of naval stations in different parts of the world, are not in a position to take vessels which they have seized into a port, but find themselves compelled to destroy them² .” Germany and Russia made a reservation of this Article in signing the Convention.

The German delegate (Dr Kriege) had previously explained the views of his Government in Committee. Only the Powers, he said, which possess naval stations in different parts of the world can regularly exercise this right of seizure. Other Powers will often be unable to take ships they detain into port, and will have to destroy them, and therefore to bear the cost of such vessels; they will therefore have their financial burdens unduly increased as against Powers able to take such vessels into port and retain them till the end of the war³ . It would appear that Germany and Russia by not accepting this Article retain the right to capture enemy merchantships on the high seas which have left their last port before the outbreak of war, subject to any modifications which they may make by proclamation at the commencement of war. Furthermore German and Russian merchantships will under similar circumstances also remain liable to be captured subject to a like modification by the other belligerent (see Article 6).

The Article is an amelioration of the strict rules of existing law, though it falls short of recent practice. The exemption from capture provided by it will probably be found however not to be of much value in practice, as it will not often happen under modern conditions that ships will long remain in ignorance of the existence of war in any part of the world. The permission to destroy vessels ignorant of the existence of war was inserted on the suggestion of the Italian delegate to meet the case of states unable to take such vessels into their own ports for detention. Provision must be made for the safety of the persons and papers on board such ships.

Article 4.Article 4 provides that enemy cargo on the vessels mentioned in Articles 1, 2 and 3 is subject to the same treatment as the vessel. Germany and Russia made reservations on the second paragraph of the Article relating to cargoes on board the enemy merchantmen referred to in Article 3. The provision relating to cargo must be read subject to the Declaration of Paris.

Article 5.Article 5 imposes an important limitation on the foregoing Articles which it declares are inapplicable to merchant-ships whose construction indicates that they are destined for conversion into war-ships. This Article was inserted at the instance of the British delegate Lord Reay. The words originally proposed were, “navires marchands ennemis susceptibles d’être transformés en vaisseaux de combat.” This was altered by the Comité de rédaction to “navires marchands qui ont été désignés d’avance pour être transformés en bâtiments de guerre.” This phraseology was objected to by the German delegate who contended that all steamships, not only the great ocean-liners but smaller craft, might be of use in war for purpose of mine-laying and other subsidiary operations. He moved the rejection of the whole Article¹ . This was opposed by the British and Japanese delegates. The French and Swedish delegates contended that ships of the class intended were always constructed under special orders of a Government, but the Belgium delegate denied this and desired to modify the phrase by substituting “susceptibles d’après leur état pour d’être” etc., but this was rejected and the motion of the German delegate for the rejection of the Article was carried by 8 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions. At a subsequent meeting, on the proposition of the Swedish delegate the Article was restored in the form in which it now appears. Russia and Germany have accepted this Article. The discussion, however, brought out the difficulties that may be expected to arise in construing the language in which the Article is framed, “dont la construction indique qu’ils sont destinés à être transformés en bâtiments de guerre¹ .” The terms of this Article recall those of the Treaty of Washington whereby Great Britain and the United States agreed to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping within the jurisdiction of either of the Powers of any vessel “which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war” against a Power with which it is at peace² . The two Governments could not agree as to the meaning of this language; is there a likelihood of agreement on the meaning of the words “merchant-ships whose construction indicates that they are intended for conversion to war-ships”? “Experts are perfectly able to distinguish vessels built primarily for warlike use,” says Mr Hall, writing of the words cited from the Treaty of Washington, “but it is otherwise with many vessels primarily fitted for commerce. Perhaps few fast ships are altogether incapable of being so used as to inflict damage to trade....Mail steamers of large size are fitted by their strength and build to receive, without much special adaptation, one or two guns of sufficient calibre to render the ships carrying them dangerous cruisers against merchantmen³ .” Subsidised liners were the ships the Committee appear to have had in view; in the case of other vessels M. Fromageot states “the build (construction) of ships must serve to indicate the eventual destination.” The vessels referred to in the Article are not “primarily built for warlike use” but for commerce; will it be equally easy for experts to distinguish such of these as were built with a view to their eventual conversion into ships of war? Furthermore, what is a ship of war⁴ ?

The important alteration made in the rules of international law by the Convention is the abrogation of the rule of confiscation of enemy merchantships found in a belligerent port at the outbreak of war, unless they are “ships whose construction indicates that they are intended for conversion into warships,” but these can be requisitioned and must be paid for. Even if such ships are detained until the end of the war, and not used, immense loss will still be occasioned to their owners. The important qualification of Article 5 will probably considerably limit the application of this Convention.

Signatory Powers and reservations.The only Powers which have not signed this Convention are the United States, China and Nicaragua. The United States’ refusal is based on the ground that the Convention is an unsatisfactory compromise between those who believe in the existence of a right and those who refuse to recognise the legal validity of the custom which has grown up in recent years. “The Convention cannot be called progressive, for it questions a custom which seems generally established, and its adoption would seem to sanction less liberal and enlightened practice¹ .” The reservations of Germany and Russia, the only two Powers making any, have already been dealt with² .

VII.

Conversion of Merchant-ships into War-ships.

VII.

Convention relative à la Transformation des Navires de Commerce en Bâtiments de Guerre.

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse, &c.¹

Considérant qu’en vue de l’incorporation en temps de guerre de navires de la marine marchande dans les flottes de combat, il est désirable de définir les conditions dans lesquelles cette opération pourra être effectuée;

Que, toutefois, les Puissances Contractantes n’ayant pu se mettre d’accord sur la question de savoir si la transformation d’un navire de commerce en bâtiment de guerre peut avoir lieu en pleine mer, il est entendu que la question du lieu de transformation reste hors de cause et n’est nullement visée par les règles cidessous;

Désirant conclure une Convention à cet effet, ont nommé pour leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:—

VII.

Convention relative to the Conversion of Merchantships into War-ships.

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c.¹

Considering that in view of the incorporation in time of war of merchant-ships in the fighting fleet it is desirable to define the conditions subject to which this operation may be effected;

As, however, the Contracting Powers having been unable to come to an agreement on the question whether the conversion of a merchant-ship into a war-ship may take place upon the high seas, it is understood that the question of the place where such conversion is effected remains outside the scope of this Agreement and is in no way affected by the following rules;

Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:—

Art. 1.

Aucun navire de commerce transformé en bâtiment de guerre ne peut avoir les droits et les obligations attachés à cette qualité s’il n’est placé sous l’autorité directe, le contrôle immédiat et la responsabilité de la Puissance dont il porte le pavillon.

Art. 1.

No merchant-ship converted into a war-ship can have the rights and duties appertaining to that status unless it is placed under the direct authority, immediate control and responsibility of the Power whose flag it flies.

Art. 2.

Les navires de commerce transformés en bâtiments de guerre doivent porter les signes extérieurs distinctifs des bâtiments de guerre de leur nationalité.

Art. 2.

Merchant-ships converted into war-ships must bear the external marks which distinguish the war-ships of their nationality.

Art. 3.

Le commandant doit être au service de l’État et dûment commissionné par les autorités compétentes. Son nom doit figurer sur la liste des officiers de la flotte militaire.

Art. 3.

The commander must be in the service of the State and duly commissioned by the proper authorities. His name must figure on the list of the officers of the military fleet.

Art. 4.

L’équipage doit être soumis aux règles de la discipline militaire.

Art. 4.

The crew must be subject to the rules of military discipline.

Art. 5.

Tout navire de commerce transformé en bâtiment de guerre est tenu d’observer, dans ses opérations, les lois et coutumes de la guerre.

Art. 5.

Every merchant-ship converted into a war-ship is bound to observe, in its operations, the laws and customs of war.

Art. 6.

Le belligérant qui transforme un navire de commerce en bâtiment de guerre, doit, le plus tôt possible, mentionner cette transformation sur la liste des bâtiments de sa flotte militaire.

Art. 6.

A belligerent who converts a merchant-ship into a war-ship must, as soon as possible, announce such conversion in the list of the ships of its military fleet.

Art. 7.

Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne sont applicables qu’entre les Puissances contractantes et seulement si les belligérants sont tous parties à la Convention.

Art. 7.

The provisions of the present Convention are only applicable between the Contracting Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 8.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée aussitôt que possible.

Les ratifications seront déposées à La Haye.

Le premier dépôt de ratifications sera constaté par un procès-verbal signé par les Représentants des Puissances qui y prennent part et par le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas.

Les dépôts ultérieurs de ratifications se feront au moyen d’une notification écrite, adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et accompagnée de l’instrument de ratification.

Copie certifiée conforme du procès-verbal relatif au premier dépôt de ratifications, des notifications mentionnées à l’alinéa précédent, ainsi que des instruments de ratification, sera immédiatement remise, par les soins du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, et par la voie diplomatique, aux Puissances conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, ainsi qu’aux autres Puissances qui auront adhéré à la Convention. Dans les cas visés par l’alinéa précédent, le dit Gouvernement leur fera connaître en même temps la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 8.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.

The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherland Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.

A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relating to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherland Government, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have acceded to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph, the said Government shall inform them at the same time of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 9.

Les Puissances non-signataires sont admises à adhérer à la présente Convention.

La Puissance qui désire adhérer notifie par écrit son intention au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui transmettant l’acte d’adhésion, qui sera déposé dans les archives du dit Gouvernement.

Ce Gouvernement transmettra immédiatement à toutes les autres Puissances copie certifiée conforme de la notification ainsi que de l’acte d’adhésion, en indiquant la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 9.

Non-Signatory Powers may accede to the present Convention.

A Power which desires to accede notifies its intention in writing to the Netherland Government, forwarding to it the act of accession, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.

The said Government shall immediately forward to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification as well as of the act of accession, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 10.

La présente Convention produira effet, pour les Puissances qui auront participé au premier dépôt de ratifications, soixante jours après la date du procès-verbal de ce dépôt, et pour les Puissances qui ratifieront ultérieurement ou qui adhéreront, soixante jours après que la notification de leur ratification ou de leur adhésion aura été reçue par le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 10.

The present Convention shall take effect, in the case of the Powers which were parties to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the procès-verbal recording such deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which shall ratify subsequently or which shall accede, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their accession has been received by the Netherland Government.

Art. 11.

S’il arrivait qu’une des Puissances contractantes voulût dénoncer la présente Convention, la dénonciation sera notifiée par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, qui communiquera immédiatement copie certifiée conforme de la notification à toutes les autres Puissances en leur faisant savoir la date à laquelle il l’a reçue.

La dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée et un an après que la notification en sera parvenue au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 11.

In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Netherland Government, which shall immediately communicate a duly certified copy of the notification to all the other Powers, informing them of the date on which it was received.

The denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power, and only on the expiry of one year after the notification has reached the Netherland Government.

Art. 12.

Un registre tenu par le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas indiquera la date du dépôt de ratifications effectué en vertu de l’Article 8, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (Article 9, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (Article 11, alinéa 1).

Chaque Puissance contractante est admise à prendre connaissance de ce registre et à en demander des extraits certifiés conformes.

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires ont revêtu la présente Convention de leurs signatures.

Fait à La Haye, le 18 Octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances qui ont été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix.

Art. 12.

A register kept by the Netherland Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 8, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 9, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 11, paragraph 1) have been received.

Each Contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts from it.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference.

Convention No. 7. Convention relative to the conversion of merchant-ships into war-ships¹ .

Privateering and Volunteer Navies.It is suggested that this Convention should be entitled “A Convention to secure the observance of the Declaration of Paris in regard to privateering² .” Privateering was abolished as between the signatory Powers to the Declaration of Paris. Nearly all the civilised states of the world have become parties to this Declaration, but in many continental states opinions have been expressed that accession to the Declaration was far from being advantageous, and the creation of Volunteer Navies in some states has raised delicate questions as to the evasion of the Declaration.Prussian proposals in 1870. Prussia in 1870 decided to address an appeal to all German sailors and shipowners, inviting them to put their resources and ships at the disposal of their country. Volunteer ships were to be placed under naval discipline during the war. Officers and crew were to enter for the duration of the war into the Navy of the Confederation, to wear its uniform and marks of rank, and swear to the articles of war; they were to be entitled to pensions like regular members of the Navy. Officers were to receive Commissions of their rank and in case of meritorious service permanent Commissions were promised. The vessels were to fly the war-flag of the North German Confederation. Large premiums were offered for the destruction of enemy ships¹ . France protested, but the British Law Officers when consulted by the Government gave their opinion that there were substantial differences between the Volunteer Navy sanctioned by the Prussian Government and the system which it was the object of the Declaration of Paris to suppress. Prussia had announced her intention not to capture private property at sea, but as France would not agree to this proposal the Prussian offer was withdrawn, and with it the formation of a Volunteer Navy was abandoned. But the incident was far-reaching in its influence. Russian Volunteer Navy. In 1877-8 relations between Great Britain and Russia were strained; there was for a time every prospect of war breaking out. The Russian Fleet was small, and the mercantile marine insignificant. A patriotic association was formed with the object of raising money and buying fast ships to act as auxiliaries to the Imperial Navy. The vessels purchased were to be placed under the command of the officers of the Navy, and the crews to be subjected to military discipline. This institution still exists, and is subsidised by the Government. The commander of the ship and at least one other officer hold the Imperial Commission, and their crews receive training so as to enable them to perform the duties allotted to crews of men of war. In time of peace they carry the merchant flag and are usually engaged in ordinary mercantile traffic, though many of the vessels are also employed by the state as transport-ships² .

French Auxiliary Cruisers.In France some of the mail-boats are commanded by officers of the Navy. The companies receive a subsidy from the state, and they are constructed on plans sanctioned by the French Admiralty. On the outbreak of war they are to be incorporated into the regular Navy¹ .

British.Great Britain in 1887 entered into arrangements with several of the great Navigation Steamship Companies, such as the Cunard, White Star, Peninsular and Oriental, etc. In return for an annual subsidy the companies undertake to sell or charter to the Government certain fast vessels at a fixed price and on short notice, and to build new ships on plans approved by the Admiralty. Half the crews are to be engaged from the Royal Naval Reserve, and the Admiralty has the right of placing on board fittings and arrangements to facilitate their speedy conversion into ships of war² .

The United States in 1892 entered into similar agreements with American companies and in the Spanish-American War of 1898 they made use of these vessels³ .

The arrangements made by these Powers in regard to their incorporation into the regular navy vary, but where they are placed under the command of the regular Naval Authorities of the state, and carry the national flag of the State Navy and are commanded by duly commissioned officers, and the crews wear a distinctive uniform and observe the laws of war, there is no doubt that they are entitled to treatment as regular belligerents⁴ . It was however desirable, as is stated in the preamble to this Convention, “in view of the incorporation in time of war of merchant-ships in the fighting fleet, to define the conditions subject to which this operation may be effected.” The immediate cause of the insertion of the subject in the Programme of the Conference⁵ was an incident which occurred during the Russo-Japanese War.The Peterburg and Smolensk. Two vessels, the Peterburg and Smolensk, belonging to the Russian Volunteer Navy stationed in the Black Sea, on the 4th and 6th July, 1904, passed through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles flying the flag of the Russian mercantile marine. These Straits are under the Treaties of Paris, London and Berlin closed to vessels of war. The vessels also passed through the Suez Canal under the same flag. “The Peterburg certainly, and possibly the Smolensk also, engaged pilots for the Red Sea as a vessel of commerce¹ .” When in the Red Sea they hoisted the flag of the Imperial Navy, and the Peterburg captured the Malacca, a P. and O. Mail Boat. Ultimately after strong protests by the British Government these vessels were ordered to haul down the flag of the Imperial Navy and to cease to act as cruisers, and Russia agreed that all vessels captured by them should be restored.

The Problems for the Conference.The first question mentioned in the Programme of the Fourth Committee was that of the conversion of merchant-ships into ships of war² , and M. de Martens, the President, framed his questionnaire in the following terms:

(1) Is it admitted by practice and the laws of states that belligerent states can convert merchant-ships into ships of war?

(2) In cases of conversion of merchant-ships into ships of war, what are the legal conditions which belligerent states ought to observe?

From the sketch already given there was no doubt as to the answer which the Committee would give to the first question. The laws of various states make provision for the incorporation into their navies of merchant-ships under varying conditions. The terms on which such vessels are to be obtained are matters to be settled by municipal law. But international law is concerned with the question as to what conditions are to be observed so that private vessels may become entitled to all the privileges and subject to the restrictions imposed by neutrals on ships of war² . The questions which the Committee discussed were five in number. (1) Can merchant-ships be converted into ships of war? (2) What is a ship of war? (3) Where can conversion take place? (4) How long does the conversion last? (5) What regulations shall be applied to merchant-ships converted into ships of war?

The terms of the Convention.No difficulty was occasioned in giving an affirmative answer to the first question; very little also was occasioned in framing the regulations to be applied to such vessels, and any doubt which may have been raised as to the re-introduction of privateering under the guise of volunteer fleets has been effectually dispelled by the acceptance of the six rules embodied in this Convention—“Privateering is and remains abolished.” The converted merchant-ship in order to be entitled to the status of a ship of war must be under the direct control and responsibility of the state converting it (Art. 1), and must notify its character by external marks such as the use of the flag of the State Navy (Art. 2). Its commander must be in the service of the state and duly commissioned, and his name must appear on the official list of officers of the state (Art. 3). The proposal that he must be in personal possession of his commission and of papers showing the regular conversion of the vessel was rejected. The crew must be subject to military discipline (Art. 4). The ship must in its operations conform to the laws and customs of war (Art. 5). This was objected to by the United States Delegation as constituting an invidious distinction as regards certain vessels bought and regularly commissioned in time of peace as forming part of the United States Navy. M. Renault, however, pointed out that the Article was in complete harmony with Article 1 of the Regulations on the laws and customs of war on land. Lastly the conversion of the merchant-ship must be notified publicly as soon as possible (Art. 6). The question of the duration of the conversion does not appear to be touched by this Article. These Articles embody the general principles which had been accepted by states, and except for the points raised on Articles 3 and 5 were accepted without discussion. The Convention does not go very far, but it may be welcomed as a beginning of a set of written rules on the subject. The other questions discussed were found to be insoluble.

Unsolved problems.Lord Reay desired to go to the root of the whole matter at the beginning. The legality of the conversion of merchant-ships into “ships of war” was not doubted, but the fundamental question, which, acting on the instructions of the British Government¹ , he sought to have settled was—what is a ship of war? The difficulty is not peculiar to this question, but is equally important as regards the meaning to be attributed to the exemption from capture provided for in Article 5 of the previous Convention by which “merchant-ships whose construction indicates that they are intended for conversion into war-ships” in an enemy port at the outbreak of war remain liable to capture² . What is a ship of war? A modern navy to be effective must contain more than battle-ships, fast cruisers, torpedo-boats and destroyers and submarines. If a fleet is to remain for any length of time at sea, especially if its state does not possess a large number of coaling stations within the area of its operations, it needs a whole auxiliary fleet of colliers, repairing ships, supply ships, despatch vessels, transports for the carriage of men, ammunition, etc. The following proposition introduced by Lord Reay was framed to meet modern conditions. “There are two classes of ships of war: (A) fighting ships (vaisseaux de combat), (B) auxiliary ships (vaisseaux auxiliaires).” He proposed to assimilate to the status of the fighting ships of the Navy the auxiliary ships used for any purpose of the fleet. Objection was taken to this on the ground that the principles of “unneutral service” were involved, and that this subject was not included in the Programme of the Conference; Lord Reay subsequently withdrew his proposed definition¹ . The question of the length of the period of the conversion of merchant-ships is important in this connection and this point was also discussed in connection with the place of conversion.Where may conversion take place, and how long does it last? Lord Reay, having abandoned the attempt to include auxiliary ships under the head of ships of war, developed his proposals in regard to Class A “fighting ships” which were defined as: “Every ship flying a recognised flag, armed at the expense of the state for attacking the enemy and the officers and crews of which are duly authorised for the purpose by the Government to which they belong. It shall not be lawful for a ship to be invested with this character save before its departure from a national port, nor to be divested of it, save after return to a national port² .” (a) Conversion in national ports. It was urged in support of this view that for a neutral to allow the conversion to take place in one of its ports would be an infraction of its neutrality, and for a belligerent to make the change within neutral waters would be a breach by a belligerent of his duties to a neutral, and that vessels so converted did not acquire the character of a regular ship of war³ . Against conversion on the high seas Lord Reay urged that as ships of war were accorded rights of search of neutral vessels, a neutral has the right to know what ships are authorised to exercise this right. If it be permitted to all ships which have left a neutral port as merchantmen to suddenly appear in a new character (and as the Japanese delegate pointed out the converse case would be equally possible) “regrettable incidents” would be occasioned, complications in regard to breach of neutrality laws would occur and an intolerable situation would be created. The Dutch delegate supported the proposition to limit conversion to national ports. The United States and Japanese delegates also concurred with the addition of “ports or territorial waters in the naval or military occupation” of the Power making the conversion.

(b) Conversion on the high seas.The delegates of Germany, Russia and France opposed these proposals and contended that such conversion was permissible on the high seas. They urged that there was no existing rule of international law against it, that as the laws of many states allowed the private property of nationals to be employed for operations of war, such states could exercise this right within territories under their jurisdiction and also on the high seas which are subject to the jurisdiction of no one Power. A prize captured from the enemy on the high seas, and suitable for conversion, could at once be turned into a ship of war by placing her under the command of an officer of the capturing ship and transferring to her a crew, and if this is ex hypothesi allowable, it is equally allowable for a ship of war meeting a merchantman of its own state on the high seas to make a conversion in a similar manner. M. Renault (France) agreed that conversion must not take place in neutral ports or territorial waters but otherwise he supported the German and Russian point of view.

(c) The Italian compromise.The Italian delegate (Count Tornielli), as on other occasions, endeavoured to bring about a compromise between the opposing views of Germany and Great Britain; he moved “That ships which leave the territorial waters of their country after the opening of hostilities cannot change their character either on the high seas or in the territorial waters of another state¹ .” M. Fusinato (Italy) in supporting this proposal pointed out that it would be a serious matter for a merchant-ship which had enjoyed the right of entry of a neutral port to be able to take advantage of its commercial character there and immediately on reaching the high seas to throw it off. Such a proceeding was nothing less than an abuse of neutral hospitality. The Italian proposition thus accepted the Russo-German view only to the extent of allowing the conversion of merchant-ships on the high seas in case they had left the territorial waters of their own state before the outbreak of war. The Mexican delegate supported the Italian proposition. The debates on these points were renewed in the Comité d’Examen and finally a division on the Italian proposition was taken with the result that 9 states voted for (Great Britain, the United States, Belgium, Brazil, Italy, Japan, Norway, Holland and Sweden) and 7 against (Germany, Austria, Argentine, Chili, France, Russia and Servia)² . Problem left unsolved. The vote was indecisive and the preamble records that “whereas the contracting Powers have been unable to come to an agreement on the question whether the conversion of a merchant-ship into a war-ship may take place upon the high seas, it is understood that the question of the place where such conversion is effected remains outside the scope of this agreement¹ .”

The really important question was therefore left undecided. A similar fate befell the attempt to settle the period of duration of the conversion. The Austro-Hungarian delegate proposed that a ship once converted could not be re-converted until the termination of the war; this was supported by the Mexican delegate. The Austrian proposal was meant to prevent the not impossible case of a converted merchantman which had entered a neutral port as a ship of war, leaving and returning in a few hours having divested herself of her character on the high seas, for as was pointed out by the Japanese delegate if conversion on the high seas is allowed, it would be equally possible for the act of re-conversion or divestment of the public character to take place there also. Lord Reay’s proposition allowed the character of the converted ship to be divested only in a national port. As no agreement had been reached as to the place of conversion the Committee decided to leave this question in its present (uncertain) position² .

In this case, as in so many other questions discussed at the Conference, the conflict of political interests was found to be too acute to allow of a settlement of a problem which, if it is allowed to remain in its present extremely unsatisfactory condition, will be certain on the outbreak of a naval war to bring about strained relations between the states which hold such divergent views. Every principle of the law of neutrality demands that the conversion of merchant-ships in neutral waters should be recognised as illegal; but there was not absolute unanimity even on this. The British proposal started with an endeavour to obtain the acceptance of such a definition of ship of war as would “prove sufficient to prevent the issue by any Power of letters of marque” (British Instructions). The Articles agreed to by the Conference have formulated principles which will have this effect. The Italian proposal was one which, while being wholly consistent with principle, allowed for the exceptional case of “convertible” vessels which were on the high seas at the outbreak of war. This proposal, embodying the British, Japanese and American views, would have allowed the conversion of merchant-ships only in the national ports and territorial waters of the converting Power or in ports and territorial waters occupied by it. Conversion on the high seas would have been prohibited in the case of all ships leaving their national ports after the outbreak of war, but allowed in the case of those which left a port before the outbreak of war. If these proposals, and the Austrian proposition that conversion when once effected should continue for the duration of the war, had been added to the rules adopted by the Conference, a valuable and important addition would have been made to the Law of Nations. Neutral rights, wholly ignored by the Russo-German proposals, would have been safeguarded, and belligerents would have avoided the friction with neutrals which must inevitably take place so long as the present uncertainty exists.

Signatory Powers.This Convention has been signed by all Powers mentioned in the Final Act except the United States of America (which has not acceded to the Declaration of Paris), China, Dominica, Nicaragua, and Uruguay. Turkey signed under a general reservation which was made by her delegate at the Seventh Plenary Meeting of the Conference on the 27th Sept. 1907 and which is applicable to all the Conventions recommended to the Conference by the Fourth Committee¹ .

The Conference of London² .The subject of the conversion of merchant vessels into war-ships on the high seas was examined at the Naval Conference which sat in London during December, 1908, and January and February, 1909. The conflicting views which were so strongly marked at the Hague recurred at that Conference. Similar arguments to those adduced at the Hague were again advanced by the delegates of the different states, but though all were agreed that it would be a great advantage to put an end to an uncertainty, all attempts to bring about an understanding were unsuccessful. States claiming an unrestricted right of conversion on the high seas “refused to make any concessions or to abate one jot from the claim to the absolutely unfettered exercise of the right which its advocates vindicate as a rule forming part of the existing law of nations³ .” The British Delegation declined to admit the right.

At one point of the proceedings it appeared possible to come to an agreement on the subject of re-conversion, so as to prevent a “war-ship (generally a recently converted merchant vessel) doffing its character so as to be able to revictual or refit in a neutral port without being bound by the restrictions imposed on war-ships.” The delicate position of a neutral state in such circumstances was admitted. “Agreement might perhaps have been reached on this proposal, but it seemed very difficult to deal with this secondary aspect of a question which there was no hope of settling as a whole.......The question of conversion on the high seas and that of re-conversion therefore remain open¹ .”

VIII.

Automatic Submarine Contact Mines.

VIII.

Convention relative à la Pose de Mines Sous-marines Automatiques de Contact.

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse, &c.¹

S’inspirant du principe de la liberté des voies maritimes, ouvertes à toutes les nations;

Considérant que, si dans l’état actuel des choses, on ne peut interdire l’emploi de mines sous-marines automatiques de contact, il importe d’en limiter et réglementer l’usage, afin de restreindre les rigueurs de la guerre et de donner, autant que faire se peut, à la navigation pacifique la sécurité à laquelle elle a droit de prétendre, malgré l’existence d’une guerre;

En attendant qu’il soit possible de régler la matière d’une façon qui donne aux intérêts engagés toutes les garanties désirables;

Ont résolu de conclure une Convention à cet effet et ont nommé pour leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:—

VIII.

Convention relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines.

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c.¹

Inspired by the principle of the freedom of the seas as the common highway of all nations;

Seeing that, while the existing position of affairs makes it impossible to forbid the employment of automatic submarine contact mines, it is nevertheless expedient to restrict and regulate their employment in order to mitigate the severity of war and to ensure, as far as possible, to peaceful navigation the security to which it is entitled, despite the existence of war;

Until such time as it may be found possible to formulate rules on the subject which shall ensure to the interests involved all the guarantees desirable;

Have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries]

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:—

Art. 1.

Il est interdit:

1. De placer des mines automatiques de contact non amarrées, à moins qu’elles ne soient construites de manière à devenir inoffensives une heure au maximum après que celui qui les a placées en aura perdu le contrôle;

2. De placer des mines automatiques de contact amarrées qui ne deviennent pas inoffensives dès qu’elles auront rompu leurs amarres;

3. D’employer des torpilles, qui ne deviennent pas inoffensives lorsqu’elles auront manqué leur but.

Art. 1.

It is forbidden:

1. To lay unanchored automatic contact mines, unless they be so constructed as to become harmless one hour at most after those who laid them have lost control over them;

2. To lay anchored automatic contact mines which do not become harmless as soon as they have broken loose from their moorings;

3. To use torpedoes which do not become harmless when they have missed their mark.

Art. 2.

Il est interdit de placer des mines automatiques de contact devant les côtes et les ports de l’adversaire, dans le seul but d’intercepter la navigation de commerce.

Art. 2.

It is forbidden to lay automatic contact mines off the coasts and ports of the enemy, with the sole object of intercepting commercial navigation.

Art. 3.

Lorsque les mines automatiques de contact amarrées sont employées, toutes les précautions possibles doivent être prises pour la sécurité de la navigation pacifique.

Les belligérants s’engagent à pourvoir, dans la mesure du possible, à ce que ces mines deviennent inoffensives après un laps de temps limité, et, dans le cas où elles cesseraient d’être surveillées, à signaler les régions dangereuses aussitôt que les exigences militaires le permettront, par un avis à la navigation, qui devra être aussi communiqué aux Gouvernements par la voie diplomatique.

Art. 3.

When anchored automatic contact mines are employed, every possible precaution must be taken for the security of peaceful navigation.

The belligerents undertake to provide, as far as possible, for these mines becoming harmless after a limited time has elapsed, and, where the mines cease to be under observation, to notify the danger zones as soon as military exigencies permit, by a notice to mariners, which must also be communicated to the Governments through the diplomatic channel.

Art. 4.

Toute Puissance neutre qui place des mines automatiques de contact devant ses côtes, doit observer les mêmes règles et prendre les mêmes précautions que celles qui sont imposées aux belligérants.

La Puissance neutre doit faire connaître à la navigation, par un avis préalable, les régions où seront mouillées des mines automatiques de contact. Cet avis devra être communiqué d’urgence aux Gouvernements par voie diplomatique.

Art. 4.

Neutral Powers which lay automatic contact mines off their coasts must observe the same rules and take the same precautions as are imposed on belligerents.

The neutral Power must give notice to mariners in advance of the places where automatic contact mines have been laid. This notice must be communicated at once to the Governments through the diplomatic channel.

Art. 5.

A la fin de la guerre, les Puissances contractantes s’engagent à faire tout ce qui dépend d’elles pour enlever, chacune de son côté, les mines qu’elles ont placées.

Quant aux mines automatiques de contact amarrées que l’un des belligérants aurait posées le long des côtes de l’autre, l’emplacement en sera notifié à l’autre partie par la Puissance qui les a posées, et chaque Puissance devra procéder dans le plus bref délai à l’enlèvement des mines qui se trouvent dans ses eaux.

Art. 5.

At the close of the war, the Contracting Powers undertake to do their utmost to remove the mines which they have laid, each Power removing its own mines.

As regards anchored automatic contact mines laid by one of the belligerents off the coast of the other, their position must be notified to the other party by the Power which laid them, and each Power must proceed with the least possible delay to remove the mines in its own waters.

Art. 6.

Les Puissances contractantes qui ne disposent pas encore de mines perfectionnées telles qu’elles sont prévues dans la présente Convention, et qui, par conséquent, ne sauraient actuellement se conformer aux règles établies dans les Articles 1 et 3, s’engagent à transformer, aussitôt que possible, leur matériel de mines, afin qu’il réponde aux prescriptions susmentionnées.

Art. 6.

The Contracting Powers which do not at present own perfected mines of the description contemplated in the present Convention, and which, consequently, could not at present carry out the rules laid down in Articles 1 and 3, undertake to convert the matériel of their mines as soon as possible, so as to bring it into conformity with the foregoing requirements.

Art. 7.

Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne sont applicables qu’entre les Puissances contractantes et seulement si les belligérants sont tous parties à la Convention.

Art. 7.

The provisions of the present Convention are only applicable between the Contracting Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 8.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée aussitôt que possible.

Les ratifications seront déposées à La Haye.

Le premier dépôt de ratifications sera constaté par un procès-verbal signé par les représentants des Puissances qui y prennent part et par le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas.

Les dépôts ultérieurs de ratifications se feront au moyen d’une notification écrite, adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et accompagnée de l’instrument de ratification.

Copie certifiée conforme du procès-verbal relatif au premier dépôt de ratifications, des notifications mentionnées à l’alinéa précédent, ainsi que des instruments de ratification, sera immédiatement remise, par les soins du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et par la voie diplomatique, aux Puissances conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, ainsi qu’aux autres Puissances qui auront adhéré à la Convention. Dans les cas visés par l’alinéa précédent, le dit Gouvernement leur fera connaître en même temps la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 8.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.

The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.

A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relating to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, as well as of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent, by the Netherland Government through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have acceded to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph, the said Government shall inform them at the same time of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 9.

Les Puissances non-signataires sont admises à adhérer à la présente Convention.

La Puissance qui désire adhérer notifie par écrit son intention au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui transmettant l’acte d’adhésion, qui sera déposé dans les archives du dit Gouvernement.

Ce Gouvernement transmettra immédiatement à toutes les autres Puissances copie certifiée conforme de la notification ainsi que de l’acte d’adhésion, en indiquant la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 9.

Non-Signatory Powers may accede to the Present Convention.

A Power which desires to accede notifies its intention in writing to the Netherland Government, forwarding to it the act of accession, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.

The said Government shall immediately forward to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification, as well as of the act of accession, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 10.

La présente Convention produira effet pour les Puissances qui auront participé au premier dépôt de ratifications, soixante jours après la date du procès-verbal de ce dépôt, et pour les Puissances qui ratifieront ultérieurement ou qui adhéreront, soixante jours après que la notification de leur ratification ou de leur adhésion aura été reçue par le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 10.

The present Convention shall take effect, in the case of the Powers which were parties to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the procès-verbal recording such deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which shall ratify subsequently or which shall accede, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their accession has been received by the Netherland Government.

Art. 11.

La présente Convention aura une durée de sept ans à partir du soixantième jour après la date du premier dépôt de ratifications.

Sauf dénonciation, elle continuera d’être en vigueur après l’expiration de ce délai.

La dénonciation sera notifiée par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, qui communiquera immédiatement copie certifiée conforme de la notification à toutes les Puissances, en leur faisant savoir la date à laquelle il l’a reçue.

La dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée et six mois après que la notification en sera parvenue au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 11.

The present Convention shall remain in force for seven years, dating from the sixtieth day after the date of the first deposit of ratifications.

Unless denounced, it shall continue in force after the expiry of this period.

The denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Netherland Government, which shall immediately communicate a duly certified copy of the notification to all the Powers, informing them of the date on which it was received.

The denunciation shall only operate in respect of the denouncing Power, and only on the expiry of six months after the notification has reached the Netherland Government.

Art. 12.

Les Puissances contractantes s’engagent à reprendre la question de l’emploi des mines automatiques de contact six mois avant l’expiration du terme prévu par l’alinéa premier de l’Article précédent, au cas où elle n’aurait pas été reprise et résolue à une date antérieure par la Troisième Conférence de la Paix.

Si les Puissances contractantes concluent une nouvelle Convention relative à l’emploi des mines, dès son entrée en vigueur, la présente Convention cessera d’être applicable.

Art. 12.

The Contracting Powers agree to reopen the question of the employment of automatic contact mines six months before the expiry of the period contemplated in the first paragraph of the preceding Article, in the event of the question not having been already taken up and settled by the Third Peace Conference.

If the Contracting Powers conclude a fresh Convention relative to the employment of mines, the present Convention shall cease to be applicable from the moment when it comes into force.

Art. 13.

Un registre tenu par le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas indiquera la date du dépôt de ratifications effectué en vertu de l’Article 8, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (Article 9, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (Article 11, alinéa 3).

Chaque Puissance contractante est admise à prendre connaissance de ce registre et à en demander des extraits certifiés conformes.

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires ont revêtu la présente Convention de leurs signatures.

Fait à La Haye, le 18 Octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire, qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances qui ont été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix.

Art. 13.

A register kept by the Netherland Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 8, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 9, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 11, paragraph 3) have been received.

Each Contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts from it.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference.

Convention No. 8. Relative to the laying of automatic submarine contact mines¹ .

Submarine mines.The Russo-Japanese War drew the attention of the world to the deadly results produced by floating mines. Though not expressly mentioned in Count Benckendorff’s Circular, the laying of torpedoes, etc. (pose de torpilles, etc.) was included among the subjects for consideration² . Automobile torpedoes were practically excluded from the discussions: they are referred to only in the 1st Article of this Convention; the lengthy debates in the Committees were all concerned with submarine mines³ . Mines are of three different kinds: (1) Observation mines which are anchored along the coast and connected therewith by wires by which they can be exploded electrically. These are not dealt with in the Convention. They are innocuous to peaceful shipping. (2) Anchored automatic contact mines which are attached to heavy weights, and which can be placed at any required depth below the surface; these mines are exploded automatically by contact with heavy bodies such as ships. (3) Unanchored automatic contact mines which also explode by contact.

Danger of mines to neutrals.Mines were employed in the Russo-Japanese War by both belligerents, and hundreds either broke adrift from their moorings or, not being anchored at all, floated into the high seas and caused serious loss of life to neutrals long after the conclusion of the war. In the course of the discussion of the British proposals in Committee the Chinese delegate made the following declaration which brings out strongly the dangers to which neutral shipping is exposed by their employment:

“At the same time the Delegation [of China] desires to bring to the knowledge of the delegates certain facts which it ventures to hope will suggest the examination of this important proposition in a widely humanitarian sense.

“The Chinese Government is even to-day obliged to furnish vessels engaged in coastal navigation with special apparatus to raise and destroy floating mines which are found not only on the open sea but even in its territorial waters. In spite of the precautions which have been taken a very considerable number of coasting vessels, fishing boats, junks and sampans have been lost with all hands without the details of these disasters being known to the western world. It is calculated from five to six hundred of our countrymen engaged in their peaceful occupations have there met a cruel death in consequence of these dangerous engines of war¹ .”

Mines and the Hague Conference.The subject of mines was entrusted to the Third Committee presided over by Count Tornielli. This Committee also dealt with naval bombardments, the adaptation to naval warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention and the right and duty of neutrals in naval warfare. The Committee was divided into two Sub-Committees, the first of which, presided over by M. Hagerup (Norway) with M. Streit (Greece) as Reporter, dealt with submarine mines and naval bombardments.

Various proposals: (a) British.The British Delegation in accordance with their instructions² presented the following draft consisting of six Articles which was the most complete and at the same time the most restrictive of any laid before the Committee:

1. The employment of unanchored automatic submarine contact mines is forbidden.

2. Automatic submarine contact mines which on breaking from their moorings do not become harmless are forbidden.

3. The employment of automatic submarine contact mines to establish or maintain a commercial blockade is forbidden.

4. Belligerents may only lay mines in their territorial waters or those of their enemies. Before fortified military ports (ports de guerre), however, this zone may be extended to a distance of 10 miles from shore batteries (canons à terre), provided that the belligerent laying such mines gives notice to neutrals and also takes such steps as circumstances allow to prevent, as far as possible, merchant-ships which have not had notice, being exposed to destruction.

Only ports which possess at least one large graving-dock and are provided with the equipment necessary for the construction and repair of ships of war, and in which a staff of workmen paid by the state to construct and repair ships of war is maintained in time of peace, shall be considered as coming within the meaning of the term “ports de guerre.”

5. Generally, the necessary precautions shall be taken to safeguard neutral ships engaged in lawful commerce; and it is desirable that automatic submarine contact mines shall be so constructed as to cease to be dangerous after a reasonable period.

6. At the conclusion of the war the belligerents will communicate to each other the necessary information as to the places where each has laid mines on the coasts of the other, and each belligerent must take steps as soon as possible to remove mines in his territorial waters¹ .

(b) Italian.The Italian Delegation handed in a preliminary motion² : (1) that unanchored mines should be provided with apparatus whereby they became harmless within an hour after they were laid; (2) that as regards anchored mines they should be so constructed as to become harmless on breaking adrift from their moorings³ . The latter part of the Italian proposal was already covered by the British draft, but the first part allowed the use of unanchored floating mines which were forbidden by the British proposal, if they became harmless within an hour.

In support of the British draft Captain Ottley stated that no objection could be raised to the use of mines controlled by electric wires from the shore, but that the interests of humanity demanded that the lives and interests of neutrals and non-combatants should be protected as far as was consistent with belligerent rights as regards the use of automatic contact mines. Referring to the loss of life occasioned in the China Seas which were frequented by a comparatively small number of ships, he said that had the number been anything like that frequenting the entrance to the Baltic, the Dardanelles, the Straits of Gibraltar or Dover a series of catastrophes would have occurred which would have attracted the attention of the whole civilised world⁴ .

The Italian naval delegate (Captain Castiglia) in support of his “motion préalable” pointed out that mines provided a cheap from of defence for states with a weak navy, and that those possessing a large navy and a long coast line also found them a valuable assistance to their coastal defences. The danger to neutrals was however so great that it was natural that a limit should be imposed on the unrestricted use of such terrible instruments of destruction, and he asked for the acceptance of his preliminary amendment to the British proposals as neutrals were safeguarded while a belligerent could still use a weapon which might as a last resort, especially where a weaker vessel was being pursued by a stronger, prove its salvation¹ .

(c) Japanese.The Japanese Delegation proposed an amendment in the same sense as the Italian, and this was accepted by the British Delegation² .

(d) Dutch.The Dutch Delegation proposed amendments to Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the British draft allowing neutrals to place mines in their own waters to prevent access to their territory, but prohibiting the laying of mines in straits connecting two open seas. It was also proposed to add a seventh Article providing that in case of loss of either neutral persons or property, the state laying the mines should make compensation³ .

(e) Brazilian.The Brazilian Delegation also proposed an amendment allowing neutrals to lay mines in their waters for self-defence⁴ .

(f) German.The German Delegation proposed an amendment to Article 4 of the British draft allowing mines to be laid in the theatre of war which was defined in the following terms: “l’espace de mer sur lequel se fait ou vient de se faire une opération de guerre ou sur lequel une pareille opération pourra avoir lieu par suite de la présence ou de l’approche des forces armées des deux belligérants⁵ .”

(g) Spanish.The Spanish Delegation proposed an amendment to Article 2 of the British draft that until an international technical commission had discovered means of rendering automatic contact mines harmless on breaking from their moorings they should be forbidden; and an amendment to Article 4 allowing belligerents only to employ mines in their own territorial waters or in those of their enemy when they exercise effective power there⁶ .

(h) United States.At the third Meeting of the First Sub-Committee on the 11th July General Porter (United States) presented the following draft:

1. Unanchored automatic contact mines are prohibited.

2. Anchored automatic contact mines, which do not become innocuous on getting adrift, are prohibited.

3. If anchored automatic contact mines are used within belligerent jurisdiction or within the area of immediate belligerent activities, due precautions shall be taken for the safety of neutrals¹ .

(i) Russian.At the same meeting a Russian amendment was presented which provided that (1) belligerents shall make use of anchored automatic submarine contact mines constructed in such a way that, as far as it is possible, they shall become harmless when they have broken from their moorings; (2) their automatic floating mines shall be constructed in such a way that, as far as possible, they become harmless after the lapse of a certain time from their being launched; (3) torpedoes shall be constructed in such a way that, as far as possible, they become harmless when they have missed their mark; (4) a sufficient delay shall be accorded to governments to bring into use perfected mines² .

Difficulties of the Examining Committee.It will be evident from the foregoing list that the proposals of several states, notably Holland, Germany and Russia, considerably widened the area of discussion. The various proposals were sent for consideration to an Examining Committee composed of one representative from each of the Delegations of the following states: Great Britain, China, France, Germany, The United States, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Japan, Holland and Russia. This Committee held ten long meetings and during the course of their deliberation numerous amendments and proposals were tabled³ . To increase the difficulties of their work doubts were raised as to the competence of the Examining Committee. Some members doubted not only whether the Committee but even the Conference was competent to deal with the question of the laying of mines by neutrals as this did not definitely appear in the programme of the Conference. The question was referred to a full meeting of the Third Committee on the 23rd August and after a lengthy discussion the competence of the Examining Committee was affirmed¹ . The Report of the First Sub-Committee of the Third Committee on the work of its Examining Committee containing a draft Convention of 10 Articles was presented to a full meeting of the Third Committee on the 17th September² .

First draft Convention³.The draft Convention in its first Article forbade (a) the use of unanchored mines which do not become harmless within the maximum of one hour after the party laying them has lost control over them, (b) the use of anchored mines which do not become harmless after they have broken loose from their moorings, (c) the use of torpedoes which do not become harmless when they have missed their mark.

Articles 2-5 dealt with the area in which floating unanchored mines might be laid. Article 2 prohibited the laying of such mines beyond a distance of three marine miles from low-water mark along the whole extent of the coast and dependent islands and small islands. As regards bays, the three-mile limit was to be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay at the point nearest the entrance where the width does not exceed 10 miles⁴ .

Article 3 extended the limits for placing unanchored mines to 10 miles off naval ports (ports de guerre) and ports where there are military arsenals, ship-building yards or graving-docks. Naval ports are defined as those which have been declared to be such by the state to which they belong.

Article 4 allowed belligerents to lay unanchored mines off the coasts and ports of the enemy within the limits provided by the two preceding Articles, but not beyond the three-mile limit where the ports are not ports de guerre as above defined, unless they contained ship-building yards or graving-docks belonging to the state; belligerents were also prohibited from laying mines off the coasts and ports of the enemy with the sole object of intercepting commercial navigation.

Article 5 provided that within the sphere of their immediate activity belligerents have the same right of laying anchored mines outside the limits prescribed by Articles 2-4; such mines must be constructed in such a way as to become harmless within a maximum of two hours after they have been abandoned by those who laid them.

Article 6 stated that when anchored mines are used every precaution should be taken for the safety of navigation: the belligerents undertake when the mines cease to be under observation to notify to governments as soon as possible the dangerous areas and to provide as far as possible that they shall become harmless within a limited time.

By Article 7 neutrals laying mines off their coasts must follow the same rules and observe the same precautions as belligerents: they may not lay mines outside the limits indicated in Article 2, and must notify in advance the areas of danger to other governments at once.

Article 8 provided that at the conclusion of the war states shall remove mines they have laid: and as regards moored mines laid by one belligerent on the coasts of the other each shall notify their position to the other and shall proceed as soon as possible to remove those in its own waters.

Article 9 placed an important limit on the prohibition of Articles 1, 5 and 6 by providing that states which did not as yet possess mines of the perfected type dealt with in the draft and therefore not conforming to those Articles undertook as soon as possible to transform their mines so that they should answer to these requirements; until a belligerent was provided with such mines he was prohibited from laying them outside the limits fixed by Articles 2-4; the use of unanchored mines which did not conform to the requirements of Article 1 was prohibited a year after the Convention came into force.

According to Article 10 the Convention was to last for five years, and the signatory Powers undertook to reopen the question of the employment of mines six months before its expiration.

Discussion of first draft Convention.From the Report of M. Streit it appears that most of the Articles were adopted only by majorities, sometimes very small, and the debates on the draft at the meetings of the Third Committee in their 5th, 6th and 7th sittings¹ show the general trend of the debates before the smaller body. The discussion of the draft was commenced by Admiral Siegel (Germany)² who drew attention to the great diversity of opinion manifested in the Examining Committee and the fact that none of the Articles were unanimously adopted. The question in his opinion was not ripe for solution; that attempted was not satisfactory. He then passed to a criticism of the draft, particularly the limits imposed on the area of mine-laying operations, and urged that the restriction to territorial waters did not meet the case of the defence of a blockaded coast by mines which to be effective must be laid near the blockading squadron lying perhaps 20 miles or more off the land. Nor could he accept the rule that unanchored mines must be rendered innocuous within a given length of time. That principle was sound as regards anchored mines which broke loose from their moorings but the limit of one hour was useless where a weak naval force was flying from a stronger and dropped unanchored mines in defence.

Sir Ernest Satow¹ followed in a lengthy and detailed criticism of the draft which he contended was quite inadequate as a safeguard to legitimate neutral rights. The permission to belligerents to lay mines anywhere in “the sphere of their immediate activity” was a permission to strew the high seas with mines. On the outbreak of war a catastrophe to a neutral ship would at once create a situation which in all probability diplomacy would be impotent to solve; if therefore the draft were adopted the Conference instead of diminishing would increase the causes of war. He strongly urged that the Conference ought only to allow belligerents to lay anchored mines in their own territorial waters or those of their adversary and then only if they became harmless as soon as they broke loose; that belligerents should only be allowed to use floating mines during a battle on condition that they became harmless within a short period; that anchored mines should not be allowed beyond territorial waters or more than 10 miles off military ports, etc., otherwise the navigation of a great part of the Baltic, the North Sea, the Mediterranean, etc. might all be rendered full of dangers beyond these limits, for the provision that anchored mines should be rendered harmless within two hours after they were laid was impracticable. The prohibition to lay mines outside belligerent ports to intercept commerce was equivocal as appearing to countenance blockade by mines which was contrary alike to the spirit and letter of the Declaration of Paris. The British proposal in regard to “ports de guerre” was preferable. Finally he proposed to extend the duration of the Convention for seven years or until the end of the Third Peace Conference.

Baron Marschall von Bieberstein (Germany)² supported the views of Admiral Siegel. He said Germany did not mean to demand an unlimited liberty in the use of mines or desire to “sow mines in profusion in all the seas”; he fully admitted the great responsibility of belligerents in their use of mines. Germany, to show her desire to conform to public opinion, was willing to forbid the use of floating (unanchored) mines for five years, and he concluded by moving an amendment to the first Article of the draft to this effect¹ .

The Japanese² and Russian³ delegates supported the prohibition of floating mines contained in Article 1 of the draft Convention. General Porter (United States) criticised in detail the draft Convention in which he found numerous technical difficulties and stated that there were only a few Articles which the American Delegation was prepared to accept⁴ .

The German amendment prohibiting floating mines for five years was then put to the vote with the result that 15 Delegations including Great Britain and the United States voted for it, 9 against, 14 abstained and 6 were absent⁵ . This voting not being conclusive the discussion was continued on the first Article which was carried⁶ .

The second Article prohibiting the laying of anchored mines outside territorial waters was carried by a small majority (15 to 11, 10 abstentions and 8 absent)⁷ .

The third and fourth Articles were also carried by small majorities⁸ .

The rejection of Article 5 which had been moved by Sir E. Satow was supported by the Brazilian delegate (Captain Burlamaqui de Moura) and was carried by 28 votes, 4 abstaining and 12 absent⁹ .

Article 6 was adopted with a reservation by the Turkish delegate in regard to the Dardanelles and Bosphorus¹⁰ .

Article 7 was under discussion when the Committee adjourned till the 19th September. The discussions were then resumed and Articles 7 and 8 and part of 9 were adopted¹¹ . Article 10 was amended in accordance with Sir Ernest Satow’s motion, and the duration of the Convention was fixed at seven years instead of five as originally proposed¹² .

A long debate took place on the results of the divisions on Articles 2-4 as to the effect of the small majorities¹ . The German delegate held that a relative majority should be decisive. The Italian delegate advocated an absolute majority, that is where more than half of the delegates voted on the same side. The Committee ultimately decided to adjourn for the preparation of another draft which it was hoped might prove acceptable to the Conference² .

The second draft Convention.The Committee met again on the 26th September and took into consideration a revised draft prepared as the result of the previous discussions and embodying those Articles or amendments which had received an absolute majority in the full meeting of the Committee. The second draft was accepted and became the Convention now under consideration³ .

The Convention.Article 1. The first Article remains as in the first draft except for slight changes in the wording. The distinction between anchored and unanchored mines and torpedoes is maintained⁴ , and the Article was unanimously accepted by the Committee, subject to reservations by Russia, Germany, Sweden and Turkey.

Article 2 reproduces paragraph 3 of the fourth Article of the original draft. It is all that remains of the attempts to limit the area in which mines may be laid. The German delegate in Committee objected to this Article which forbids the laying of mines before the shores and ports of the enemy with the sole object of intercepting commercial navigation. He urged that the subjective element in this Article was absent from the others and would give rise to difficulties in its application⁵ . The Austro-Hungarian delegate expressed himself in a similar sense. Sir Ernest Satow pointed out that the prohibition to lay mines off commercial ports would have avoided this difficulty⁶ . The objection appears to be a valid one, as it will only be necessary to allege some other reason to avoid the application of the rule.

The Colombian amendment.When this Article was under discussion in Committee the delegate of Colombia (M. Triana) moved the following amendment⁷ :

In support of this amendment M. Triana made an eloquent and forcible speech in which he pointed out that the essential object of the Conference was peace. War could not be suppressed but its horrors could be diminished, though not all at once, but every rule adopted tended towards the object in view. Mines were, of all modern methods of war, the most devastating and treacherous. It was pitiable to think of “the mass of courage marching on the foe” overwhelmed and annihilated by a murderous agent laid by an absent enemy. The horror was increased when mines floated at the will of wind and wave, a menace not only to belligerents but to all that sail the seas. “It is the hatred of man extended like a curse over the waves of the ocean.” If mines could not be suppressed, their use should be limited to mines anchored for the purpose of defending ports, coasts and mouths of rivers, etc.; the law allows homicide in self-defence. It was for the Great Powers to set an example; they should prove their sincerity in the cause of humanity. If such a concession were not made, the sincerity of the Conference would be open to doubt, and the greatest responsibility would rest on the strongest Powers; it was to them he appealed. If they could not agree to diminish in some way one of the most horrible possibilities of war, if they lacked the courage or the generosity to do so, where was the justification for their power? La force comme la noblesse oblige¹ .

This impressive appeal was warmly applauded, and was supported by the British and Chinese delegates. The Austro-Hungarian and German delegates objected on the ground of the difficulty of distinguishing between attack and defence and on a division 16 states voted for and 15 against the Colombian amendment, 6 abstained and 7 were absent. As the majority was not absolute the amendment failed. Article 2 was then adopted by 33 votes, 3 Powers abstaining and 7 being absent. Germany reserved her vote² .

Article 3. This Article was unanimously adopted. Throughout the discussions all the delegates in their speeches supported the proposition that all possible precautions should be taken to safeguard neutral interests, and the present Article reproduces with verbal amendments Article 6 of the original draft. The Turkish delegate made reservations on the subject of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles¹ .

Article 4. This Article was unanimously adopted; it reproduces Article 7 of the original draft as modified at the full meeting of the Committee when the limits of the area within which neutrals can lay mines were suppressed.

Article 5. This Article (Article 8 of the original draft) completes the two previous Articles and was unanimously adopted² .

Article 6. This Article reproduces Article 9 of the original draft with the omission of the time limit as originally recommended. The engagement taken by the Powers to transform as soon as possible their matériel so that they should answer to the technical conditions in these Regulations was unanimously adopted. Sir Ernest Satow however, with a view of fixing a definite time within which such transformation should be effected, proposed to add to this Article the following paragraph: “The prohibition to employ mines which do not answer to the conditions of Article 1 shall come into force in the case of unanchored mines within one year, and in the case of anchored mines within three years after the ratification of the present Convention.” The original draft had proposed to allow one year for the transformation of both anchored and unanchored mines. The result of the voting was as follows: 17 for, 9 against, 10 abstentions, 8 absent. The amendment was therefore not proceeded with³ .

Articles 7, 8, 9 and 10 call for no remarks.

Articles 11 and 12. The first paragraph of Article 11 is the result of an amendment moved in Committee by Sir Ernest Satow, which together with Article 12 were unanimously accepted at the seventh meeting of the Third Committee. The Convention is to last for seven years and the Contracting Powers undertake to reopen the question of the employment of mines six months before the termination of this period, in the event of the question not having been already reopened and settled by the Third Peace Conference⁴ .

Before passing to the last stage in the adoption of the draft which became the present Convention, the fate of the proposal deposited by the Dutch delegate in reference to the laying of mines in straits must be mentioned¹ .The position of straits. Dutch amendment. The Dutch naval delegate (Admiral Röell) desired that the prohibition of mine-laying in straits connecting the high seas should be clearly enunciated in the interests of neutrals. The right of innocent passage was generally admitted, he said, but it was desirable that the principle should be definitely adopted in a conventional stipulation, clearly providing that straits should not be barred in such a way as not to leave communication open to peaceful navigation. The Japanese, United States, and Turkish delegates all made reservations as regards the Islands of the Japanese Empire, the Philippines, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles which form integral parts of their respective states. The German and Spanish delegates stated that they had no instructions on the subject, and the Russian naval delegate (Captain Behr) expressed doubts as to the competence of the Conference to deal with the question. The Dutch proposal, he said, laid down a general rule for all straits. Certain straits are dealt with by international agreements based on political considerations and these were outside their competence; it would be unwise to lay down general rules for some straits, leaving out others, as thereby a new source of difficulty would be occasioned. He concluded by saying that he was instructed to state that the consideration of the question was not competent to the Conference and that he should not take part in the discussion. The Committee therefore decided to suppress all provision relating to straits. The Report by M. Streit to the Conference states that it was clearly understood that nothing was changed by the Convention as regards the actual situation of straits. “But, it has been considered as natural that the technical conditions established by the Regulations should be of general application² .”

The Conference and the Convention.The Report of the Third Committee and the draft Convention came before the 8th Plenary Meeting of the Conference on the 9th October, 1908, when the draft was adopted with certain reservations.

Sir Ernest Satow’s declaration.Sir Ernest Satow then made the following declaration:

“Having voted for the Mines Convention which the Conference has just accepted, the British Delegation desires to declare that it cannot regard this arrangement as furnishing a final solution of the question, but only as marking a stage in international legislation on the subject. It does not consider that adequate account has been taken in the Convention of the right of neutrals to protection, nor of humanitarian sentiments which cannot be neglected; it has done all that is possible to bring the Conference to share its views, but its efforts in this direction have remained without result.

“The high seas, Gentlemen, are a great international highway. If in the present state of international law and custom belligerents are permitted to fight their battles there, it is none the less incumbent on them to do nothing which might, long after their departure from a particular place, render this highway dangerous to neutrals who have an equal right to use it. We declare without hesitation that the right of the neutral to security of navigation of the high seas ought to take precedence of the transitory right of the belligerent to employ these seas as the scene of the operations of war.

“This Convention, however, as it has been adopted, imposes on the belligerent no restriction as to the placing of anchored mines, which consequently may be laid wherever the belligerent chooses, in his own waters for self-defence, in the waters of the enemy as a means of attack, or lastly on the high seas, so that neutral navigation will inevitably run great risks in time of naval war and may be exposed to many a disaster. We have already on several occasions insisted on the danger of a situation of this kind. We have endeavoured to show what would be the effect produced by the loss of a great liner belonging to a neutral Power. We have not failed to produce every argument in favour of limiting the field of action of these mines, while we called special attention to the advantages which the civilised world would gain from this restriction, as it would diminish to a certain extent the causes of armed conflicts. It appeared to us that by accepting the proposal made by us at the beginning of the discussion dangers would have been obviated which in every maritime war of the future will threaten to disturb friendly relations between neutrals and belligerents. But since the Conference has not shared our views, it remains for us to declare in the most formal manner that these dangers exist and that the certainty that they will make themselves felt in the future is due to the incomplete character of the present Convention. As, in our opinion, this constitutes only a partial and insufficient solution of the problem, it cannot, as has already been pointed out, be regarded as a complete exposition of international law on the subject. Therefore the legitimacy of a given act cannot be presumed for the mere reason that the Convention has not forbidden it. That is a principle which we desired to affirm, and which could never be ignored by any state, whatever its power¹ .”

Baron Marschall von Bieberstein replied as follows:

Baron Marschall von Bieberstein’s reply.“In view of the declaration just made by His Excellency the delegate of Great Britain, I wish to repeat what I have already said in the Committee¹ .

“A belligerent who lays mines assumes a very heavy responsibility towards neutrals and peaceful shipping. On that point we are all agreed. No one will resort to such means unless for military reasons of an absolutely urgent character. But military acts are not governed solely by principles of international law. There are other factors: conscience, good sense and the sentiment of duty imposed by principles of humanity will be the surest guides for the conduct of sailors, and will constitute the most effective guarantee against abuses. The officers of the German Navy, I emphatically affirm (je le dis à voix haute), will always fulfil, in the strictest fashion, the duties which emanate from the unwritten law of humanity and civilisation.

“I have no need to tell you that I recognise entirely the importance of the codification of rules to be followed in war. But it would be well not to issue rules the strict observation of which might be rendered impossible by the force of things. It is of the first importance that the international maritime law which we desire to create should only contain clauses the execution of which is possible from a military point of view, even in exceptional circumstances. Otherwise the respect for law will be lessened and its authority undermined. Also it would seem to us to be preferable to preserve at present a certain reserve, in the expectation that, seven years hence, it will be easier to find a solution which will be acceptable to the whole world.

“As to the sentiments of humanity and civilisation, I cannot admit that there is any government or country which is superior in these sentiments to that which I have the honour to represent² .”

Signatory Powers.This Convention has been signed by all the Powers represented at the Conference except China, Spain, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Portugal, Russia and Sweden.

Reservations.The following Powers made reservations:

France and Germany, Article 2.

The Dominican Republic and Siam, Article 1, paragraph 1.

Great Britain. “In placing their signatures to this Convention the British Plenipotentiaries declare that the mere fact that the said Convention does not prohibit a particular act or proceeding must not be held to debar His Britannic Majesty’s Government from contesting its legitimacy¹ .”

Turkey under reserves of the declarations made at the 8th Plenary Meeting of the Conference on the 9th October, 1907. These declarations relate to Articles 1 and 6 in regard to which the Ottoman delegate would enter into no undertaking to transform the matériel of mines into any system not generally known. Also in regard to Article 3 the Ottoman delegate declared that in the exceptional circumstances of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus the Turkish Government would enter into no engagement tending to limit the means of defence which it might deem necessary to employ for these straits in time of war, or to protect their neutrality.

Defects of the Convention.The declaration of Sir Ernest Satow and the speeches made by the British, Japanese and Chinese delegates during the various discussions draw attention in a striking manner to the defects of the Convention. Baron Marschall’s contention that conscience, good sense and the unwritten law of humanity and civilisation afford a better guarantee for the observance of international law than a Convention is unconvincing. States are not content to rely on such principles for the maintenance of internal order; life and property are safeguarded by definite enactments embodying the old commands “Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal.” The interests of neutrals demand that the law of humanity and civilisation in a matter in which they are so deeply concerned should also form part of the written law of nations though the absence of the litera scripta cannot be adduced to justify proceedings against this unwritten law. It is impossible to under-estimate the risks to neutrals from the use of mines in ways not prohibited by this Convention. There is nothing in its provisions to forbid a belligerent placing mines, floating or anchored, on the high seas; nothing to prohibit him from placing mines off the coasts of the enemy without regard to neutral shipping, for the proviso that danger zones shall be notified “as soon as military exigencies allow” is of little value. The prohibition of the use of mines off the coasts of the enemy with the sole object of intercepting commercial shipping, is, as has been pointed out, futile, for a belligerent has only to allege a different object to make it illusory and none of the safeguards which the laws of blockade require in the interests of neutrals are mentioned in this Convention. The prohibitions contained in the first Article are in effect nullified by the sixth, for no time is specified within which states are to cause their matériel to conform to the requirements of Article 1, and where neutrals suffer from the use of imperfectly constructed mines it is not likely that they will be satisfied with the belligerent’s plea that he has been prevented by lack of funds or time from making the needful changes.

Neutrals have a right to demand that the high seas, the great international highway of all nations, shall be protected from belligerent operations to their detriment, and it was with this object that the British proposals were framed. They were not accepted, and Sir Ernest Satow’s declaration is a clear notification that the Convention is wholly inadequate as a guarantee of neutral interests, and also that the legitimacy of acts such as those above mentioned cannot be presumed merely because a Convention has not forbidden them.

Owing to the action of some of the Great Powers to whom the Colombian delegate addressed his appeal to prove their sincerity in the cause of humanity, the Convention is a wholly unsatisfactory attempt to deal with a question of vital importance to neutrals and has only been accepted by many states for want of a better. The requirements of humanity and the methods by which states should realise them are better stated by M. de Lapradelle: “Chasser la mine amarrée de la haute mer, exiger que la mine flottante, jetée pendant le combat, perde rapidement son pouvoir nocif, et que la mine fixe d’usage côtier devienne inoffensive dès qu’elle a rompu ses amarres, puis, défendre le blocus par mines, parcequ’en cas d’infraction il substituerait la mort à la capture: tels sont les principes que l’humanité commande¹ .” These were the principles of the British proposals.

The question of mines was again considered by the Institut de Droit International at its meeting at Florence in September, 1908, as since its meeting at Ghent in 1906 the present Convention had been agreed on. A draft series of regulations was adopted by the Institut and is to be reconsidered at its meeting at Paris in 1910² .

IX.

Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War.

IX.

Convention concernant le Bombardement par des Forces Navales en Temps de Guerre.

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse, &c.¹

Animés du désir de réaliser le vœu exprimé par la Première Conférence de la Paix, concernant le bombardement, par des forces navales, de ports, villes, et villages, non défendus;

Considérant qu’il importe de soumettre les bombardements par des forces navales à des dispositions générales qui garantissent les droits des habitants et assurent la conservation des principaux édifices, en étendant à cette opération de guerre, dans la mesure du possible, les principes du Règlement de 1899 sur les Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre;

S’inspirant ainsi du désir de servir les intérêts de l’humanité et de diminuer les rigueurs et les désastres de la guerre;

Ont résolu de conclure une Convention à cet effet et ont, en conséquence, nommé pour leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:—

IX.

Convention respecting Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War.

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c.¹

Animated by the desire to realise the wish expressed by the First Peace Conference respecting the bombardment by naval forces of undefended ports, towns, and villages;

Deeming it expedient that bombardments by naval forces should be subject to rules of general application which would safeguard the rights of the inhabitants and assure the preservation of the more important buildings, by applying as far as possible to this operation of war the principles of the Regulations of 1899 respecting the Laws and Customs of Land War;

Actuated, accordingly, by the desire to serve the interests of humanity and to diminish the severity and disasters of war;

Have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect, and have, for this purpose, appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:—

Chapitre I.

Du Bombardement des Ports, Villes, Villages, Habitations ou Bâtiments non défendus.

Art. 1.

Il est interdit de bombarder, par des forces navales, des ports, villes, villages, habitations ou bâtiments qui ne sont pas défendus.

Une localité ne peut pas être bombardée à raison du seul fait que, devant son port, se trouvent mouillées des mines sous-marines automatiques de contact.

Chapter I.

Bombardment of Undefended Ports, Towns, Villages, Dwellings, or Buildings.

Art. 1.

The bombardment by naval forces of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings is forbidden.

(Cp. 4 H. C. 1907 (Regulations), Art. 25.)

A place cannot be bombarded solely because automatic submarine contact mines are anchored off the harbour.

Art. 2.

Toutefois, ne sont pas compris dans cette interdiction les ouvrages militaires, établissements militaires ou navals, dépôts d’armes ou de matériel de guerre, ateliers et installations propres à être utilisés pour les besoins de la flotte ou de l’armée ennemies, et les navires de guerre se trouvant dans le port. Le commandant d’une force navale pourra, après sommation avec délai raisonnable, les détruire par le canon, si tout autre moyen est impossible et lorsque les autorités locales n’auront pas procédé à cette destruction dans le délai fixé.

Il n’encourt aucune responsabilité dans ce cas pour les dommages involontaires qui pourraient être occasionnés par le bombardement.

Si des nécessités militaires exigeant une action immédiate, ne permettaient pas d’accorder de délai, il reste entendu que l’interdiction de bombarder la ville non défendue subsiste comme dans le cas énoncé dans l’alinéa 1^er, et que le commandant prendra toutes les dispositions voulues pour qu’il en résulte pour cette ville le moins d’inconvénients possible.

Art. 2.

Military works, military or naval establishments, depôts of arms or war material, workshops or plant which could be utilized for the needs of the hostile fleet or army, and ships of war in the harbour, are not, however, included in this prohibition. The commander of a naval force may destroy them with artillery, after a summons followed by a reasonable interval of time, if all other means are impossible, and when the local authorities have not themselves destroyed them within the time fixed.

He incurs no responsibility for any unavoidable damage which may be caused by a bombardment under such circumstances.

If for military reasons, immediate action is necessary, and no delay can be allowed to the enemy, it is nevertheless understood that the prohibition to bombard the undefended town holds good, as in the case given in the first paragraph, and that the commander shall take all due measures in order that the town may suffer as little harm as possible.

Art. 3.

Il peut, après notification expresse, être procédé au bombardement des ports, villes, villages, habitations ou bâtiments non défendus, si les autorités locales, mises en demeure par une sommation formelle, refusent d’obtempérer à des réquisitions de vivres ou d’approvisionnements nécessaires au besoin présent de la force navale qui se trouve devant la localité.

Ces réquisitions seront en rapport avec les ressources de la localité. Elles ne seront réclamées qu’avec l’autorisation du commandant de la dite force navale et elles seront, autant que possible, payées au comptant; sinon elles seront constatées par des reçus.

Art. 3.

After due notice has been given, the bombardment of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings may be commenced, if the local authorities, on a formal summons being made to them, decline to comply with requisitions for provisions or supplies necessary for the immediate use of the naval force before the place in question.

These requisitions shall be proportional to the resources of the place. They shall only be demanded in the name of the commander of the said naval force, and they shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged.

(Cp. 4 H. C. 1907 (Regulations), Art. 52.)

Art. 4.

Est interdit le bombardement, pour le non-paiement des contributions en argent, des ports, villes, villages, habitations ou bâtiments non défendus.

Art. 4.

The bombardment of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings, for the non-payment of money contributions, is forbidden.

Chapitre II.

Dispositions Générales.

Art. 5.

Dans le bombardement par des forces navales, toutes les mesures nécessaires doivent être prises par le commandant pour épargner, autant que possible, les édifices consacrés aux cultes, aux arts, aux sciences, et à la bienfaisance, les monuments historiques, les hôpitaux et les lieux de rassemblement de malades ou de blessés, à condition qu’ils ne soient pas employés en même temps à un but militaire.

Le devoir des habitants est de désigner ces monuments, ces édifices ou lieux de rassemblement, par des signes visibles, qui consisteront en grands panneaux rectangulaires rigides, partagés, suivant une des diagonales, en deux triangles de couleur, noire en haut et blanche en bas.

Chapter II.

General Provisions.

Art. 5.

In bombardments by naval forces all necessary steps should be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible, buildings devoted to public worship, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick or wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the inhabitants to indicate such monuments, edifices, or places by visible signs, which shall consist of large stiff rectangular panels divided diagonally into two coloured triangular portions, the upper portion black, the lower portion white.

(Cp. 4 H. C. 1907 (Regulations), Art. 27.)

Art. 6.

Sauf le cas où les exigences militaires ne le permettraient pas, le commandant de la force navale assaillante doit, avant d’entreprendre le bombardement, faire tout ce qui dépend de lui pour avertir les autorités.

Art. 6.

Unless military exigencies render it impossible, the commander of an attacking naval force must, before commencing the bombardment, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

(Cp. 4 H. C. 1907 (Regulations), Art. 26.)

Art. 7.

Il est interdit de livrer au pillage une ville ou localité même prise d’assaut.

Art. 7.

The giving over to pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is forbidden.

(Cp. 4 H. C. 1907 (Regulations), Art. 28.)

Chapitre III.

Dispositions Finales.

Art. 8.

Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne sont applicables qu’entre les Puissances contractantes et seulement si les belligérants sont tous parties à la Convention.

Chapter III.

Final Provisions.

Art. 8.

The provisions of the present Convention are only applicable between Contracting Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 9.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée aussitôt que possible.

Les ratifications seront déposées à La Haye.

Le premier dépôt de ratifications sera constaté par un procès-verbal signé par les Représentants des Puissances qui y prennent part et par le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas.

Les dépôts ultérieurs de ratifications se feront au moyen d’une notification écrite, adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et accompagnée de l’instrument de ratification.

Copie certifiée conforme du procès-verbal relatif au premier dépôt de ratifications, des notifications mentionnées à l’alinéa précédent, ainsi que des instruments de ratification, sera immédiatement remise, par les soins du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et par la voie diplomatique, aux Puissances conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, ainsi qu’aux autres Puissances qui auront adhéré à la Convention. Dans les cas visés par l’alinéa précédent, le dit Gouvernement leur fera connaître en même temps la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 9.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.

The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.

A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relating to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherland Government, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have acceded to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph, the said Government shall inform them at the same time of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 10.

Les Puissances non-signataires sont admises à adhérer à la présente Convention.

La Puissance qui désire adhérer notifie par écrit son intention au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui transmettant l’acte d’adhésion, qui sera déposé dans les archives du dit Gouvernement.

Ce Gouvernement transmettra immédiatement à toutes les autres Puissances copie certifiée conforme de la notification ainsi que de l’acte d’adhésion, en indiquant la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 10.

Non-Signatory Powers may accede to the present Convention.

A Power which desires to accede notifies its intention in writing to the Netherland Government, forwarding to it the act of accession, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.

The said Government shall immediately forward to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification, as well as of the act of accession, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 11.

La présente Convention produira effet pour les Puissances qui auront participé au premier dépôt de ratifications, soixante jours après la date du procès-verbal de ce dépôt et, pour les Puissances qui ratifieront ultérieurement ou qui adhéreront, soixante jours après que la notification de leur ratification ou de leur adhésion aura été reçue par le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 11.

The present Convention shall take effect, in the case of the Powers which were parties to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the procès-verbal recording such deposit, and in the case of the Powers which shall ratify subsequently or which shall accede, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their accession has been received by the Netherland Government.

Art. 12.

S’il arrivait qu’une des Puissances contractantes voulût dénoncer la présente Convention, la dénonciation sera notifiée par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, qui communiquera immédiatement copie certifiée conforme de la notification à toutes les autres Puissances en leur faisant savoir la date à laquelle il l’a reçue.

La dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée et un an après que la notification en sera parvenue au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 12.

In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Netherland Government, which shall immediately communicate a duly certified copy of the notification to all the other Powers informing them of the date on which it was received.

The denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power, and only on the expiry of one year after the notification has reached the Netherland Government.

Art. 13.

Un registre tenu par le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas indiquera la date du dépôt de ratifications effectué en vertu de l’Article 9, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (article 10, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (article 12, alinéa 1).

Chaque Puissance contractante est admise à prendre connaissance de ce registre et à en demander des extraits certifiés conformes.

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires ont revêtu la présente Convention de leurs signatures.

Fait à La Haye, le 18 Octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire, qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances qui ont été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix.

Art. 13.

A register kept by the Netherland Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 9, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 10, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 12, paragraph 1) have been received.

Each Contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts from it.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference.

Convention No. 9. Respecting bombardment by naval forces in time of war¹ .

The first Conference expressed the “Wish” that the proposal to settle the question of the bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force might be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration. The subject was embodied in the Circular of Count Benckendorff and was dealt with by the Third Committee of the Conference of 1907, presided over by M. Hagerup (Norway), Professor G. Streit (Greece) acting as Reporter.

Coast warfare continued to be conducted with great brutality long after many of the excesses of land warfare had been modified and an attack on undefended commercial coast towns was recommended by the Prince de Joinville in 1844 in case of war with England. The Duke of Wellington rejected such a method of conducting hostilities as one which had been “disclaimed by the civilised portions of mankind.”

In 1882 Admiral Aube wrote an article in the Revue des deux Mondes¹ expressing the opinion that “armoured fleets in possession of the sea will turn their powers of attack and destruction against the coast towns of the enemy...and will burn them and lay them in ruins, or at the very least will hold them mercilessly to ransom.” The question was again reopened in 1888 on the occasion of the manœuvres executed by the British fleet, the enemy part of which feigned to hold to ransom, under the threat of bombardment, great commercial towns, such as Liverpool, and to cause unnecessary devastation to pleasure towns and bathing-places, such as Folkestone, by means of throwing bombs. Professor Holland addressed a series of letters to the Times contending that such proceedings were contrary to the modern rules of international law, and that the bombardment of an open town ought only to be allowed for the purpose of obtaining requisitions in kind necessary for the enemy fleet and contributions instead of requisitions, further by way of reprisals, and in case the town defends itself against occupation by enemy troops approaching on land² . A similar view was expressed by Mr Hall. “An undefended town may fairly be summoned by a vessel or squadron to pay a contribution: if it refuses a force must be landed; and if it still refuses, like measures may be taken with those which are taken by armies in the field....A levy of money made in any other manner than this is not properly a contribution at all. It is a ransom from destruction. If it is permissible, it is permissible because there is a right to devastate, and because ransom is a mitigation of that right³ .”

The subject was examined by the Institut de Droit International in 1896, and a set of rules was formulated by it. These rules started from the principle that bombardment of all undefended towns is prohibited and added some special rules required by the exigencies of naval warfare⁴ . The United States Naval War Code of 1900 adopted in the main the recommendations of the Institut and laid down that “the bombardment by a naval force, of unfortified and undefended towns, villages or buildings is forbidden, except when such bombardment is incidental to the destruction of military or naval establishments, public depôts of munitions of war, or vessels of war in ports, or unless reasonable requisitions for provisions and supplies essential, at the same time, to such naval vessel or vessels are forcibly withheld, in which case due notice of bombardment shall be given. The bombardment of unfortified and undefended towns and places for the non-payment of ransom is forbidden” (Article 4).

Discussions at the Hague.Such was the position of the question when the Conference of 1907 took it into consideration. Propositions were handed in to the Third Committee by the delegates of the United States, Spain, Italy, Holland and Russia. These proposals were embodied by their authors in a draft of seven Articles which was issued for the deliberations of the Committee¹ .

The draft dealt with two separate matters, the first part relating to the bombardment of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings, the second laying down general rules applicable to bombardments by naval forces. The Convention follows this order.

Chapter i. Article 1.The first paragraph of the first Article is based on Article 25 of 2 H. C. 1899 (Regulations), and does not contain the words “by any means whatever” added in 1907. The meaning of the term “undefended” engaged the attention of the Committee but owing to the difficulty of distinguishing between the defence of a coast and of a town near the coast no definition was attempted² . The second paragraph, however, treats as undefended towns, those before which automatic submarine contact mines are anchored. This paragraph was strongly opposed by Captain Ottley who was supported by the delegates of Germany, France, China, Japan and Spain. Mines, it was pointed out, being a general danger to navigation, and far more destructive than guns, it was illogical to render inviolable a town defended by mines and to refuse inviolability to one defended by guns. Moreover, if undefended towns are free from bombardment, what is the need of laying mines on the sea front? A belligerent who has undertaken not to bombard an undefended coast town is entitled to make use of the coast without expecting to run the danger of destruction on approaching it³ . This argument is sound and unanswerable. A town which has mines moored before its harbour has taken most effective steps to defend itself against occupation, and “the price of immunity from bombardment is that the place shall be left open to the enemy to enter⁴ .” Captain Ottley, however, failed to convince the Committee and the paragraph was retained by 21 votes to 5, 11 delegates not voting.

Article 2.The first Article having laid down the rule of non-bombardment of undefended coast towns, the second and third Articles proceed to make exceptions. These exceptions were considered necessary owing to the special character of naval warfare. Military works, military or naval establishments, depôts of arms or war material, workshops or plant which can be utilised for the needs of the hostile fleet or army, as well as ships of war in the harbour, are not included in the prohibition against bombardment. Considerable difficulty was experienced in framing the first paragraph. The word “installations” was adopted to cover such works as are not solely for warlike purposes. An undefended coast town may be an important railway centre, or have floating-docks of great value for the repair of vessels; these are intended to be included under “installations.” The word “provisions” was inserted in one of the drafts but “matériel de guerre,” an extremely wide term, was ultimately substituted. This Article might, and probably will, be held to confer a right on a commander to destroy by bombardment railway stations, bridges, entrepôts, coal stacks, whether belonging to public authorities or private persons. The commander of a naval force may destroy the military works, etc. with artillery, if the local authorities after due warning do not destroy them, and where military necessity demands they may be destroyed with artillery without any warning. The commander incurs no liability for unavoidable damage caused by such bombardments; he must, however, take measures in order that the town may suffer as little harm as possible.

Article 3.Article 3 provides the second exception to the prohibition of Article 1. Bombardment is allowed if, after formal demand, the authorities of an undefended coast town do not furnish provisions and supplies necessary for the immediate use of the naval force, but the requisitions must be in proportion to the resources of the place. The requisitions demanded can only be for the supply of the naval force before the place.

This Article adopts the principles of Article 4 of the Draft Regulations of the Institut de Droit International, but these are in excess of the measures allowed for land warfare. In case of undefended towns if requisitions are not forthcoming, the army proceeds to take them. Mr Hall was of opinion that where a naval force demanded requisitions they should send a landing party and follow a similar course¹ . In land warfare, the General can usually from observations on the spot form an accurate estimate of the capacity of a place to provide the requisitions demanded, but in the case of a naval commander this will in many cases prove an impossibility. Under this Article, if after due notice, the amount of requisitions which the naval commander deems to be within the resources of the locality are not provided, he can at once open fire as a punishment for the refusal. The punishment appears excessive. A naval commander may have largely over-estimated the capabilities of a town, which may already be in a state of want, but on failure to comply with his demands the inhabitants will find themselves not only faced by hunger but by the further terror of a naval bombardment.

Article 4.Article 4 corresponds to one which was contained in the original proposition of the United States, and forbade the bombardment of a town on account of the non-payment of a ransom. The Committee preferred to suppress the word, as to forbid it in this connection might have led to the inference that the demand of a ransom was not prohibited in principle.

Chapter ii. Articles 5, 6 and 7.Articles 5, 6 and 7, which refer to naval bombardments generally and not only to cases allowed by the preceding Articles, correspond, with modifications to suit naval warfare, to Articles 26-28 of the Regulations on the laws and customs of war on land. The distinctive sign to be affixed to buildings devoted to religion, art, science, etc. is expressly described in this case, whereas in land warfare the sign is to be notified beforehand by the besieged to the besiegers. An objection was made by the delegates of the United States and Japan on the grounds of the difficulty of providing a distinctive mark which would be suitable under all circumstances, and of the possibility of its being abused. The sign described in Article 5 was devised by a Committee of three naval officers, Admiral Arago (France), Captain Castiglia (Italy) and Captain Behr (Russia)¹ .

The form of the sixth Article is due to Captain Ottley’s representation, in which he received the support of the Japanese delegate (M. Tsudzuki). The original draft laid down that previous warning of a bombardment should be given to the authorities, but Captain Ottley pointed out that it was frequently of the greatest importance to attack and destroy as speedily as possible a fortress or arsenal of the enemy or war-ships in port. Notice would in many cases be fatal to the success of an attack. A fleet, for instance, arrives before a fortress or naval port without having been observed by the enemy; to give warning of the bombardment would nullify the effect of the manœuvre² . Under the Article as it now stands, the commander of the attacking force must, except where military exigencies do not permit it, do his utmost to warn the authorities before commencing the bombardment. This exception brings the Article into harmony with the corresponding Article in 4 H. C. 1907, Regulations (Art. 26).

Article 7 by the transposition of the word “even” emphasises the prohibition against pillage contained in 4 H. C. 1907, Regulations (Art. 27).

Signatory Powers and reservations.The Convention has been signed by all the Powers represented at the Conference except China, Spain and Nicaragua. Great Britain, France, Germany and Japan made reservations of the second paragraph of Article 1, which provides that a place cannot be bombarded for the sole fact that automatic submarine contact mines are moored before its port. Chili made a reservation of Article 3.

The value of this Convention will depend greatly on the spirit in which it is executed by naval commanders. Like most of the other Conventions of the Conference it is tentative. The bold and categorical prohibition of Article 1 is weakened by the two following Articles. Towns which are undefended can avoid bombardment if after due notice they carry out the destruction of the military works, etc. mentioned in Article 2, paragraph 1, but “military necessities” may not always allow of this notice being given, and then the towns where such military works, etc. exist will find themselves without any warning, and although “undefended,” subjected to bombardment; not directly, it is true, for the guns of the attacking fleet will be turned on the military works, etc., but some parts of the town cannot escape destruction.

Undefended coast towns are still in many cases left to be dealt with as the “necessities of war” require, but it cannot be denied that it is a distinct gain to have obtained a definite agreement prohibiting the attack or bombardment by naval forces of undefended ports, towns, villages, habitations and buildings, and to have the prohibition made applicable in cases of non-payment of a money contribution.

X.

Conventions for the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime war (1899 and 1907)

X.

La Convention de Genève et la Guerre Maritime¹ .

1899

III.

Convention pour l’adaptation à la Guerre Maritime des principes de la Convention de Genève du 22 Août, 1864.

Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges, &c.²

Également animés du désir de diminuer autant qu’il dépend d’eux les maux inséparables de la guerre et voulant dans ce but adapter à la guerre maritime les principes de la Convention de Genève du 22 Août, 1864, ont résolu de conclure une Convention à cet effet:

Ils ont, en conséquence, nommé pour Leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après s’être communiqué leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:—

1907

X.

Convention pour l’adaptation à la Guerre Maritime des principes de la Convention de Genève.

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse, &c.³

Également animés du désir de diminuer, autant qu’il dépend d’eux, les maux inséparables de la guerre;

Et voulant, dans ce but, adapter à la guerre maritime les principes de la Convention de Genève du 6 Juillet, 1906;

Ont résolu de conclure une Convention à l’effet de reviser la Convention du 29 Juillet, 1899, relative à la même matière et ont nommé pour Leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:—

Art. 1.

Les bâtiments-hôpitaux militaires, c’est-à-dire, les bâtiments construits ou aménagés par les États spécialement et uniquement en vue de porter secours aux blessés, malades et naufragés, et dont les noms auront été communiqués, à l’ouverture ou au cours des hostilités, en tout cas avant toute mise en usage, aux Puissances belligérantes, sont respectés et ne peuvent être capturés pendant la durée des hostilités.

Ces bâtiments ne sont pas non plus assimilés aux navires de guerre au point de vue de leur séjour dans un port neutre.

Art. 1.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 2.

Les bâtiments-hospitaliers, équipés en totalité ou en partie aux frais des particuliers ou des sociétés de secours officiellement reconnues, sont également respectés et exempts de capture si la Puissance belligérante dont ils dépendent leur a donné une commission officielle et en a notifié les noms à la Puissance adverse à l’ouverture ou au cours des hostilités, en tout cas avant toute mise en usage.

Ces navires doivent être porteurs d’un document de l’autorité compétente déclarant qu’ils ont été soumis à son contrôle pendant leur armement et à leur départ final.

Art. 2.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 3.

Les bâtiments-hospitaliers, équipés en totalité ou en partie aux frais des particuliers ou des sociétés officiellement reconnues de pays neutres, sont respectés et exempts de capture si la Puissance neutre dont ils dépendent leur a donné une commission officielle et en a notifié les noms aux Puissances belligérantes à l’ouverture ou au cours des hostilités, en tout cas avant toute mise en usage.

Art. 3.

Les bâtiments hospitaliers, équipés en totalité ou en partie aux frais des particuliers ou des sociétés officiellement reconnues de pays neutres, sont respectés et exempts de capture, à condition qu’ils se soient mis sous la direction de l’un des belligérants, avec l’assentiment préalable de leur propre Gouvernement et avec l’autorisation du belligérant lui-même, et que ce dernier en ait notifié le nom à son adversaire dès l’ouverture ou dans le cours des hostilités, en tout cas, avant tout emploi.

Art. 4.

Les bâtiments qui sont mentionnés dans les Articles 1, 2 et 3, porteront secours et assistance aux blessés, malades et naufragés des belligérants sans distinction de nationalité.

Les Gouvernements s’engagent à n’utiliser ces bâtiments pour aucun but militaire.

Ces bâtiments ne devront gêner en aucune manière les mouvements des combattants.

Pendant et après le combat, ils agiront à leurs risques et périls.

Les belligérants auront sur eux le droit de contrôle et de visite; ils pourront refuser leur concours, leur enjoindre de s’éloigner, leur imposer une direction déterminée et mettre à bord un commissaire, même les détenir, si la gravité des circonstances l’exigeait.

Autant que possible, les belligérants inscriront sur le journal de bord des bâtiments-hospitaliers les ordres qu’ils leur donneront.

Art. 4.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 5.

Les bâtiments-hôpitaux militaires seront distingués par une peinture extérieure blanche avec une bande horizontale verte d’un mètre et demi de largeur environ.

Les bâtiments qui sont mentionnés dans les Articles 2 et 3, seront distingués par une peinture extérieure blanche avec une bande horizontale rouge d’un mètre et demi de largeur environ.

Les embarcations des bâtiments qui viennent d’être mentionnés, comme les petits bâtiments qui pourront être affectés au service hospitalier, se distingueront par une peinture analogue.

Tous les bâtiments-hospitaliers se feront reconnaître en hissant, avec leur pavillon national, le pavillon blanc à croix rouge prévu par la Convention de Genève.

Art. 5.

Les bâtiments-hôpitaux militaires seront distingués par une peinture extérieure blanche avec une bande horizontale verte d’un mètre et demi de largeur environ.

Les bâtiments qui sont mentionnés dans les Articles 2 et 3, seront distingués par une peinture extérieure blanche avec une bande horizontale rouge d’un mètre et demi de largeur environ.

Les embarcations des bâtiments qui viennent d’être mentionnés, comme les petits bâtiments qui pourront être affectés au service hospitalier, se distingueront par une peinture analogue.

Tous les bâtiments hospitaliers se feront reconnaître en hissant, avec leur pavillon national, le pavillon blanc à croix-rouge prévu par la Convention de Genève, et, en outre, s’ils ressortissent à un État neutre, en arborant au grand mât le pavillon national du belligérant sous la direction duquel ils se sont placés.

Les bâtiments hospitaliers qui, dans les termes de l’Article 4, sont détenus par l’ennemi, auront à rentrer le pavillon national du belligérant dont ils relèvent.

Les bâtiments et embarcations cidessus mentionnés, qui veulent s’assurer la nuit le respect auquel ils ont droit, ont, avec l’assentiment du belligérant qu’ils accompagnent, à prendre les mesures nécessaires pour que la peinture qui les caractérise soit suffisamment apparente.

Art. 6.

Les signes distinctifs prévus à l’Article 5 ne pourront être employés, soit en temps de paix, soit en temps de guerre, que pour protéger ou désigner les bâtiments qui y sont mentionnés.

Art. 7.

Dans le cas d’un combat à bord d’un vaisseau de guerre, les infirmeries seront respectées et ménagées autant que faire se pourra.

Ces infirmeries et leur matériel demeurent soumis aux lois de la guerre, mais ne pourront être détournés de leur emploi, tant qu’ils seront nécessaires aux blessés et malades.

Toutefois le commandant, qui les a en son pouvoir, a la faculté d’en disposer, en cas de nécessité militaire importante, en assurant au préalable le sort des blessés et malades qui s’y trouvent.

Art. 8.

La protection due aux bâtiments hospitaliers et aux infirmeries des vaisseaux cesse si l’on en use pour commettre des actes nuisibles à l’ennemi.

N’est pas considéré comme étant de nature à justifier le retrait de la protection le fait que le personnel de ces bâtiments et infirmeries est armé pour le maintien de l’ordre et pour la défense des blessés ou malades, ainsi que le fait de la présence à bord d’une installation radio-télégraphique.

Art. 6.

Les bâtiments de commerce, yachts ou embarcations neutres, portant ou recueillant des blessés, des malades, ou des naufragés des belligérants, ne peuvent être capturés pour le fait de ce transport, mais ils restent exposés à la capture pour les violations de neutralité qu’ils pourraient avoir commises.

Art. 9.

Les belligérants pourront faire appel au zèle charitable des commandants de bâtiments de commerce, yachts ou embarcations neutres, pour prendre à bord et soigner des blessés ou des malades.

Les bâtiments qui auront répondu à cet appel ainsi que ceux qui spontanément auront recueilli des blessés, des malades, ou des naufragés, jouiront d’une protection spéciale et de certaines immunités. En aucun cas ils ne pourront être capturés pour le fait d’un tel transport; mais, sauf les promesses qui leur auraient été faites, ils restent exposés à la capture pour les violations de neutralité qu’ils pourraient avoir commises.

Art. 7.

Le personnel religieux, médical et hospitalier de tout bâtiment capturé est inviolable et ne peut être fait prisonnier de guerre. Il emporte, en quittant le navire, les objets et les instruments de chirurgie qui sont sa propriété particulière.

Ce personnel continuera à remplir ses fonctions tant que cela sera nécessaire, et il pourra ensuite se retirer lorsque le Commandant-en-chef le jugera possible.

Les belligérants doivent assurer à ce personnel tombé entre leurs mains, la jouissance intégrale de son traitement.

Art. 10.

Le personnel religieux, médical et hospitalier de tout bâtiment capturé est inviolable et ne peut être fait prisonnier de guerre. Il emporte, en quittant le navire, les objets et les instruments de chirurgie qui sont sa propriété particulière.

Ce personnel continuera à remplir ses fonctions tant que cela sera nécessaire et il pourra ensuite se retirer, lorsque le commandant en chef le jugera possible.

Les belligérants doivent assurer à ce personnel tombé entre leurs mains, les mêmes allocations et la méme solde qu’au personnel des mêmes grades de leur propre marine.

Art. 8.

Les marins et les militaires embarqués blessés ou malades, à quelque nation qu’ils appartiennent, seront protégés et soignés par les capteurs.

Art. 11.

Les marins et les militaires embarqués, et les autres personnes officiellement attachées aux marines ou aux armées, blessés ou malades, à quelque nation qu’ils appartiennent, seront respectés et soignés par les capteurs.

Art. 12.

Tout vaisseau de guerre d’une partie belligérante peut réclamer la remise des blessés, malades ou naufragés, qui sont à bord de bâtiments-hôpitaux militaires, de bâtiments hospitaliers de société de secours ou de particuliers, de navires de commerce, yachts et embarcations, quelle que soit la nationalité de ces bâtiments.

Art. 13.

Si des blessés, malades ou naufragés sont recueillis à bord d’un vaisseau de guerre neutre, il devra être pourvu, dans la mesure du possible, à ce qu’ils ne puissent pas de nouveau prendre part aux opérations de la guerre.

Art. 9.

Sont prisonniers de guerre les naufragés, blessés ou malades, d’un belligérant qui tombent au pouvoir de l’autre. Il appartient à celui-ci de décider, suivant les circonstances, s’il convient de les garder, de les diriger sur un port de sa nation, sur un port neutre ou même sur un port de l’adversaire. Dans ce dernier cas, les prisonniers ainsi rendus à leur pays ne pourront servir pendant la durée de la guerre.

Art. 14.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 10¹ .

Les naufragés, blessés ou malades, qui sont débarqués dans un port neutre, du consentement de l’autorité locale, devront, à moins d’un arrangement contraire de l’État neutre avec les États belligérants, être gardés par l’État neutre de manière qu’ils ne puissent pas de nouveau prendre part aux opérations de la guerre.

Les frais d’hospitalisation et d’internement seront supportés par l’État dont relèvent les naufragés, blessés ou malades.

Art. 15.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 16.

Après chaque combat, les deux parties belligérantes, en tant que les intéréts militaires le comportent, prendront des mesures pour rechercher les naufragés, les blessés et les malades et pour les faire protéger, ainsi que les morts, contre le pillage et les mauvais traitements.

Elles veilleront à ce que l’inhumation, l’immersion ou l’incinération des morts soit précédé d’un examen attentif de leurs cadavres.

Art. 17.

Chaque belligérant enverra, dès qu’il sera possible, aux autorités de leur pays, de leur marine ou de leur armée les marques ou pièces militaires d’identité trouvées sur les morts et l’état nominatif des blessés ou malades recueillis par lui.

Les belligérants se tiendront réciproquement au courant des internements et des mutations, ainsi que des entrées dans les hôpitaux et des décès survenus parmi les blessés et malades en leur pouvoir. Ils recueilleront tous les objets d’un usage personnel, valeurs, lettres, &c., qui seront trouvés dans les vaisseaux capturés, ou délaissés par les blessés ou malades décédés dans les hôpitaux, pour les faire transmettre aux intéressés par les autorités de leur pays.

Art. 11.

Les règles contenues dans les articles ci-dessus ne sont obligatoires que pour les Puissances contractantes, en cas de guerre entre deux ou plusieurs d’entre elles.

Les dites règles cesseront d’être obligatoires du moment où, dans une guerre entre des Puissances contractantes, une Puissance non-contractante se joindrait à l’un des belligérants.

Art. 18.

Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne sont applicables qu’entre les Puissances contractantes et seulement si les belligérants sont tous parties à la Convention.

Art. 19.

Les commandants en chef des flottes des belligérants auront à pourvoir aux détails d’exécution des articles précédents, ainsi qu’aux cas non prévus, d’après les instructions de leurs Gouvernements respectifs et conformément aux principes généraux de la présente Convention.

Art. 20.

Les Puissances signataires prendront les mesures nécessaires pour instruire leurs marines, et spécialement le personnel protégé, des dispositions de la présente Convention et pour les porter à la connaissance des populations.

Art. 21.

Les Puissances signataires s’engagent également à prendre ou à proposer à leurs législatures, en cas d’insuffisance de leurs lois pénales, les mesures nécessaires pour réprimer en temps de guerre les actes individuels de pillage et de mauvais traitements envers des blessés et malades des marines, ainsi que pour punir, comme usurpation d’insignes militaires, l’usage abusif des signes distinctifs désignés à l’article 5 par des bâtiments non protégés par la présente Convention.

Ils se communiqueront, par l’intermédiaire du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, les dispositions relatives à cette répression, au plus tard dans les cinq ans de la ratification de la présente Convention.

Art. 22.

En cas d’opérations de guerre entre les forces de terre et de mer des belligérants, les dispositions de la présente Convention ne seront applicables qu’aux forces embarquées.

Art. 12.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée dans le plus bref délai possible.

Les ratifications seront déposées à La Haye.

Il sera dressé du dépôt de chaque ratification un procès-verbal, dont une copie, certifiée conforme, sera remise par la voie diplomatique à toutes les Puissances contractantes.

Art. 23.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée aussitôt que possible.

Les ratifications seront déposées à La Haye.

Le premier dépôt de ratifications sera constaté par un procès-verbal signé par les Représentants des Puissances qui y prennent part et par le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas.

Les dépôts ultérieurs de ratifications se feront au moyen d’une notification écrite, adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et accompagnée de l’instrument de ratification.

Copie certifiée conforme du procès-verbal relatif au premier dépôt de ratifications, des notifications mentionnées à l’alinéa précédent, ainsi que des instruments de ratification, sera immédiatement remise par les soins du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, ainsi qu’aux autres Puissances qui auront adhéré à la Convention. Dans les cas visés par l’alinêa précédent, le dit Gouvernement leur fera connaître en même temps la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 13.

Les Puissances non-signataires, qui auront accepté la Convention de Genève du 22 Août, 1864, sont admises à adhérer à la présente Convention.

Elles auront, à cet effet, à faire connaître leur adhésion aux Puissances contractantes, au moyen d’une notification écrite, adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et communiquée par celui-ci à toutes les autres Puissances contractantes.

Art. 24.

Les Puissances non-signataires qui auront accepté la Convention de Genève du 6 Juillet, 1906, sont admises à adhérer à la présente Convention.

La Puissance qui désire adhérer, notifie par écrit son intention au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui transmettant l’acte d’adhésion qui sera déposé dans les archives du dit Gouvernement.

Ce Gouvernement transmettra immédiatement à toutes les autres Puissances copie certifiée conforme de la notification ainsi que de l’acte d’adhésion, en indiquant la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 25.

La présente Convention, dûment ratifiée, remplacera dans les rapports entre les Puissances contractantes, la Convention du 29 Juillet, 1899, pour l’adaptation à la guerre maritime des principes de la Convention de Genève.

La Convention de 1899 reste en vigueur dans les rapports entre les Puissances qui l’ont signée et qui ne ratifieraient pas également la présente Convention.

Art. 26.

La présente Convention produira effet pour les Puissances qui auront participé au premier dépôt de ratifications, soixante jours après la date du procès-verbal de ce dépôt, et, pour les Puissances qui ratifieront ultérieurement ou qui adhéreront, soixante jours après que la notification de leur ratification ou de leur adhésion aura été reçue par le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 14.

S’il arrivait qu’une des Hautes Parties contractantes dénonçât la présente Convention, cette dénonciation ne produirait ses effets qu’un an après la notification faite par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et communiquée immédiatement par celui-ci à toutes les autres Puissances contractantes.

Cette dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée.

En foi de quoi, les Plénipotentiaires respectifs ont signé la présente Convention et l’ont revêtue de leurs sceaux.

Fait à La Haye, le 29 Juillet, 1899, en un seul exemplaire, qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances contractantes.

Art. 27.

S’il arrivait qu’une des Puissances contractantes voulût dénoncer la présente Convention, la dénonciation sera notifiée par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, qui communiquera immédiatement copie certifiée conforme dela notification à toutes les autres Puissances en leur faisant savoir la date à laquelle il l’a reçue.

La dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée et un an après que la notification en sera parvenue au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 28.

Un registre tenu par le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas indiquera la date du dépôt des ratifications effectué en vertu de l’Article 23, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (article 24, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (article 27, alinéa 1).

Chaque Puissance contractante est admise à prendre connaissance de ce registre et à en demander des extraits certifiés conformes.

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires ont revêtu la présente Convention de leurs signatures.

Fait à La Haye, le 18 Octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bays, et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances qui ont été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix.

X.

The Geneva Convention and Maritime Warfare¹ .

1899

III.

Convention for the adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864.

His Majesty the King of the Belgians, &c.²

Animated alike by the desire to diminish, as far as depends on them, the evils inseparable from war, and wishing with this object to adapt to maritime warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect:

They have, in consequence, appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after communication of their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:—

1907

X.

Convention for the Adaptation of the Principles of the Geneva Convention to Maritime War.

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c.³

Animated alike by the desire to diminish, as far as depends on them, the evils inseparable from war;

And wishing with this object to adapt to maritime warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of the 6th July, 1906;

Have resolved to conclude a Convention for the purpose of revising the Convention of the 29th July, 1899, relative to this subject, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:—

Art. 1.

Military hospital-ships, that is to say, ships constructed or adapted by States specially and solely with the view of aiding the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked, the names of which have been communicated to the belligerent Powers at the commencement or during the course of hostilities, and in any case before they are employed, shall be respected, and cannot be captured while hostilities last.

These ships, moreover, are not on the same footing as war-ships as regards their stay in a neutral port.

Art. 1.

(No change.)

Art. 2.

Hospital-ships, equipped wholly or in part at the expense of private individuals or officially recognized relief societies, shall likewise be respected and exempt from capture, if the belligerent Power to whom they belong has given them an official commission and has notified their names to the hostile Power at the commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case before they are employed.

Such ships must be provided with a document from the proper authorities declaring that the vessels have been under their control while fitting out and on final departure.

Art. 2.

(No change.)

Art. 3.

Hospital-ships, equipped wholly or in part at the cost of private individuals or officially recognized societies of neutral countries, shall be respected and exempt from capture, if the neutral Power to whom they belong has given them an official commission and notified their names to the belligerent Powers at the commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case before they are employed.

(Cp. Draft Additional Articles (Geneva), 1868, Art. 13.)

Art. 3.

Hospital-ships, equipped wholly or in part at the cost of private individuals or officially recognized societies of neutral countries, shall be respected and exempt from capture, on condition that they are placed under the control of one of the belligerents, with the previous consent of their own Government and with the authorization of the belligerent himself, and that the latter has notified their name to his adversary at the commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case, before they are employed.

(Cp. Geneva Convention, 1906, Art. 11.)

Art. 4.

The ships mentioned in Articles 1, 2 and 3 shall afford relief and assistance to the wounded, sick and ship-wrecked of the belligerents without distinction of nationality.

The Governments undertake not to use these ships for any military purpose.

Such vessels must in no wise hamper the movements of the combatants.

During and after an engagement they will act at their own risk and peril.

The belligerents shall have the right to control and search them; they may decline their assistance, order them off, make them take a certain course, and put a commissioner on board; they may even detain them, if the gravity of the circumstances require it.

As far as possible the belligerents shall enter in the log book of the hospital-ships the orders which they give them.

(Cp. Draft Additional Articles (Geneva), 1868, Arts. 10 and 13.)

Art. 4.

(No change.)

Art. 5.

Military hospital-ships shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of green about a metre and a half in breadth.

(Cp. Draft Additional Articles (Geneva), 1868, Art. 12.)

The ships mentioned in Articles 2 and 3 shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of red about a metre and a half in breadth.

The boats of the ships above mentioned, as also small craft which may be used for hospital work, shall be distinguished by similar painting.

All hospital-ships shall make themselves known by hoisting, with their national flag, the white flag with a red cross provided by the Geneva Convention.

Art. 5.

Military hospital-ships shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of green about a metre and a half in breadth.

The ships mentioned in Articles 2 and 3 shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of red about a metre and a half in breadth.

The boats of the ships abovementioned, as also small craft which may be used for hospital work, shall be distinguished by similar painting.

All hospital-ships shall make themselves known by hoisting, with their national flag, the white flag with a red cross provided by the Geneva Convention, and further, if they belong to a neutral State, by flying at the mainmast the national flag of the belligerent under whose control they are placed.

Hospital-ships which under the terms of Article 4 are detained by the enemy must haul down the national flag of the belligerent to whom they belong.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Arts. 21 and 22.)

The ships and boats above mentioned which wish to ensure by night the freedom from interference to which they are entitled, must, subject to the assent of the belligerent they are accompanying, take the necessary measures to render their special painting sufficiently plain.

Art. 6.

The distinguishing signs referred to in Article 5 can only be used, whether in time of peace or war, for protecting or indicating the ships therein mentioned.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 23.)

Art. 7.

In the case of a fight on board a war-ship, the sick-bays shall be respected and spared as far as possible.

The said sick-bays and the matériel belonging to them remain subject to the laws of war; they cannot, however, be used for any purpose other than that for which they were originally intended, so long as they are required for the wounded and sick.

The commander into whose power they have fallen may, however, if the military situation requires it, apply them to other purposes, after first seeing that the wounded and sick on board are properly provided for.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Arts. 6 and 15.)

Art. 8.

The protection to which hospital-ships and sick-bays of vessels are entitled ceases if they are made use of to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 7.)

The fact of the staff of the said ships and sick-bays being armed for maintaining order and for defending the wounded and sick, and the presence of wireless telegraphy apparatus on board, are not sufficient reasons for withdrawing protection.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 8.)

Art. 6.

Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or boats, having, or taking on board, wounded, sick, or shipwrecked of the belligerents, cannot be captured for carrying them, but they are liable to capture for any violation of neutrality they may have committed.

(Cp. Draft Additional Articles (Geneva), 1868, Arts. 6 and 10.)

Art. 9.

Belligerents may appeal to the charity of the commanders of neutral merchantships, yachts, or boats to take on board and tend the wounded and sick.

Vessels responding to this appeal, and also vessels which have of their own accord rescued wounded, sick, or shipwrecked men, shall enjoy special protection and certain immunities. In no case can they be captured for the sole reason of having such persons on board; but, subject to any undertaking that may have been given to them, they remain liable to capture for any violations of neutrality they may have committed.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 5.)

Art. 7.

The religious, medical and hospital staff of any captured ship is inviolable, and its members cannot be made prisoners of war. On leaving the ship they take with them the objects and surgical instruments which are their own private property.

This staff shall continue to discharge its duties while necessary, and can afterwards leave when the Commander-in-chief considers it possible.

The belligerents must guarantee to the said staff that has fallen into their hands the enjoyment of their salaries intact.

(Cp. Draft Additional Articles (Geneva), 1868, Arts. 7 and 8.)

Art. 10.

The religious, medical, and hospital staff of any captured ship is inviolable, and its members cannot be made prisoners of war. On leaving the ship they take with them the objects and surgical instruments which are their own private property.

This staff shall continue to discharge its duties while necessary, and can afterwards leave when the Commander-in-chief considers it possible.

The belligerents must guarantee to the said staff that has fallen into their hands the same allowances and the same pay as are granted to the persons holding the same rank in their own navy.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 13.)

Art. 8.

Sailors and soldiers who are taken on board when sick or wounded, whatever their nationality, shall be protected and tended by the captors.

(Cp. Draft Additional Articles (Geneva), 1868, Art. 11.)

Art. 11.

Sailors and soldiers and other persons officially attached to fleets or armies who are taken on board when sick or wounded, whatever their nationality, shall be respected and tended by the captors.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 1.)

Art. 12.

Any war-ship belonging to a belligerent may demand the surrender of the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked who are on board military hospital-ships, hospital-ships belonging to relief societies or to private individuals, merchant-ships, yachts and boats, whatever the nationality of such vessels.

Art. 13.

If wounded, sick, or shipwrecked persons are taken on board a neutral war-ship, precaution must be taken, so far as possible, that they do not again take part in the operations of the war.

Art. 9.

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of the belligerents who fall into the power of the other belligerent are prisoners of war. The captor must decide, according to circumstances, whether to keep them, send them to a port of his own country, to a neutral port, or even to an enemy port. In this last case, prisoners thus repatriated cannot serve again while the war lasts.

Art. 14.

(No change.)

Art. 10¹ .

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick, who are landed at a neutral port with the consent of the local authorities, must, in default of arrangement to the contrary between the neutral State and the belligerent States, be guarded by the neutral State so as to prevent them from again taking part in the operations of the war.

The expenses of tending them in hospital and interning them shall be borne by the State to which the shipwrecked, wounded, or sick persons belong.

Art. 15.

(No change.)

Art. 16.

After each engagement, the two belligerents shall, so far as military interests permit, take measures to search for the shipwrecked, wounded and sick, and to ensure them, as also the dead, protection against pillage and maltreatment.

They shall see that the burial, whether by land or sea, or cremation of the dead shall be preceded by a careful examination of the corpses.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 3.)

Art. 17.

Each belligerent shall send, as early as possible, to the authorities of their country, navy or army, the military identification marks or tokens found on the dead and a list of the names of the sick and wounded picked up by him.

The belligerents shall keep each other informed as to internments and transfers as well as to the admissions into hospital and deaths which have occurred among the sick and wounded in their hands. They shall collect all the objects of personal use, valuables, letters, &c., which are found in the captured ships, or which have been left by the wounded or sick who died in hospital, in order to have them forwarded to the persons concerned by the authorities of their own country.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 4.)

Art. 11.

The rules contained in the above Articles are binding only on the Contracting Powers, in case of war between two or more of them.

The said rules shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

Art. 18.

The provisions of the present Convention do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 19.

The Commanders-in-chief of the belligerent fleets shall arrange the details for carrying out the preceding Articles as well as for cases not provided for, in accordance with the instructions of their respective Governments and in conformity with the general principles of the present Convention.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 25.)

Art. 20.

The Signatory Powers shall take the necessary measures to instruct their naval forces, especially the personnel protected, in the provisions of the present Convention, and to bring them to the notice of the public.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 26.)

Art. 21.

The Signatory Powers likewise undertake to enact or to propose to their Legislatures, if their criminal laws are inadequate, the measures necessary for checking in time of war individual acts of pillage and ill-treatment in respect to the wounded and sick in the fleet, as well as for punishing, as an unjustifiable adoption of naval or military marks, the unauthorized use of the distinctive marks mentioned in Article 5 by vessels not protected by the present Convention.

They shall communicate to each other, through the Netherland Government, the enactments for preventing such acts at the latest within five years of the ratification of the present Convention.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Arts. 27 and 28.)

Art. 22.

In the case of operations of war between the land and sea forces of belligerents, the provisions of the present Convention are only applicable to the forces on board ship.

Art. 12.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at the Hague.

On the receipt of each ratification a procès-verbal shall be drawn up, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

Art. 23.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.

The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherland Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.

A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relative to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherland Government through the diplomatic channel to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have acceded to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph the said Government shall inform them at the same time of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 13.

Non-Signatory Powers which have accepted the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, may accede to the present Convention.

For this purpose they must make their accession known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

Art. 24.

Non-Signatory Powers which have accepted the Geneva Convention of the 6th July, 1906, may accede to the present Convention.

A Power which desires to accede notifies its intention in writing to the Netherland Government, forwarding to it the act of accession, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.

The said Government shall immediately forward to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification, as well as of the act of accession, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 25.

The present Convention, duly ratified, shall replace as between Contracting Powers, the Convention of the 29th July, 1899, for the adaptation to naval warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention.

The Convention of 1899 remains in force as between the Powers which signed it but which may not also ratify the present Convention.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 31.)

Art. 26.

The present Convention shall take effect, in the case of the Powers which were parties to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the procès-verbal recording such deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which shall ratify subsequently or which shall accede, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their accession has been received by the Netherland Government.

Art. 14.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Convention, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherland Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.

Art. 27.

In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Netherland Government, which shall immediately communicate a duly certifiedcopy of the notification to all the other Powers, informing them of the date on which it was received.

The denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power, and only on the expiry of one year after the notification has reached the Netherland Government.

Art. 28.

A register kept by the Netherland Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 23, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 24, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 27, paragraph 1) have been received.

Each Contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts from it.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference.

Convention No. 10. The adaptation of the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime warfare¹ .

The Convention of 1899.The attempt which was unsuccessfully made in 1868 to apply the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864 to naval warfare has already been referred to² . The additional Articles then prepared afforded a basis for states during the period between 1868 and 1899 when the first Hague Conference prepared a Convention which was signed by all the Powers represented thereat, and was subsequently acceded to by all the Powers represented at the Second Peace Conference. The 10th Article was, however, excluded from ratification by all the signatory Powers³ .

A new Geneva Convention for land warfare having been agreed upon in 1906, the Conference of 1907 found it necessary to revise the Convention of 1899 in order to apply its principles to naval warfare, and also to make certain additions and amendments which experience had shown to be necessary.

The Convention of 1907.The German Delegation presented a draft which was taken as the basis of the deliberations of the Conference. Some amendments were made by the French Delegation, and several of the Articles of the German draft were modified after examination by the naval delegates who formed a large proportion of the Examining Committee.

The Report⁴ made to the Third Committee presided over by Count Tornielli (Italy) was prepared by Professor L. Renault, who had also prepared the Report on this subject in 1899. It was taken into consideration at the third Plenary Meeting of the Conference on the 20th July, 1907. With certain slight reservations which will be subsequently mentioned it was adopted. This Convention was the first voted by the Conference. The Committee adopted the wise plan of preparing a wholly new Convention instead of drafting supplementary Articles to the Convention of 1899, a proceeding which would have caused confusion and disturbed the balance and elegance of the agreement. The new Convention contains 26 Articles as compared with 14 in that of 1899.

The various classes of hospital ships.The first three Articles deal with the three different classes of hospital ships to which the Convention applies, namely (a) military hospital ships constructed or adapted by states specially and solely with the view of aiding the wounded, sick and shipwrecked in naval war (Article 1); (b) hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part at the expense of private individuals or officially recognised relief societies of belligerent states (Article 2); (c) hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part at the cost of private individuals or officially recognised relief societies of neutral states (Article 3).

No changes are made in the first two Articles.

Flags of neutral hospital ships.Article 3 contains modifications of the corresponding Article of the Convention of 1899, based on Article 11 of the Geneva Convention of 1906. The Conference of 1899 left unsettled the relations which should exist between neutral hospital ships and belligerents. The question was also raised as regards the flag which such ships ought to fly. In 1907 similar difficulties were experienced by some members of the Committee who felt that the text of Article 11 of the Convention of 1906 was not enough to remove them. The difference in the circumstances under which aid is rendered by a neutral ambulance in land warfare and a neutral hospital ship in naval warfare was felt by some of the Committee to call for different treatment, as hospital ships enjoy greater freedom of action than the neutral ambulances can claim in land warfare. The majority of the Committee considered that, for reasons of military necessity, it was inadvisable to allow neutral hospital ships to operate apart from the special authorisation of one of the belligerents, the view that such ships might desire to aid both belligerents indiscriminately being inacceptable on the ground that to allow complete independence of action to such neutral ships would leave the way open to serious abuses. The alteration in Article 3 now requires such ships to be placed under the control of one of the belligerents, after having received the previous consent of the neutral government. Such ships will henceforth form part of the sanitary service of the belligerent and be placed under his direction. The Report of M. Renault points out that this Article and Article 5 are not quite in harmony with Articles 11 and 22 of the Geneva Convention of 1906; under the latter a neutral ambulance flies two flags, that of the Geneva Convention and that of the belligerent to whose army it is attached, but the neutral hospital ship must fly three flags, namely the two mentioned as well as its own national (neutral) flag. The German draft proposed that neutral hospital ships should be placed au service of one of the belligerents, but on the proposition of M. Van den Heuvel (Belgium) this expression was altered to sous la direction which was deemed to be less stringent.

The duty of hospital ships.Article 4 contains a general statement of the duties which are incumbent on hospital ships, namely, to render aid to all needing it irrespective of nationality. Belligerents are given power of control and detention where necessary. There is no change in this Article.

Distinguishing marks of hospital ships.Article 5 deals with the distinctive colours by which hospital ships are to be distinguished. In paragraph 4 a change was made in accordance with the agreement arrived at in Article 3 as to the flags which a neutral hospital ship is to fly, the principle applied being that of Article 21, par. 2 of the Geneva Convention, 1906. The provision applies to ships detained under Article 4. Under that Article when a hospital ship is detained by a belligerent, if it is a military hospital ship it hauls down its national flag and retains the flag of the Geneva Convention only, but if it is a neutral hospital ship it only hauls down the flag of the belligerent under whose direction it is, retaining its own national flag and the Red Cross flag.

The sixth paragraph of Article 5 is new and refers to the distinctive marks which may be applied to hospital ships at night. The German proposal was that all hospital ships should carry three lights—green, white, green—placed vertically one above the other and separated by at least three metres¹ . The question had been raised during the Russo-Japanese War. Russia notified to Japan through the intermediary of the French Government that she proposed to use by night three vertical lights for her hospital ships—white, red, white—but the Japanese Government declined to accept these distinguishing marks as conferring special privileges, “being apprehensive of various possible dangers which might arise as the result of such a contrivance being availed of by an unprincipled enemy² .” Objections were also raised in Committee to the German proposal which made the carrying of distinctive lights obligatory. A light on a hospital ship may betray the presence of the fleet, and hospital ships must conform to the order for “lights out” in the same way as the ships under a belligerent’s command. During the Japanese attack off Genzan, Korea, even the slightest sign of light was prohibited. “Though almost intolerable for the sick and wounded, especially in the hot season, to have windows and apertures shut up, yet under such circumstances the directions of the authorities should be observed¹ .” A warship might also make illicit use of the lights to effect its escape. The Convention leaves the steps which hospital ships and their boats are to take to ensure freedom from interference to be regulated by the belligerent by the special painting being rendered sufficiently plain. This is possible by means of phosphorescent paint or the employment of electric reflectors in case of attack² .

Article 6 is based on Article 23 of the Geneva Convention of 1906, and has not been accepted by Great Britain. At the Third Plenary Meeting of the Conference Sir Edward Fry said that in signing the Geneva Convention of 1906 his Government had made a reservation of Articles 23, 27 and 28 because a legislative enactment was necessary to give effect to them, and without the assent of Parliament no law could be made in Great Britain. As Articles 6 and 21 of the present Convention were based on these Articles, his Government were for the time obliged to make reservations on them³ .

Sick-bays on warships.Article 7 is new and provides for a situation analogous to that dealt with by Articles 6 and 15 of the Geneva Convention of 1906. In case of a fight on board a warship the sick-bays are to be respected and spared as much as possible. This recalls a condition of warfare more common a century ago than now, when hand-to-hand fighting on board a vessel is an extremely rare occurrence in naval engagements. It is not to be expected that in engagements where the combatants remain at a distance from each other the sick-bays can be respected, and the text of the Article makes it clear that it only refers to conflicts taking place on board the ships themselves.

Abuse of hospital ships.Article 8 is new; the principle of paragraph 1 is taken from Article 7 of the Geneva Convention of 1906. Hospital ships and sick-bays lose their inviolability if they are employed for purposes of injuring the enemy (see also Article 4, paragraph 2 of the present Convention). A case of this kind occurred during the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese seized, and secured the condemnation of, the Russian hospital ship Orel on 27 May, 1905, because she had been used a short time previously for the accommodation of able-bodied prisoners taken from a captured merchantman, and had otherwise assisted in the hostile operations of the Russians¹ .

The second paragraph of Article 8 is based on Article 8 of the Geneva Convention of 1906, but it was not thought necessary to reproduce its provisions in detail. The fact that the staff of the hospital ship or sick-bay are armed for maintaining order or defending sick or wounded, and the presence of wireless telegraphic apparatus on board are not sufficient reasons for withdrawing the protection accorded to such ships or sick-bays. The German draft proposed to allow hospital ships to carry light pieces of artillery as a protection against the dangers of navigation and particularly of piracy² , but the Committee considered that there was no necessity for the arming of such ships, especially as merchant-ships which run no greater risks are unarmed. The paragraph regarding the presence of wireless telegraphic apparatus on board was inserted on the proposition of the Dutch delegate. The apparatus may often be of great value in enabling hospital ships to communicate either with ships of their own squadron or with land. Any abuse of it can easily be prevented by agents being placed on board, and, if necessary, the apparatus may be removed temporarily under the general powers of control conferred on belligerent commanders by Article 4.

Assistance rendered by merchant-ships on request.Article 9 is new, though it retains the substance of Article 6 of the Convention of 1899; it is based on Article 5 of the Geneva Convention of 1906. By paragraph 1 belligerents may appeal to the charitable zeal of neutral merchantmen to take on board and care for sick and wounded. The assistance thus rendered is purely voluntary, a belligerent cannot compel it. Paragraph 2 governs the situation of ships which have responded to this appeal, as well as those which have of their own accord taken on board shipwrecked, sick and wounded. Such ships are to enjoy “special protection and certain immunities.” These expressions which are borrowed from Article 5 of the Geneva Convention of 1906 are vague but as the Report of M. Renault remarks: “it is scarcely possible to proceed otherwise: everything depends on circumstances. A warship may call upon a ship possibly from a distance, promising, for instance, not to search it. It is obvious that the advantages of the immunities are not so great in naval as in land warfare in which the inhabitants to whom such an appeal is made are exposed to a series of rigorous measures on the part of the invader or occupant. It is before all else a question of good faith. A belligerent should keep the promise which he has made to obtain a service, and the neutral ought not by an appearance of zeal to be able to escape the risk to which his conduct may have rendered him liable. It is, however, certain, on the one hand, that the ships in question may not be captured for the transport of shipwrecked, wounded or sick of a belligerent, and on the other hand, as is expressly stated by Article 6 of the Convention of 1899, they remain subject to capture for violations of neutrality which they may have committed (e.g. contraband of war, breach of blockade)¹ .”

There is no immunity accorded to a merchantman belonging to one of the belligerents conveying sick and wounded² .

Inviolability of hospital staff.Article 10 which deals with the inviolability of the hospital staff is a reproduction of Article 7 of the Convention of 1899 with a slight modification introduced from Article 13 of the Geneva Convention of 1906 as regards the payments to be made to members of the hospital staff temporarily detained by the enemy. “Only the official staff is concerned, that of a relief society having no claim to receive a salary” (Report of M. Renault).

Inviolability of sick and wounded.Article 11 reproduces Article 8 of the Convention of 1899 with the additional words intended to bring under the shelter of inviolability not only wounded and sick sailors and soldiers on board but also other persons officially attached to fleets or armies. Their addition is in harmony with Article 1 of the Geneva Convention of 1906.

Surrender to warship of sick and wounded.Article 12 is new, and settles a very important point which the Convention of 1899 had left unsolved. At the First Peace Conference, Captain Mahan, the United States naval delegate, endeavoured to obtain the insertion of Articles to meet the case of men who by any accident connected with a naval engagement were picked up by a neutral vessel. The commander and some of the crew of the Confederate cruiser Alabama, after her last fight with the Kearsarge off Cherbourg, were picked up by the British yacht Deerhound, the captain of which claimed for the rescued seamen the inviolability of the neutral flag, and their surrender was refused³ . Captain Mahan’s proposal was that in such cases the neutral vessel must surrender the rescued persons, if demand should be made by the other belligerent, or in case no demand was made, that they should not be allowed to serve again during the war. The attempt of the United States delegate was unsuccessful and the Convention of 1899 is silent on this point¹ . Under the new Article a belligerent cruiser meeting a hospital ship of any description or a merchant-ship, yacht or boat of any nationality may demand the surrender of the wounded, sick or shipwrecked men on board. M. Renault in the Report to the Committee states that “we do not think that the rule is new; if the formula is not found in the Convention of 1899, the sense of the latter is not doubtful.” This view was combated by Sir Edward Fry who at the Third Plenary Meeting of the Conference stated that “the British Government cannot agree to the opinion expressed in the Report as to the right of a belligerent ship of war to require the surrender of wounded, sick and shipwrecked combatants on board a merchant-ship sailing under a neutral flag. In default of a special Convention, the British Government considers that the recognition of such a right cannot be based on the existing principles of international law² .” M. Renault in reply stated that he considered that the conclusions of his Report were the expression of existing positive law. The Report contains the following comment on this Article: “A belligerent cruiser meets a military hospital ship, a hospital ship, or a merchant-ship; whatever be the nationality of these ships, it has, either by virtue of Article 4 of the Convention or by virtue of the common law of nations, the right to visit them. It exercises it and finds on board shipwrecked, wounded or sick; it has the right to have them delivered up to it, because they are its prisoners, as is stated in Article 9 of the Convention of 1899, reproduced in Article 14 of our draft. This is only an application of a general principle by virtue of which the combatants of one belligerent who fall into the power of the other are by that fact its prisoners. Obviously, it will not always be to the interest of the belligerent to make use of this right. It will often be to his advantage to leave the wounded and sick where they are and not to take charge of them. But, in such a case, it will be indispensable not to allow wounded or sick to go free who are still in a condition to render great services to their country: and this applies even more strongly in the case of shipwrecked men who are able-bodied. It has been said that it would be inhuman to force a neutral vessel to deliver up wounded which it had charitably picked up. To meet this objection, it is only necessary to reflect on what would be the position in the absence of a Convention. The positive law of nations would permit not only the seizure of individuals who are enemy combatants, found on board a neutral vessel, but the seizure and confiscation of the vessel for having rendered an unneutral service. We may add that if the shipwrecked men were, for example, permitted to escape captivity by the sole fact that they had been taken on board a neutral vessel, the belligerents would disregard the philanthropic action of the neutrals the moment such action might have the result of causing them an irreparable injury. Humanity would not be the gainer¹ .”

A strict application of the principles of neutrality would imply, apart from a Convention, that belligerents taken on board neutral ships should not be allowed to take part again in hostilities during the course of the war: but the statement of M. Renault that the mere fact of picking up shipwrecked or wounded men would render a neutral merchant-ship liable to seizure for unneutral service appears incapable of being substantiated as a rule of international law² . The question was discussed by the United States and Great Britain in regard to the rescue (already referred to) by the Deerhound of the captain and members of the crew of the Alabama on the 19th June, 1864. The solution of the difficulty provided by this Article is, however, one which may be justified by practical considerations. Among those on board a hospital or merchant ship may be found the “brain” of one of the belligerent navies, and “military necessity” might be appealed to as a justification for his removal. A belligerent would take the risk of complications with the neutral Power. Moreover, the neutral captain might from unforeseen circumstances be unable to land the sick, wounded or shipwrecked at a neutral port where they would be interned³ .

Although a belligerent may under this Article remove wounded, sick or shipwrecked combatants, he cannot change the course of a neutral merchant-ship or impose any definite course on it; such orders can only be given to the commanders of hospital ships.

British reservation on Article 12.In signing this Convention on behalf of Great Britain Sir Edward Fry did not fully maintain the reservation made at the Plenary Meeting. The final reservation is as follows: “In affixing their signatures to this Convention, the British Plenipotentiaries declare that His Majesty’s Government understands Article 12 to apply only to the case of combatants rescued during or after a naval engagement in which they have taken part⁴ .”

This Article therefore would not apply as regards rescues by British merchant-ships of belligerents at a distance from the scene of an engagement, as for instance of men rescued from a ship which had sunk in a storm or as the result of contact with an unanchored floating mine.

Rescue by neutral war-vessel.Article 13 fills a gap left in the Convention of 1899. At the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War on the 8th February, 1904, the captains of the British, French and Italian cruisers at Chemulpo rescued the sailors of the Russian vessels Korietz and Variag, and refused to surrender them to the Japanese. Ultimately after negotiations, the rescued sailors in the possession of the British authorities were, with the consent of the Japanese Government, handed over to the Russians at a neutral port¹ . Article 13, which was proposed by the French delegate, now provides that the shipwrecked, sick or wounded picked up by a neutral ship of war are in the same position as that of combatants who take refuge in a neutral territory. They are not to be given up to the adversary, but they should be detained.

Article 14 reproduces Article 9 of the Convention of 1899. It only deals with the treatment of persons, not of ships.

Article 15 reproduces Article 10 of the Convention of 1899 which was excluded from ratification. At the Conference of 1899 this Article was carried only by a bare majority, and in signing the treaty Great Britain, Germany, the United States and Italy reserved liberty of action in regard to it. In consequence of these reservations the Netherland Government suggested that with a view to uniformity—a uniformity which would be endangered by the reservations of these four Powers—the Article should be excluded from ratification by all Powers. This suggestion was acted upon² .

At the Conference of 1907 the restoration of this Article was proposed by the French delegate and accepted. Under this Article where shipwrecked, wounded or sick are landed at a neutral port with the consent of the local authorities, they must, in default of arrangements to the contrary between the neutral and belligerent states, be guarded by the neutral state so as to prevent them from again taking part in the war. The expenses are to be borne by the state to which such persons belong. M. Renault states that if a neutral merchant vessel, having occasionally picked up wounded or sick, or even shipwrecked persons, arrives at a neutral port without having met a cruiser or without having entered into any agreement, the persons which it lands do not fall under the provisions of this Article: they are free.

Search for shipwrecked and wounded.Article 16 is new, and is based on Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1906. The provisions as to the burial or cremation of the dead on land will apply to cases where engagements have taken place near land.

Article 17 is also new, and is reproduced from Article 4 of the Geneva Convention of 1906.

Article 18 corresponds to Article 11 of the Convention of 1899.

Article 19 is new, and corresponds to Article 25 of the Geneva Convention of 1906.

Application of the Convention.Article 20 is new, and corresponds to Article 26 of the Geneva Convention of 1906. It is obviously of great importance, and M. Renault emphasises this in his Report. “The best of rules become a dead letter if measures are not taken in advance for the instruction of those who will have to apply them. The staff of hospital ships or floating hospitals will often have to fulfil a very difficult mission. They must be convinced of the necessity of not taking advantage of the immunities accorded them to commit acts of belligerency: for, to do so would result in the ruin of the Convention and all the humanitarian work of the two Peace Conferences¹ .”

Article 21 is new and corresponds to Articles 27 and 28 of the Geneva Convention of 1906, and has not been accepted by Great Britain for the reasons given under Article 6.

Article 22 is new. In case of combined military and naval operations, the present Convention applies to forces afloat and the Geneva Convention of 1906 to the land forces.

Article 23 corresponds to Article 12 of the Convention of 1899 with the additional formulae adopted in the diplomatic clauses of the Conventions of the Conference of 1907.

The remaining Articles call for no observations.

Signatory Powers.This Convention has been signed by all the Powers represented at the Conference except Nicaragua. China makes a reservation of Article 21, and Great Britain of Articles 6 and 21 and also the declaration quoted above on Article 12. Persia reserved the right recognised by the Conference to use the Lion and the Red Sun instead of the Red Cross, and Turkey made a similar reservation for the Red Crescent² .

Exemption of hospital ships from port dues.A Conference of maritime Powers was held at the Hague in December, 1904, to discuss the status of hospital ships in time of war in regard to their freedom from port dues, etc.

Great Britain did not take part in the Conference, owing to the fact that dues are levied by different authorities in the United Kingdom and legislation would be necessary to give effect to any Convention entered into. The British Minister at the Hague, Sir Henry Howard, in his reply to the invitation of the Netherland Government, stated that his Government was disposed to consider the proposal favourably¹ .

The following is a translation of

A Convention relating to hospital ships, signed at the Hague, the 21st December, 1904² .

His Majesty the German Emperor, etc.³

Considering that the Convention concluded at the Hague on the 29th July, 1899, for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, has sanctioned the principle of the intervention of the Red Cross in naval wars by the provisions for the benefit of hospital ships;

Desiring to conclude a Convention in order to facilitate by additional provisions the mission of such ships;

Have named as their Plenipotentiaries the following: [Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after communication of their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the following provisions:

Article 1.

Hospital ships fulfilling the conditions of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention concluded at the Hague on the 29th July, 1899, for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, shall be exempted, in time of war, in the ports of the contracting Parties, from all dues and taxes levied on ships for the benefit of the state.

Article 2.

The provision of the preceding Article does not prevent the application, by means of visitation and other formalities, of the fiscal or other laws in force in such ports.

Article 3.

The rule laid down in the first Article is only binding on the contracting Powers in case of war between two or more of them.

The said rule shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the contracting Powers, a non-contracting Power shall join one of the belligerents.

Article 4.

The present Convention, which, bearing date this day, may be signed until the 1st October, 1905, by the Powers which shall have expressed a wish to do so, shall be ratified within the shortest possible time.

The ratifications shall be deposited at the Hague. A procès-verbal of the deposit of the ratifications shall be drawn up and a copy thereof, duly certified, shall be delivered through the diplomatic channel to all the contracting Powers.

Article 5.

Non-signatory Powers are permitted to accede to the present Convention after the 1st October, 1905.

They must, for this purpose, make known their accession to the contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government and communicated by the latter to the other contracting Powers.

Article 6.

In the event of one of the high contracting Powers denouncing the present Convention, this denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the notification has been made in writing to the Netherland Government and communicated at once by the latter to all the other contracting Powers. Such denunciation shall only take effect in regard to the notifying Power.

In faith whereof, the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and affixed their seals thereto.

Done at the Hague the 21st December, 1904, in a single original which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the contracting Powers.

Final Act.

At the moment of proceeding to sign the Convention whose object is the exemption of hospital ships in time of war in the ports of the contracting Parties from all dues and taxes imposed on ships for the benefit of the state, the Plenipotentiaries signing the present Act express the wish that, in view of the highly humanitarian mission of such ships, the contracting Governments may take the necessary measures for the exemption, within a short time, of such ships also from the payment of dues and taxes collected in their ports for the benefit of others than the state, especially those collected for the benefit of municipalities, private companies or persons.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present procès-verbal which, bearing date this day, may be signed up to the 1st October, 1905.

Done at the Hague, the 21st December, 1904, in a single original which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Powers signing the foregoing Convention.

Ratifications have been deposited at the Hague by the following Powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, China, Denmark, the United States of America, Mexico, Greece, Japan and Corea, Luxemburg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Switzerland, France, Spain, Italy and Persia.

The following Powers have also acceded: Guatemala, Norway and Sweden. Servia is the only Power represented at the Conference which has not ratified the Convention.

XI.

Restrictions on Capture in Maritime War

XI.

Convention relative à certaines Restrictions à l’Exercice du Droit de Capture dans la Guerre Maritime.

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse, &c.

Reconnaissant la nécessité de mieux assurer que par le passé l’application équitable du droit aux relations maritimes internationales en temps de guerre;

Estimant que, pour y parvenir, il convient, en abandonnant ou en conciliant, le cas échéant, dans un intérêt commun certaines pratiques divergentes anciennes, d’entreprendre de codifier dans des règles communes les garanties dues au commerce pacifique et au travail inoffensif, ainsi que la conduite des hostilités sur mer; qu’il importe de fixer dans des engagements mutuels écrits les principes demeurés jusqu’ici dans le domaine incertain de la controverse ou laissés à l’arbitraire des Gouvernements;

Que, dès à présent, un certain nombre de règles peuvent être posées, sans qu’il soit porté atteinte au droit actuellement en vigueur concernant les matières qui n’y sont pas prévues;

Ont nommé pour Leurs plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:—

XI.

Convention relative to certain Restrictions on the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Maritime War.

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c.

Recognizing the necessity of ensuring more effectively than hitherto the equitable application of law to maritime international relations in time of war;

Considering that, for this purpose, it is expedient, in giving up or, if necessary, in harmonizing for the common interest certain conflicting practices of long standing, to undertake to codify in regulations of general application the guarantees due to peaceful intercourse and legitimate business, as well as the conduct of hostilities by sea; that it is expedient to lay down in written mutual engagements the principles which have hitherto remained in the uncertain domain of controversy or have been left to the discretion of Governments;

That from henceforth a certain number of rules may be made, without thereby affecting the law now in force with regard to the matters which these rules do not touch;

Have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:—

Chapitre I.

De la Correspondance Postale.

Art. 1.

La correspondance postale des neutres ou des belligérants, quel que soit son caractère officiel ou privé, trouvée en mer sur un navire neutre ou ennemi, est inviolable. S’il y a saisie du navire, elle est expédiée avec le moins de retard possible par le capteur.

Les dispositions de l’alinéa précédent ne s’appliquent pas, en cas de violation de blocus, à la correspondance qui est à destination ou en provenance du port bloqué.

Chapter I.

Postal Correspondence.

Art. 1.

The postal correspondence of neutrals or belligerents, whether official or private in character, which may be found on board a neutral or enemy ship at sea, is inviolable. If the ship is detained, the correspondence is forwarded by the captor with the least possible delay.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph do not apply, in case of violation of blockade, to correspondence destined for or proceeding from the blockaded port.

Art. 2.

L’inviolabilité de la correspondance postale ne soustrait pas les paquebotsposte neutres aux lois et coutumes de la guerre sur mer concernant les navires de commerce neutres en général. Toutefois, la visite n’en doit être effectuée qu’en cas de nécessité, avec tous les ménagements et toute la célérité possibles.

Art. 2.

The inviolability of postal correspondence does not exempt a neutral mail-ship from the laws and customs of naval war respecting neutral merchantships in general. The ship, however, may not be searched except when absolutely necessary, and then only with as much consideration and expedition as possible.

Chapitre II.

De l’Exemption de Capture pour certains Bateaux.

Art. 3.

Les bateaux exclusivement affectés à la pêche côtière ou à des services de petite navigation locale sont exempts de capture, ainsi que leurs engins, agrès, apparaux et chargement.

Cette exemption cesse de leur être applicable dès qu’ils participent d’une façon quelconque aux hostilités.

Les Puissances contractantes s’interdisent de profiter du caractère inoffensif desdits bateaux pour les employer dans un but militaire en leur conservant leur apparence pacifique.

Chapter II.

Exemption from Capture of certain Vessels.

Art. 3.

Vessels employed exclusively in coast fisheries, or small boats employed in local trade, are exempt from capture together with their appliances, rigging, tackle, and cargo.

This exemption ceases as soon as they take any part whatever in hostilities.

The Contracting Powers bind themselves not to take advantage of the harmless character of the said vessels in order to use them for military purposes while preserving their peaceful appearance.

Art. 4.

Sont également exempts de capture les navires chargés de missions religieuses, scientifiques, ou philanthropiques.

Art. 4.

Vessels charged with religious, scientific, or philanthropic missions are likewise exempt from capture.

Chapitre III.

Du Régime des Équipages des Navires de Commerce Ennemis capturés par un Belligérant.

Art. 5.

Lorsqu’un navire de commerce ennemi est capturé par un belligérant, les hommes de son équipage, nationaux d’un État neutre, ne sont pas faits prisonniers de guerre.

Il en est de même du capitaine et des officiers, également nationaux d’un État neutre, s’ils promettent formellement par écrit de ne pas servir sur un navire ennemi pendant la durée de la guerre.

Chapter III.

Regulations regarding the Crews of Enemy Merchant-ships captured by a Belligerent.

Art. 5.

When an enemy merchant-ship is captured by a belligerent, such of its crew as are nationals of a neutral State are not made prisoners of war.

The same rule applies in the case of the captain and officers, likewise nationals of a neutral State, if they give a formal promise in writing not to serve on an enemy ship while the war lasts.

Art. 6.

Le capitaine, les officiers, et les membres de l’équipage, nationaux de l’État ennemi, ne sont pas faits prisonniers de guerre, à condition qu’ils s’engagent, sous la foi d’une promesse formelle écrite, à ne prendre, pendant la durée des hostilités, aucun service ayant rapport avec les opérations de la guerre.

Art. 6.

The captain, officers, and members of the crew, when nationals of the enemy State, are not made prisoners of war, provided that they undertake, on the faith of a formal written promise, not to engage, while hostilities last, in any service connected with the operations of the war.

Art. 7.

Les noms des individus laissés libres dans les conditions visées à l’article 5, alinéa 2, et à l’article 6, sont notifiés par le belligérant capteur à l’autre belligérant. Il est interdit à ce dernier d’employer sciemment lesdits individus.

Art. 7.

The names of the persons retaining their liberty under the conditions laid down in Article 5, paragraph 2, and in Article 6, are notified by the belligerent captor to the other belligerent. The latter is forbidden knowingly to employ the said persons.

Art. 8.

Les dispositions des trois articles précédents ne s’appliquent pas aux navires qui prennent part aux hostilités.

Art. 8.

The provisions of the three preceding Articles do not apply to ships taking part in hostilities.

Chapitre IV.

Dispositions Finales.

Art. 9.

Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne sont applicables qu’entre les Puissances contractantes et seulement si les belligérants sont tous parties à la Convention.

Chapter IV.

Final Provisions.

Art. 9.

The provisions of the present Convention are only applicable between Contracting Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Art. 10.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée aussitôt que possible.

Les ratifications seront déposées à La Haye.

Le premier dépôt de ratifications sera constaté par un procès-verbal signé par les représentants des Puissances qui y prennent part et par le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas.

Les dépôts ultérieurs de ratifications se feront an moyen d’une notification écrite, adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et accompagnée de l’instrument de ratification.

Copie certifiée conforme du procès-verbal relatif au premier dépôt de ratifications, des notifications mentionnées à l’alinéa précédent ainsi que des instruments de ratification, sera immédiatement remise par les soins du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, ainsi qu’aux autres Puissances qui auront adhéré à la Convention. Dans les cas visés par l’alinéa précédent, le dit Gouvernement leur fera connaître en même temps la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 10.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague.

The first deposit of ratifications shall be recorded in a procès-verbal signed by the Representatives of the Powers which take part therein and by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherland Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.

A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relating to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherland Government, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have acceded to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph, the said Government shall inform them at the same time of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 11.

Les Puissances non-signataires sont admises à adhérer à la présente Convention.

La Puissance qui désire adhérer notifie par écrit son intention au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui transmettant l’acte d’adhésion, qui sera déposé dans les archives du dit Gouvernement.

Ce Gouvernement transmettra immédiatement à toutes les autres Puissances copie certifiée conforme de la notification ainsi que de l’acte d’adhésion, en indiquant la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 11.

Non-Signatory Powers may accede to the present Convention.

A Power which desires to accede notifies its intention in writing to the Netherland Government, forwarding to it the act of accession, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government.

The said Government shall immediately forward to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification, as well as of the act of accession, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 12.

La présente Convention produira effet pour les Puissances qui auront participé au premier dépôt de ratifications, soixante jours après la date du procès-verbal de ce dépôt et, pour les Puissances qui ratifieront ultérieurement ou qui adhéreront, soixante jours après que la notification de leur ratification ou de leur adhésion aura été reçue par le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 12.

The present Convention shall take effect, in the case of the Powers which were parties to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the Protocol recording such deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which shall ratify subsequently or which shall accede, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their accession, has been received by the Netherland Government.

Art. 13.

S’il arrivait qu’une des Puissances contractantes voulût dénoncer la présente Convention, la dénonciation sera notifiée par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, qui communiquera immédiatement copie certifiée conforme de la notification à toutes les autres Puissances en leur faisant savoir la date à laquelle il l’a reçue.

La dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée et un an après que la notification en sera parvenue au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.

Art. 13.

In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Netherland Government, which shall immediately communicate a duly certified copy of the notification to all the other Powers informing them of the date on which it was received.

The denunciation shall only operate in respect of the denouncing Power, and only on the expiry of one year after the notification has reached the Netherland Government.

Art. 14.

Un registre tenu par le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas indiquera la date du dépôt des ratifications effectué en vertu de l’article 10, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (article 11, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (article 13, alinéa 1).

Chaque Puissance contractante est admise à prendre connaissance de ce registre et à en demander des extraits certifiés conformes.

En foi de quoi, les Plénipotentiaires ont revêtu la présente Convention de leurs signatures.

Fait à La Haye, le 18 Octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire, qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances qui ont été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix.

Art. 14.

A register kept by the Netherland Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 10, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 11, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 13, paragraph 1) have been received.

Each Contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts from it.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference.

Convention No. 11. Relative to certain restrictions on the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war.

Postal correspondence¹ .The subject of the protection of postal correspondence did not appear in the Programme of the Conference or of the Questionnaire of the Fourth Committee. It was introduced by the German delegate (Herr Kriege) by way of a supplement to his draft proposition on contraband² .

In the existing state of international law, apart from this Convention, the carriage of mails is not protected by any definite guarantees. Neutral mail packets are subject to visit and search, a right which was exercised during the Russo-Japanese war. During the Spanish-American war President McKinley stated in his proclamation of the 26th April, 1898, that “the voyages of mail steamers were not to be interfered with, except on the clearest grounds of suspicion of a violation of law in respect of contraband or blockade³ .” Great Britain observed a similar practice in regard to German mail boats during the Boer war. Besides the practice of granting immunities by some Powers to mail boats during war, Great Britain and the United States in 1848, and Great Britain and France in 1856 entered into treaties granting immunities to the mail steamers of the contracting Powers in case of war between them. Notwithstanding the growing practice there is no rule of international law granting immunity to enemy mail boats from attack and seizure, or excluding neutral mail boats from visit and search. The increase of postal communication, and the fact that so many interests, commercial and other, are based on the regular service of the mails, render it highly desirable to shelter it from the disturbance which might be caused by a maritime war. “It is hardly possible,” said Herr Kriege in support of his proposals, “that the belligerents who control the means of telegraphic and radio-telegraphic communication will have recourse to the use of the ordinary mail for official communications as to military operations. The advantage to be drawn by belligerents from the control of the postal service is not in proportion to the prejudicial effect which that control entails on legitimate-commerce.¹ .” The principles of the German proposal to grant immunity to postal correspondence of neutrals or belligerents, whether of an official or private character and whether on board neutral or enemy ships, met with almost unanimous acceptance in the Committee, and the dissent of the Russian delegate was not renewed when the draft Convention came before the Conference. Russia, however, has not signed the Convention.

It will be noticed that the inviolability is granted to the correspondence and not to the vessel itself. It would have been the best guarantee for the uninterrupted service of the mails to have exempted all duly certified mail boats from visit and search, but the Conference was not prepared to go to that length; many of the largest mail boats are built for the special purpose of being converted into ships of war, and if not built for that purpose are capable of being used for many others of considerable value to belligerents. A vessel carrying mails still remains subject to all the laws and customs of maritime war. The only postal correspondence not covered by the immunity is that destined for or proceeding from a blockaded port. “Postal correspondence” is not intended, according to Herr Kriege, to include parcels sent by post (les colis postaux)² .

The second Article provides that a mail ship is not to be searched except when absolutely necessary and then with all the consideration and speed possible, and by the first Article it is laid down that if the ship is seized the correspondence is to be forwarded with the least possible delay. The action of the Commander of the Smolensk on the 15th July, 1904, in taking from the German mail boat Prinz Heinrich a number of mail bags for examination, and then stopping the P. and O. steamer Persia and putting them on board for transmission to their destination, is strongly to be reprobated. The belligerent must make his own arrangements for transmission of mails when the mail boat is seized³ .

Chapter ii. Fishing boats⁴ , etc.The second chapter of this Convention deals with the exemption from capture of boats employed in coast fisheries or in petty local coasting trade (Art. 3), and vessels charged with religious, scientific or philanthropic missions (Art. 4).

In most states the exemption from capture of fishing boats engaged in coast fisheries has been recognised as a rule of law, but in Great Britain the exemption has never been considered as a right but as “a rule of courtesy only, and not of legal decision¹ .” The United States in this matter followed the rule generally adopted in continental countries² . Although, Great Britain does not recognise the immunity as one of law, there has not in recent years been any real difference in the practice of maritime countries. All are willing to spare fishing vessels so long as they are harmless. The reasons for the exemption given by Mr Hall, and repeated in similar words by M. Fromageot in his Report to the Conference on the 27th September, 1907, are that “it is indisputable that coasting fishery is the sole means of livelihood of a very large number of families as inoffensive as cultivators of the soil or mechanics, and that the seizure of boats, while inflicting extreme hardship on their owners, is as a measure of general application wholly ineffective against the hostile state³ .” The Committee, however, felt that the favour accorded must not become an obstacle to naval operations, and that it ceases to be justified whenever the fishermen take any part in hostilities.

Articles 3 and 4 of this Convention owe their origin to different sources. The Belgian delegate introduced a proposal for the immunity of fishing boats which was further elaborated by the Portuguese delegate; the Austro-Hungarian delegate proposed the inclusion of boats engaged in the local coasting trade, and the Italian delegate the inclusion of ships charged with religious, scientific or philanthropic missions (Art. 4)⁴ . As regards fishing boats the immunity only applies to those engaged in coast fisheries, a limitation which has generally been recognised in the past. It does not apply to deep sea fishing. “Nor has the exemption been extended to ships or vessels employed on the high seas in taking whales or seals, or cod or other fish which are not brought fresh to market, but are salted or otherwise cured and made a regular article of commerce¹ .” The Committee found it impossible to lay down any rules as regards the size of fishing boats, or to fix any limits as to tonnage, number of the crew or the class of boats used; these vary in different places, but are all considerations of importance in deciding whether a given vessel is one to which exemption is to be accorded. It was also found impossible to lay down any rules as to the mode of propulsion of such boats, as these also differ in different countries, some using sails, others oars, others steam or petrol motors and some sails and mechanical means of propulsion.

The term “coast fishery” is also left undefined. The British delegate (Sir Ernest Satow) pointed out that British fishermen have to go far beyond the limits of territorial waters and are often found in the Straits of Dover more than ten miles from land. The “coast” need not be that of the fishermen’s own country, it may be that of a third state in which there is a right or a custom of fishing,—the Portuguese delegate instanced the case of the fisheries off the coast of Morocco.

There is a similar indefiniteness in the term “petty local navigation” (petite navigation locale) to which the foregoing observations as to size and mode of propulsion of the boats apply. The term originally suggested by Admiral Haus (Austro-Hungary) was bateaux et barques affectés dans les eaux territoriales de quelques pays au service de l’économie rurale ou à celui du petit trafic local, which he stated was meant to include ships and boats of small dimension, used in the transport of agricultural produce or of persons along the coasts, or between the coast and adjacent islands or in archipelagoes² . This Article does not appear to confer immunity from capture on coasting steamers such as those plying on the west coast of Scotland or the Norwegian fjords, nor the cross-channel boats between Great Britain and Ireland. The Portuguese naval delegate expressly stated that la petite navigation locale ne comprend pas le cabotage mais les bateaux qui transportent les produits de la pêche et ceux qui vise la proposition du Contre-Amiral Haus³ .

All the boats mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 3, together with the appliances, rigging, tackle and cargoes, are exempt from capture, but the exemption ceases as soon as they take any part directly or indirectly in hostilities.

Mindful of the Dogger Bank incident the Japanese delegate obtained the insertion of the third paragraph of Article 3 whereby the contracting Powers agree not to take advantage of the innocent character of the vessels in question to execute any ruses of war.

Vessels on scientific missions¹ , etc.Article 4, exempting from capture vessels charged with religious, scientific or philanthropic missions, was introduced by the Italian delegate² . Numerous instances of the exemption from capture of such vessels during the past 150 years may be cited: the French explorers Bougainville in 1766, and La Pérouse in 1785, Captain Cook in 1776, the Austrian cruiser Novara in 1859 were all exempt from seizure. The custom of granting immunities has now been converted into a definite rule of international law, but the conditions, although not mentioned in the Article, must be understood to be the same as those on which the immunities to fishing boats, etc. are granted, namely, abstention from all interference in hostilities.

Chapter iii. Immunity of crews of captured enemy merchantmen³ .Chapter iii. marks an important alteration in the law of maritime warfare. It is, apart from this Convention, a well-recognised rule of international law that the officers and crews of captured enemy merchantmen are prisoners of war⁴ . The practice was justified on the ground that it deprived the enemy of men who might render service on board ships which might be used as transports or for purposes of supply, or in the fighting navy. The rule was generally applied without regard to the nationality of the persons captured.

The subject was not mentioned in the Programme of Count Benckendorff, but was introduced in the Fourth Committee by the British delegate, who proposed to exempt from capture sailors who are nationals of neutral countries serving on board captured enemy merchantmen⁵ . The Belgian delegate proposed to extend this immunity to nationals of the enemy, and this extension was accepted by Sir Ernest Satow on behalf of Great Britain. The combined proposal was then sent to the Drafting Committee, when a proposal to make the distinction which appears in Article 5 between the officers and crew who are nationals of a neutral state was accepted by the British delegate. It had at first been proposed to require from all an undertaking in writing not to serve on an enemy ship during the continuance of the war; the Convention only requires this in the case of officers who are nationals of a neutral state. The crew are to be liberated without giving any such undertaking. But in the case of the captain, officers and members of the crew, being nationals of the enemy state, they are not to be made prisoners of war if they promise in writing not to engage, during the hostilities, in any service having relation to the operations of war (Article 6). This was stated by the Reporter (M. Fromageot) to include both service on board a ship of war as well as in the arsenals or land army or any other military or naval service.

The names of all persons who retain their liberty under Articles 5 and 6 are to be notified by the captor to the other belligerent who is forbidden knowingly to employ such persons (Article 7).

The provisions of the foregoing Articles only apply to the crews of ships who have not either directly or indirectly taken part in hostilities (Article 8). The question whether a ship is engaged in a purely commercial undertaking or participating in hostilities is a question of fact on which the Convention makes no attempt to lay down any definite rule.

Signatory Powers.All the Powers represented at the Conference have signed this Convention except China, Montenegro, Nicaragua and Russia.

The Convention makes a definite and important change in a long established rule of international law, and confirms other usages which had been almost universally observed in regard to a class of persons who take no part in hostilities, who are for the most part poor men, and whose imprisonment while inflicting extreme hardship on their families did not afford a corresponding gain to their captors. The distinction between combatants and non-combatants which has for many years been recognised in the case of land warfare has now become recognised also in naval warfare. This Convention, which curiously enough deals with matters none of which were mentioned in the Russian Programme, is the most important result of the labours of the Fourth Committee.

XII.

Establishment of an International Prize Court.

XII.

Convention relative à l’Établissement d’une Cour Internationale des Prises.

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse, &c.¹

Animés du désir de régler d’une manière équitable les différends qui s’élèvent, parfois, en cas de guerre maritime, à propos des décisions des tribunaux de prises nationaux;

Estimant que, si ces Tribunaux doivent continuer à statuer suivant les formes prescrites par leur législation, il importe que, dans des cas déterminés, un recours puisse être formé sous des conditions qui concilient, dans la mesure du possible, les intérêts publics et les intérêts privés engagés dans toute affaire de prises;

Considérant, d’autre part, que l’institution d’une cour internationale, dont la compétence et la procédure seraient soigneusement réglées, a paru le meilleur moyen d’atteindre ce but;

Persuadés, enfin, que de cette façon les conséquences rigoureuses d’une guerre maritime pourront être atténuées; que notamment les bons rapports entre les belligérants et les neutres auront plus de chance d’être maintenus et qu’ainsi la conservation de la paix sera mieux assurée;

Désirant conclure une Convention à cet effet, ont nommé pour Leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:—

XII.

Convention relative to the Establishment of an International Prize Court.

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c.¹

Animated by the desire to settle in an equitable manner the differences which sometimes arise in the course of a naval war in connection with the decisions of national Prize Courts;

Considering that, if these Courts are to continue to exercise their functions in the manner determined by national legislation, it is expedient that in certain cases an appeal should be provided under conditions conciliating, as far as possible, the public and private interests involved in matters of prize;

Being of opinion, moreover, that the institution of an International Court, whose jurisdiction and procedure would be carefully defined, would be the best method of attaining this object;

Convinced, finally, that in this manner, the hardships consequent on naval war might be mitigated; that, in particular, good relations will be more easily maintained between belligerents and neutrals and peace better assured in consequence;

Desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

Who, after having deposited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:—

Titre I.

Dispositions Générales.

Art. 1.

La validité de la capture d’un navire de commerce ou de sa cargaison est, s’il s’agit de propriétés neutres ou ennemies, établie devant une juridiction des prises conformément à la présente Convention.

Part I.

General Provisions.

Art. 1.

The validity of the capture of a merchant-ship or its cargo, when neutral or enemy property is involved, is decided before a Prize Court in accordance with the present Convention.

Art. 2.

La juridiction des prises est exercée d’abord par les tribunaux de prises du belligérant capteur.

Les décisions de ces tribunaux sont prononcées en séance publique ou notifiées d’office aux parties neutres ou ennemies.

Art. 2.

Jurisdiction in matters of prize is exercised in the first instance by the Prize Courts of the belligerent captor.

The judgments of these Courts are pronounced in public or are officially notified to the parties concerned who are neutrals or enemies.

Art. 3.

Les décisions des tribunaux de prises nationaux peuvent être l’objet d’un recours devant la Cour internationale des prises:—

(1) Lorsque la décision des tribunaux nationaux concerne les propriétés d’une Puissance ou d’un particulier neutres;

(2) Lorsque la dite décision concerne des propriétés ennemies et qu’il s’agit—

(a) De marchandises chargées sur un navire neutre;

(b) D’un navire ennemi qui aurait été capturé dans les eaux territoriales d’une Puissance neutre, dans le cas où cette Puissance n’aurait pas fait de cette capture l’objet d’une réclamation diplomatique;

(c) D’une réclamation fondée sur l’allégation que le capture aurait été effectuée en violation, soit d’une disposition conventionnelle en vigueur entre les Puissances belligérantes, soit d’une disposition légale édictée par le belligérant capteur.

Le recours contre la décision des tribunaux nationaux peut être fondé sur ce que cette décision ne serait pas justifiée, soit en fait, soit en droit.

Art. 3.

The judgments of National Prize Courts may be brought before the International Prize Court—

(1) When the judgment of the National Prize Courts affects the property of a neutral Power or individual;

(2) When the judgment affects enemy property and relates to—

(a) Cargo on board a neutral ship;

(b) An enemy ship captured in the territorial waters of a neutral Power, when that Power has not made the capture the subject of a diplomatic claim;

(Cp. 13 H. C. 1907, Art. 3.)

(c) A claim based upon the allegation that the seizure has been effected in violation, either of the provisions of a convention in force between the belligerent Powers, or of an enactment issued by the belligerent captor.

The appeal against the judgment of the National Courts can be based on the ground that the judgment was wrong either in fact or in law.

Art. 4.

Le recours peut être exercé:—

(1) Par une Puissance neutre, si la décision des tribunaux nationaux a porté atteinte à ses propriétés ou à celles de ses ressortissants (article 3 (1)), ou s’il est allégué que la capture d’un navire ennemi a eu lieu dans les eaux territoriales de cette Puissance (article 3 (2) (b));

(2) Par un particulier neutre, si la décision des tribunaux nationaux a porté atteinte à ses propriétés (article 3 (1)), sous réserve toutefois du droit de la Puissance dont il relève de lui interdire l’accès de la Cour ou d’y agir elle-même en ses lieu et place;

(3) Par un particulier relevant de la Puissance ennemie, si la décision des tribunaux nationaux a porté atteinte à ses propriétés dans les conditions visées à l’article 3 (2), à l’exception du cas prévu par l’alinéa (b).

Art. 4.

An appeal may be brought—

(1) By a neutral Power, if the judgment of the National Courts injuriously affects its property or the property of its nationals (Article 3 (1)), or if the capture of an enemy vessel is alleged to have taken place in the territorial waters of that Power (Article 3 (2) (b));

(2) By a neutral individual, if the judgment of the National Courts injuriously affects his property (Article 3 (1)), subject, however, to the reservation that the Power to which he belongs may forbid him to bring the case before the Court, or may itself undertake the proceedings in his place;

(3) By an individual subject or citizen of an enemy Power, if the judgment of the National Courts injuriously affects his property in the cases referred to in Article 3 (2), except that mentioned in paragraph (b).

Art. 5.

Le recours peut aussi être exercé, dans les mêmes conditions qu’à l’article précédent, par les ayants droit, neutres ou ennemis, du particulier auquel le recours est accordé, et qui sont intervenus devant la juridiction nationale. Ces ayants droit peuvent exercer individuellement le recours dans la mesure de leur intérêt.

Il en est de même des ayants droit, neutres ou ennemis, de la Puissance neutre dont la propriété est en cause.

Art. 5.

An appeal may also be brought on the same conditions as in the preceding Article, by persons belonging either to neutral States or to the enemy, deriving their rights from and entitled to represent an individual qualified to appeal, when they have taken part in the proceedings before the National Court. Persons so entitled may appeal separately to the extent of their interest.

The same rule applies in the case of persons belonging either to neutral States or to the enemy, who derive their rights from and are entitled to represent a neutral Power whose property was the subject of the decision.

Art. 6.

Lorsque, conformément à l’article 3 ci-dessus, la Cour internationale est compétente, le droit de juridiction des tribunaux nationaux ne peut être exercé à plus de deux degrés. Il appartient à la législation du belligérant capteur de décider si le recours est ouvert après la décision rendue en premier ressort ou seulement après la décision rendue en appel ou en cassation.

Faute par les tribunaux nationaux d’avoir rendu une décision définitive dans les deux ans à compter du jour de la capture, la Cour peut être saisie directement.

Art. 6.

When, in accordance with the above Article 3, the International Court has jurisdiction, the National Courts cannot deal with a case in more than two instances. The municipal law of the belligerent captor shall decide whether the case may be brought before the International Court after judgment has been given in first instance or only after an appeal.

If the National Courts fail to give final judgment within two years from the date of capture, the case may be carried direct to the International Court.

Art. 7.

Si la question de droit à résoudre est prévue par une Convention en vigueur entre le belligérant capteur et la Puissance qui est elle-même partie au litige ou dont le ressortissant est partie au litige, la Cour se conforme aux stipulations de la dite Convention.

A défaut de telles stipulations, la Cour applique les règles du droit international. Si des règles généralement reconnues n’existent pas, la Cour statue d’après les principes généraux de la justice et de l’équité.

Les dispositions ci-dessus sont également applicables en ce qui concerne l’ordre des preuves ainsi que les moyens qui peuvent être employés.

Si, conformément à l’article 3 (2) (c), le recours est fondé sur la violation d’une disposition légale édictée par le belligérant capteur, la Cour applique cette disposition.

La Cour peut ne pas tenir compte des déchéances de procédure édictées par la législation du belligérant capteur, dans les cas où elle estime que les conséquences en sont contraires à la justice et à l’équité.

Art. 7.

If the question of law to be decided is covered by a Treaty in force between the belligerent captor and a Power which is itself, or whose national is, a party to the proceedings, the Court is governed by the provisions of the said Treaty.

In the absence of such provisions, the Court shall apply the rules of international law. If no generally recognized rule exists, the Court shall give judgment in accordance with the general principles of justice and equity.

The above provisions apply equally to questions relating to the order and mode of proof.

If, in accordance with Article 3 (2) (c), the ground of appeal is the violation of an enactment issued by the belligerent captor, the Court will enforce such enactment.

The Court may disregard failure to comply with the procedure laid down by the laws of the belligerent captor, when it is of opinion that its consequences are unjust and inequitable.

Art. 8.

Si la Cour prononce la validité de la capture du navire ou de la cargaison, il en sera disposé conformément aux lois du belligérant capteur.

Si la nullité de la capture est prononcée, la Cour ordonne la restitution du navire ou de le cargaison et fixe, s’il y a lieu, le montant des dommages-intérêts. Si le navire ou la cargaison ont été vendus ou détruits, la Cour détermine indemnité à accorder de ce chef au propriétaire.

Si la nullité de la capture avait été prononcée par la juridiction nationale, la Cour n’est appelée à statuer que sur les dommages et intérêts.

Art. 8.

If the Court pronounces the capture of the vessel or cargo to be valid, they shall be disposed of in accordance with the laws of the belligerent captor.

If it pronounces the capture to be null, the Court shall order restitution of the vessel or cargo, and shall fix, if there is occasion, the amount of the damages. If the vessel or cargo have been sold or destroyed, the Court shall determine the compensation to be given to the owner on this account.

If the National Prize Court pronounced the capture to be null, the Court can only be asked to decide as to the damages.

Art. 9.

Les Puissances contractantes s’engagent à se soumettre de bonne foi aux décisions de la Cour internationale des prises et à les exécuter dans le plus bref délai possible.

Art. 9.

The Contracting Powers undertake to submit in good faith to the decisions of the International Prize Court and to carry them out with the least possible delay.

Titre II.

Organisation de la Cour Internationale des Prises.

Art. 10.

La Cour internationale des prises se compose de juges et de juges suppléants, nommés par les Puissances contractantes, et qui tous devront être des jurisconsultes d’une compétence reconnue dans les questions de droit international maritime et jouissant de la plus haute considération morale.

La nomination de ces juges et juges suppléants sera faite dans les six mois qui suivront la ratification de la présente Convention.

Part II.

Constitution of the International Prize Court.

Art. 10.

The International Prize Court is composed of Judges and Deputy Judges, who will be appointed by the Contracting Powers, and must all be jurists of known proficiency in questions of international maritime law, and of the highest moral reputation.

The appointment of these Judges and Deputy Judges shall be made within six months after the ratification of the present Convention.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 44.)

Art. 11.

Les juges et juges suppléants sont nommés pour une période de six ans, à compter de la date où la notification de leur nomination aura été reçue par le Conseil administratif institué par la Convention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux du 29 Juillet, 1899. Leur mandat peut être renouvelé.

En cas de décès ou de démission d’un juge ou d’un juge suppléant, il est pourvu à son remplacement selon le mode fixé pour sa nomination. Dans ce cas, la nomination est faite pour une nouvelle période de six ans.

Art. 11.

The Judges and Deputy Judges are appointed for a period of six years, reckoned from the date on which the notification of their appointment is received by the Administrative Council established by the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of the 29th July, 1899. Their appointments can be renewed.

Should one of the Judges or Deputy Judges die or resign, the same procedure is followed in filling the vacancy as was followed in appointing him. In this case, the appointment is made for a fresh period of six years.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 44.)

Art. 12.

Les juges de la Cour internationale des prises sont égaux entre eux et prennent rang d’après la date où la notification de leur nomination aura été reçue (article 11, alinéa 1), et, s’ils siègent à tour de rôle (article 15, alinéa 2), d’après la date de leur entrée en fonctions. La préséance appartient au plus âgé, au cas où la date est la même.

Les juges suppléants sont, dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions, assimilés aux juges titulaires. Toutefois ils prennent rang après ceux-ci.

Art. 12.

The Judges of the International Prize Court are all equal in rank and have precedence according to the date on which the notification of their appointment was received (Article 11, paragraph 1), and if they sit by rota (Article 15, paragraph 2), according to the date on which they entered upon their duties. When the date is the same, the senior in age takes precedence.

The Deputy Judges when acting are in the same position as the Judges. They rank, however, after them.

Art. 13.

Les juges jouissent des privilèges et immunités diplomatiques dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions et en dehors de leur pays.

Avant de prendre possession de leur siège, les juges doivent, devant le Conseil administratif, prêter serment ou faire une affirmation solennelle d’exercer leurs fonctions avec impartialité et en toute conscience.

Art. 13.

The Judges enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities in the performance of their duties and when outside their own country.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 46, par. 4.)

Before taking their seat, the Judges must take an oath, or make a solemn affirmation before the Administrative Council, to discharge their duties impartially and conscientiously.

Art. 14.

La Cour fonctionne au nombre de quinze juges; neuf juges constituent le quorum nécessaire.

Le juge absent ou empêché est remplacé par le suppléant.

Art. 14.

The Court is composed of fifteen Judges; nine Judges constitute a quorum.

A Judge who is absent or prevented from sitting is replaced by the Deputy Judge.

Art. 15.

Les juges nommés par les Puissances contractantes dont les noms suivent: l’Allemagne, les États-Unis d’Amérique, l’Autriche-Hongrie, la France, la Grande-Bretagne, l’Italie, le Japon et la Russie, sont toujours appelés à siéger.

Les juges et les juges suppléants nommés par les autres Puissances contractantes siègent à tour de rôle d’après le tableau annexé à la présente Convention; leurs fonctions peuvent être exercées successivement par la même personne. Le même juge peut être nommé par plusieurs desdites Puissances.

Art. 15.

The Judges appointed by the following Contracting Powers: Germany, the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan and Russia, are always summoned to sit.

The Judges and Deputy Judges appointed by the other Contracting Powers sit by rota as shown in the Table annexed to the present Convention; their duties may be performed successively by the same person. The same Judge may be appointed by several of the said Powers.

Art. 16.

Si une Puissance belligérante n’a pas, d’après le tour de rôle, un juge siégeant dans la Cour, elle peut demander que le juge nommé par elle prenne part au jugement de toutes les affaires provenant de la guerre. Dans ce cas, le sort détermine lequel des juges siégeant en vertu du tour de rôle doit s’abstenir. Cette exclusion ne saurait s’appliquer au juge nommé par l’autre belligérant.

Art. 16.

If a belligerent Power has, according to the rota, no Judge sitting in the Court, it may ask that the Judge appointed by it shall take part in the settlement of all cases arising from the war. Lots shall then be drawn as to which of the Judges entitled to sit according to the rota shall withdraw. This arrangement does not affect the Judge appointed by the other belligerent.

Art. 17.

Ne peut siéger le juge qui, à un titre quelconque, aura concouru à la décision des tribunaux nationaux ou aura figuré dans l’instance comme conseil ou avocat d’une partie.

Aucun juge, titulaire ou suppléant, ne peut intervenir comme agent ou comme avocat devant la Cour internationale des prises ni y agir pour une partie, en quelque qualité que ce soit, pendant toute la durée de ses fonctions.

Art. 17.

No Judge can sit who has been a party, in any way whatever, to the sentence pronounced by the National Courts, or has taken part in the case as counsel or advocate for one of the parties.

No Judge or Deputy Judge can, during his tenure of office, appear as agent or advocate before the International Prize Court, nor act for one of the parties in any capacity whatever.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 62, par. 3.)

Art. 18.

Le belligérant capteur a le droit de désigner un officier de marine d’un grade élevé, qui siégera en qualité d’assesseur avec voix consultative. La même faculté appartient à la Puissance neutre qui est elle-même partie au litige, ou à la Puissance dont le ressortissant est partie au litige; s’il y a, par application de cette dernière disposition, plusieurs Puissances intéressées, elles doivent se concerter, au besoin par le sort, sur l’officier à désigner.

Art. 18.

The belligerent captor is entitled to appoint a naval officer of high rank to sit as Assessor, but with no voice in the decision. A neutral Power, which is a party to the proceedings or whose national is a party, has the same right of appointment; if in applying this last provision more than one Power is concerned, they must agree among themselves, if necessary by lot, on the officer to be appointed.

Art. 19.

La Cour élit son Président et son Vice-Président à la majorité absolue des suffrages exprimés. Après deux tours de scrutin, l’élection se fait à la majorité relative, et, en cas de partage des voix, le sort décide.

Art. 19.

The Court elects its President and Vice-President by an absolute majority of the votes cast. After two ballots, the election is made by a bare majority, and, in case the votes are equal, by lot.

Art. 20.

Les juges de la Cour internationale des prises touchent une indemnité de voyage fixée d’après les règlements de leur pays, et reçoivent, en outre, pendant la session ou pendant l’exercice de fonctions conférées par la Cour, une somme de cent florins néerlandais par jour.

Ces allocations, comprises dans les frais généraux de la Cour prévus par l’article 47, sont versées par l’entremise du Bureau international institué par la Convention du 29 Juillet, 1899.

Les juges ne peuvent recevoir de leur propre Gouvernement ou de celui d’une autre Puissance aucune rémunération comme membres de la Cour.

Art. 20.

The Judges of the International Prize Court are entitled to travelling allowances in accordance with the regulations in force in their own country, and in addition thereto receive, while the Court is sitting or while they are carrying out duties conferred upon them by the Court, a sum of 100 Netherland florins per diem.

These payments are included in the general expenses of the Court dealt with in Article 47, and are paid through the International Bureau established by the Convention of the 29th July, 1899.

The Judges may not receive from their own Government or from that of any other Power any remuneration in their capacity of members of the Court.

Art. 21.

La Cour internationale des prises a son siège à La Haye et ne peut, sauf le cas de force majeure, le transporter ailleurs qu’avec l’assentiment des parties belligérantes.

Art. 21.

The seat of the International Prize Court is at The Hague and it cannot, except in the case of force majeure, be transferred elsewhere without the consent of the belligerents.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 60.)

Art. 22.

Le Conseil administratif, dans lequel ne figurent que les représentants des Puissances contractantes, remplit, à l’égard de la Cour internationale des prises, les fonctions qu’il remplit à l’égard de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage.

Art. 22.

The Administrative Council fulfils the same functions with regard to the International Prize Court as with regard to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, but only Representatives of Contracting Powers shall be members of it.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 49.)

Art. 23.

Le Bureau international sert de greffe à la Cour internationale des prises et doit mettre ses locaux et son organisation à la disposition de la Cour. Il a la garde des archives et la gestion des affaires administratives.

Le Secrétaire-Général du Bureau international remplit les fonctions de greffier.

Les secrétaires adjoints au greffier, les traducteurs et les sténographes nécessaires sont désignés et assermentés par la Cour.

Art. 23.

The International Bureau acts as registry to the International Prize Court and must place its offices and staff at the disposal of the Court. It has the custody of the archives and carries out the administrative work.

The Secretary-General of the International Bureau acts as Registrar.

The necessary secretaries to assist the Registrar, translators and shorthand writers are appointed and sworn in by the Court.

Art. 24.

La Cour décide du choix de la langue dont elle fera usage et des langues dont l’emploi sera autorisé devant elle.

Dans tous les cas, la langue officielle des tribunaux nationaux, qui ont connu de l’affaire, peut être employée devant la Cour.

Art. 24.

The Court determines which language it will itself use and what languages may be used before it.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 61.)

In all cases, the official language of the National Courts which have had cognizance of the case can be used before the Court.

Art. 25.

Les Puissances intéressées ont le droit de nommer des agents spéciaux ayant mission de servir d’intermédiaires entre elles et la Cour. Elles sont, en outre, autorisées à charger des conseils ou avocats de la défense de leurs droits et intérêts.

Art. 25.

Powers which are concerned in a case may appoint special agents to act as intermediaries between themselves and the Court. They may also engage counsel or advocates to defend their rights and interests.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 62.)

Art. 26.

Le particulier intéressé sera représenté devant la Cour par un mandataire qui doit être, soit un avocat autorisé à plaider devant une Cour d’appel ou une Cour suprême de l’un des Pays contractants, soit un avoué exerçant sa profession auprès d’une telle Cour, soit enfin un professeur de droit à une école d’enseignement supérieur d’un de ces pays.

Art. 26.

A private person concerned in a case will be represented before the Court by an attorney, who must be either an advocate qualified to plead before a Court of Appeal or a High Court of one of the Contracting States, or a lawyer practising before a similar Court, or lastly, a professor of law at one of the higher teaching centres of those countries.

Art. 27.

Pour toutes les notifications à faire, notamment aux parties, aux témoins, et aux experts, la Cour peut s’adresser directement au Gouvernement de la Puissance sur le territoire de laquelle la notification doit être effectuée. Il en est de même s’il s’agit de faire procéder à l’établissement de tout moyen de preuve.

Les requêtes adressées à cet effet seront exécutées suivant les moyens dont la Puissance requise dispose d’après sa législation intérieure. Elles ne peuvent être refusées que si cette Puissance les juge de nature à porter atteinte à sa souveraineté ou à sa sécurité. S’il est donné suite à la requête, les frais ne comprennent que les dépenses d’exécution réellement effectuées.

La Cour a également la faculté de recourir à l’intermédiaire de la Puissance sur le territoire de laquelle elle a son siège.

Les notifications à faire aux parties dans le lieu où siège la Cour peuvent être exécutées par le Bureau international.

Art. 27.

For all notices to be served, in particular on the parties, witnesses, or experts, the Court may apply direct to the Government of the State on whose territory the service is to be carried out. The same rule applies in the case of steps being taken to procure evidence.

Requests for this purpose are to be executed so far as the means at the disposal of the Power applied to under its municipal law allow. They cannot be rejected unless the Power in question considers them calculated to impair its sovereign rights or its safety. If the request is complied with, the fees charged must only comprise the expenses actually incurred.

The Court is equally entitled to act through the Power on whose territory it sits.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 76.)

Notices to be given to parties in the place where the Court sits may be served through the International Bureau.

Titre III.

Procédure devant la Cour Internationale des Prises.

Art. 28.

Le recours devant la Cour internationale des prises est formé au moyen d’une déclaration écrite, faite devant le tribunal national qui a statué, ou adressée au Bureau international; celui-ci peut être saisi même par télégramme.

Le délai du recours est fixé à 120 jours à dater du jour où la décision a été prononcée ou notifiée (article 2, alinéa 2).

Part III.

Procedure in the International Prize Court.

Art. 28.

An appeal to the International Prize Court is entered by means of a written declaration made in the National Court which has already dealt with the case, or addressed to the International Bureau; in the latter case the appeal can be entered by telegram.

The period within which the appeal must be entered is fixed at 120 days, counting from the day the decision is delivered or notified (Article 2, paragraph 2).

Art. 29.

Si la déclaration de recours est faite devant le tribunal national, celui-ci, sans examiner si le délai a été observé, fait, dans les sept jours qui suivent, expédier le dossier de l’affaire au Bureau international.

Si la déclaration de recours est adressée au Burean international, celui-ci en prévient directement le tribunal national, par télégramme s’il est possible. Le tribunal transmettra le dossier comme il est dit à l’alinéa précédent.

Lorsque le recours est formé par un particulier neutre, le Bureau international en avise immédiatement par télégramme la Puissance dont relève le particulier, pour permettre à cette Puissance de faire valoir le droit que lui reconnaît l’article 4 (2).

Art. 29.

If the notice of appeal is entered in the National Court, such Court, without considering the question whether the appeal was entered in due time, will transmit within seven days the record of the case to the International Bureau.

If the notice of appeal is sent to the International Bureau, the Bureau will immediately inform the National Court, when possible by telegraph. The latter will transmit the record as provided in the preceding paragraph.

When the appeal is brought by a neutral individual the International Bureau immediately informs by telegraph the individual’s Government, in order to enable it to avail itself of the right it enjoys under Article 4, paragraph 2.

Art. 30.

Dans le cas prévu à l’article 6, alinéa 2, le recours ne peut être adressé qu’au Bureau international. Il doit être introduit dans les trente jours qui suivent l’expiration du délai de deux ans.

Art. 30.

In the case provided for in Article 6, paragraph 2, the notice of appeal can be addressed to the International Bureau only. It must be entered within thirty days of the expiry of the period of two years.

Art. 31.

Faute d’avoir formé son recours dans le délai fixé à l’article 28 ou à l’article 30, la partie sera, sans débats, déclarée non recevable.

Toutefois, si elle justifie d’un empêchement de force majeure et si elle a formé son recours dans les soixante jours qui ont suivi la cessation de cet empêchement, elle peut être relevée de la déchéance encourue, la partie adverse ayant été dûment entendue.

Art. 31.

If the appellant does not enter his appeal within the period laid down in Articles 28 or 30, it shall be rejected without discussion.

Provided that if he can show that he was prevented from so doing by force majeure, and that the appeal was entered within sixty days after the circumstances which prevented him entering it before had ceased to operate, the Court can, after hearing the respondent, grant relief from the effect of the above provision.

Art. 32.

Si le recours a été formé en temps utile, la Cour notifie d’office, et sans délai, à la partie adverse une copie certifiée conforme de la déclaration.

Art. 32.

If the appeal has been entered in time, a certified copy of the notice of appeal is forthwith officially transmitted by the Court to the respondent.

Art. 33.

Si, en dehors des parties qui se sont pourvues devant da Cour, il y a d’autres intéressés ayant le droit d’exercer le recours, ou si, dans le cas prévu à l’article 29, alinéa 3, la Puissance qui a été avisée, n’a pas fait connaître sa résolution, la Cour attend, pour se saisir de l’affaire, que les délais prévus à l’article 28 ou à l’article 30 soient expirés.

Art. 33.

If, in addition to the parties who are before the Court, there are other parties concerned who are entitled to appeal, or if, in the case referred to in Article 29, paragraph 3, the Government which has received notice of an appeal has not announced its decision, the Court will await, before dealing with the case, the expiry of the periods laid down in Articles 28 or 30.

Art. 34.

La procédure devant la Cour Internationale comprend deux phases distinctes: l’instruction écrite et les débats oraux.

L’instruction écrite consiste dans le dépôt et l’échange d’exposés, de contre-exposés, et, au besoin, de répliques, dont l’ordre et les délais sont fixés par la Cour. Les parties y joignent toutes pièces et documents dont elles comptent se servir.

Toute pièce, produite par une partie, doit être communiquée en copie certifiée conforme à l’autre partie par l’intermédiaire de la Cour.

Art. 34.

The procedure before the International Court comprises two distinct phases: written pleadings and oral discussions.

The written pleadings consist of the deposit and exchange of cases, countercases, and, if necessary, of replies, the order of which is fixed by the Court, as also the periods within which they must be delivered. The parties annex thereto all papers and documents of which they intend to make use.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 63.)

A certified copy of every document produced by one party must be communicated to the other party through the medium of the Court.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 64.)

Art. 35.

L’instruction écrite étant terminée, il y a lieu à une audience publique, dont le jour est fixé par la Cour.

Dans cette audience, les parties exposent l’état de l’affaire en fait et en droit.

La Cour peut, en tout état de cause, suspendre les plaidoiries, soit à la demande d’une des parties, soit d’office, pour procéder à une information complémentaire.

Art. 35.

After the close of the pleadings, a public sitting is held on a day fixed by the Court.

At this sitting the parties state their view of the case both as to the law and as to the facts.

The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, suspend the speeches of counsel, either at the request of one of the parties, or on their own initiative, in order that supplementary evidence may be obtained.

Art. 36.

La Cour internationale peut ordonner que l’information complémentaire aura lieu, soit conformément aux dispositions de l’article 27, soit directement devant elle ou devant un ou plusieurs de ses membres en tant que cela peut se faire sans moyen coercitif ou comminatoire.

Si des mesures d’information doivent être prises par des membres de la Cour en dehors du territoire où elle a son siège, l’assentiment du Gouvernement étranger doit être obtenu.

Art. 36.

The International Court may order the supplementary evidence to be taken either in the manner provided by Article 27, or before itself, or one or more of the members of the Court, provided that this can be done without resort to compulsion or intimidation.

If steps are to be taken for the purpose of obtaining evidence by members of the Court outside the territory where it is sitting, the consent of the foreign Government must be obtained.

Art. 37.

Les parties sont appelées à assister à toutes mesures d’instruction. Elles reçoivent une copie certifiée conforme des procès-verbaux.

Art. 37.

The parties are summoned to take part in all stages of the proceedings. They receive certified copies of the Minutes.

Art. 38.

Les débats sont dirigés par le Président ou le Vice-Président, et, en cas d’absence ou d’empéchement de l’un et de l’autre, par le plus ancien des juges présents.

Le juge nommé par une partie belligérante ne peut siéger comme Président.

Art. 38.

The discussions are under the direction of the President or Vice-President, or, in case they are absent or cannot act, of the senior Judge present.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 66.)

The Judge appointed by a belligerent party may not preside.

Art. 39.

Les débats sont publics, sauf le droit pour une Puissance en litige de demander qu’il y soit procédé à huis clos.

Ils sont consignés dans des procès-verbaux, que signent le Président et le greffier, et qui seuls ont caractère authentique.

Art. 39.

The discussions take place in public, subject to the right of a Government which is a party to the case to demand that they be held in private.

They are recorded in Minutes which are signed by the President and Registrar, and these alone have an authentic character.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 66.)

Art. 40.

En cas de non-comparution d’une des parties, bien que régulièrement citée, ou faute par elle d’agir dans les délais fixés par la Cour, il est procédé sans elle, et la Cour décide d’après les éléments d’appréciation qu’elle a à sa disposition.

Art. 40.

If a party does not appear, despite the fact that he has been duly cited, or if a party fails to comply with some step within the period fixed by the Court, the case proceeds without that party, and the Court gives judgment in accordance with the materials at its disposal.

Art. 41.

La Cour notifie d’office aux parties toutes décisions ou ordonnances prises en leur absence.

Art. 41.

The Court officially notifies to the parties all judgments or orders made in their absence.

Art. 42.

La Cour apprécie librement l’ensemble des actes, preuves et déclarations orales.

Art. 42.

The Court takes into consideration in arriving at its decision all the documents, evidence, and oral statements.

Art. 43.

Les délibérations de la Cour ont lieu à huis clos et restent secrètes.

Toute décision est prise à la majorité des juges présents. Si la Cour siège en nombre pair et qu’il y ait partage des voix, la voix du dernier des juges dans l’ordre de préséance établi d’après l’article 12, alinéa 1, n’est pas comptée.

Art. 43.

The Court considers its decisions in private and the proceedings remain secret.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 78.)

All questions are decided by a majority of the Judges present. If the number of Judges is even and equally divided, the vote of the junior Judge in the order of precedence laid down in Article 12, paragraph 1, is not counted.

Art. 44.

L’arrêt de la Cour doit être motivé. Il mentionne les noms des juges qui y ont participé, ainsi que les noms des assesseurs, s’il y a lieu; il est signé par le Président et par le greffier.

Art. 44.

The judgment of the Court must state the reasons on which it is based. It contains the names of the Judges taking part in it, and also of the Assessors, if any; it is signed by the President and Registrar.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 79.)

Art. 45.

L’arrêt est prononcé en séance publique, les parties présentes ou dûment appelées; il est notifié d’office aux parties.

Cette notification une fois faite, la Cour fait parvenir au tribunal national de prises le dossier de l’affaire, en y joignant une expédition des diverses décisions intervenues, ainsi qu’une copie des procès-verbaux de l’instruction.

Art. 45.

The judgment is delivered in open Court, the parties concerned being present or duly summoned to attend; it is officially communicated to the parties.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 80.)

When this communication has been made, the Court transmits to the National Prize Court the record of the case, together with copies of the various decisions arrived at and of the Minutes of the proceedings.

Art. 46.

Chaque partie supporte les frais occasionnés par sa propre défense.

La partie qui succombe supporte, en outre, les frais causés par la procédure. Elle doit, de plus, verser un centième de la valeur de l’objet litigieux à titre de contribution aux frais généraux de la Cour internationale. Le montant de ces versements est déterminé par l’arrêt de la Cour.

Si le recours est exercé par un particulier, celui-ci fournit au Bureau international un cautionnement dont le montant est fixé par la Cour et qui est destiné à garantir l’exécution éventuelle des deux obligations mentionnées dans l’alinéa précédent. La Cour peut subordonner l’ouverture de la procédure au versement du cautionnement.

Art. 46.

Each party pays its own costs.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 85.)

The party against whom the Court decides bears, in addition, the costs of the trial, and also pays 1 per cent. of the value of the subject-matter of the case as a contribution to the general expenses of the International Court. The amount of these payments is fixed in the judgment of the Court.

If the appeal is brought by an individual, he will furnish the International Bureau with security to an amount fixed by the Court, for the purpose of guaranteeing the eventual fulfilment of the two obligations mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The Court is entitled to postpone the opening of the proceedings until the security has been furnished.

Art. 47.

Les frais généraux de la Cour internationale des prises sont supportés par les Puissances contractantes dans la proportion de leur participation au fonctionnement de la Cour, telle qu’elle est prévue par l’article 15 et par le tableau y annexé. La désignation des juges suppléants ne donne pas lieu à contribution.

Le Conseil administratif s’adresse aux Puissances pour obtenir les fonds nécessaires au fonctionnement de la Cour.

Art. 47.

The general expenses of the International Prize Court are borne by the Contracting Powers in proportion to their share in the composition of the Court as laid down in Article 15 and in the annexed Table. The appointment of Deputy Judges does not involve any contribution.

The Administrative Council applies to the Powers for the funds requisite for the working of the Court.

Art. 48.

Quand la Cour n’est pas en session, les fonctions qui lui sont conférées par l’article 32, l’article 34, alinéas 2 et 3, l’article 35, alinéa 1, et l’article 46, alinéa 3, sont exercées par une délégation de trois juges désignés par la Cour. Cette délégation décide à la majorité des voix.

Art. 48.

When the Court is not sitting, the duties conferred upon it by Article 32, Article 34, paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 35, paragraph 1, and Article 46, paragraph 3, are discharged by a delegation of three Judges appointed by the Court. This delegation decides by a majority of votes.

Art. 49.

La Cour fait elle-même son règlement d’ordre intérieur, qui doit être communiqué aux Puissances contractantes.

Dans l’année de la ratification de la présente Convention, elle se réunira pour élaborer ce règlement.

Art. 49.

The Court itself draws up its own rules of procedure, which must be communicated to the Contracting Powers.

(Cp. 1 H. C. 1907, Art. 74.)

It will meet to draw up these rules within a year of the ratification of the present Convention.

Art. 50.

La Cour peut proposer des modifications à apporter aux dispositions de la présente Convention qui concernent la procédure. Ces propositions sont communiquées, par l’intermédiaire du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, aux Puissances contractantes qui se concerteront sur la suite à y donner.

Art. 50.

The Court may propose modifications in the provisions of the present Convention concerning procedure. These proposals are communicated, through the medium of the Netherland Government, to the Contracting Powers, which will confer together as to the measures to be adopted.

Titre IV.

Dispositions Finales.

Art. 51.

La présente Convention ne s’applique de plein droit que si les Puissances belligérantes sont toutes parties à la Convention.

Il est entendu, en outre, que le recours devant la Cour internationale des prises ne peut être exercé que par une Puissance contractante ou le ressortissant d’une Puissance contractante.

Dans les cas de l’article 5, le recours n’est admis que si le propriétaire et l’ayant droit sont également des Puissances contractantes ou des ressortissants de Puissances contractantes.

Part IV.

Final Provisions.

Art. 51.

The present Convention does not apply as of right except when the belligerent Powers are all parties to the Convention.

It is further understood that an appeal to the International Prize Court can only be brought by a Contracting Power, or the national of a Contracting Power.

In the cases mentioned in Article 5 the appeal is only admitted when both the owner and the person entitled to represent him are equally Contracting Powers or the nationals of Contracting Powers.

Art. 52.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée et les ratifications en seront déposées à La Haye dès que toutes les Puissances désignées à l’article 15 et dans son annexe seront en mesure de le faire.

Le dépôt des ratifications aura lieu, en tout cas, le 30 Juin, 1909, si les Puissances prêtes à ratifier peuvent fournir à la Cour neuf juges et neuf juges suppléants, aptes à siéger effectivement. Dans le cas contraire, le dépôt sera ajourné jusqu’au moment où cette condition sera remplie.

Il sera dressé du dépôt des ratifications un procès-verbal, dont une copie, certifiée conforme, sera remise par la voie diplomatique à chacune des Puissances désignées à l’alinéa premier.

Art. 52.

The present Convention shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague as soon as all the Powers mentioned in Article 15 and in the Table annexed are in a position to do so.

The deposit of the ratifications shall take place, in any case, on the 30th June, 1909, if the Powers which are ready to ratify furnish nine Judges and nine Deputy Judges to the Court, duly qualified to constitute a Court. If not, the deposit shall be postponed until this condition is fulfilled.

A Minute of the deposit of the ratifications shall be drawn up, of which a certified copy shall be forwarded, through the diplomatic channel, to each of the Powers referred to in the first paragraph.

Art. 53.

Les Puissances désignées à l’article 15 et dans son annexe sont admises à signer la présente Convention jusqu’au dépôt des ratifications prévu par l’alinéa 2 de l’article précédent.

Après ce dépôt, elles seront toujours admises à y adhérer, purement et simplement. La Puissance qui désire adhérer notifie par écrit son intention au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas en lui transmettant, en même temps, l’acte d’adhésion, qui sera déposé dans les archives dudit Gouvernement. Celuici enverra, par la voie diplomatique, une copie certifiée conforme de la notification et de l’acte d’adhésion à toutes les Puissances désignées à l’alinéa précédent, en leur faisant savoir la date où il a reçu la notification.

Art. 53.

The Powers referred to in Article 15 and in the Table annexed are entitled to sign the present Convention up to the deposit of the ratifications contemplated in paragraph 2 of the preceding Article.

After this deposit, they can at any time accede to it, purely and simply. A Power wishing to accede, notifies its intention in writing to the Netherland Government, transmitting to it at the same time the act of accession, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government. The latter shall send, through the diplomatic channel, a certified copy of the notification and of the act of accession to all the Powers referred to in the preceding paragraph, informing them of the date on which it has received the notification.

Art. 54.

La présente Convention entrera en vigueur six mois à partir du dépôt des ratifications prévu par l’article 52, alinéas 1 et 2.

Les adhésions produiront effet soixante jours après que la notification en aura été reçue par le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et, au plus tôt, à l’expiration du délai prévu par l’alinéa précédent.

Toutefois, la Cour internationale aura qualité pour juger les affaires de prises décidées par la juridiction nationale à partir du dépôt des ratifications ou de la réception de la notification des adhésions. Pour ces décisions, le délai fixé à l’article 28, alinéa 2, ne sera compté que de la date de la mise en vigueur de la Convention pour les Puissances ayant ratifié ou adhéré.

Art. 54.

The present Convention shall come into force six months from the deposit of the ratifications contemplated in Article 52, paragraphs 1 and 2.

The accessions shall take effect sixty days after the notification of such accession has been received by the Netherland Government, or as soon as possible on the expiry of the period contemplated in the preceding paragraph.

The International Court shall, however, have jurisdiction to deal with prize cases decided by the National Courts at any time after the deposit of the ratifications or of the receipt of the notification of the accessions. In such cases, the period fixed in Article 28, paragraph 2, shall only be reckoned from the date when the Convention comes into force as regards a Power which has ratified or acceded.

Art. 55.

La présente Convention aura une durée de douze ans à partir de sa mise en vigueur, telle qu’elle est déterminée par l’article 54, alinéa 1, même pour les Puissances ayant adhéré postérieurement.

Elle sera renouvelée tacitement de six ans en six ans sauf dénonciation.

La dénonciation devra être, au moins un an avant l’expiration de chacune des périodes prévues par les deux alinéas précédents, notifiée par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, qui en donnera connaissance à toutes les autres Parties contractantes.

La dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée. La Convention subsistera pour les autres Puissances contractantes, pourvu que leur participation à la désignation des Juges soit suffisante pour permettre le fonctionnement de la Cour avec neuf juges et neuf juges suppléants.

Art. 55.

The present Convention shall remain in force for twelve years from the date at which it comes into force, as determined by Article 54, paragraph 1, even for the Powers acceding to it subsequently.

It shall be renewed tacitly from six years to six years unless denounced.

Denunciation must be notified in writing, one year at least before the expiry of each of the periods mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs, to the Netherland Government, which will inform all the other Contracting Powers.

The denunciation shall only operate in respect of the notifying Power. The Convention shall remain in force in the case of the other Contracting Powers, provided that their share in the appointment of Judges be still sufficient to allow the work of the Court to be discharged by nine Judges and nine Deputy Judges.

Art. 56.

Dans le cas où la présente Convention n’est pas en vigueur pour toutes les Puissances désignées dans l’article 15 et le tableau qui s’y rattache, le Conseil administratif dresse, conformément aux dispositions de cet article et de ce tableau, la liste des juges et des juges suppléants pour lesquels les Puissances contractantes participent au fonctionnement de la Cour. Les juges appelés à siéger à tour de rôle seront, pour le temps qui leur est attribué par le tableau susmentionné, répartis entre les différentes années de la période de six ans, de manière que, dans la mesure du possible, la Cour fonctionne chaque année en nombre égal. Si le nombre des juges suppléants dépasse celui des juges, le nombre de ces derniers pourra être complété par des juges suppléants désignés par le sort parmi celles des Puissances qui ne nomment pas de juge titulaire.

La liste ainsi dressée par le Conseil administratif sera notifiée aux Puissances contractantes. Elle sera revisée quand le nombre de celles-ci sera modifié par suite d’adhésions ou de dénonciations.

Le changement à opérer par suite d’une adhésion ne se produira qu’à partir du 1^er Janvier qui suit la date à laquelle l’adhésion a son effet, à moins que la Puissance adhérente ne soit une Puissance belligérante, cas auquel elle peut demander d’être aussitôt représentée dans la Cour, la disposition de l’article 16 étant du reste applicable, s’il y a lieu.

Quand le nombre total des juges est inférieur à onze, sept juges constituent le quorum nécessaire.

Art. 56.

In case the present Convention is not in operation as regards all the Powers referred to in Article 15 and the annexed Table, the Administrative Council shall draw up a list on the lines of that Article and Table of the Judges and Deputy Judges through whom the Contracting Powers will share in the composition of the Court. The times allotted by the said Table to Judges who are summoned to sit in rota will be redistributed between the different years of the six-year period in such a way that, as far as possible, the number of the Judges of the Court in each year shall be the same. If the number of Deputy Judges is greater than that of the Judges, the number of the latter can be completed by Deputy Judges chosen by lot among those Powers which do not nominate a Judge.

The list drawn up in this way by the Administrative Council shall be notified to the Contracting Powers. It shall be revised when the number of these Powers is modified as the result of accessions or denunciations.

The change resulting from an accession is not made until the 1st January after the date on which the accession takes effect, unless the acceding Power is a belligerent Power, in which case it can ask to be at once represented in the Court, the provision of Article 16 being, moreover, applicable if necessary.

When the total number of Judges is less than eleven, seven Judges form a quorum.

Art. 57.

Deux ans avant l’expiration de chaque période visée par les alinéas 1 et 2 de l’article 55, chaque Puissance contractante pourra demander une modification des dispositions de l’article 15 et du tableau y annexé, relativement à sa participation au fonctionnement de la Cour. La demande sera adressée au Conseil administratif, qui l’examinera et soumettra à toutes les Puissances des propositions sur la suite à y donner. Les Puissances feront, dans le plus bref délai possible, connaître leur résolution au Conseil administratif. Le résultat sera immédiatement, et au moins un an et trente jours avant l’expiration dudit délai de deux ans, communiqué à la Puissance qui a fait la demande.

Le cas échéant, les modifications adoptées par les Puissances entreront en vigueur dès le commencement de la nouvelle période.

En foi de quoi, les Plénipotentiaires ont revêtu la présente Convention de leurs signatures.

Fait à La Haye, le 18 Octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire, qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances désignées à l’article 15 et dans son annexe.

Art. 57.

Two years before the expiry of each period referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 55, any Contracting Power may demand a modification of the provisions of Article 15 and of the annexed Table, relative to its participation in the composition of the Court. The demand shall be addressed to the Administrative Council, which shall examine it and submit to all the Powers proposals as to the measures to be adopted. The Powers shall inform the Administrative Council of their decision with the least possible delay. The result shall be at once, and at least one year and thirty days before the expiry of the said period of two years, communicated to the Power which made the demand.

When necessary, the modifications adopted by the Powers shall come into force from the commencement of the new period.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have appended their signatures to the present Convention.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and duly certified copies of which shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to the Powers designated in Article 15 and in the Table annexed.

Annexe de l’Article 15.

Distribution des Juges et Juges suppléants par Pays pour chaque année de la période de six ans.

Annex to Article 15.

Distribution of Judges and Deputy Judges by Countries for each Year of the period of Six Years.