Front Page Titles (by Subject) VIII.: Automatic Submarine Contact Mines. - The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War
Return to Title Page for The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
VIII.: Automatic Submarine Contact Mines. - A. Pearce Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War 
The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War. Texts of Conventions with Commentaries, by A. Pearce Higgins, LL.D. (Cambridge University Press, 1909).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Automatic Submarine Contact Mines.
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:—
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:—
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.
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.
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.
It is forbidden to lay automatic contact mines off the coasts and ports of the enemy, with the sole object of intercepting commercial navigation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The provisions of the present Convention are only applicable between the Contracting Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :
“To suppress Article 2 and Article 5 (2) and replace them by the following provisions:—
“The employment of anchored mines is absolutely forbidden except as a means of defence.
“Belligerents may not employ such mines except for the protection of their own coasts and only within a distance of the greatest range of cannon.
“In the case of arms of the sea or navigable maritime channels leading exclusively to the shores of a single Power, that Power may bar the entrance for its own protection by laying anchored mines.
“Belligerents are absolutely forbidden to lay anchored mines in the open sea or in the waters of the enemy.”
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 .
[1 ]List of States as in the Final Act, 1907.
[1 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), pp. 51, 227; La Deux. Confér. T. i. pp. 277, 287; T. iii. pp. 292, 364-459, 517-537, 660-680; Livre Jaune, p. 83; Weissbuch, p. 10; Sir T. Barclay, Problems, etc. pp. 57, 158; A. S. Hershey, International Law and Diplomacy, etc. pp. 124-135; T. J. Lawrence, War and Neutrality, etc. pp. 94-101; Idem, International Problems, pp. 121, 162, 190, 199; E. Lémonon, La seconde Conférence, pp. 472-502; C. H. Stockton, Submarine mines and torpedoes in war, Am. Journ. of Int. Law, Vol. ii. p. 276; J. Westlake, War, p. 322; Halleck’s International Law (4th edition), Vol. i. p. 620; Bonfils-Fauchille, Droit international (5th ed.), f. 12731; L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. ii. p. 189; L. A. Atherley-Jones, Commerce in War; M. Sueter, The evolution of the submarine boat, mine and torpedo; Schücking, Die Verwendung von Minen im Seekrieg, Ztscht. für int. Priv. u. Strafrecht,xvi. (1906), p. 121; v. Martitz, Minen im Seekrieg, 23rd Report Int. Law Association (1906), p. 47.
[2 ]The word “torpille” until recently appears to have meant any sort of receptacle containing an explosive intended to operate against the hull of a ship by contact either on or below the water-line. Thus there were torpilles fixes, torpilles mouillées, torpilles mobiles and finally torpilles automobiles. It would appear that latterly the word has come to mean only “automobile torpedo,” e.g. in the Convention now under consideration the word “mine” is used when an automobile torpedo is not implied.
[3 ]Fuller accounts are given of the proposals and discussions in connection with this Convention than in the case of the others by reason of the great importance of the subject to neutrals.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 663.
[2 ]See paragraph 15 of Instructions in Appendix.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 660.
[2 ]Ibid. p. 661.
[3 ]In this connection it was suggested that mines, like torpedoes, might be made to sink by infiltration after the lapse of a given time (Ibid. p. 519).
[4 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 519-520.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 518.
[2 ]Ibid. p. 661.
[3 ]Ibid. p. 661.
[4 ]Ibid. p. 662.
[5 ]Ibid. p. 663.
[6 ]Ibid. p. 663.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 664.
[2 ]Ibid. p. 664. The subject was considered by the Institut de Droit International at the meeting at Ghent in 1906 and by the International Law Association in the same year. The Institut adopted by 17 votes to 3 the following rules:
[3 ]The official Report of the Conference does not contain reports of the meetings of the Examining Committee, but gives the various proposals brought before it. (La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 668-680. The Report of M. Streit summarises the discussions (pp. 397-428).)
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 364-374.
[2 ]Ibid. p. 375. The report is given pp. 397-428; see also The Times, 2, 3, 18, 19, 20 Sept. 1907.
[4 ]The definition of territorial waters and bays was taken, with the substitution of ilots for bancs, from Art. 2 of the North Sea Fishery Convention of 6 May, 1882. See La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 409.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 375 et seq., 429 et seq. and 445 et seq.
[2 ]Ibid. p. 377.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 378-382.
[2 ]Ibid. p. 382.
[1 ]Baron Marschall repeated the greater part of this speech at the 8th Plenary Meeting of the Conference (9 Oct. 1908). See post, page 342.
[2 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 382.
[3 ]Ibid. p. 384.
[4 ]Ibid. pp. 384-7.
[5 ]The following voted for: Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cuba, Dominica, Equador, Germany, Great Britain, Hayti, Panama, Portugal, Roumania, Spain and the United States. Against: Argentine, Chili, Colombia, Greece, Holland, Italy, Japan, Norway and Salvador. Abstained from voting: Bolivia, Denmark, France, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Persia, Russia, Servia, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Venezuela. Absent: China, Guatemala, Luxemburg, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. Op. cit. T. iii. p. 388.
[6 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 389-390.
[7 ]Ibid. p. 390.
[8 ]Ibid. p. 391.
[9 ]Ibid. pp. 393-4.
[10 ]Ibid. p. 395.
[11 ]Ibid. pp. 436-7.
[12 ]Ibid. p. 439.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 441-4.
[2 ]Ibid. p. 444.
[3 ]Ibid. pp. 445-454.
[4 ]Generally speaking, automobile torpedoes can be adjusted so as to become harmless after they have missed their aim. Anchored floating mines which may drift while still attached to their moorings remain dangerous for an indefinite period; those in use in the British Navy become harmless as soon as they have broken from their moorings. Unanchored mines have ceased to be used by the British Navy; they can be rendered harmless in a short time after they are laid by methods fully explained to the Committee by Captain Ottley and Captain Castiglia (of the Italian Navy) (La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 404).
[5 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 447.
[6 ]Ibid. p. 451.
[7 ]Ibid. p. 447.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 448.
[2 ]Ibid. p. 450.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. p. 452.
[2 ]Ibid. p. 452.
[3 ]Ibid. p. 453.
[4 ]Ibid. T. i. p. 291; Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), p. 230.
[1 ]La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 661-2, supra, p. 331. See also Chapter v. of the Report of M. Streit, La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 405-7.
[2 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), p. 230; La Deux. Confér. T. i. p. 293.
[1 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), p. 54; La Deux. Confér. T. i. p. 281.
[1 ]See ante, p. 336.
[2 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), p. 55; La Deux. Confér. T. i. pp. 280-1.
[1 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 5 (1909).
[1 ]La guerre maritime, etc., Revue des deux Mondes, July, 1908, p. 683.
[2 ]Article 1. It is forbidden to place anchored and unanchored automatic contact mines in the high seas.
La Deux. Confér. T. iii. pp. 427-8.