Online Library of Liberty

A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets. A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Advanced Search

A. Pearce Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War [1909]

0466_tp
Title Page
0466_toc
Original Table of Contents or First Page

Edition used:

A. Pearce Higgins, 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). http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1053

Available in the following formats:
Facsimile PDF 39.3 MB This is a facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of the original book.
Kindle 1.06 MB This is an E-book formatted for Amazon Kindle devices.
EBook PDF 2.23 MB This text-based PDF or EBook was created from the HTML version of this book and is part of the Portable Library of Liberty.
HTML 2.33 MB This version has been converted from the original text. Every effort has been taken to translate the unique features of the printed book into the HTML medium.
Simplified HTML 2.33 MB This is a simplifed HTML format, intended for screen readers and other limited-function browsers.

About this Title:

This volume contains the text (often in both French and English) of the major conventions concerning peace and the laws of warfare from the Declaration of Paris (1856), the Geneva Convention of 1864, of the two Peace Conferences in the Hague of 1899 and 1907. The topics covered are the commencement of hostilities, the laws of war on land, the status of merchant shipping, the rights of neutrals, the use of sea mines, projectiles from balloons, and poisonous gas.

Copyright information:

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.

Table of Contents:

Edition: current; Page: [i]
THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCES
and other international conferences concerning the laws and usages of war
texts of conventions with commentaries
Edition: current; Page: [ii]

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

London: FETTER LANE, E.C.

C. F. CLAY, Manager

Edinburgh: 100, PRINCES STREET

London: STEVENS AND SONS, Ltd., 119 and 120, CHANCERY LANE

Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.

Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS

New York: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS

Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.

[All rights reserved]

Edition: current; Page: [iii]
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. of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister-at-Law; Lecturer at Clare College, Cambridge; Lecturer on International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science; Formerly Deputy Whewell Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge
Cambridge
at the University Press
1909
Edition: current; Page: [iv]

Cambridge:

printed by john clay, m.a.

at the university press.

Edition: current; Page: [v]

PREFACE

IN 1904 I published translations of the Declarations of Paris and St Petersburg, the Convention of Geneva, 1864, the draft Brussels Declaration, 1874, and the Conventions signed at the First Peace Conference, together with a short introduction and a few notes. I did so chiefly for the sake of students attending my lectures in Cambridge, as, at that time, there was not to my knowledge any one book in which the English texts of these important international documents could be found. The present work contains in addition to the French texts of the foregoing (except the Brussels Declaration) the French and English versions of the Geneva Convention of 1906, the Final Act and Conventions of the Second Peace Conference, 1907, and the London Naval Conference of 1909. I have also included in my commentary on Convention No. 10 of the Hague Conference, 1907 (10 H. C. 1907), a translation of the Convention signed at the Hague on the 21st Dec. 1904, exempting hospital ships from state port dues and taxes in the ports of the signatory Powers. Great Britain is not a party to this Convention. The Conventions of the First Conference as amended by the Second are printed in parallel columns, the changes being shown in italics, and cross-references occur throughout. The French texts have been taken from the official sources, and in the case of the Hague Conventions of 1907 they have throughout been carefully compared with the texts contained in La Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix published by the Dutch Government. As regards the translations, I have made the British official translations the basis of my work1: I have however in nearly all cases compared them with those contained either in Mr E. A. Whittuck’s International Documents, Professor James Brown Scott’s Texts of the Peace Conferences at the Hague, 1899 and 1907 (which contains the official United States translations), Professor T. E. Holland’s Laws of war on land, Dr Westlake’s International Law, War, or General G. B. Davis’s Elements of International Law. In the case of the Declaration of London, I have adhered to the official translation with a few exceptions. To each of the Conventions I have appended a commentary Edition: current; Page: [vi] in which I have given an account of its origin, and its relation to the general rules of law on the subject with which it deals. In the case of the Hague Conventions, which form the greater portion of this volume, I have endeavoured from the official records, and more particularly from the Reports presented to the Conferences by the various Committees, to ascertain the meaning which their framers intended them to have. In the case of the Conventions of 1899 I have generally limited myself to the changes made by the Conference of 1907, as those Conventions have already been fully dealt with by various writers. In the case of the Geneva Convention of 1906 I have confined myself to calling attention to the chief changes made in that of 1864, referring students for a fuller explanation of the Convention to the work of Professor Holland cited above. In the case of the Declaration of London the commentary is supplied by the official translation of the General Report presented to the Naval Conference prepared by M. Renault on behalf of the drafting Committee, to which I have added a few footnotes. I have in each case appended a list of books and articles dealing with the subject under discussion: the lists are in no case exhaustive, but are intended to assist students, for whom this work is primarily intended, in following up their examination of the questions dealt with.

The two final volumes of the official account of the Second Peace Conference, La Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix (cited throughout this work as La Deux. Confér.), were not published until a large part of this book was in the press; I therefore relied chiefly in the early portions on the excellent Reports to the Conference contained in the first volume, and in Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous, No. 4 (1908) [Cd. 4081]. I also derived considerable assistance from the valuable work of M. Ernest Lémonon, La seconde Conférence de la Paix, and the reports of the proceedings of the Conference in The Times. Professor J. B. Scott’s lectures on The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 were published too late to be of any use to me except in regard to the last two Conventions. Sir Thomas Barclay’s Problems of International Practice and Diplomacy (cited as Problems, etc.) has afforded me assistance on nearly all the subjects dealt with. I have endeavoured to acknowledge the sources of my information in all cases.

In the Chapter on the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (pp. 39-59) I have traced the working of the Conventions of 1899 and given an account of the cases which have come before the Permanent Arbitration Edition: current; Page: [vii] Court; in the commentary on the Final Acts of the Conferences I have discussed the Vœux adopted and in the Chapter on the Results of the Second Peace Conference (pp. 518-526) I have summarised the work of the Second Peace Conference.

I have appended a list of the signatory States at the conclusion of the commentary on each Convention as well as Tables of signatory States of the Conventions of both Conferences. It is important to remember that none of the Conventions of the Second Peace Conference have up to the present been ratified, the United States of America and San Salvador being the only Powers which have notified the Netherland Government that they are ready to ratify the Conventions: the Declaration of London also has not at present been ratified by any of the signatory Powers.

The delay in publication has been due largely to personal causes, but also to the desire to include the results of the London Naval Conference, which complete in many important points work which the Hague Conference of 1907 found itself unable to bring to a conclusion.

I have to thank His Majesty’s Controller of the Stationery Department and the British Foreign Office for allowing me to make use of their translations, and to make quotations from the various Government publications referred to in the notes, particularly for permission to reproduce the Instructions to the British Delegates at the Second Peace Conference and the translations of the Declaration of London and M. Renault’s Report, and for affording me other assistance. I have also to thank the Foreign Offices of the Netherlands and Switzerland, and the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague for courteously furnishing me with information and official lists of signatory Powers, and in the case of the last-named for copies of the Minutes of the cases heard before the Permanent Court. To my friend Mr A. H. Charteris, M.A., LL.B., Lecturer in International Law in the University of Glasgow, I am under special obligation, as not only has he kindly read the whole of the proof sheets, but he has also made many valuable suggestions both as regards the translations and commentary. I have to thank the staff, readers and printers of the University Press for their careful and courteous co-operation.

A. PEARCE HIGGINS.
Cambridge,
Edition: current; Page: [viii]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  • Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . page v
  • Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . viii
  • List of Cases cited . . . . . . . . . . . x
  • Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
  • Declaration of Paris . . . . . . . . . . 1
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  • Declaration of St Petersburg . . . . . . . . . 5
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
  • Geneva Convention 1864 . . . . . . . . . 8
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
  • Draft of Additional Articles (Geneva) 1868 . . . . . . 14
  • Geneva Convention 1906 . . . . . . . . . 18
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
  • The Peace Conference of 1899 . . . . . . . . 39
  • The Second Peace Conference of 1907 . . . . . . . 51
  • Final Acts of the International Peace Conferences . . . . 60
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
  • I. Conventions for the pacific settlement of international disputes 1899 and 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
  • II. Convention respecting the limitation of the employment of force for the recovery of contract debts . . . . . . . 180
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
  • III. Convention relative to the commencement of hostilities . . . 198
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
  • IV. Conventions concerning the laws and customs of war on land (1899 and 1907) . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
  • The Brussels Draft Declaration 1874 . . . . . . . 273
  • V. Convention respecting the rights and duties of neutral Powers and persons in war on land . . . . . . . . . 281
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
  • VI. Convention relative to the status of enemy merchant-ships at the outbreak of hostilities . . . . . . . . . 295
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Edition: current; Page: [ix]
  • VII. Convention relative to the conversion of merchant-ships into war-ships . 308
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
  • VIII. Convention relative to the laying of automatic submarine contact mines 322
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
  • IX. Convention respecting bombardment by naval forces in time of war . 346
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
  • X. Conventions for the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime war (1899 and 1907) . . . . . 358
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
  • Convention relating to hospital ships of 21 December, 1904 . . 392
  • XI. Convention relative to certain restrictions on the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war . . . . . . . . 395
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
  • XII. Convention relative to the establishment of an International Prize Court 407
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
  • XIII. Convention respecting the rights and duties of neutral Powers in maritime war . . . . . . . . . . . 445
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
  • XIV. Declarations (1899 and 1907) prohibiting discharge of projectiles, etc. from balloons . . . . . . . . . . . 484
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 488
  • Declaration II (1899) prohibiting the use of asphyxiating gases . . 491
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
  • Declaration III (1899) prohibiting the use of bullets with a hard envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
  • Draft Convention relative to the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court 498
  • Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
  • The Results of the Second Peace Conference . . . . . 518
  • List of signatory Powers of the Conventions of the First Peace Conference . . . . . . . . . . . 527
  • List of signatory Powers of the Conventions of the Second Peace Conference . . . . . . . . . . . 530
  • Final Protocol of the London Naval Conference . . . . . 538
  • Declaration of London . . . . . . . . . . 540
  • General Report presented to the Naval Conference on behalf of the Drafting Committee . . . . . . . . . . 567
  • Appendix. Instructions of British Delegates to the Second Peace Conference . . . . . . . . . . . 614
  • Addenda and Errata . . . . . . . . . . 626
  • Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
Edition: current; Page: [x]

LIST OF CASES CITED

page
Actaeon. 90
Alabama 387
Amy Warwick 431
Anna 461
Anne 461
Aryol 385
Askold 474
Aurora 474
Boedes Lust 300
Buena Ventura 301
Czarewitch 474
Diana 474
Dogger Bank Inquiry 167
Eliza Ann 461
Felicity 90
Florida 437, 461, 463
General Armstrong 462
Gran Para 317
Grosovoi 474
Hip-sang 91
Ikhoma 91
Japanese Leases Arbitration 48
Johanna Emilie 300
Knight-Commander 91
Korietz 390
Lena 471
Leucade 90
Lola 403
Malacca 315
Manjur 471
Muscat Dhows Arbitration 48
Nashville 473
Novara 405
Oldhamia 91
Oleg 474
Orel 385
Panama 401
Paquette Habana 403, 404
Peterburg 315
Pious Fund of the Californias Arbitration 44
Ryeshitelni 463
St Kilda 91
Santissima Trinidad 317
Sir William Wallace 437
Smolensk 315
Terek 474
Thea 91
Tuscarora 473
Variag 390
Venezuelan Arbitration 46
Young Jacob and Joanna 403
Zamtchug 474
Edition: current; Page: [xi]

INTRODUCTION

DURING the past fifty years attempts have been made by means of international Conferences to arrive at a definite understanding with reference to various rules of international law, and more particularly those relating to war, for notwithstanding nearly twenty centuries of Christian teaching, war still remains the final arbiter of nations. Arbitration treaties have, however, been increasing rapidly, and the peoples of the world are looking with growing favour on a pacific settlement of international disputes. The various Peace Societies, the Federations of Parliamentary Delegates, the Unions of workers of all classes and the great International Bureaux for posts, telegraphs, money, etc. are all assisting to bring about a greater freedom of inter-communication of ideas, and a larger conception of the oneness of humanity. Such organisations may, in the course of time, succeed in breaking down rooted national prejudices, and removing ambitious aspirations; meantime, however, these two forces are potent, and the era of perpetual peace is still far distant. The development of international law has been in the past and is still following in a striking manner the order of evolution of national laws, and progress is undoubtedly marked by the endeavours, increasingly successful, to regularise the methods to be adopted when peaceful methods of solving international disputes have failed, and the lists are set and “princes and states that acknowledge no superior on earth put themselves on the justice of God for the deciding of their controversies by such success as it shall please Him to give to either side.” Bacon’s idea of war bears a strong resemblance to that which underlay the judicial combat in England: “it was no appeal to brute force; it was an appeal to the God of battles1.” Litigants in civil cases have, however, moved a long way from the position in which states still find themselves; self-help, even regulated self-help, has nearly, if not quite, ceased to exist in civilised communities Edition: current; Page: [xii] which live under the rule of law; but in the domain of international differences, forcible self-redress and the peaceful settlement of disputed questions still exist side by side. The attempt at the Second Peace Conference to formulate a Convention for the compulsory submission to arbitration of even the simplest questions failed of achievement. The Society of Nations, as such, was not yet ready for the interposition of the International Praetor with his “Mittite ambo hominem,” though it readily acknowledged the value of the principle.

The results of the various Conferences which are set forth in the following pages all tend in one direction. They are attempts, for the most part only partially successful and characterised by all the defects inherent to compromises wherein the political aspirations of the various states of the world have been sought to be adjusted, to bring into existence a code of rules which shall be universally recognised as binding on belligerents and neutrals, failing a peaceful settlement of their quarrels. Self-help is recognised, but it is gradually being regulated, and alongside this regulated self-help there has been provided a method for peaceful settlement by the creation of the Hague Tribunal. These international Acts also register the desire that should war break out, peaceful intercourse between belligerents and neutrals shall be disturbed as little as possible, and the sufferings of those involved minimised.

Many of these Conventions represent the first attempt at an international agreement on the subjects with which they deal, in other cases they are the results of more mature deliberation, and their practical value has been tested by time and the trying ordeal of war.

The question is often put as to the value of Conventions regulating the conduct of war—Will they stand the test of a life and death struggle of nations? Will not the written laws of war be set aside and the necessities of war excuse acts which the laws of war condemn? It is recognised in several of the following Conventions that the rules they enunciate are to be observed “so far as military necessities permit”; the rules themselves represent the standard of conduct at which commanders are to aim, but, as practical men, the delegates have recognised that there must be some cases when the observance in the strict letter of the provisions will be impossible1. It is with the view of diminishing the evils of war “so far as military necessities permit” that the signatory Powers have adopted the Regulations on the laws and customs of war on land. No legislation can specify beforehand the precise circumstances which would justify a commander Edition: current; Page: [xiii] in failing to act on the rules laid down, but no circumstances can justify the violation of the fundamental principle of these rules, which prohibit the infliction of needless suffering to individuals and mere wanton destruction of property1. The laws of war set forth in the following pages are binding on the parties to the Conventions; they were made to be observed and good faith is predicated of all international agreements. The practice of states in recent wars bears striking witness to the power of law under severe trial. There were some complaints of breaches of the laws of war, and in the Russo-Japanese war neutrals had occasion to enter strong protests against some of the Russian practices; but the latter had reference to the unwritten laws of naval warfare. The breaches of universally accepted rules of war which have been definitely and conclusively proved to have been committed during recent years have been few. International law works, notwithstanding the absence of the Austinian sanction. The rule of right operates apart from the terrors of punishment, and the more highly civilised states become, the more complete their acceptance of the “perfect law of liberty,” the more will they act the law they live by without fear. The moral force of the solemn promise of a nation should be enough to secure the observance of its international obligations, but besides this, there is another factor no state can afford to neglect which has become of increasing importance during the past half century, namely the public opinion of the world. International law is based on the practice of civilised states in their dealings with each other, and such practice is the embodiment in action of the moral consciousness of communities. Public opinion is one of the great formative influences of the law of nations, and an educated public opinion in each state is at the same time one of the safeguards for the due observance of international law and the best guarantee for an equitable solution of the difficulties which international Conventions have failed to solve. International law-breakers are in the long run arraigned at the bar of humanity, and history records their sentences. It is said that when Germany was asked by Thiers after the fall of the Second Empire “A qui donc faites-vous la guerre?” von Ranke, calling to mind the horrors of the ravages of the Palatinate, replied “A Louis XIV!”2 Might is not necessarily Right in international or national law; the generation that witnesses a gross violation of the law of nations will not often see the punishment which follows, “Raro antecedentem scelestum Deseruit pede Pœna claudo.”

Edition: current; Page: [xiv]

Law, be it national or international, must always wait on and fall short of the highest standards of morality current among those governed by it. The record of the growth of the conventional law of nations as evidenced by the international treaties contained in the following pages is far from satisfying the aspirations of the idealist, but it shows a steady, if slow progress towards a more clearly defined system of the rules regulating the intercourse of nations whether as belligerents or neutrals; it also shows the beginnings of an international judicature for the peaceful settlement of disputes, and affords reasonable ground for the hope that the Court established at the Hague in 1899 may ere long become permanent both in fact and in name. States have at last begun to take in hand the work of clearing up difficulties, settling disputed points and preparing the way for a systematic statement of the rules of international law.

The political antagonisms and unconcealed jealousies of states are factors of supreme importance in considering the future of international law, but the record of the past shows an increasing sense of the solidarity of the human race and the gradual elevation of the ideal of international justice. A study of what has been achieved may be of assistance in stimulating those moral aims which shall in the future make war increasingly difficult, and reduce to a minimum the sufferings of those involved.

Edition: current; Page: [1]

DECLARATION OF PARIS, 18561

Déclaration de Paris, 1856.

Les Plénipotentiaires qui ont signé le Traité de Paris du trente Mars, mil huit cent cinquante-six, réunis en Conférence,—

Considérant:

Que le droit maritime, en temps de guerre, a été pendant longtemps l’objet de contestations regrettables:

Que l’incertitude du droit et des devoirs en pareille matière, donne lieu, entre les neutres et les belligérants, à des divergences d’opinion qui peuvent faire naître des difficultés sérieuses et même des conflits:

Qu’il y a avantage, par conséquent, à établir une doctrine uniforme sur un point aussi important:

Que les Plénipotentiaires assemblés au Congrès de Paris ne sauraient mieux répondre aux intentions dont leurs Gouvernements sont animés, qu’en cherchant à introduire dans les rapports internationaux des principes fixes à cet égard:

Dûment autorisés, les susdits Plénipotentiaires sont convenus de se concerter sur les moyens d’atteindre ce but; et étant tombés d’accord ont arrêté la Déclaration solennelle ciaprès:—

1. La course est et demeure abolie:

2. Le pavillon neutre couvre la marchandise ennemie, à l’exception de la contrebande de guerre:

3. La marchandise neutre, à l’exception de la contrebande de guerre, n’est pas saisissable sous pavillon ennemi:

4. Les blocus, pour être obligatoires, doivent être effectifs, c’est-à-dire, maintenus par une force suffisante pour interdire réellement l’accès du littoral de l’ennemi.

Les Gouvernements des Plénipotentiaires soussignés s’engagent à porter cette Déclaration à la connaissance des États qui n’ont pas été appelés à participer au Congrès de Paris, et à les inviter à y accéder.

Convaincus que les maximes qu’ils viennent de proclamer ne sauraient être accueillies qu’avec gratitude par le monde entier, les Plénipotentiaires soussignés ne doutent pas que les efforts de leurs Gouvernements pour en généraliser l’adoption ne soient couronnés d’un plein succés.

La présente Déclaration n’est et ne sera obligatoire qu’entre les Puissances, qui y ont, ou qui y auront accédé.

Fait à Paris, le seize Avril, mil huit cent cinquante-six.

The Declaration of Paris, 1856.

The Plenipotentiaries who signed the Treaty of Paris of the 30th March, 1856, assembled in conference,—

Considering:

That maritime law, in time of war, has long been the subject of deplorable disputes:

That the uncertainty of the law and of the duties [of states] in such a matter gives rise to differences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents which may occasion serious difficulties and even conflicts:

That it is consequently advantageous to establish a uniform doctrine on so important a point:

That the Plenipotentiaries assembled in Congress at Paris cannot better respond to the intentions by which their Governments are animated than by seeking to introduce into international Edition: current; Page: [2] relations fixed principles in this respect:

The above-mentioned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorised, resolved to concert among themselves as to the means of attaining this object; and, having come to an agreement, have adopted the following solemn Declaration:—

1. Privateering is and remains abolished:

2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war:

3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy’s flag:

4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy’s coastline.

The Governments of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries engage to bring the present Declaration to the knowledge of the States which have not been called upon to take part in the Congress of Paris, and invite them to accede to it.

Convinced that the maxims which they now proclaim cannot but be received with gratitude by the whole world, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries doubt not that the efforts of their Governments to obtain the general adoption thereof will be crowned with full success.

The present Declaration is not and shall not be binding except between those powers who have acceded or shall accede to it.

Done at Paris, April 16th, 1856.

Edition: current; Page: [3]

The signatory Powers to the Treaty of Paris were Great Britain, Austria, France, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey.

At the same time the following Protocol recorded that “on the proposition of Count Walewski [the senior French Plenipotentiary], and recognising that it is for the general interest to maintain the indivisibility of the four principles mentioned in the Declaration signed this day, the Plenipotentiaries agree that the Powers which shall have signed it or which shall have acceded to it, cannot hereafter enter into any arrangement in regard to the application of the right of neutrals in time of war which does not at the same time rest on the four principles which are the object of the said Declaration. Upon an observation made by the Plenipotentiaries of Russia, the Congress recognises that as the present resolution cannot have a retroactive effect it cannot invalidate antecedent Conventions1.”

The outbreak of the Crimean War in 1854 found the two Allied Powers, Great Britain and France, with different principles as to the maritime law of capture. Great Britain adhered to the rule of the Consolato del Mare which rendered enemy property, ship or cargo capturable, neutral property, ship or cargo being free. France, except where otherwise bound by treaty, was free to act on the maxim “robe d’ennemi confisque robe d’ami,” by which neutral goods on board enemy ships and neutral ships carrying enemy goods were liable to capture2. The Allied Powers notified that throughout the war they would not capture enemy goods on neutral ships, or neutral goods on enemy ships: they further intimated that they would not issue Letters of Marque. These practices, which at first were only intended to apply to the war then in progress, were embodied in this famous Declaration.

The only maritime Powers which, up to the assembling of the Hague Conference of 1907, had withheld their formal acceptance of this Declaration were the United States, Spain, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia and Uruguay. The United States during the Civil War of 1861, and Spain and the United States during the war of 1898, adhered to its principles. The refusal of the United States to formally adhere was due to the rejection of the “Marcy Amendment” exempting private property from capture at sea3. At the Seventh Plenary Meeting of the Hague Conference on the 27th Sept. 1907, the delegates of Spain and Mexico, in voting on the Convention (No. 7) relative to the conversion of merchant ships into war ships4, declared that Edition: current; Page: [4] their governments adhered to the Declaration of Paris in its entirety1. The first paragraph of the Declaration will be dealt with in relation to this Convention. The absence of a definition of contraband of war and the divergence in the practice of maritime states in regard to blockade have caused the Declaration to have had only a modified application2, while the adoption of the contention that the sinking of neutral prizes is lawful if the captor cannot spare men for a prize crew would result in a practical abrogation of the freedom accorded to neutrals by the third paragraph.

The Fourth Committee of the Hague Conference of 1907 considered the questions of contraband and blockade. On the former subject, five different proposals were brought before the Committee, the most noteworthy being the British for the complete abolition of contraband of war. This proposal received 26 votes, 5 states voted against, and 4 abstained from voting. The question was then submitted to a special Sub-Committee: but as there appeared to be no prospect of a unanimous vote, the Fourth Committee reported to the 7th Plenary Meeting of the Conference that the whole question should be submitted to a fresh examination by the states interested3.

The discussion on the subject of blockade shewed so great a divergence between the extreme Continental view as embodied in a proposal of the Italian delegate, and the Anglo-American view as embodied in a proposal of the British and United States delegates, that on the proposition of Sir Edward Fry the further consideration of the matter was suspended4.

The subject of the destruction of neutral prizes was discussed at the Hague Conference in 1907, and is dealt with subsequently5.

A Conference of certain Powers interested in questions affecting maritime warfare on the invitation of the British Government met in London in December, 1908, for a further discussion of questions left unsolved by the Hague Conference6.

Edition: current; Page: [5]

DECLARATION OF ST PETERSBURG, 18681

Sur la proposition du Cabinet Impérial de Russie, une Commission Militaire Internationale ayant été réunie à Saint-Pétersbourg, afin d’examiner la convenance d’interdire l’usage de certains projectiles en temps de guerre entre les nations civilisées, et cette Commission ayant fixé d’un commun accord les limites techniques où les nécessités de la guerre doivent s’arrêter devant les exigences de l’humanité, les Soussignés sont autorisés par les ordres de leurs Gouvernements à déclarer ce qui suit:

Considérant que les progrès de la civilisation doivent avoir pour effet d’atténuer autant que possible les calamités de la guerre;

Que le seul but légitime que les Etats doivent se proposer durant la guerre est l’affaiblissement des forces militaires de l’ennemi;

Qu’à cet effet, il suffit de mettre hors de combat le plus grand nombre d’hommes possible;

Que ce but serait dépassé par l’emploi d’armes qui aggraveraient inutilement les souffrances des hommes mis hors de combat, ou rendraient leur mort inévitable;

Que l’emploi de pareilles armes serait dès lors contraire aux lois de l’humanité;

Les Parties Contractantes s’engagent à renoncer mutuellement, en cas de guerre entre elles, à l’emploi par leurs troupes de terre ou de mer, de tout projectile d’un poids inférieur à 400 grammes qui serait ou explosible ou chargé de matières fulminantes ou inflammables.

Elles inviteront tous les Etats, qui n’ont pas participé par l’envoi de Délégués aux délibérations de la Commission Militaire Internationale réunie à Saint-Pétersbourg, à accéder au présent engagement.

Cet engagement n’est obligatoire que pour les Parties Contractantes ou Accédantes en cas de guerre entre deux ou plusieurs d’entre elles: il n’est pas applicable vis-à-vis de Parties non-Contractantes ou qui n’auraient pas accédé.

Il cesserait également d’être obligatoire du moment où, dans une guerre entre Parties Contractantes ou Accédantes, une partie non-Contractante, ou qui n’aurait pas accédé, se joindrait à l’un des belligérants.

Les Parties Contractantes ou Accédantes se réservent de s’entendre ultérieurement toutes les fois qu’une proposition précise serait formulée en vue des perfectionnements à venir que la science pourrait apporter dans l’armement des troupes, afin de maintenir les principes qu’elles ont posés et de concilier les nécessités de la guerre avec les lois de l’humanité.

vingt-neuf Novembre onze DécembreFait à Saint - Pétersbourg, le, mil huit cent soixante-huit.

On the proposition of the Imperial Cabinet of Russia, an International Military Commission having assembled at St Petersburg in order to examine into the expediency of forbidding the use of certain projectiles in time of war between civilized nations, and that Commission, having by common agreement fixed the technical limits at which the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity, the Undersigned are authorized by the orders of their Governments to declare as follows:

Considering that the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war;

That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;

That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;

That this object would be exceeded Edition: current; Page: [6] by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;

That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;

The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes1, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.

They will invite all the States which have not taken part in the deliberations of the International Military Commission assembled at St Petersburg, by sending Delegates thereto, to accede to the present engagement.

This engagement is obligatory only upon the Contracting or Acceding Parties thereto, in case of war between two or more of themselves; it is not applicable with regard to non-Contracting Parties or Parties who shall not have acceded to it.

It will also cease to be obligatory from the moment when, in a war between Contracting or Acceding Parties, a non-Contracting Party or a non-Acceding Party shall join one of the belligerents.

The Contracting or Acceding Parties reserve to themselves to come hereafter to an understanding whenever a precise proposition shall be drawn up in view of future improvements which science may effect in the armament of troops, in order to maintain the principles which they have established, and Edition: current; Page: [7] to conciliate the necessities of war with the laws of humanity.

29 Nov. 11 Dec.Done at St Petersburg, the 1868.

The Conference at St Petersburg which was summoned by the Emperor Alexander II. was composed of military delegates from the following Powers who signed the Convention:—Great Britain, Austria and Hungary, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Prussia and the North German Confederation, Russia, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and Würtemberg. Baden and Brazil subsequently acceded to the Declaration.

The reasons for the summoning of the Conference at St Petersburg are set forth in a Memorandum which the military delegates took into consideration. From this it appears that in 1863 a bullet had been introduced with a cap which exploded on contact with a hard substance. The object of the bullet was to blow up military and ammunition wagons when the bullet was fired from a short distance. In 1867 a modification was introduced which enabled the bullet to explode on contact with a soft substance. General Milutine the Russian War Minister induced his government to summon a conference of military delegates to see if an agreement could be arrived at in reference to the use of such explosive bullets. The Prussian delegate was prepared to discuss the wider question of weapons, but the other delegates were opposed to this, and ultimately the Declaration was agreed to as set forth above1.

The Declaration of St Petersburg is the first formal agreement restricting the use of weapons of war, both in land and maritime warfare. The statement of the reasons for this restriction is marked by a high feeling of humanity. War is necessarily productive of great pain to the combatants, and the civilised world has agreed that it is inhuman to “uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men.” This Declaration is by reference incorporated into the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land annexed to the Conventions on this subject adopted by both the Hague Conferences (Art. 23), and similar humane principles prompted the Three Declarations of the Conference of 1899. Although general principles are enunciated in the preamble to the Declaration the application made at the time was a limited one, and appears to be practically obsolete; but the fact of the adoption of these principles is of great importance; a standard has been set, which it is to be hoped no civilised state will in the future fail to reach.

Edition: current; Page: [8]

GENEVA CONVENTION, 18641

Convention pour l’amélioration du sort des militaires blessés dans les armées en campagne.

La Confédération suisse, S.A.R. le Grand-Duc de Bade, S.M. le Roi des Belges, S.M. le Roi de Danemark, S.M. la Reine d’Espagne, S.M. l’Empereur des Français, S.A.R. le Grand-Duc de Hesse, S.M. le Roi d’Italie, S.M. le Roi des Pays-Bas, S.M. le Roi de Portugal et des Algarves, S.M. le Roi de Prusse, S.M. le Roi de Wurtemberg—également animés du désir d’adoucir, autant qu’il dépend d’eux, les maux inséparables de la guerre, de supprimer les rigueurs inutiles, et d’améliorer le sort des militaires blessés sur les champs de bataille, ont résolu de conclure une Convention à cet effet et ont nommé pour leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

(Suivent les noms des Plénipotentiaires.)

Lesquels, après avoir échangé leurs pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des articles suivants:

1. Les ambulances et les hôpitaux militaires seront reconnus neutres, et, comme tels, protégés et respectés par les belligérants, aussi longtemps qu’il s’y trouvera des malades ou des blessés.

La neutralité cesserait si ces ambulances ou ces hôpitaux étaient gardés par une force militaire.

2. Le personnel des hôpitaux et des ambulances, comprenant l’intendance, les services de santé, d’administration, de transport des blessés, ainsi que les aumôniers, participera au bénéfice de la neutralité lorsqu’il fonctionnera, et tant qu’il restera des blessés à relever ou à secourir.

3. Les personnes désignées dans l’article précédent pourront, même après l’occupation par l’ennemi, continuer à remplir leurs fonctions dans l’hôpital ou l’ambulance qu’elles desservent, ou se retirer pour rejoindre le corps auquel elles appartiennent.

Dans ces circonstances, lorsque ces personnes cesseront leurs fonctions, elles seront remises aux avant-postes ennemis par les soins de l’armée occupante.

4. Le matériel des hôpitaux militaires demeurant soumis aux lois de la guerre, les personnes attachées à ces hôpitaux ne pourront, en se retirant, emporter que les objets qui sont leur propriété particulière.

Dans les mêmes circonstances, au contraire, l’ambulance conservera son matériel.

5. Les habitants du pays qui porteront secours aux blessés seront respectés et demeureront libres. Les généraux des puissances belligérantes auront pour mission de prévenir les habitants de l’appel fait à leur humanité, et de la neutralité qui en sera la conséquence.

Tout blessé recueilli et soigné dans une maison y servira de sauvegarde. L’habitant qui aura recueilli chez lui des blessés sera dispensé du logement des troupes, ainsi que d’une partie des contributions de guerre qui seraient imposées.

6. Les militaires blessés ou malades seront recueillis et soignés, à quelque nation qu’ils appartiendront.

Les commandants en chef auront la faculté de remettre immédiatement aux avant-postes ennemis, les militaires blessés pendant le combat, lorsque les circonstances le permettront, et du consentement des deux partis.

Seront renvoyés dans leurs pays ceux qui, après guérison, seront reconnus incapables de servir.

Les autres pourront être également renvoyés, à la condition de ne pas reprendre les armes pendant la durée de la guerre.

Les évacuations, avec le personnel qui les dirige, seront couvertes par une neutralité absolue.

7. Un drapeau distinctif et uniforme sera adopté pour les hôpitaux, les ambulances, et les évacuations. Il devra être, en toute circonstance, accompagné du drapeau national.

Un brassard sera également admis pour le personnel neutralisé, mais la délivrance en sera laissée à l’autorité militaire.

Le drapeau et le brassard porteront croix rouge sur fond blanc.

8. Les détails d’exécution de la présente Convention seront réglés par les commandants-en-chef des armées belligérantes, d’après les instructions de leurs Gouvernements respectifs, et conformément aux principes généraux énoncés dans cette Convention.

9. Les Hautes Puissances Contractantes sont convenues de communiquer la présente Convention aux Gouvernements qui n’ont pu envoyer les Plénipotentiaires à la Conférence internationale de Genève, en les invitant à y accéder; le Protocole est à cet effet laissé ouvert.

10. La présente Convention sera ratifiée, et les ratifications en seront échangées à Berne, dans l’espace de quatre mois, ou plus tôt si faire se peut.

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires respectifs l’ont signée, et y ont apposé le cachet de leurs armes.

Fait à Genève, le vingt-deuxième jour du mois d’août, de l’an mil huit cent soixante-quatre.

(Suivent les signatures des Plénipotentiaires.)

Convention for the amelioration of the condition of soldiers wounded in armies in the field.

The Swiss Confederation, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Baden, His Majesty the King of the Belgians, His Majesty the King of Denmark, Her Majesty the Queen of Spain, His Majesty the Emperor of the French, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, His Majesty the King of Prussia, His Majesty the King of Wurtemberg, being equally animated by the desire to mitigate, as far as depends upon them, the evils inseparable from war, to suppress useless severities, and to ameliorate the condition of soldiers wounded on the field of battle, have resolved to conclude a Convention for that purpose, and have named as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

(Here follow the names of the Plenipotentiaries.)

Edition: current; Page: [9]

Who, after having exchanged their powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:

1. Ambulances and military hospitals shall be recognised as neutral, and, as such, shall be protected and respected by the belligerents, so long as any sick or wounded may be therein.

Such neutrality shall cease if these ambulances or hospitals shall be held by a military force.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Arts. 6-8.)

2. Persons employed in hospitals and ambulances, including the staff for superintendence, medical service, administration, transport of wounded, as well as chaplains, shall participate in the benefit of neutrality whilst so employed, and so long as there remain any wounded to bring in or to succour.

(Cp. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 1. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 7. G. C. 1906, Art. 9. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 10.)

3. The persons designated in the preceding article may, even after occupation by the enemy, continue to fulfil their duties in the hospital or ambulance which they serve, or may withdraw in order to rejoin the corps to which they belong.

Under such circumstances, when those persons shall cease from their functions, they shall be delivered, by the occupying army, to the outposts of the enemy.

(Cp. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 1. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 7. G. C. 1906, Art. 12. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 10.)

4. As the equipment of military hospitals remains subject to the laws of war, persons attached to such hospitals cannot, in withdrawing, carry Edition: current; Page: [10] away any articles but such as are their private property.

Under the same circumstances an ambulance shall, on the contrary, retain its equipment.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Arts. 12 and 14.)

5. Inhabitants of the country who may bring help to the wounded shall be respected, and shall remain free. The generals of the belligerent powers shall make it their care to inform the inhabitants of the appeal addressed to their humanity, and of the neutrality which will be the consequence of it.

Any wounded man entertained and taken care of in a house shall be considered as a protection thereto. Any inhabitant who shall have received wounded men into his house shall be exempted from the quartering of troops, as well as from a part of the contributions of war which may be imposed.

(Cp. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 4. G. C. 1906, Art. 5.)

6. Wounded or sick soldiers shall be brought in and taken care of, to whatever nation they may belong.

Commanders-in-chief shall have the power to deliver immediately to the outposts of the enemy soldiers who have been wounded in an engagement, when circumstances permit this to be done, and with the consent of both parties.

Those who are recognised, after their wounds are healed, as incapable of serving, shall be sent back to their country.

The others may also be sent back, on condition of not bearing arms again during the continuance of the war.

(Cp. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 5. G. C. 1906, Art. 2.)

Edition: current; Page: [11]

Evacuations [i.e. convoys of sick and wounded], together with the persons under whose directions they take place, shall be protected by an absolute neutrality.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 17.)

7. A distinctive and uniform flag shall be adopted for hospitals, ambulances, and evacuations. It must on every occasion be accompanied by the national flag.

An arm-badge (brassard) shall also be allowed for individuals neutralised, but the delivery thereof shall be left to military authority.

The flag and arm-badge shall bear a red cross on a white ground.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Arts. 18, 19, 20.)

8. The details of execution of the present Convention shall be regulated by the Commanders-in-chief of the belligerent armies, according to the instructions of their respective Governments, and in conformity with the general principles laid down in this Convention.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 25.)

9. The High Contracting Powers have agreed to communicate the present Convention to the Governments which have been unable to send Plenipotentiaries to the International Conference of Geneva, with an invitation to accede thereto; the Protocol is for that purpose left open.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 32 (2, 3).)

10. The present Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Berne, in four months, or sooner if possible.

In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and affixed the seal of their arms.

Edition: current; Page: [12]

Done at Geneva, the twenty-second day of August, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four.

(Here follow the signatures.)

A Conference of representatives of Switzerland, Baden, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Hesse, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Prussia, and Würtemberg met at Geneva in August, 1864. This Conference was to a large extent due to the philanthropic efforts of MM. Gustav Moynier and Henri Dunant, both citizens of Switzerland. Having been eye-witnesses of the sufferings of the wounded at Magenta and Solferino, and the disease incident to the campaign, and the want of the needful medical and surgical appliances, M. Dunant in 1862 published a book entitled Le Souvenir de Solferino, which gave a terribly graphic description of the misery and suffering of the sick and wounded in war1. A Swiss Society called La Société Genevoise d’Utilité Publique took up the ideas of M. Dunant with enthusiasm, and the Swiss Government was induced to summon a Conference to consider the subject of the treatment of the sick and wounded in war. The foregoing Convention was the result.

The following is a list of the states who have signed or adhered to this Convention (under the provisions of Article 9) with the dates of their signature or adherence:—The Argentine Republic (1879), Austria-Hungary (1866), Belgium (1864), Brazil (1906), Bolivia (1879), Bulgaria (1884), Chili (1879), China (1904), Colombia (1906), Congo (1888), Cuba (1907), Denmark (1864), Dominica (1907), Ecuador (1907), France (1864), Germany (1906), Great Britain (1865), Greece (1865), Guatemala (1903), Holland (1864), Honduras (1898), Hayti (1907), Italy (1864), Japan and Corea (1886 and 1903), Luxemburg (1888), Mexico (1905), Montenegro (1875), Nicaragua (1898), Norway (1864), Peru (1880), Persia (1874), Portugal (1866), Paraguay (1907), Panama (1907), Roumania (1874), Russia (1867), Salvador (1874), Servia (1876), Siam (1895), Spain (1864), Sweden (1864), Switzerland (1864), Turkey (1865), the United States of America (1882), Uruguay (1900), Venezuela (1894). In many cases the adherence of Powers was due to their ratification of the Convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land signed at the Hague Conference of 1899, which by Article 21 incorporated the Geneva Convention of 1864.

Edition: current; Page: [13]

This Convention was the first step towards the codification of rules of war applicable to land warfare. It represented the best existing practice on the subject, and the immunities which states were in the habit of according to those engaged in tending the sick and wounded. The lapse of nearly 35 years had rendered the terminology out of harmony with the existing arrangements of Army Medical Corps, and the use of the terms neutre and neutralité to describe the inviolability of persons and things covered by it was inexact. The Convention has no application to voluntary Aid Societies either of the belligerents or neutral Powers unless forming part of the belligerent armies. There was a growing desire for its revision1, and among the “Wishes” (Vœux) expressed by the Hague Conference of 1899 was one to the effect that the Swiss Federal Government would take steps to call a Conference for the revision of the Convention. This Conference, which was attended by representatives of 37 Powers, met at Geneva in June, 1906, and adopted the Convention set forth on pages 18-35 which as between the contracting Powers now takes the place of that of 1864. As several important states, parties to the Convention of 1864, have not up to the present ratified the Convention of 1906, the former Convention will still regulate their relations in case of war between such of the parties who signed it but who have not ratified the latter Convention (Art. 31 of Geneva Convention, 1906).

The Geneva Conference of 1868. In 1868 the Swiss Government, at the request of a Conference of Red Cross Societies held at Paris during the Exhibition of 1867, summoned another Conference of the Powers to consider the subject of the treatment of sick and wounded in war. The following 14 Powers were represented at a Conference which met at Geneva in October, 1868: Austria-Hungary, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the North German Confederation, Great Britain, Italy, Holland, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Würtemberg. They agreed to a Convention of 15 Articles, the first five being explanations and additions to the Convention of 1864. The subsequent Articles are an application to naval warfare of the same principles. Owing to various causes the Convention was never ratified, but with some modifications Edition: current; Page: [14] its provisions have been acted on by belligerents since 18681. The principles of Articles 6-15 were embodied in the Convention adopted by the Hague Convention (1899) for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 18642. The following is a translation of the Projet d’articles additionels à la Convention du 22 Août, 18643.

Art. 1. The personnel designated in Article 2 of the Convention shall continue after occupation by the enemy to give their services, according to the measure of the necessities, to the sick and the wounded of the ambulance or hospital which they serve.

When they shall make a request to withdraw, the commander of the occupying forces shall fix the moment of their departure, which he cannot under any circumstances defer, except for a short period in case of military necessities.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Arts. 2, 3. G. C. 1906, Art. 12.)

Art. 2. Provision ought to be made by the belligerent powers to assure to the persons neutralized, who have fallen into the hands of the enemy’s army, the complete enjoyment of their pay (la jouissance intégrale de son traitement).

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 13.)

Art. 3. In the conditions provided for by Articles 1 and 4 of the Convention, the term ambulance applies to field hospitals and other temporary establishments, which follow the troops on the field of battle to receive there the sick and wounded.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 6.)

Art. 4. In accordance with the spirit of Article 5 of the Convention, and under the reserves mentioned in the Protocol of 1864, it is explained that, as regards the division of the charges relative to the billeting of troops and the contributions of war, account will only be taken of the charitable spirit shown by the inhabitants in so far as equitable considerations may be applicable.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 5.)

Art. 5. In extension of Article 6 of the Convention, it is stipulated that with the reservation of officers, the detention of whom may be important to the success of the war, and within the limits fixed by the second paragraph of this Article, the wounded who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, although they may not have been recognized as incapable of service, ought to be sent back Edition: current; Page: [15] to their country after their wounds are healed, or sooner if it be possible, on condition always of not resuming arms during the continuance of the war.

(Cp. G. C. 1906, Art. 2.)

Articles concerning Naval Warfare (la marine).

Art. 6. Boats which, at their risk and peril, during and after the engagement, pick up, or which, having picked up the shipwrecked or the wounded, convey them on board a neutral or hospital ship, shall enjoy, until the completion of their mission, such a degree of neutrality as the circumstances of the engagement and the situation of the vessels in conflict will allow to be applied to them.

The appreciation of these circumstances is left to the humanity of all the combatants.

The shipwrecked and wounded so picked up and saved cannot serve during the continuance of the war.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 6. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 9.)

Art. 7. Every person employed in the religious, medical or hospital service of any captured vessel is declared inviolable (neutre). On leaving the vessel, he carries away the articles and instruments of surgery which are his own private property.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 7. 10 H. C. 1907, Arts. 9, 10.)

Art. 8. The persons designated in the preceding Article ought to continue to fulfil their functions on board the captured vessel, to assist in the evacuations of the wounded made by the victorious side, after which they should be free to return to their own country, in accordance with the second paragraph of the first additional Article above mentioned.

The stipulations of the second additional Article above mentioned are applicable to the pay of these persons.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 7. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 10.)

Art. 9. Military hospital ships remain subject to the laws of war, as regards their equipment; they become the property of the captor, but the latter cannot divert them from their special purpose during the continuance of the war.

Art. 10. Every merchant ship, to whatever nation it may belong, laden exclusively with wounded or sick, whose removal it is effecting, has the protection of neutrality; but the mere fact of a visit, notified in her log-book, by an enemy cruiser, renders the wounded and sick incapable of serving during the continuance of the war.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Arts. 6, 9.)

Edition: current; Page: [16]

The cruiser shall even have the right of putting on board a commissioner to accompany the convoy to verify in this manner the good faith of the operation.

If the merchant ship carries a cargo in addition, the neutral character shall still protect it, provided that the cargo be not of a nature to be confiscated by the belligerent.

Belligerents retain the right of prohibiting neutralised vessels from having any communication and taking any direction which they consider prejudicial to the secrecy of their operations. In urgent cases special conventions may be made between the commanders-in-chief to neutralise temporarily in a special manner ships intended for the transport of the wounded or sick.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 4.)

Art. 11. Wounded or sick sailors and soldiers on board ship, to whatever nation they may belong, shall be protected and taken care of by the captors. Their restoration to their country is made subject to the provisions of the sixth Article of the Convention and the fifth additional Article.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 8. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 11.)

Art. 12. The distinctive flag to be added to the national flag to denote a ship or boat of any kind which claims the benefit of neutrality in virtue of the principles of this Convention is the white flag with a red cross. Belligerents exercise in this respect all such verification as they judge necessary.

Military hospital ships shall be distinguished by white external painting, with a green broad band.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 5. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 5.)

Art. 13. Hospital ships, equipped at the expense of associations for the aid of the wounded recognized by the Governments which have signed this Convention, being provided with a commission issued by the sovereign, who shall have expressly authorized their fitting out, and with a document from a competent maritime authority, certifying that they have been submitted to its control during their fitting out and at their final departure, and that they were then appropriated exclusively to the object of their mission, shall be considered as neutral as well as all the persons employed in them.

They shall be respected and protected by the belligerents.

They shall make themselves known by hoisting with their national flag the white flag with a red cross. The distinctive mark of the persons employed on them during the exercise of their functions shall be an arm-badge of the same colours; their external painting shall be white with a red broad band.

These ships shall bring aid and assistance to the wounded and shipwrecked belligerents, without distinction of nationality.

They ought not in any way to embarrass the movements of the combatants.

During and after an engagement they shall act at their own risk and peril.

Edition: current; Page: [17]

The belligerents shall have over them the right of control and visit; they may refuse their assistance, may enjoin them to remove to a distance and may detain them, if the gravity of the circumstances require it.

The wounded and shipwrecked picked up by these vessels cannot be claimed by any of the combatants, but they are under an obligation not to serve again during the continuance of the war.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Arts. 3, 4. 10 H. C. 1907, Arts. 3, 4.)

Art. 14. In naval wars, any strong presumption, that one of the belligerents profits from the benefit of neutrality in any interest other than that of the wounded and sick, allows the other belligerent, until proof of the contrary, to suspend the Convention as regards him.

If this presumption becomes a certainty, the Convention may be denounced as regards him during the continuance of the war.

Art. 15. The present Act shall be drawn up in a single original Act, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Swiss Confederation.

An authentic copy of this Act shall be delivered, with an invitation to accede thereto, to each of the powers who have signed the Convention of 22 August, 1864, as likewise to those who have successively acceded to it.

In faith whereof the undersigned Commissioners have drawn up the proposed additional articles and affixed the seals of their arms.

Done at Geneva, the 20th day of October, 1868.

Edition: current; Page: [18]

GENEVA CONVENTION, 19061

Convention pour l’Amélioration du Sort des Blessés et Malades dans les Armées en Campagne.

Sa Majesté le Roi du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande, Empereur des Indes; Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse; Son Excellence le Président de la République Argentine; Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Autriche, Roi de Bohême, &c., et Roi Apostolique de Hongrie; Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges; Son Altesse Royale le Prince de Bulgarie; Son Excellence le Président de la République du Chili; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Chine; Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges, Souverain de l’État indépendant du Congo; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Corée2; Sa Majesté le Roi de Danemark; Sa Majesté le Roi d’Espagne; le Président des États-Unis d’Amérique; le Président des États-Unis du Brésil; le Président des États-Unis Mexicains; le Président de la République Française; Sa Majesté le Roi des Hellènes; le Président de la République de Guatémala; le Président de la République de Honduras; Sa Majesté le Roi d’Italie; Sa Majesté l’Empereur du Japon; Son Altesse Royale le Grand-Duc de Luxembourg, Duc de Nassau; Son Altesse Royale le Prince de Monténégro; Sa Majesté le Roi de Norvège; Sa Majesté la Reine des Pays-Bas; le Président de la République du Pérou; Sa Majesté Impériale le Schah de Perse; Sa Majesté le Roi de Portugal et des Algarves, &c.; Sa Majesté le Roi de Roumanie; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies; Sa Majesté le Roi de Serbie; Sa Majesté le Roi de Siam; Sa Majesté le Roi de Suède; le Conseil Fédéral Suisse; le Président de la République Orientale de l’Uruguay,

Également animés du désir de diminuer, autant qu’il dépend d’eux, les maux inséparables de la guerre, et voulant, dans ce but, perfectionner et compléter les dispositions convenues à Genève, le 22 août, 1864, pour l’amélioration du sort des militaires blésses ou malades dans les armées en campagne;

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

(Suivent les noms des Plénipotentiaires.)

Lesquels, après s’être communiqué leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus de ce qui suit:

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field.

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India; His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; His Excellency the President of the Argentine Republic; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, &c., and Apostolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria; His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile; His Majesty the Emperor of China; His Majesty the King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo; His Majesty the Emperor of Corea; His Majesty the King of Denmark; His Majesty the King of Spain; the President of the United States of America; the President of the United States of Brazil; the President of the United States of Mexico; the President Edition: current; Page: [19] of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; the President of the Republic of Guatemala; the President of the Republic of Honduras; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau; His Royal Highness the Prince of Montenegro; His Majesty the King of Norway; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the President of the Republic of Peru; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, &c.; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; His Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden; the Swiss Federal Council; the President of the Oriental Republic of the Uruguay,

Being equally animated by the desire of mitigating, as far as possible, the evils inseparable from war, and desiring, with this end in view, to improve and to complete the arrangements agreed upon at Geneva on the 22nd August, 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of wounded or sick soldiers in armies in the field;

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

(Here follow the names of the Plenipotentiaries.)

Who, after having communicated to each other their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [20]

Chapitre Premier.—: Des Blessés et Malades.

Article Premier.

Les militaires et les autres personnes officiellement attachées aux armées, qui seront blessés ou malades, devront êtrerespectés et soignés, sans distinction de nationalité, par le belligérant qui les aura en son pouvoir.

Toutefois, le belligérant, obligé d’abandonner des malades ou des blessés à son adversaire, laissera avec eux, autant que les circonstances militaires le permettront, une partie de son personnel et de son matériel sanitaires pour contribuer à les soigner.

Chapter I.—: The Wounded and Sick.

Article 1.

Soldiers, and other persons officially attached to armies, shall be respected and taken care of when wounded or sick, by the belligerent in whose power they may be, without distinction of nationality.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 6.)

Nevertheless, a belligerent who is compelled to abandon sick or wounded to the enemy shall, as far as military exigencies permit, leave with them a portion of his medical personnel and material to contribute to the care of them.

(New.)

Art. 2.

Sous réserve des soins à leur fournir en vertu de l’article précédent, les blessés ou malades d’une armée tombés au pouvoir de l’autre belligérant sont prisonniers de guerre et les règles générales du droit des gens concernant les prisonniers leur sont applicables.

Cependant, les belligérants restent libres de stipuler entre eux, à l’égard des prisonniers blessés ou malades, telles clauses d’exception ou de faveur qu’ils jugeront utiles; ils auront, notamment, la faculté de convenir:

De se remettre réciproquement, après un combat, les blessés laissés sur le champ de bataille;

De renvoyer dans leur pays, après les avoir mis en état d’être transportés ou après guérison, les blessés ou malades qu’ils ne voudront pas garder prisonniers;

De remettre à un État neutre, du consentement de celui-ci, des blessés ou malades de la partie adverse, à la charge par l’État neutre de les interner jusqu’à la fin des hostilités.

Art. 2.

Except as regards the treatment to be provided for them in virtue of the preceding Article, the wounded and sick of an army who fall into the hands of the enemy are prisoners of war, and the general provisions of international law concerning prisoners are applicable to them.

(New.)

Belligerents are, however, free to arrange with one another such exceptions and mitigations with reference to sick and wounded prisoners as they may judge expedient; in particular they will be at liberty to agree—

To restore to one another the wounded left on the field after a battle;

To repatriate any wounded and sick whom they do not wish to retain as Edition: current; Page: [21] prisoners, after rendering them fit for removal or after recovery;

To hand over to a neutral State, with the latter’s consent, the enemy’s wounded and sick to be interned by the neutral State until the end of hostilities.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 6. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 5.)

Art. 3.

Après chaque combat, l’occupant du champ de bataille prendra des mesures pour rechercher les blessés et pour les faire protéger, ainsi que les morts, contre le pillage et les mauvais traitements.

Il veillera à ce que l’inhumation ou l’incinération des morts soit précédée d’un examen attentif de leurs cadavres.

Art. 3.

After each engagement the Commander in possession of the field shall take measures to search for the wounded, and to insure protection against pillage and maltreatment both for the wounded and for the dead.

He shall arrange that a careful examination of the bodies is made before the dead are buried or cremated.

(New.)

(Cp. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 16.)

Art. 4.

Chaque belligérant enverra, dès qu’il sera possible, aux autorités de leur pays 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, etc., qui seront trouvés sur les champs de bataille ou délaissés par les blessés ou malades décédés dans les établissements et formations sanitaires, pour les faire transmettre aux intéressés par les autorités de leur pays.

Art. 4.

Each belligerent shall send as soon as possible to the authorities of the country or army to which they belong the military identification marks or tokens found on the dead, and a nominal roll of the wounded or sick who have been collected by him.

The belligerents shall keep each other mutually informed of any internments and changes, as well as of admissions into hospital and deaths among the wounded and sick in their hands. They shall collect all the articles of personal use, valuables, letters, &c., which are found on the field of battle or left by the wounded or sick who have died in the medical Edition: current; Page: [22] establishments or units, in order that such objects may be transmitted to the persons interested by the authorities of their own country.

(New.)

(Cp. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 17.)

Art. 5.

L’autorité militaire pourra faire appel au zèle charitable des habitants pour recueillir et soigner, sous son contrôle, des blessés ou malades des armées, en accordant aux personnes ayant répondu à cet appel une protection spéciale et certaines immunités.

Art. 5.

The military authority may appeal to the charitable zeal of the inhabitants to collect and take care of, under his direction, the wounded or sick of armies, granting to those who have responded to this appeal special protection and certain immunities.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 5. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 4. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 9.)

Chapitre II.—: Des Formations et Établissements Sanitaires.

Art. 6.

Les formations sanitaires mobiles (c’est-à-dire celles qui sont destinées à accompagner les armées en campagne) et les établissements fixes du service de santé seront respectés et protégés par les belligérants.

Chapter II.—: Medical Units and Establishments.

Art. 6.

Mobile medical units (that is to say, those which are intended to accompany armies into the field) and the fixed establishments of the medical service shall be respected and protected by the belligerents.

(New nomenclature.)

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 1. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 3. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 1.)

Art. 7.

La protection due aux formations et établissements sanitaires cesse si l’on en use pour commettre des actes nuisibles à l’ennemi.

Art. 7.

The protection to which medical units and establishments are entitled ceases if they are made use of to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 1. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 8 (1).)

Edition: current; Page: [23]

Art. 8.

Ne sont pas considérés comme étant de nature à priver une formation ou un établissement sanitaire de la protection assurée par l’article 6:

1°. Le fait que le personnel de la formation ou de l’établissement est armé et qu’il use de ses armes pour sa propre défense ou celle de ses malades et blessés;

2°. Le fait qu’à défaut d’infirmiers armés, la formation ou l’établissement est gardé par un piquet ou des sentinelles munis d’un mandat régulier;

3°. Le fait qu’il est trouvé dans la formation ou l’établissement des armes et cartouches retirées aux blessés et n’ayant pas encore été versées au service compétent.

Art. 8.

The following facts are not considered to be of a nature to deprive a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 6:—

1. That the personnel of the unit or of the establishment is armed, and that it uses its arms for its own defence or for that of the sick and wounded under its charge.

2. That in default of armed orderlies the unit or establishment is guarded by a piquet or by sentinels furnished with an authority in due form.

3. That weapons and cartridges taken from the wounded and not yet handed over to the proper department are found in the unit or establishment.

(New.)

(Cp. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 8 (2).)

Chapitre III.—: Du Personnel.

Art. 9.

Le personnel exclusivement affecté à l’enlèvement, au transport et au traitement des blessés et des malades, ainsi qu’à l’administration des formations et établissements sanitaires, les aumôniers attachés aux armées, seront respectés et protégés en toute circonstance; s’ils tombent entre les mains de l’ennemi, ils ne seront pas traités comme prisonniers de guerre.

Ces dispositions s’appliquent au personnel de garde des formations et établissements sanitaires dans le cas prévu à l’article 8, n° 2.

Chapter III.—: Personnel.

Art. 9.

The personnel engaged exclusively in the collection, transport, and treatment of the wounded and the sick, as well as in the administration of medical units and establishments, and the Chaplains attached to armies, shall be respected and protected under all circumstances. If they fall into the hands of the enemy they shall not be treated as prisoners of war.

These provisions apply to the guard of medical units and establishments under the circumstances indicated in Article 8 (2).

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 2. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 1. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 7. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 10.)

Edition: current; Page: [24]

Art. 10.

Est assimilé au personnel visé à l’article précédent le personnel des Sociétés de secours volontaires dûment reconnues et autorisées par leur Gouvernement, qui sera employé dans les formations et établissements sanitaires des armées, sous la réserve que ledit personnel sera soumis aux lois et règlements militaires.

Chaque État doit notifier à l’autre soit dès le temps de paix, soit à l’ouverture ou au cours des hostilités, en tout cas avant tout emploi effectif, les noms des Sociétés qu’il a autorisées à prêter leur concours, sous sa responsabilité, au service sanitaire officiel de ses armées.

Art. 10.

The personnel of Voluntary Aid Societies, duly recognized and authorized by their Government, who may be employed in the medical units and establishments of armies, is placed on the same footing as the personnel referred to in the preceding Article, provided always that the first-mentioned personnel shall be subject to military law and regulations.

(New.)

Each State shall notify to the other, either in time of peace or at the commencement of or during the course of hostilities, but in every case before actually employing them, the names of the Societies which it has authorized, under its responsibility, to render assistance to the regular medical service of its armies.

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 2. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 2.)

Art. 11.

Une Société reconnue d’un pays neutre ne peut prêter le concours de ses personnels et formations sanitaires à un belligérant qu’avec l’assentiment préalable de son propre Gouvernement et l’autorisation du belligérant luimême.

Le belligérant qui a accepté le secours est tenu, avant tout emploi, d’en faire la notification à son ennemi.

Art. 11.

A recognized Society of a neutral country can only afford the assistance of its medical personnel and units to a belligerent with the previous consent of its own Government and the authorization of the belligerent concerned.

A belligerent who accepts such assistance is bound before making any use of it to notify the fact to his adversary.

(New.)

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 3. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 3.)

Art. 12.

Les personnes désignées dans les articles 9, 10 et 11 continueront, après qu’elles seront tombées au pouvoir de l’ennemi, à remplir leurs fonctions sous sa direction.

Lorsque leur concours ne sera plus indispensable, elles seront renvoyées à leur armée ou à leur pays dans les délais et suivant l’itinéraire compatibles avec les nécessités militaires.

Elles emporteront, alors, les effets, les instruments, les armes et les chevaux qui sont leur propriété particulière.

Art. 12.

The persons designated in Articles 9, 10, and 11, after they have fallen into the hands of the enemy, shall Edition: current; Page: [25] continue to carry on their duties under his direction.

When their assistance is no longer indispensable, they shall be sent back to their army or to their country at such time and by such route as may be compatible with military exigencies.

They shall then take with them such effects, instruments, arms, and horses as are their private property.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 3, 4. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 1. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 7. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 10.)

Art. 13.

L’ennemi assurera au personnel visé par l’article 9, pendant qu’il sera en son pouvoir, les mêmes allocations et la même solde qu’au personnel des mêmes grades de son armée.

Art. 13.

The enemy shall secure to the persons mentioned in Article 9, while in his hands, the same allowances and the same pay as are granted to the persons holding the same rank in his own army.

(Cp. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 2. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 7. 4 H. C. 1907, Art. 17. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 10.)

Chapitre IV.—: Du Matériel.

Art. 14.

Les formations sanitaires mobiles conserveront, si elles tombent au pouvoir de l’ennemi, leur matériel, y compris les attelages, quels que soient les moyens de transport et le personnel conducteur.

Toutefois, l’autorité militaire compétente aura la faculté de s’en servir pour les soins des blessés et malades; la restitution du matériel aura lieu dans les conditions prévues pour le personnel sanitaire, et, autant que possible, en même temps.

Chapter IV.—: Material.

Art. 14.

If mobile medical units fall into the hands of the enemy they shall retain their material, including their teams, whatever may be the means of transport and whoever may be the drivers employed.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 4 (2).)

Nevertheless, the competent military authority shall be free to use the material for the treatment of the wounded and sick. It shall be restored under the conditions laid down for the medical personnel, and so far as possible at the same time.

(New.)

Edition: current; Page: [26]

Art. 15.

Les bâtiments et le matériel des établissements fixes demeurent soumis aux lois de la guerre, mais ne pourront être détournés de leur emploi, tant qu’ils seront nécessaires aux blessés et aux malades.

Toutefois, les commandants des troupes d’opérations pourront en disposer, en cas de nécessités militaires importantes, en assurant au préalable le sort des blessés et malades qui s’y trouvent.

Art. 15.

The buildings and material of fixed establishments remain subject to the laws of war, but may not be diverted from their purpose so long as they are necessary for the wounded and the sick.

(New.)

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 4 (1).)

Nevertheless, the Commanders of troops in the field may dispose of them, in case of urgent military necessity, provided they make previous arrangements for the welfare of the wounded and sick who are found there.

(Cp. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 7.)

Art. 16.

Le matériel des Sociétés de secours, admises au bénéfice de la Convention conformément aux conditions déterminées par celle-ci, est considéré comme propriété privée et, comme tel, respecté en toute circonstance, sauf le droit de réquisition reconnu aux belligérants selon les lois et usages de la guerre.

Art. 16.

The material of Voluntary Aid Societies which are admitted to the privileges of the Convention under the conditions laid down therein is considered private property, and, as such, to be respected under all circumstances, saving only the right of requisition recognized for belligerents in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(New.)

Chapitre V.—: Des Convois d’Évacuation.

Art. 17.

Les convois d’évacuation seront traités comme les formations sanitaires mobiles, sauf les dispositions spéciales suivantes:

1°. Le belligérant interceptant un convoi pourra, si les nécessités militaires l’exigent, le disloquer en se chargeant des malades et blessés qu’il contient.

2°. Dans ce cas, l’obligation de renvoyer le personnel sanitaire, prévue à l’article 12, sera étendue à tout le personnel militaire préposé au transport ou à la garde du convoi et muni à cet effet d’un mandat régulier.

L’obligation de rendre le matériel sanitaire, prévue à l’article 14, s’appliquera aux trains de chemins de fer et bateaux de la navigation intérieure spécialement organisés pour les évacuations, ainsi qu’au matériel d’aménagement des voitures, trains et bateaux ordinaires appartenant au service de santé.

Les voitures militaires, autres que celles du service de santé, pourront être capturées avec leurs attelages.

Le personnel civil et les divers moyens de transport provenant de la réquisition, y compris le matériel de chemin de fer et les bateaux utilisés pour les convois, seront soumis aux règles générales du droit des gens.

Chapter V.—: Convoys of Evacuation.

Art. 17.

Convoys of evacuation shall be treated like mobile medical units, subject to the following special provisions:—

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 6 (5).)

1. A belligerent intercepting a convoy may, if military exigencies demand, break it up, provided he takes Edition: current; Page: [27] charge of the sick and wounded who are in it.

(New.)

2. In this case, the obligation to send back the medical personnel, provided for in Article 12, shall be extended to the whole of the military personnel detailed for the transport or the protection of the convoy and furnished with an authority in due form to that effect.

(New.)

The obligation to restore the medical material, provided for in Article 14, shall apply to railway trains, and boats used in internal navigation, which are specially arranged for evacuations, as well as to the material belonging to the medical service for fitting up ordinary vehicles, trains, and boats.

(New.)

Military vehicles, other than those of the medical service, may be captured with their teams.

(New.)

The civilian personnel and the various means of transport obtained by requisition, including railway material and boats used for convoys, shall be subject to the general rules of international law.

(New.)

Chapter VI.—: Du Signe Distinctif.

Art. 18.

Par hommage pour la Suisse, le signe héraldique de la croix rouge sur fond blanc, formé par interversion des couleurs fédérales, est maintenu comme emblème et signe distinctif du service sanitaire des armées.

Chapter VI.—: The Distinctive Emblem.

Art. 18.

As a compliment to Switzerland, the heraldic device of the red cross on a white ground, formed by reversing the Federal colours, is retained as the emblem and distinctive sign of the medical service of armies.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 7.)

Edition: current; Page: [28]

Art. 19.

Cet emblème figure sur les drapeaux, les brassards, ainsi que sur tout le matériel se rattachant au service sanitaire, avec la permission de l’autorité militaire compétente.

Art. 19.

With the permission of the competent military authority this emblem shall be shown on the flags and armlets (brassards), as well as on all the material belonging to the Medical Service.

(New.)

Art. 20.

Le personnel protégé en vertu des articles 9, alinéa 1er, 10 et 11 porte, fixé au bras gauche, un brassard avec croix rouge sur fond blanc, délivré et timbré par l’autorité militaire compétente, accompagné d’un certificat d’identité pour les personnes rattachées au service de santé des armées et qui n’auraient pas d’uniforme militaire.

Art. 20.

The personnel protected in pursuance of Articles 9 (paragraph 1), 10, and 11 shall wear, fixed to the left arm, an armlet (brassard) with a red cross on a white ground, delivered and stamped by the competent military authority, and accompanied by a certificate of identity in the case of persons who are attached to the medical service of armies, but who have not a military uniform.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 7.)

Art. 21.

Le drapeau distinctif de la Convention ne peut être arboré que sur les formations et établissements sanitaires qu’elle ordonne de respecter et avec le consentement de l’autorité militaire. Il devra être accompagné du drapeau national du belligérant dont relève la formation ou l’établissement.

Toutefois, les formations sanitaires tombées au pouvoir de l’ennemi n’arboreront pas d’autre drapeau que celui de la Croix-Rouge, aussi longtemps qu’elles se trouveront dans cette situation.

Art. 21.

The distinctive flag of the Convention shall only be hoisted over those medical units and establishments which are entitled to be respected under the Convention, and with the consent of the military authorities. It must be accompanied by the national flag of the belligerent to whom the unit or establishment belongs.

(New.)

Nevertheless, medical units which have fallen into the hands of the enemy, so long as they are in that situation, shall not fly any other flag than that of the Red Cross.

(New.)

Art. 22.

Les formations sanitaires des pays neutres qui, dans les conditions prévues par l’article 11, auraient été autorisées à fournir leurs services, doivent arborer, avec le drapeau de la Convention, le drapeau national du belligérant dont elles relèvent.

Les dispositions du deuxième alinéa de l’article précédent leur sont appliables.

Art. 22.

The medical units belonging to neutral countries which may be authorized Edition: current; Page: [29] to afford their services under the conditions laid down in Article 11 shall fly, along with the flag of the Convention, the national flag of the belligerent to whose army they are attached.

(New.)

The provisions of the second paragraph of the preceding Article are applicable to them.

(New.)

Art. 23.

L’emblème de la croix rouge sur fond blanc et les mots Croix-Rouge ou Croix de Genève ne pourront être employés, soit en temps de paix, soit en temps de guerre, que pour protéger ou désigner les formations et établissements sanitaires, le personnel et le matériel protégés par la Convention.

Art. 231.

The emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” shall not be used, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to protect or to indicate the medical units and establishments and the personnel and material protected by the Convention.

(New.)

Chapitre VII.—: De l’Application et de l’Exécution de la Convention.

Art. 24.

Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne sont obligatoires que pour les Puissances contractantes, en cas de guerre entre deux ou plusieurs d’entre elles. Ces dispositions cesseront d’être obligatoires du moment où l’une des Puissances belligérantes ne serait pas signataire de la Convention.

Chapter VII.—: Application and Carrying out of the Convention.

Art. 24.

The provisions of the present Convention are only binding upon the Contracting Powers in the case of war between two or more of them. These provisions shall cease to be binding from the moment when one of the belligerent Powers is not a party to the Convention.

(New.)

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 11.)

Art. 25.

Les commandants en chef des armées belligérantes 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. 25.

The Commanders-in-chief of belligerent armies shall arrange the details Edition: current; Page: [30] 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. 1864, Art. 8. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 19.)

Art. 26.

Les Gouvernements signataires prendront les mesures nécessaires pour instruire leurs troupes, et spécialement le personnel protégé, des dispositions de la présente Convention et pour les porter à la connaissance des populations.

Art. 26.

The Signatory Governments will take the necessary measures to instruct their troops, especially the personnel protected, in the provisions of the present Convention, and to bring them to the notice of the civil population.

(Cp. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 20.)

Chapitre VIII.—: De la Répression des Abus et des Infractions.

Art. 27.

Les Gouvernements signataires, dont la législation ne serait pas dès à présent suffisante, s’engagent à prendre ou à proposer à leurs législatures les mesures nécessaires pour empêcher en tout temps l’emploi, par des particuliers ou par des sociétés autres que celles y ayant droit en vertu de la présente Convention, de l’emblème ou de la dénomination de Croix-Rouge ou Croix de Genève, notamment, dans un but commercial, par le moyen de marques de fabrique ou de commerce.

L’interdiction de l’emploi de l’emblème ou de la dénomination dont il s’agit produira son effet à partir de l’époque déterminée par chaque législation et, au plus tard, cinq ans après la mise en vigueur de la présente Convention. Dès cette mise en vigueur, il ne sera plus licite de prendre une marque de fabrique ou de commerce contraire à l’interdiction.

Chapter VIII.—: Prevention of Abuses and Infractions.

Art. 271.

The Signatory Governments, in countries the legislation of which is not at present adequate for the purpose, undertake to adopt or to propose to their legislative bodies such measures as may be necessary to prevent at all times the employment of the emblem or the name of Red Cross or Geneva Cross by private individuals or by Societies other than those which are entitled to do so under the present Convention, and in particular for commercial purposes as a trade-mark or trading mark.

(New.)

The prohibition of the employment of the emblem or the names in question shall come into operation from the date fixed by each legislature, and at the latest five years after the present Edition: current; Page: [31] Convention comes into force. From that date it shall no longer be lawful to adopt a trade-mark or trading mark contrary to this prohibition.

(New.)

Art. 28.

Les Gouvernements signataires s’engagent également à prendre ou à proposer à leurs législatures, en cas d’insuffisance de leurs lois pénales militaires, les mesures nécessaires pour réprimer, en temps de guerre, les actes individuels de pillage et de mauvais traitements envers des blessés et malades des armées, ainsi que pour punir, comme usurpation d’insignes militaires, l’usage abusif du drapeau et du brassard de la Croix-Rouge par des militaires ou des particuliers non protégés par la présente Convention.

Ils se communiqueront, par l’intermédiaire du Conseil fédéral suisse, les dispositions relatives à cette répression, au plus tard dans les cinq ans de la ratification de la présente Convention.

Art. 281.

The Signatory Governments also undertake to adopt, or to propose to their legislative bodies, should their military law be insufficient for the purpose, the measures necessary for the repression in time of war of individual acts of pillage and maltreatment of the wounded and sick of armies, as well as for the punishment, as an unlawful employment of military insignia, of the improper use of the Red Cross flag and armlet (brassard) by officers and soldiers or private individuals not protected by the present Convention.

They shall communicate to one another, through the Swiss Federal Council, the provisions relative to these measures of repression at the latest within five years from the ratification of the present Convention.

(New.)

(Cp. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 21.)

Dispositions Générales.

Art. 29.

La présente Convention sera ratifiée aussi tôt que possible.

Les ratifications seront déposées à Berne.

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.

General Provisions.

Art. 29.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible. The ratifications shall be deposited at Berne.

When each ratification is deposited a procès-verbal shall be drawn up, and a copy thereof certified as correct Edition: current; Page: [32] shall be forwarded through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

(Cp. G. C. 1864, Art. 10.)

Art. 30.

La présente Convention entrera en vigueur pour chaque Puissance six mois après la date du dépôt de sa ratification.

Art. 30.

The present Convention shall come into force for each Power six months after the date of the deposit of its ratification.

(Cp. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 26.)

Art. 31.

La présente Convention, dûment ratifiée, remplacera la Convention du 22 août 1864 dans les rapports entre les États contractants.

La Convention de 1864 reste en vigueur dans les rapports entre les Parties qui l’ont signée et qui ne ratifieraient pas également la présente Convention.

Art. 31.

The present Convention, duly ratified, shall replace the Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, in relations between the Contracting States. The Convention of 1864 remains in force between such of the parties who signed it who may not likewise ratify the present Convention.

(Cp. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 25.)

Art. 32.

La présente Convention pourra, jusqu’au 31 décembre prochain, être signée par les Puissances représentées à la Conférence qui s’est ouverte à Genève le 11 juin 1906, ainsi que par les Puissances non représentées à cette Conférence qui ont signé la Convention de 1864.

Celles de ces Puissances qui, au 31 décembre 1906, n’auront pas signé la présente Convention, resteront libres d’y adhérer par la suite. Elles auront à faire connaître leur adhésion au moyen d’une notification écrite adressée au Conseil fédéral suisse et communiquée par celui-ci à toutes les Puissances contractantes.

Les autres Puissances pourront demander à adhérer dans la même forme, mais leur demande ne produira effet que si, dans le délai d’un an à partir de la notification au Conseil fédéral, celui-ci n’a reçu d’opposition de la part d’aucune des Puissances contractantes.

Art. 32.

The present Convention may be signed until the 31st December next by the Powers represented at the Conference which was opened at Geneva on the 11th June, 1906, as also by the Powers, not represented at that Conference, which signed the Convention of 1864.

Such of the aforesaid Powers as shall not have signed the present Convention by the 31st December, 1906, shall remain free to accede to it subsequently. They shall notify their accession by means of a written communication addressed to the Swiss Federal Council, and communicated by the latter to all the Contracting Powers.

Other Powers may apply to accede in the same manner, but their request shall only take effect if within a period Edition: current; Page: [33] of one year from the notification of it to the Federal Council no objection to it reaches the Council from any of the Contracting Powers.

(New.)

(Cp. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 13.)

Art. 33.

Chacune des Parties contractantes aura la faculté de dénoncer la présente Convention. Cette dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’un an après la notification faite par écrit au Conseil fédéral suisse; celui-ci communiquera immédiatement la notification à toutes les autres Parties contractantes.

Cette dénonciation ne vaudra qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée.

En foi de quoi, les Plénipotentiaires ont signé la présente Convention et l’ont revêtue de leurs cachets.

Fait à Genève, le six juillet mil neuf cent six, en un seul exemplaire, qui restera déposé dans les archives de la Confédération suisse, et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances contractantes.

Art. 33.

Each of the Contracting Powers shall be at liberty to denounce the present Convention. The denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the written notification of it has reached the Swiss Federal Council. The Council shall immediately communicate the notification to all the other Contracting Parties.

(New.)

(Cp. Add. Art. 1868, Art. 13. 3 H. C. 1899, Art. 14. 10 H. C. 1907, Art. 27.)

The denunciation shall only affect the Power which has notified it.

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

Done at Geneva the 6th July, 1906, in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Swiss Confederation, and of which copies certified as correct shall be forwarded to the Contracting Powers through the diplomatic channel.

Protocole Final de la Conférence de Revision de la Convention de Genève.

La Conférence convoquée par le Conseil fédéral suisse, en vue de la revision de la Convention internationale, du 22 août 1864, pour l’amélioration du sort des militaires blessés dans les armées en campagne, s’est réunie à Genève le 11 Juin 1906. Les Puissances dont l’énumération suit ont pris part à la Conférence, pour laquelle Elles avaient désigné les Délégués nommés ci-après:

[Dénomination des Délégués.]

Dans une série de réunions tenues du 11 juin au 5 juillet 1906, la Conférence a discuté et arrêté, pour être soumis à la signature des Plénipotentiaires, le texte d’une Convention qui portera la date du 6 juillet 1906.

En outre, et en conformité de l’article 16 de la Convention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux, du 29 juillet 1899, qui a reconnu l’arbitrage comme le moyen le plus efficace et en même temps le plus équitable de régler les litiges qui n’ont pas été résolus par les voies diplomatiques, la Conférence a émis le vœu suivant:

La Conférence exprime le vœu que, pour arriver à une interprétation et à une application aussi exactes que possible de la Convention de Genève, les Puissances contractantes soumettent à la Cour Permanente de La Haye, si les cas et les circonstances s’y prêtent, les différends qui, en temps de paix, s’élèveraient entre elles relativement à l’interprétation de ladite Convention.

Ce vœu a été voté par les États suivants:

Allemagne, République Argentine, Autriche-Hongrie, Belgique, Bulgarie, Chili, Chine, Congo, Danemark, Espagne (ad ref.), États-Unis d’Amérique, États-Unis du Brésil, États-Unis Mexicains, France, Grèce, Guatémala, Honduras, Italie, Luxembourg, Monténégro, Nicaragua, Norvège, Pays-Bas, Pérou, Perse, Portugal, Roumanie, Russie, Serbie, Siam, Suède, Suisse et Uruguay.

Ce vœu a été rejeté par les États suivants: Corée, Grande-Bretagne et Japon.

En foi de quoi, les Délégués ont signé le présente Protocole.

Fait à Genève, le six juillet mil neuf cent six, en un seul exemplaire, qui sera déposé aux archives de la Confédération suisse et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront délivrées à toutes les Puissances représentées à la Conférence.

Final Protocol of the Conference for the Revision of the Geneva Convention.

The Conference convoked by the Swiss Federal Council with a view to the revision of the International Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of Edition: current; Page: [34] soldiers wounded in armies in the field has assembled at Geneva on the 11th June, 1906. The Powers enumerated below have taken part in the Conference, for which purpose they had designated the under-mentioned Delegates:

[Names of Delegates.]

In a series of meetings held from the 11th June to the 5th July, 1906, the Conference has discussed and drawn up, with a view to its being signed by the Plenipotentiaries, the text of a Convention which shall bear the date 6th July, 1906.

In addition, and in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of the 29th July, 1899, which recognizes arbitration as the most efficacious and the most equitable means for the settlement of disputes which have not been determined diplomatically, the Conference has framed the following Resolution:—

The Conference expresses the desire that, in order to arrive at an interpretation and application as exact as possible of the Geneva Convention, the Contracting Powers should submit to the Permanent Court at The Hague, if the cases and the circumstances permit, any differences which may, in time of peace, arise between them relative to the interpretation of the said Convention.

This Resolution has been voted by the following States:—

Germany, Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Congo, Denmark, Spain (ad ref.), United States of America, United States of Brazil, United States Edition: current; Page: [35] of Mexico, France, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Norway, Netherlands, Peru, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, and Uruguay.

This Resolution has been declined by the following States: Corea, Great Britain, and Japan.

In witness whereof the Delegates have signed the present Protocol.

Done at Geneva, the 6th July, 1906, in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Swiss Confederation, and of which copies, certified as correct, shall be delivered to all the Powers represented at the Conference.

The following states have up to the present ratified this Convention: Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, the Congo, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain (under reserve of Articles 23, 27, 28), Italy, Japan and Corea, Luxemburg, Mexico, Russia, Siam, Spain, Switzerland, the United States of America. The following have acceded (under the provisions of Art. 32, par. 3): Colombia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey and Venezuela.

The Convention of 1864 remains in force at present between the following Powers who signed it, and who have not ratified or adhered to the Convention of 1906: the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chili, China, Dominica, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, Holland, Honduras, Montenegro, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Salvador, Servia, Sweden and Uruguay.

With regard to the position of Corea the following note is appended to the signature of the Japanese Plenipotentiary on behalf of Corea in the British Blue Book on this subject:

“His Majesty’s Government have received from the Swiss Minister a notification that by a Declaration dated the 15th October, 1906, the Japanese Chargé d’Affaires at Berne stated that, in virtue of the Agreement between Japan and Corea of the 17th November, 1905, the Imperial Japanese Government has the right of entirely controlling the foreign relations and affairs of Corea. Consequently the inclusion of Corea in the preamble of the Convention and the signature of the latter by the Edition: current; Page: [36] Japanese Plenipotentiary on behalf of Corea as a separate Contracting Party, being erroneous and incompatible with the aforesaid arrangement, are considered by the Japanese Government as null and void1.”

It is important to notice that Great Britain ratified the Convention under reserves of Arts. 23, 27, 28. These Articles, it will be seen, provide that the emblem of the Red Cross shall not be used in peace or war, except to protect or indicate medical units and establishments and the personnel and material protected by the Convention, and that the signatory Powers whose legislation is insufficient to prevent the abuse of the name or sign of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, particularly for commercial purposes as trade marks or commercial labels, shall adopt or propose to their legislative bodies such measures as may be necessary to secure the name and emblem from abuse in peace or war. Several Powers had, previous to the Conference, legislated with this object2, but the British delegates in signing, and the British Government in their ratification were unable to accept these Articles, though approving of their principles, by reason of the uncertainties of Parliamentary proceedings in this country.

The Hague Conference of 1899 left the initiative in the matter of a Conference for the revision of the Geneva Convention of 1864 to the Swiss Government. This Government, as early as 1901, took steps with a view of calling together a Conference, but owing partly to the dilatoriness of some of the states, and partly to the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war, it was not until the 11th June, 1906, that the Conference met. The number of Powers represented was larger than that at the Hague in 1899, some of the Powers appearing at an International Conference for the first time. The Conference terminated its labours on the 6th July.

The new Convention contains 33 Articles as against 10 in the Convention of 1864, and is divided into eight chapters dealing with the whole subject. The terminology of the new Convention now harmonises with current usage; the words “neutral” and “neutrality” are no longer used to signify inviolability or immunity from capture, but are restricted to cases of internment, and the personnel of Voluntary Aid Societies of a neutral country whose service is accepted by a belligerent. The terms “ambulances” and “hospitals” are replaced by “mobile sanitary units” or Edition: current; Page: [37] “sanitary formations” and “fixed establishments of the medical service.” The position of Voluntary Aid or Red Cross Societies is made clear. In the case of Societies belonging to one of the belligerents, only when the personnel is recognised by their Government and subject to military laws and regulations do they become entitled to the privileges of the Convention. The position of neutral Societies when rendering assistance to a belligerent is also clearly defined and full protection afforded to their material (Arts. 16, 21 and 22). Such Societies are not entitled to fly the flag of the state to which they belong, but must fly that of the belligerent to which they are attached together with the flag adopted by the Convention, except when they have fallen into the hands of the enemy. The details of the organisation of such Societies and the regulations for their work are not dealt with by the Convention.

The Convention of 1864 left untouched the question of the position of sick and wounded who fell into the hands of the enemy; the Convention of 1906 is explicit on this point, and declares them to be prisoners of war (Art. 2). They thus fall under the régime provided by Chapter ii. of the Regulations of the Hague Conventions on the laws of war on land. Provision is made for the identification of the dead, and the return of property found on them, and for the notification of the names of dead, sick and wounded by one belligerent to the other. This had been partially provided for by 2 H. C. 1899 (Regulations), Art. 14.

The Convention makes it clear that not only officers and soldiers, but other persons officially attached to armies, are also to be respected and taken care of, when sick or wounded, by the belligerent in whose power they may be, without distinction of nationality. The subject of convoys of evacuation, which in 1864 was but slightly dealt with, is made the subject of detailed regulations (Art. 17).

Article 5 of the Convention of 1864, and Article 4 of the unratified Convention of 1868, had in practice been found to be unsatisfactory, and in lieu thereof Article 5 now leaves to the discretion of the military authorities appeals to the charitable zeal of the inhabitants to collect and take care of the sick and wounded, as well as the special immunities which may be granted to those who comply with the request.

The Convention also makes it clear that the “Red Cross” has no religious significance (Art. 10), and contains provisions stringently limiting its use (Arts. 18-23).

Article 26 is similar to 2 H. C. 1899, Art. 1, and binds the signatory Powers to take measures to instruct their troops in the provisions of Edition: current; Page: [38] the present Convention, but it goes farther than this, for the Powers also agree to “bring them to the notice of the civil population.”

The Convention of 1864 left the Protocol open unconditionally for the accession of Powers (Art. 9). Article 32 of the new Convention limits the freedom of accession and under it any of the Powers mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of that Article may object to the application of a new Power for leave to accede in cases where its military organisation does not afford sufficient guarantees of its ability to carry out the obligations imposed by the Convention1.

Great Britain declined to be a party to the Vœu that “if the cases and the circumstances permit” any differences “which may in time of peace” arise between the contracting Powers relative to the interpretation of the Convention should be submitted to the Permanent Court at the Hague2.

Edition: current; Page: [39]

THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCES 1899 AND 1907

THE PEACE CONFERENCE OF 18991.

As the Second Peace Conference continued the work of the first and in certain respects was able to make additions to the results attained in 1899, it will be of assistance in the study of the Conventions adopted by the Powers at these two Conferences first to set forth the results of the Conference of 1899.

The first step towards the summoning of the Hague Conference of 1899 was taken when Count Mouravieff, the Russian Foreign Minister, on the 24th Aug. 1898, addressed a circular letter to the representatives of the Powers accredited to St Petersburg in which he referred to the desire which the Emperor had for “the maintenance of the general peace and a possible reduction of the excessive armaments which were burdening all nations.” Actuated by the wish to put an end to the increase of such armaments, and to seek for means to avoid the calamities which were threatening the whole world, the Tsar proposed to all the Governments whose representatives were accredited to the Court of St Petersburg to assemble in conference to consider this serious problem. This invitation Edition: current; Page: [40] to disarmament was received with coldness in several important quarters. Count Mouravieff therefore, on the 11th Jan. 1899, addressed another circular to the Russian ministers accredited to the states represented at St Petersburg in which he suggested the following topics for the consideration of the Conference, thereby considerably widening its scope. (1) The prohibition for a fixed term of any increase of the armed forces beyond those then maintained. (2) The prohibition of, or limitation in the employment of new firearms or explosives. (3) The restriction of the explosives already existing, and the prohibition of the discharge of projectiles or explosives of any kind from balloons or by any similar means. (4) The prohibition in naval warfare of submarine torpedo-boats or similar engines of destruction, and the ultimate abolition of vessels with rams. (5) The application to naval warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864 on the basis of the additional Articles of 1868. (6) The neutralisation of ships and boats employed in saving those shipwrecked during or after an engagement. (7) The revision of the unratified Brussels Declaration of 1874 concerning the laws and customs of war on land. (8) The acceptance in principle of the employment of good offices, of mediation and arbitration with the object of preventing armed conflicts between nations, and the establishment of a uniform practice in their employment.

An important limitation was placed on the discussion of these matters by the statement that all questions concerning the political relations of states and the order of things established by treaties and all questions which did not directly fall within the programme adopted by the Cabinets were to be absolutely excluded from the deliberations of the Conference.

The circular concluded by stating that the Tsar thought it advisable that the Conference should not meet in the capital of one of the great Powers “where so many political interests are centred which might, perhaps, impede the progress of a work in which all the countries of the universe are equally interested1.”

The Dutch Government having assented to the proposed Conference being held at the Hague, invitations were addressed by it to the states designated by Russia. The Conference met on the 20th May, 1899, under the presidency of M. de Staal, the first Russian Plenipotentiary, and was attended by representatives of the 26 Powers enumerated in the Final Act. Difficulties had been raised as to the status of several Powers to whom invitations had been addressed. Italy declined to attend if the Papal representative was admitted. Great Britain as suzerain objected to the presence of a representative of the Transvaal. The representative of Edition: current; Page: [41] Bulgaria was only admitted in subordination to Turkey. Though the number of Powers represented was large, none of the American Republics, except the United States and Mexico were present. The delegates and their staffs numbered upwards of 100. The representatives were divided into three Committees: the first two being divided into two Sub-Committees. To the First Committee were assigned the matters dealt with in Articles 1-4 of Count Mouravieff’s circular of the 11th Jan. 1899; to the Second those comprised in Arts. 5, 6 and 7; and to the Third those comprised in Art. 8. The Sub-Committees and Committees held numerous meetings and reported to plenary meetings of the Conference of which there were 10 in all, the last being held on the 31st July. The Conference was thus in session for a little over two months.

The Final Act of the Hague Conference of 1899.The results of the labours of these two months were embodied in a Final Act which is not in itself a Convention, but rather a resumé of the work done by the Conference1 and as such was signed by all the Powers present, who thus affirmed the authenticity of the record, without binding themselves to sign each of the Conventions or adhere to each of the Declarations or Wishes contained in the Act.

The following are set forth in the Final Act as having been agreed upon for submission for signature by the Plenipotentiaries2:

(a) Three Conventions: (1) For the pacific settlement of international disputes, (2) regarding the laws and customs of war on land, (3) for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864.

(b) Three Declarations: (1) To prohibit the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other similar new methods. (2) To prohibit the use of projectiles, the only object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases. (3) To prohibit the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope, of which the envelope does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The Conventions and Declarations to form so many separate Acts.

(c) One Resolution affirming “that the restriction of military budgets which are at present a heavy burden on the world is extremely desirable for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind.”

Edition: current; Page: [42]

(d) Six Wishes (Vœux): (1) That a special Conference might be summoned by the Swiss Government for the revision of the Geneva Convention. (2) That the questions of the rights and duties of neutrals might be inserted in the programme of a Conference in the near future. (3) That questions regarding rifles and naval guns, as considered by the Conference, might be studied by the governments with the object of coming to an agreement respecting the employment of new types and calibres. (4) That the governments, taking into consideration the proposals made at the Conference, might examine the possibility of an agreement as to the limitation of armed forces by land and sea, and of war budgets. (5) That the proposal for the exemption of private property from capture in naval warfare might be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration. (6) That the question of the bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force might be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration.

As the subjects mentioned in Nos. 2, 5 and 6 were outside the programme of the Conference and as the delegates considered that the Swiss Government had a prior claim to take the initiative in the subjects mentioned in No. 1, the expression of the Wishes on these matters was all that was within the competence of the Conference.

Results of the Hague Conference of 1899.Such is a brief outline of the immediate results of the deliberations of the First Hague Conference. It did not do all that its “August Initiator” had desired, and the question of disarmament or even of the limitation of armaments and budgets which was in the forefront of Count Mouravieff’s second circular was found on examination to present “so many difficulties from a practical point of view that it was necessarily abandoned for the present1.” The passing of a resolution endorsing in general terms the desirability of the restriction of military budgets, and the emission of Vœux Nos. 3 and 4 was the method in which this abandonment was notified to the world. But failure in this respect, a failure which had been foreseen from the first, did not mean that 26 Powers had assembled for two months for naught. Idealists had expected too much, and were dissatisfied with the results; but the solid work of the Conference as attested by the three Conventions, Edition: current; Page: [43] two of which were completions of work which previous gatherings1 had failed to accomplish, cannot but be viewed as marking an important epoch in the development of international law. It is true that a Conference known as La Conférence de la Paix had devoted the greater part of its labours to the elaboration of rules of war. The Emperor of Russia might have said of it, “I labour for peace, but when I speak unto them thereof, they make them ready for battle.” Many of the members of Peace Societies could not but view the results as discouraging. But it is not alone by these Conventions, Declarations and Vœux that the worth of the Conference is to be appraised. The results assume a truer perspective when viewed in the light of the years that have passed since the conclusion of the Conference.(i) The laws of war on land. The sanguine prophecy expressed by Sir Julian Pauncefote that the new century was destined to “open with brighter prospects of international peace” was not fulfilled. Almost before the ink on the Final Act was dry, war broke out between the South African Republics and Great Britain. Hardly had that terminated, before two of the signatory Powers (one of them the initiator of the Conference) were engaged in a prolonged and sanguinary struggle in the Far East. The Peace Conference had not maintained the peace of the world. Its work, however, in humanising the laws of war both on land and sea was now put to the test. The terms of the two Conventions were well observed, and the bureaux for information relative to prisoners of war, a new creation of the Conference (Art. 13, Regulations for the laws of war), came into existence and operation for the first time2. Naturally deficiencies were discovered in the practical application of both Conventions, but in the main they were found to be workable. War on land was now conducted for the first time under rules previously agreed upon by the parties.

(ii) Pacific settlement of international disputes.The Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes is a greater mark of international progress than the two Conventions just referred to. This Convention was also put to the test between 1899 and 1907. Good offices and mediation of friendly powers were not appealed to to prevent the outbreak of war either in South Africa or the Far East, but twice during the Russo-Japanese war the value of the Convention was manifested. There is no doubt that the recourse to a Commission of Inquiry, with wider powers than those contemplated by the terms of Title iii. of the Convention1, Edition: current; Page: [44] prevented the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Russia over the Dogger Bank affair of October, 1904. When it is remembered that this was a difference involving “honour and vital interests” which are expressly excluded from the competence of such Commissions by the Convention (Art. 9) the solution of the question in a peaceful manner is the more noteworthy. The long drawn-out struggle between Russia and Japan was ultimately closed by the Treaty of Portsmouth in 1905. It was doubtless the recommendation contained in the third Article of the Convention which furnished President Roosevelt with the means of initiating the negotiations which reached so successful a conclusion2.

Cases before the Permanent Court at the Hague.The Permanent Court of Arbitration whose creation was provided for by Title iv. Chapter ii. of the same Convention soon got to work. The Powers nominated their representatives and since its establishment four cases have been heard and settled before a Court composed of Judges who were members of the Permanent Court.

(1) The Pious Fund of the Californias.The first case to come before the Court at the Hague was a claim of the United States of America against the Republic of Mexico3. By the Compromis (agreement of reference) between these states dated the 22nd May, 1902, the subject of the dispute was defined, and terms of proceedings set forth. The question in dispute between the Powers had reference to a charity known as “The Pious Fund of the Californias” which had been instituted in the 17th and 18th centuries for the propagation of the Roman Catholic faith in unsettled portions of Spanish North America called the Californias. After the accomplishment of Mexican independence the administration of the Fund passed to Mexico, and the properties having been sold, the Republic undertook to pay 6 per cent. on the proceeds to the Church. War broke out between the United States and Mexico in 1846, and was terminated by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848, and Upper California was ceded by Mexico to the United States for 15 million dollars and other considerations. During the 20 years succeeding the treaty claims arose by citizens of each republic against the other for damages resulting from injuries of various sorts, and in July, 1868, a Convention was concluded between the two nations under which an international tribunal was constituted for the determination of such claims. Among the claimants were the Roman Edition: current; Page: [45] Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey for so much of the interest on the capital of the Pious Fund accrued since the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo as properly belonged to Upper California. The Arbitrators disagreed, and the question having been referred to the British Minister at Washington as Umpire, he signed an award in favour of the claimants for $904,070.79 in Mexican gold coin, being 21 years’ interest at 6 per cent. per ann. on one-half of the capital of the Pious Fund. This award was satisfied. Mexico subsequently made default in payment of the annual interest and the United States Government on behalf of the Bishops claimed payment thereof ($43,050.99) from the year 1868, and contended that the question of liability could not be re-opened as the matter was res judicata. In the alternative, the United States contended that if the Permanent Court at the Hague decided against the validity of the Umpire’s award, a much larger sum than that originally claimed was due and this was set forth and the method in which it was calculated. Mexico denied liability, and the finality and conclusiveness of the judgment of the Umpire. To this the United States filed a replication. The hearing of the case commenced on the 15th Sept. 1902 before Professor H. Matzen, President of the Danish Landthing, as Umpire and President of the Court, chosen by the Arbitrators, the Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, a former Lord Justice of Appeal in England, Dr F. de Martens, Privy Councillor of Russia, both nominated by the United States, and Dr T. M. C. Asser, Member of the Council of State of the Netherlands, and Dr A. F. de Savornin Lohman, former Minister of the Interior of the Netherlands, both nominated by Mexico. French was the language of the Tribunal, but the Tribunal decided that both parties might use English. Both states were represented by agents and counsel. The Court sat 11 times and the award was given on the 14th Oct. on the two following points:

1. Whether the claim of the United States on behalf of the Archbishop of San Francisco and the Bishop of Monterey was governed by the principle of res judicata in virtue of the decision of the 11 Nov. 1878 given by Sir Edward Thornton in his capacity of Umpire.

2. If not, whether the said claim was just; with power to give such judgment as seemed to the Court just and equitable.

The Court unanimously decided in favour of the claim of the United States on the ground that it was governed by the principle of res judicata as set forth in the Compromis, and awarded the sum of 1,420,68267/100 Mexican dollars to the claimants, being the annual interest due from the 2nd Feb. 1869 to the 2nd Feb. 1902.

Edition: current; Page: [46]

All friends of international arbitration will re-echo the words of Mr Ralston, the agent for the United States, who in addressing the Court after the delivery of the judgment said: “There has just been determined at the Hague a controversy over money,—a thing which we are told has been the ‘slave to thousands,’ and the love of which is described as ‘the root of all evil.’ If a judgment now meant nothing more than the transfer or nontransfer of money from one party to the other, however interesting this might be to those concerned, the world at large would look on with indifference. We believe, however, that a first step has been taken that will count largely for the good of future generations: that following this primal recognition of the existence of a Court competent to settle disputes between nations, will come general references to it, not alone of differences similar to the present, but of other controversies involving larger questions of individual rights and national privileges. We may hope that precisely as questions formerly believed to involve individual honour had in many countries entirely ceased, and in others are ceasing to be settled by formal exercise of force, the same revolution may gradually be effected in the affairs of nations. The Permanent Court of Arbitration, assisting this end, must tend to bring about that ‘peace on earth, good will toward men’ for which Christians hope1.”

The members of the Court addressed to the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs a note in which they made certain reflections on the procedure before the Tribunal, and recommendations with a view to providing against possible difficulties in the working of the Court. These recommendations will be dealt with in discussing the Convention itself2.

(2) Claims against Venezuela.The next case to come before the Tribunal was a dispute between Great Britain, Germany and Italy on the one side and Venezuela on the other3. This case both as regards the questions raised, as well as the procedure to be followed, involved “larger questions of individual rights and national privileges” than the Pious Funds Case. In consequence of the inability of Great Britain, Germany and Italy to obtain satisfaction from Venezuela for claims made on behalf of their subjects, the ports of Venezuela were blockaded in 19024. Ultimately on the intervention of the United States an agreement was arrived at whereby Edition: current; Page: [47] Venezuela recognised in principle the justice of the claims preferred by the three Governments on behalf of their subjects, and agreed for the purpose of their satisfaction to set aside 30 per cent. of the customs revenues of La Guaira and Puerto Cabello, and to submit claims for injury to persons and property to arbitration. Other Powers also claimed against Venezuela, and Protocols containing conditions for the settlement of claims against that country by a Mixed Commission were signed by her Government and those of the following Powers, in addition to the three already mentioned: the United States, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway and Mexico. Great Britain, Germany and Italy having claimed preferential treatment in payment of their claims it was agreed by an additional Protocol of 7th May, 1903, to submit the question of preferential or separate treatment to the Hague Tribunal, and, should it decide against the three Powers, to ask it to determine how the revenue derived from the 30 per cent. customs should be distributed. In consequence of the number of Powers involved the choice of Arbitrators was left to the Tsar (Russia being a disinterested Power), subject to the condition that nationals of interested Powers were to be excluded from membership of the Tribunal. Any nation, moreover, having claims against Venezuela, was allowed to join as a party in the arbitration. As all Venezuela’s other creditors had an interest in her success, the case resolved itself into an arbitration between Great Britain, Germany and Italy on the one side, and Venezuela, Belgium, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway and Mexico on the other. The Arbitrators were M. N. V. Mouravieff, Russian Imperial Secretary of State (President), Professor H. Lammasch, Member of the Upper House of the Austrian Parliament, and Dr F. de Martens, Russian Privy Councillor. The official language used was English in accordance with the terms of the Protocols. The hearing of the case occupied the Court for 13 days during the months of October and November, 1903, and a unanimous decision was given on the 22nd February, 1904, in favour of the three Powers who had claimed preferential treatment by reason of the blockade which they had carried out. This decision in no way affected the Protocols of the 13th Feb. 1903 between Great Britain, Italy and Venezuela for submission of the sums due to a Mixed Commission. The Judges in this case also addressed a note to the Dutch Foreign Minister, containing recommendations in regard to the procedure of the Court1.

The third case to come before the Court was between Great Britain, Edition: current; Page: [48] France and Germany on the one side, and Japan on the other1.(3) The case of the Japanese leases. The Protocols for submission were signed on the 28th Aug. 1902. The question for settlement in this case was the true intent and meaning of the provisions of certain treaties made between the three European Powers and Japan with reference to the exemption of land held under leases in perpetuity granted by Japan from imposts, taxes, charges, contributions or conditions other than those expressly stipulated in the leases in question. The Court consisted of three members, Professor Louis Renault (of Paris), nominated by the three European Powers, Dr Itchiro Motono, nominated by the Japanese Government, under the presidency of the Umpire, Mr G. Gram, a former Prime Minister of State of Norway, chosen by the two Arbitrators. In this case the Court announced that French would be the language of the Tribunal, but that the parties could use either English or French. At a subsequent sitting, a request was made on behalf of the three European Powers for permission to employ the German language, whereupon the Japanese agent (speaking in English) claimed for the Japanese language the same right as would be accorded to other languages, a claim which the Court admitted. It does not appear that the Japanese agent availed himself of this right. The Court held four sittings in November, 1904, and May, 1905. Judgment was delivered on the 22nd May, 1905. The Tribunal by two to one decided in favour of the contention of the European governments that the provisions of the treaties between them and Japan not only exempted the lands possessed under perpetual leases granted by the Japanese Government or in its name, but they also exempted buildings of every kind erected, or to be erected on these lands from all imposts, taxes, charges, contributions or conditions whatsoever, other than those expressly stipulated in the leases in question. The Japanese member of the Court dissented from this judgment and the reasons for it.

In this case the pleadings were all in writing, and it does not appear that Counsel addressed the Court on the actual points at issue between the parties.

(4) The Muscat Dhows Case.The fourth case to come before the Hague Tribunal was between Great Britain and France2. The Compromis was signed on the 13th Oct. 1904. It stated that the Government of His Britannic Majesty and that of the French Republic had Edition: current; Page: [49] thought it right, by the Declaration of the 10th March, 1862, “to engage reciprocally to respect the independence” of His Highness the Sultan of Muscat, that difficulties had arisen (1) in relation to the issue by the French Republic, to certain subjects of the Sultan, of papers authorising them to fly the French flag, and (2) as to the nature of the privileges and immunities claimed by subjects of His Highness who are owners or masters of dhows, and in possession of such papers, or are members of the crews of such dhows, and their families, especially as to the manner in which such privileges and immunities affect the jurisdiction of the Sultan over his subjects, and that these questions should be referred to the arbitration of the Hague Tribunal. The Compromis provided that each Power should nominate one Arbitrator and these two should choose an Umpire, failing this the choice of the Umpire should be entrusted to the King of Italy. The Arbitrators and Umpire were not to be subjects or citizens of either Great Britain or France and should be chosen from among the members of the Hague Tribunal. It was further agreed that each party should prepare and deliver to the Tribunal a written or printed case supported by arguments and a file containing documents or other evidence on which he relied, and after the delivery of such cases, written or printed counter-cases, similarly supported, and that the Tribunal might require any further oral or written evidence, but in such case the other party had the right to reply. The British Government nominated the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States, the French Government nominated Dr A. F. de Savornin Lohman, a former Minister of the Interior of the Netherlands, and the King of Italy nominated Professor H. Lammasch, Member of the Upper House of the Austrian Parliament.

The Tribunal held its first meeting on the 25th July, 1905, and sat on four days, the last being the 8th August, when a unanimous decision of the Tribunal was given. The Court held that France by acceding to the General Act of the Brussels Conference of 1890 relative to the African slave trade, was not entitled to authorise vessels belonging to subjects of the Sultan of Muscat to fly the French flag except where their owners or fitters-out had been considered and treated by France as her protégés before 1863, or in the case of owners of dhows, who before 1892 had been authorised by France to fly the French flag, so long as France renews this authorisation to the grantee. On the second point the Court held Edition: current; Page: [50] that dhows of Muscat duly authorised to fly the French flag were entitled in the territorial waters of Muscat to the inviolability provided by the French-Muscat Treaty of 17th Nov. 1844; that the authorisation to fly the French flag could not be transmitted or transferred to any other person or to any other dhow, even if belonging to the same owner; that subjects of the Sultan of Muscat who are owners or masters of dhows authorised to fly the French flag or who are members of the crews of such vessels or who belong to their families, do not enjoy in consequence of that fact any right of exterritoriality exempting them from the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Sultan.

From the foregoing summary of the points at issue, and the decisions given in the cases which have so far come before the Hague Tribunal, its scope of operations and method of work may in some degree be appreciated. It is not necessary here to deal further with the questions involved.

It will thus be seen that within five years from the conclusion of the First Peace Conference at the Hague all three of the Conventions which emanated therefrom were put to the test. To deficiencies which became apparent in their working reference will be made in discussing the amendments adopted by the Second Conference.

(iii) The Declarations of 1899.The three Declarations were not adopted with unanimity; Great Britain signed none of them, but on the 30th Aug. 1907 she became a party to Nos. 2 and 3. The first lapsed after 5 years. The United States did not sign the second and third, and Portugal only signed on 29th Aug. 1907. Nevertheless Great Britain observed them all during the war in South Africa. They were all observed by Russia and Japan, both of whom had signed the Declarations.

(iv) The Vœux.The first Wish was realised in 1906 when a new Geneva Convention was adopted; the others (except No. 3, on which nothing appears to have been done) were discussed at the Second Peace Conference. The second, regarding the rights and duties of neutrals, and the sixth on the bombardment of unfortified towns by naval forces both resulted in Conventions in 1907.

The foregoing account of the results of the First Conference and their subsequent practical application is sufficient to justify the statement made at the time by Sir Julian Pauncefote that they “greatly surpassed the expectations of its most enthusiastic supporters.” The growth of international law has not infrequently been compared to that of municipal law, and in particular to that of the English Common law. As a scientific body of principles it is still in an early stage of development, custom is ripening slowly into law and in some departments of international relations, Edition: current; Page: [51] the work of codification has begun. The “enthusiastic supporters,” of whom the British Ambassador spoke, were those who, knowing how exceeding slow is the grinding of the wheels of progress, were prepared for the difficulties which only statesmen, historians and lawyers could fully appreciate; their expectations were chastened by knowledge and experience of the innumerable forces at work in the domain of high politics. It is, therefore, from such a standpoint that a view of the work of the Second Conference must be taken.

THE SECOND PEACE CONFERENCE OF 19071.

The Hague Conference of 1899 did nothing definite to ensure a subsequent meeting except to express a wish that certain matters might be inserted in the programme of a Conference in the near future, but it “broke up with the conviction that its work would be completed subsequently by the regular progress of enlightenment among the nations, and as the result of the experience gradually acquired2.” The Second Conference was, as the Final Act records, first proposed by the President of the United States (Mr Theodore Roosevelt). Several years having elapsed since the termination of the First Conference, and no steps having been taken to convoke another, the Hon. John Hay, American Secretary of State, on the 21st October, 1904, addressed a Circular to the representatives of the United States accredited to the Governments who were Edition: current; Page: [52] signatories of the Acts of the Conference of 1899. A preliminary circular had been despatched shortly before by the Assistant Secretary of State.

After referring to the beneficial work done by the Hague Conference of 1899, and the questions which it left over for subsequent discussion, the Circular referred to the work done by the Inter-parliamentary Union in preparing the “minds of governments for an accord in the direction of the assured peace among men.” The Annual Meeting of the Union, which was held in 1904 at St Louis, had passed a resolution requesting the several governments of the world to send delegates to an international Conference to be held for the purpose of considering (1) the questions for the consideration of which the Conference at the Hague expressed a wish that a future Conference should be called; (2) the negotiation of arbitration treaties between the nations represented at the Conference to be convened; (3) the advisability of establishing an international congress to be convened periodically for the discussion of international questions: it concluded by inviting the President of the United States to invite nations to send representatives to such a congress. In acceding to the request the President stated that he was not unmindful that a great war was in progress, but he recalled the fact that invitations to the First Hague Conference were sent out while the United States and Spain were at war, though during an armistice for the settlement of terms of peace. The American ministers were directed to bring the foregoing considerations to the attention of the Governments to which they were accredited, without specifically mentioning a programme for such Conference, except those matters which the Hague Conference of 1899 left for further discussion. He referred to the fact that on the 28th April, 1904, the Congress of the United States had resolved that it was desirable, in the interests of uniformity of action by the maritime states of the world in time of war, that the President endeavour to bring about an understanding among the principal maritime Powers with a view of incorporating into the permanent law of civilised nations the principle of the exemption of all private property at sea, not contraband of war, from capture or destruction by belligerents. After mentioning the questions of contraband and inviolability of postal correspondence, and the treatment of refugee belligerent ships in neutral ports, the Circular stated that the overture for a second Conference was not designed to supersede other calls for the consideration of special topics, such as the amendment of the Hague Convention with respect to hospital ships, and concluded by expressing the President’s desire and hope that “the undying memories which cling round the Hague as the cradle of the beneficent work which had its Edition: current; Page: [53] beginning in 1899 may be strengthened by the holding of the Second Peace Conference in that historic city1.”

Russia, the originator of the First Conference, was, as the American Circular points out, at war with Japan, and the Russian Government stipulated that the Conference should not be held till war was terminated. This was ultimately brought about by the statesmanlike action of President Roosevelt. Meantime the Tsar made known his desire to be allowed to summon the Second Conference. The President at once yielded the precedence to the Emperor Nicholas II, and on the 3rd April, 1906, the following note was addressed with the assent of the Tsar by representatives of the Russian Government abroad to the Governments to which they were accredited2.

Count Benckendorff
Benckendorff, Count
April 3, 1906
London
M. le Secrétaire d’Etat
d’Etat, M. le Secrétaire
London.
M. le Secrétaire d’Etat,

In convoking a second Peace Conference, the Imperial Government have had in view the necessity of giving a fresh development to the humanitarian principles which formed the basis of the work of the great international meeting of 1899.

They are at the same time of opinion that it is desirable to increase as far as possible the number of states taking part in the labours of the proposed Conference, and the enthusiasm which this appeal has met with proves how deep and widespread is the wish to-day to give effect to ideas having as their object the welfare of humanity.

The first Conference broke up with the conviction that its work would be completed subsequently by the regular progress of enlightenment among the nations and as the result of experience gradually acquired. Its most important creation, the International Court of Arbitration, is an institution which has already been tested, and which has collected for the common weal, as it were in the areopagus Court, jurists enjoying universal respect. It has also been proved how useful the International Commissions of Inquiry have been for settling differences which have arisen between one state and another.

There are, however, improvements to be made in the Convention relative to the pacific settlement of international disputes. As a result of recent arbitrations the jurists on the Tribunal have raised certain Edition: current; Page: [54] questions of detail about which it is necessary to come to a decision, by giving to the said Convention the necessary developments. It seems, in particular, desirable that fixed principles should be laid down in regard to what languages are to be used in the Court, in view of the difficulties which might arise in the future, as recourse to arbitration jurisdiction became more frequent. There are, similarly, certain improvements to make in the working of the International Commissions of Inquiry.

As regards the codification of the laws and customs of war on land, the provisions adopted by the First Conference must likewise be completed, and so clearly defined as to preclude all possibility of misunderstanding.

In regard to naval warfare, as to which the laws and customs differ in certain particulars in different countries, it is necessary to establish fixed rules to meet both the requirements of the rights of belligerents and the interests of neutrals.

A Convention respecting these matters would have to be elaborated, and would form one of the most important duties of the next Conference.

Consequently, as it is at present desirable to examine only such questions as are of pressing importance, in the light of the experience of recent years, leaving untouched those questions which might affect the limitation of military or naval forces, the Imperial Government puts forward as the programme of the proposed meeting the following principal points:—

1. Improvements to be made in the provisions of the Convention relative to the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, as far as the Court of Arbitration and the International Commissions of Inquiry are concerned.

2. Additions to be made in the provisions of the Convention of 1899 relative to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, among others, concerning the opening of hostilities, the rights of neutrals on land, etc. Declarations of 1899. One of them having lapsed, question of its renewal.

3. Elaboration of a Convention relative to the Laws and Usages of Naval Warfare concerning—

Special operations in naval warfare, such as the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force, laying torpedoes, etc.;

Conversion of merchant-vessels into war-ships;

Private property of belligerents at sea;

The days of grace accorded to merchant-vessels for leaving neutral or enemy ports after the commencement of hostilities;

Edition: current; Page: [55]

The rights and duties of neutrals at sea, among others, questions of contraband, the regulations to be applied to the belligerent vessels in neutral ports; destruction by force majeure of neutral merchantships detained as prizes.

In the said proposed Convention would be inserted provisions relative to war on land which would be likewise applicable to naval warfare.

4. Additions to be made in the Convention of 1899 for applying to naval warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864.

As at the Conference of 1899, it is fully understood that the deliberations of the proposed meeting shall not affect either the political relations between one country and another or the existing order of things as established by treaties, or, in general, questions not directly referred to in the programme adopted by the Cabinets.

The Imperial Government wishes it to be clearly understood that this programme and its eventual acceptance by the different states obviously does not prejudice any opinions which may be expressed at the Conference as to the solution to be given to questions submitted for discussion. Similarly it would be the duty of the proposed meeting to define the order in which questions are to be treated and the form which such decisions as are adopted should take, according as it should be considered preferable to include some of them in fresh Conventions or to add them to Conventions already in existence.

In formulating the above-mentioned programme, the Imperial Government has, as far as possible, taken into consideration the opinions expressed at the First Peace Conference, in particular in regard to the rights and duties of neutrals, private property of belligerents at sea, bombardment of ports, towns, etc. They trust that His Britannic Majesty’s Government will recognise in the various suggestions an expression of the desire to arrive at that high ideal of international justice which is the constant aim of the whole civilised universe.

Under instructions from my Government, I have the honour to inform you of the above, and I have to add that the date of the assembling of the proposed Conference at the Hague should be the second half of July next (n.s.), the Netherland Government being also of opinion for their part that this date would be the most convenient.

Awaiting a reply from the Government of His Britannic Majesty at an early date, I have, etc.

(Signed) BENCKENDORFF.
Edition: current; Page: [56]

The First Conference contained no representatives from the Central and South American Republics. In addressing an invitation to these and other states which did not take part in the First Conference a difficulty presented itself. The First Convention of the First Conference on the pacific settlement of international disputes was only open to signature by the Powers present at that Conference. By Article 60 it was provided as follows:—“The conditions upon which those Powers which were not represented in the International Peace Conference may accede to the present Convention shall form the subject of a further agreement between the contracting Powers.” No such agreement had been concluded. As it was probable that the projected Conference would take the Conventions of 1899 into consideration, it was necessary to enable the newly-invited states to become parties to the Conventions if they wished. Count Benckendorff therefore suggested in another note of the 3rd April, 1906, that at the opening of the Second Conference the agreement contemplated by Article 60 should be entered into, and as a similar restriction did not exist in the case of the other two Conventions, the Russian Government approached the newly-invited states to signify their adherence to these two Conventions to the Netherland Government1. No objection was made to this course and the newly-invited states acceded to the Convention No. 1 of 1899 at the opening of the Conference in 1907, and those states which had hitherto not become parties to the other Conventions also signified their adherence. The date suggested by the Russian Circular was found to be inconvenient for two reasons. A Conference of the South American States had already been fixed for July, 1906, and the Swiss Government had summoned a meeting of the Powers for June, 1906, for the revision of the Geneva Convention of 1864. A further postponement was therefore necessary. Invitations were finally issued by the Dutch Government in May, 1907, to 47 states, and on the 15th June, 1907, the Conference was opened in the Hall of the Knights at the Hague by the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs. M. Nélidow, the Russian Ambassador in Paris, was elected President of the Conference. Forty-four states were represented; those who were not represented, though invited, were Abyssinia, Costa Rica and Honduras. The delegates of Corea sought to be included, but owing to the opposition of Japan were excluded2.

The Programme for the discussion of the Conference had been sketched in the Circular of Count Benckendorff of the 3rd April, 1906, and in replying to it several states intimated their intention to bring forward additional Edition: current; Page: [57] subjects. The United States, Great Britain and Spain reserved the right of submitting the question of the reduction or limitation of armaments, and the growing expenditure on them. It is a noteworthy fact that though this question was the prime cause of the meeting of the First Conference and appeared in the forefront of Count Mouravieff’s Circular it finds no place in that of Count Benckendorff. This in itself was not a hopeful omen for those who attached great weight to the pacific influence of such gatherings. The United States also intimated their intention of submitting an agreement for restricting the employment of force for the recovery of ordinary public debts resulting from contracts. Japan expressed the opinion that certain questions not specifically mentioned might be usefully included among the subjects to be examined. Bolivia, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands also reserved the right of submitting to the Conference other subjects similar to those explicitly mentioned in the Circular. It was also clear that several governments did not expect fruitful results from some of the proposals, as the British, Japanese, German and Austro-Hungarian Governments reserved the right of abstaining from discussing questions which they did not consider would lead to useful results. In announcing, before the opening of the Conference, these new subjects for discussion the Russian Government made a similar reservation. Great Britain was represented by four delegates1: the Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, G.C.B., the Right Hon. Sir Ernest Satow, G.C.M.G., the Right Hon. Lord Reay, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E. and Sir Henry Howard, K.C.M.G., with a staff of seven legal, military and naval technical delegates (Lieut.-Gen. Sir Edmond R. Elles, G.C.I.E., K.C.B., Captain C. L. Ottley, M.V.O., R.N., A.D.C. (now Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Ottley), Mr Eyre Crowe, Mr Cecil Hurst, Lieut.-Col. the Hon. H. Yarde-Buller, D.S.O., Commander J. R. Segrave, R.N. and Major George K. Cockerill). The United States delegates were: the Hon. J. H. Choate, the Hon. Horace Porter, the Hon. U. M. Rose, the Hon. D. J. Hill, Rear-Admiral Sperry, General G. B. Davis, Mr W. I. Buchanan, with two technical delegates (Mr James Brown Scott and Mr C. H. Butler). One hundred and seventy-four names of Plenipotentiaries and delegates are enumerated in the Final Act; being nearly double the number attending the First Peace Conference.

The Second Plenary Meeting was held on the 19th June, when in consequence of the large number of the Plenipotentiaries and delegates it was agreed to adopt a set of 12 rules with a view to facilitate the business. Following the precedent of 1899, Committees were appointed, the Plenipotentiaries Edition: current; Page: [58] of each Power being entitled to place themselves on as many as they chose and to designate their technical delegates. Great Britain and Germany objected to a portion of the eighth rule in the draft which allowed one Power to be represented by the Delegation of another Power, and this was suppressed. It was agreed that each Power should have only one vote. French was recognised as the official language for the deliberations and Acts of the Conference, speeches delivered in any other language to be translated into French through the medium of the Secretariat-General. Four Committees were appointed, and the subjects specified in Count Benckendorff’s Circular were allotted among them.

To the First Committee: (1) Arbitration, (2) Commissions of international inquiry, (3) Questions relating to naval prizes; M. Bourgeois (France) was President of this Committee.

To the Second Committee: (1) Revision of the rules of war on land, (2) The three Declarations of 1899, (3) Rights and duties of neutrals in regard to land warfare, (4) The opening of hostilities; M. Beernaert (Belgium) was President of this Committee.

To the Third Committee: (1) The bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force, (2) The placing of torpedoes and submarine mines, (3) Regulations for belligerent ships of war in neutral ports, (4) The revision of the Convention of 1899 applying to naval warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864 which was revised in 1906; Count Tornielli (Italy) was President of this Committee.

To the Fourth Committee: (1) The conversion of merchant-ships into ships of war, (2) Private property at sea, (3) Days of grace, (4) Contraband of war, (5) Blockade, (6) Destruction of neutral prizes, (7) Application of the rules of war on land to maritime warfare; M. de Martens (Russia) was President of this Committee.

Honorary Presidents and Vice-Presidents were appointed to each Committee. At the Second Plenary Meeting of the Conference the British and German delegates intimated that they proposed to submit projects for the establishment of an International Prize Court. The American delegate announced that he intended to bring before the Conference the question of the forcible collection of public debts, and the British delegate made a general reservation in favour of introducing other subjects during the sitting of the Conference. Besides the Four Committees mentioned there was also a Drafting Committee (Comité de Rédaction) and a Committee to examine and report on the numerous addresses, books, etc. presented to the Conference (Commission des Adresses). The First, Second and Third Committees were each divided into two Sub-Committees, and Edition: current; Page: [59] Examining Committees were also appointed. The size of the Committees as well as the different matters assigned to each made such an arrangement necessary. The average number of each Committee was 93. The United States had the largest number of representatives on each, varying from 8 on the Fourth Committee to 5 on the Third. It will, however, be remembered that each Power possessed but one vote.

The Conference held eleven plenary meetings; its work as well as that of the Committees whose reports were presented at these meetings will be dealt with in connection with the Conventions and “Wishes” set forth in the Final Act of the Conference adopted on the 18th Oct. 1907, and an endeavour will be made to deal with the results in the concluding chapter.

Edition: current; Page: [60]

Final Acts of the International Peace Conferences.

Actes Finals des Conférences Internationales de da Paix.

Acte Final de la Conférence Internationale de la Paix, 1899.

La Conférence Internationale de la Paix, convoquée dans un haut sentiment d’humanité par Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies, s’est réunie sur l’invitation du Gouvernement de Sa Majesté la Reine des Pays-Bas, à la Maison Royale du Bois à La Haye, le 18 Mai, 1899.

Les Puissances, dont l’énumération suit, ont pris part à la Conférence, pour laquelle elles avaient désigné les Délégués nommés ci-après:—

[Dénomination des Délégués des Puissances, dont l’énumération suit.]

L’Allemagne, l’Autriche-Hongrie, la Belgique, la Chine, le Danemark, l’Espagne, les États-Unis d’Amérique, les États-Unis Mexicains, la France, la Grande-Bretagne et Irlande, la Grèce, l’Italie, le Japon, le Luxembourg, le Monténégro, les Pays-Bas, la Perse, le Portugal, la Roumanie, la Russie, le Serbie, le Siam, la Suède et la Norvège, la Suisse, la Turquie, la Bulgarie.

Acte Final de la Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, 1907.

La Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, proposée d’abord par M. le Président des États-Unis d’Amérique, ayant été, sur l’invitation de Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies, convoquée par Sa Majesté la Reine des Pays-Bas, s’est réunie le 15 Juin, 1907, à La Haye, dans la Salle des Chevaliers, avec la mission de donner un développement nouveau aux principes humanitaires qui ont servi de base à l’œuvre de la Première Conférence de 1899.

Les Puissances, dont l’énumération suit, ont pris part à la Conférence, pour laquelle Elles avaient désigné les Délégués nommés ci-après:—

[Dénomination des Délégués des Puissances, dont l’énumération suit.]

L’Allemagne, les Etats-Unis d’Amérique, la République Argentine, l’Autriche-Hongrie, la Belgique, la Bolivie, le Brésil, la Bulgarie, le Chili, la Chine, la Colombie, la République de Cuba, le Danemark, la République Dominicaine, la République de l’Équateur, l’Espagne, la France, la Grande-Bretagne, la Grèce, le Guatémala, la République d’Haïti, l’Italie, le Japon, le Luxembourg, le Mexique, le Monténégro, la Nicaragua, la Norvège, le Panama, le Paraguay, les Pays-Bas, le Pérou, la Perse, le Portugal, la Roumanie, la Russie, le Salvador, la Serbie, le Siam, la Suède, la Suisse, la Turquie, l’Uruguay, les États-Unis du Vénézuéla.

Edition: current; Page: [62]

1899

Dans une série de réunions, tenues du 18 Mai au 29 Juillet, 1899, où les Délégués précités ont été constamment animés du désir de réaliser, dans la plus large mesure possible, les vues généreuses de l’Auguste Initiateur de la Conférence et les intentions de leurs Gouvernements, la Conférence a arrêté, pour être soumis à la signature des Plénipotentiaires, le texte des Conventions et Déclarations énumérées ciaprès et annexées au présent Acte:—

I. Convention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux.

II. Convention concernant les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre.

III. Convention pour l’adaptation à la guerre maritime des principes de la Convention de Genève du 22 Août, 1864.

IV. Trois Déclarations concernant:

1. L’interdiction de lancer des projectiles et des explosifs du haut de ballons ou par d’autres modes analogues nouveaux.

2. L’interdiction de l’emploi des projectiles qui ont pour but unique de répandre des gaz asphyxiants ou délétères.

3. L’interdiction de l’emploi de balles qui s’épanouissent ou s’aplatissent facilement dans le corps humain, telles que les balles à enveloppe dure dont l’enveloppe ne couvrirait pas entièrement le noyau ou serait pourvue d’incisions.

Ces Conventions et Déclarations formeront autant d’Actes séparés. Ces Actes porteront la date de ce jour et pourront être signés jusqu’au 31 Décembre, 1899, par les Plénipotentiaires des Puissances représentées à la Conférence Internationale de la Paix à La Haye.

Obéissant aux mêmes inspirations, la Conférence a adopté à l’unanimité la Résolution suivante:—

“La Conférence estime que la limitation des charges militaires qui pèsent actuellement sur le monde est grandement désirable pour l’accroissement du bien-être matériel et moral de l’humanité.”

Elle a, en outre, émis les vœux suivants:—

1. La Conférence, prenant en considération les démarches préliminaires faites par le Gouvernement Fédéral Suisse pour la revision de la Convention de Genève, émet le vœu qu’il soit procédé à bref délai à la réunion d’une Conférence spéciale ayant pour objet la révision de cette Convention.

Ce vœu a été voté à l’unanimité.

2. La Conférence émet le vœu que la question des droits et des devoirs des neutres soit inscrite au programme d’une prochaine Conférence.

3. La Conférence émet le vœu que les questions relatives aux fusils et aux canons de marine, telles qu’elles ont été examinées par elle, soient mises à l’étude par les Gouvernements, en vue d’arriver à une entente concernant la mise en usage de nouveaux types et calibres.

4. La Conférence émet le vœu que les Gouvernements, tenant compte des propositions faites dans la Conférence, mettent à l’étude la possibilité d’une entente concernant la limitation des forces armées de terre et de mer et des budgets de guerre.

5. La Conférence émet le vœu que la proposition tendant à déclarer l’inviolabilité de la propriété privée dans la guerre sur mer soit renvoyée à l’examen d’une Conférence ultérieure.

6. La Conférence émet le vœu que la proposition de régler la question du bombardement des ports, villes, et villages par une force navale soit renvoyée à l’examen d’une Conférence ultérieure.

Les cinq derniers vœux ont été votés à l’unanimité, sauf quelques abstentions.

En foi de quoi, les Plénipotentiaires ont signé le présent Acte, et y ont apposé leurs cachets.

Fait à La Haye, le 29 Juillet, 1899, en un seul exemplaire, qui sera déposé au Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront délivrées à toutes les Puissances représentées à la Conférence.

1907

Dans une série de réunions, tenues du 15 Juin au 18 Octobre, 1907, où les Délégués précités ont été constamment animés du désir de réaliser, dans la plus large measure possible, les vues généreuses de l’Auguste Initiateur de la Conférence et les intentions de leurs Gouvernements, la Conférence a arrêté, pour être soumis à la signature des Plénipotentiaires, le texte des Conventions et de la Déclaration énumérées ci-après et annexées au présent Acte:—

1. Convention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux.

2. Convention concernant la limitation de l’emploi de la force pour le recouvrement de dettes contractuelles.

3. Convention relative à l’ouverture des hostilités.

4. Convention concernant les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre.

5. Convention concernant les droits et les devoirs des puissances et des personnes neutres en cas de guerre sur terre.

6. Convention relative au régime des navires de commerce ennemis au début des hostilités.

7. Convention relative à la transformation des navires de commerce en bâtiments de guerre.

8. Convention relative à la pose de mines sous-marines automatiques de contact.

9. Convention concernant le bombardement par des forces navales en temps de guerre.

10. Convention pour l’adaptation à la guerre maritime des principes de la Convention de Genève.

Edition: current; Page: [64]

11. Convention relative à certaines restrictions à l’exercice du droit de capture dans la guerre maritime.

12. Convention relative à l’établissement d’une Cour internationale des prises.

13. Convention concernant les droits et les devoirs des Puissances neutres en cas de guerre maritime.

14. Déclaration relative à l’interdiction de lancer des projectiles et des explosifs du haut de ballons.

Ces Conventions et cette Déclaration formeront autant d’Actes séparés. Ces Actes porteront la date de ce jour et pourront être signés jusqu’au 30 Juin, 1908, à la Haye, par les Plénipotentiaires des Puissances représentées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix.

La Conférence, se conformant à l’esprit d’entente et de concessions réciproques qui est l’esprit même de ses délibérations, a arrêté la déclaration suivante qui, tout en réservant à chacune des Puissances représentées le bénéfice de ses votes, leur permet à toutes d’affirmer les principes qu’elles considèrent comme unanimement reconnus:—

Edition: current; Page: [66]

Elle est unanime—

1. A reconnaître le principe de l’arbitrage obligatoire.

2. A déclarer que certains différends, et notamment ceux relatifs à l’interprétation et à l’application des stipulations conventionnelles internationales, sont susceptibles d’être soumis à l’arbitrage obligatoire sans aucune restriction.

Elle est unanime enfin à proclamer que, s’il n’a pas été donné de conclure dès maintenant une Convention en ce sens, les divergences d’opinion qui se sont manifestées n’ont pas dépassé les limites d’une controverse juridique, et qu’en travaillant ici ensemble pendant quatre mois toutes les Puissances du monde, non seulement ont appris à se comprendre et à se rapprocher davantage, mais ont su dégager, au cours de cette longue collaboration, un sentiment très élevé du bien commun de l’humanité.

En outre, la Conférence a adopté à l’unanimité la Résolution suivante:—

La Deuxième Conférence de la Paix confirme la Résolution adoptée par la Conférence de 1899 à l’égard de la limitation des charges militaires; et, vu que les charges militaires se sont considérablement accrues dans presque tous les pays depuis la dite année, la Conférence déclare qu’il est hautement désirable de voir les Gouvernements reprendre l’étude sérieuse de cette question.

Elle a de plus émis les Vœux suivants:—

1. La Conférence recommande aux Puissances Signataires l’adoption du Edition: current; Page: [68] projet ci-annexé de Convention pour l’établissement d’une Cour de Justice arbitrale, et sa mise en vigueur dès qu’un accord sera intervenu sur le choix des juges et la constitution de la Cour1.

2. La Conférence émet le vœu qu’en cas de guerre, les autorités compétentes, civiles et militaires, se fassent un devoir tout spécial d’assurer et de protéger le maintien des rapports pacifiques et notamment des relations commerciales et industrielles entre les populations des Etats belligérants et les pays neutres.

3. La Conférence émet le vœu que les Puissances règlent, par des Conventions particulières, la situation, au point de vue des charges militaires, des étrangers établis sur leurs territoires.

4. La Conférence émet le vœu que l’élaboration d’un règlement relatif aux lois et coutumes de la guerre maritime figure au programme de la prochaine Conférence et que, dans tous les cas, les Puissances appliquent, autant que possible, à la guerre sur mer, les principes de la Convention relative aux lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre.

Enfin, la Conférence recommande aux Puissances la réunion d’une troisième Conférence de la Paix, qui pourrait avoir lieu dans une période Edition: current; Page: [70] analogue à celle qui s’est écoulée depuis la précédente Conférence à une date à fixer d’un commun accord entre les Puissances, et elle appelle leur attention sur la nécessité de préparer les travaux de cette troisième Conférence assez longtemps à l’avance pour que ses délibérations se poursuivent avec l’autorité et la rapidité indispensables.

Pour atteindre à ce but, la Conférence estime qu’il serait très désirable que, environ deux ans avant l’époque probable de la réunion, un Comité préparatoire fût chargé par les Gouvernements de recueillir les diverses propositions à soumettre à la Conférence, de rechercher les matières susceptibles d’un prochain règlement international et de préparer un programme que les Gouvernements arrêteraient assez tôt pour qu’il pût être sérieusement étudié dans chaque pays. Ce Comité serait, en outre, chargé de proposer un mode d’organisation et de procédure pour la Conférence ellemême.

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires ont signé le présent Acte et y ont apposé leurs cachets.

Fait à La Haye, le 18 Octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire, qui sera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et dont les copies, certifiées conformes, seront délivrées à toutes les Puissances représentées à la Conférence.

Edition: current; Page: [61]

Final Acts of the International Peace Conferences.

Final Act of the International Peace Conference, 1899.

The International Peace Conference, convoked in the best interests of humanity by His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, assembled on the invitation of the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands in the Royal House in the Wood at the Hague, on the 18th May, 1899.

The Powers enumerated in the following list took part in the Conference, to which they appointed the Delegates named below.

[Names of Delegates of the following Powers.]

Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, China, Denmark, Spain, the United States of America1, the United States of Mexico, France, Great Britain1 and Ireland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Bulgaria.

Final Act of the Second International Peace Conference, 1907.

The Second International Peace Conference, proposed in the first instance by the President of the United States of America, having been convoked, on the invitation of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, assembled on the 15th June, 1907, at the Hague, in the Hall of the Knights, for the purpose of giving a fresh development to the humanitarian principles which served as a basis for the work of the First Conference of 1899.

The Powers enumerated in the following list took part in the Conference, to which they appointed the Delegates named below:—

[Names of Delegates of the following Powers.]

Germany, The United States of America2, The Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, The Republic of Cuba, Denmark, The Dominican Republic, The Republic of the Ecuador, Spain, France, Great Britain2, Greece, Guatemala, The Republic of Haïti, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, The Netherlands, Peru, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Servia, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, The United States of Venezuela.

Edition: current; Page: [63]

1899

At a series of meetings, between the 18th May and the 29th July, 1899, in which the above Delegates were throughout animated by the desire to realize, in the fullest possible measure, the generous views of the august initiator of the Conference and the intentions of their Governments, the Conference drew up for submission for signature by the Plenipotentiaries the text of the Conventions and Declarations enumerated below and annexed to the present Act:—

I. Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes.

II. Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land.

III. Convention for the adaptation to maritime war of the principles of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864.

IV. Three Declarations:—

1. Prohibiting the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other similar new methods.

2. Prohibiting the use of projectiles, the only object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases.

3. Prohibiting the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope, of which the envelope does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

These Conventions and Declarations shall form so many separate Acts. These Acts shall be dated this day, and may be signed up to the 31st December, 1899, by the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at the Hague.

Guided by the same sentiments, the Conference has unanimously adopted the following Resolution:—

“The Conference is of opinion that the restriction of military charges, which are at present a heavy burden on the world, is extremely desirable for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind.”

It has, besides, formulated the following wishes:—

1. The Conference, taking into consideration the preliminary steps taken by the Swiss Federal Government for the revision of the Geneva Convention, expresses the wish that steps may be shortly taken for the assembly of a Special Conference having for its object the revision of that Convention.

This wish was voted unanimously.

2. The Conference expresses the wish that the question of the rights and duties of neutrals may be inserted in the programme of a Conference in the near future.

3. The Conference expresses the wish that the questions with regard to rifles and naval guns, as considered by it, may be studied by the Governments with the object of coming to an agreement respecting the employment of new types and calibres.

4. The Conference expresses the wish that the Governments, taking into consideration the proposals made at the Conference, may examine the possibility of an agreement as to the limitation of armed forces by land and sea, and of war budgets.

5. The Conference expresses the wish that the proposal, which contemplates the declaration of the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, may be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration.

6. The Conference expresses the wish that the proposal to settle the question of the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force may be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration.

The last five wishes were voted unanimously, saving some abstentions.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Act, and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at the Hague, 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and of which duly certified copies shall be delivered to all the Powers represented at the Conference.

1907

At a series of meetings, held from the 15th June to the 18th October, 1907, in which the above Delegates were throughout animated by the desire to realize, in the fullest possible measure, the generous views of the august initiator of the Conference and the intentions of their Governments, the Conference drew up for submission for signature by the Plenipotentiaries, the text of the Conventions and of the Declaration enumerated below and annexed to the present Act:—

1. Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes.

2. Convention respecting the limitation of the employment of force for the recovery of contract debts

3. Convention relative to the opening of hostilities.

4. Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land.

5. Convention respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land.

6. Convention relative to the status of enemy merchant-ships at the outbreak of hostilities.

7. Convention relative to the conversion of merchant-ships into warships.

8. Convention relative to the laying of automatic submarine contact mines.

9. Convention respecting bombardment by naval forces in time of war.

10. Convention for the adaptation to maritime war of the principles of the Geneva Convention.

Edition: current; Page: [65]

11. Convention relative to certain restrictions with regard to the exercise of the right of capture in naval war.

12. Convention relative to the creation of an International Prize Court.

13. Convention concerning the rights and duties of neutral Powers in naval war.

14. Declaration prohibiting the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons.

These Conventions and this Declaration shall form so many separate Acts. These Acts shall be dated this day, and may be signed up to the 30th June, 1908, at The Hague, by the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the Second Peace Conference.

The Conference, actuated by the spirit of mutual agreement and concession characterizing its deliberations, has agreed upon the following Declaration, which, while reserving to each of the Powers represented full liberty of action as regards voting, enables them to affirm the principles which they regard as unanimously admitted:—

Edition: current; Page: [67]

It is unanimous—

1. In admitting the principle of compulsory arbitration.

2. In declaring that certain disputes, in particular those relating to the interpretation and application of the provisions of international agreements, may be submitted to compulsory arbitration without any restriction.

Finally, it is unanimous in proclaiming that, although it has not yet been found feasible to conclude a Convention in this sense, nevertheless the divergences of opinion which have come to light have not exceeded the bounds of judicial controversy, and that, by working together here during the past four months, the collected Powers not only have learnt to understand one another and to draw closer together, but have succeeded in the course of this long collaboration in evolving a very lofty conception of the common welfare of humanity.

The Conference has further unanimously adopted the following Resolution:—

The Second Peace Conference confirms the Resolution adopted by the Conference of 1899 in regard to the limitation of military expenditure; and inasmuch as military expenditure has considerably increased in almost every country since that time, the Conference declares that it is eminently desirable that the Governments should resume the serious examination of this question.

It has besides expressed the following wishes:—

1. The Conference calls the attention of the Signatory Powers to the Edition: current; Page: [69] advisability of adopting the annexed draft Convention for the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court, and of bringing it into force as soon as an agreement has been reached respecting the selection of the Judges and the constitution of the Court1.

2. The Conference expresses the wish that, in case of war, the responsible authorities, civil as well as military, should make it their special duty to ensure and safeguard the maintenance of pacific relations, more especially of the commercial and industrial relations between the inhabitants of the belligerent States and neutral countries.

3. The Conference expresses the wish that the Powers should regulate, by special Treaties, the position, as regards military charges, of foreigners residing within their territories.

4. The Conference expresses the wish that the preparation of regulations relative to the laws and customs of naval war should figure in the programme of the next Conference, and that in any case, the Powers may apply, as far as possible, to war by sea the principles of the Convention relative to the laws and customs of war on land.

Finally, the Conference recommends to the Powers the assembly of a third Peace Conference, which might be held within a period corresponding to Edition: current; Page: [71] that which has elapsed since the preceding Conference, at a date to be fixed by common agreement between the Powers, and it calls their attention to the necessity of preparing the programme of this third Conference a sufficient time in advance to ensure its deliberations being conducted with the necessary authority and expedition.

In order to attain this object the Conference considers that it would be very desirable that, some two years before the probable date of the meeting, a preparatory Committee should be charged by the Governments with the task of collecting the various proposals to be submitted to the Conference, of ascertaining what subjects are ripe for embodiment in an International Regulation, and of preparing a programme which the Governments should decide upon in sufficient time to enable it to be carefully examined by the countries interested. This Committee should further be intrusted with the task of proposing a system of organization and procedure for the Conference itself.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Act and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent to all the Powers represented at the Conference.

Edition: current; Page: [72]

The Final Acts of the International Peace Conferences 1899 and 1907.

The Final Acts.The Final Acts of the Conferences are authoritative statements of the results arrived at, but the signature thereof by the delegates in no way committed the Powers to a signature of the Conventions. Both in 1899 and 1907 the work of preparing the Final Acts was entrusted to a Drafting Committee (Comité de Rédaction), of which Professor Louis Renault was “Reporter” on both occasions.

The Final Act of the Second Peace Conference was entrusted to a Sub-Committee of 8, and finally revised by the Drafting Committee of 29. At the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Conference, M. Renault gave an account of the work of these bodies and explained the form in which the Final Act was laid before the Conference for signature1. The form of the two Acts is similar, but in that of the Second Conference reference is made to the fact that the Conference was first proposed by President Roosevelt2. Then follow the names of the Powers and the delegates, and a list of the Conventions and Declarations to be submitted to the Plenipotentiaries for signature3.

The name “Convention” was chosen for all the agreements of the Conference, other designations, such as “Règlement” being not deemed suitable for international Acts. The term “Règlement” is however retained in Convention No. 4, on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which replaces No. 2 of 1899 on the same subject, but there was a doubt whether the “Règlement” annexed to this Convention was as binding on the contracting Powers as the Convention itself (Art. 1)4. The Final Acts were left open for signature for some months. In the case of the Final Act of 1907 the period allowed for signature was about 3 months longer than was the case in 1899; this was in consequence of the larger number of Powers represented at the Conference. In the case of Convention No. 12 of 1907, for the establishment of an International Prize Court, the protocol was left open until the 30th June, 1909. Apart Edition: current; Page: [73] from the Final Acts come the various Conventions, and the Declaration, which form so many separate Acts1.

Accession of non-signatory Powers.The question of accession of non-signatory Powers raised considerable discussion both in 1899 and 1907. In the case of the First Conference the system of the “open door” was adhered to except in the case of the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes2. In this case the special permission of the signatory Powers was required for the accession of non-signatory Powers. The door was closed, but might be opened, though not to everyone who cared to knock. The Powers represented at the First Conference were not willing to contract generally to submit to arbitration disputes which they might have with others than those then present. The accession of the Latin-American States was accepted on the opening of the Second Conference3.

All the Powers present in 1907 were, by the Final Act, enabled to sign until the 30th June, 1908, but as regards those not represented, the question as to their accession was raised, though in a different manner from that in which it presented itself in 1899, by reason of the large increase in the number of the Powers represented, and the very small number which remained outside the deliberations of the Conference. There was no question of modifying the rule laid down by the Conference of 1899 with regard to the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes. Article 53 of Convention No. 12, for the establishment of an International Prize Court, reserves to certain Powers, determined beforehand in Article 15 and the annexed table, the right of acceding to the Convention. This provision was necessary so as not to destroy the harmony of the whole project which establishes an agreement between the composition of the Court and the number of the contracting Powers.

But in regard to the other Conventions three alternatives were proposed: (1) To adopt the principle of 1899 and leave the Conventions open. (2) To limit subsequent accession only to the Powers summoned to the Second Conference, which was equivalent to closing the Conventions. (3) To adopt the principle of the Geneva Convention of 1906 under which the Convention is closed, but non-contracting Powers are allowed to accede, and their accession is final unless a formal protest is lodged by one of the contracting Powers within a certain period4. The basis of the two latter views was that the signatory states formed a society into which a stranger could not enter without first knocking at the door. The system of the “open door” offered certain inconveniences to the Dutch Government, who Edition: current; Page: [74] it was thought might find themselves embarrassed if application for accession were made by a Power whose status was doubtful. The Drafting Committee, however, adopted this principle on the grounds that any restrictive system would constitute a retrogressive movement, that the Conventions to which the principle was to apply (and it will be noticed it does not apply to Conventions 1 and 12) do not present the character of mutual concessions as is the case with Conventions made with some states only, for they are general in character, and are declarations of principles, and it is desirable that they should be established by as large a number of states as possible so as to constitute a code of universal law: lastly it was necessary to anticipate the possible case of one state obstinately refusing to allow a new state to become a party to the Conventions. The Conference adopted the recommendation of the Committee for the Conventions other than those mentioned, and each of the Conventions is concluded with a common formula of four Articles, commencing with “Non-signatory Powers may accede to the present Convention,” except in the case of Convention No. 10, in which a slight restriction is made by Article 24 which states “Non-signatory Powers which have accepted the Geneva Convention of the 6th July, 1906, may accede to the present Convention1.”

As regards the extent of the application of the Conventions, the general principle adopted is that they are only binding on the contracting Powers, and in case of the Conventions relating to war which contain provisions relative to neutrals, the Conventions only apply when all the belligerents are parties to the Convention except in the case of Convention No. 3 (see Art. 3).

Signatory Powers of the Final Acts.The twenty-six Powers who took part in the First Conference in 1899 are enumerated in the preamble to the Final Act: forty-four Powers are enumerated in the Final Act in 1907. All the Powers who had not participated in the First Conference, and who were present at the Second, signed their accession to the Conventions of the First at the commencement of the Second. The following Powers, who were not parties to the Final Act of 1899, are parties to the Final Act of 1907: the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Brazil, Chili, Colombia, Cuba, San Domingo, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haïti, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador, Uruguay, Venezuela. Norway and Sweden, having dissolved their union in 1905, appear as two separate states. It will also be noticed that Bulgaria, which in 1899 signed after Turkey, is in 1907 placed in alphabetical order with the other Powers. The only state represented at the Second Conference which has not, up to the present, signed the Final Act is Paraguay, though it has signed all the Conventions. Switzerland signed the Edition: current; Page: [75] Final Act under reservation of “Wish” No. 1 (for the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court) which the Swiss Federal Council does not accept.

A slight change was made in the mode of execution of the Conventions of 1907. The long formality of sealing was suppressed for all the Conventions, and only retained for the Final Act. Before dealing with the Conventions and Declaration agreed to at the two Conferences, the Resolutions and Wishes must be referred to.

The Wishes (Vœux).

The limitation of armaments and military budgets1.In the note which Count Mouravieff on the 12th August, 1898, handed to the members of the diplomatic corps at St Petersburg, a note which constituted the first cause of the Hague Conferences, “the maintenance of universal peace and a possible reduction of the excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations,” was represented as the ideal towards which the efforts of all Governments should be directed. The second circular of the 12th Jan., 1899, took note of the fact that the political horizon had in the interval undergone a change, but the Imperial Government put forward a programme for discussion in which the limitation of the progressive increase of military and naval armaments appeared as the first item. At the First Conference the Russian proposal was to maintain the status quo of the armed forces and military estimates for five years. Count Mouravieff’s circular had stated that financial burdens, constantly on the increase, were affecting public prosperity at its source; that the intellectual and physical forces of the peoples, labour and capital were to a large extent diverted from their natural application and were unproductively consumed; and that the armed peace of modern Europe had become a crushing burden which the peoples had more and more difficulty in bearing. This was not the opinion of the German delegate2, nor of the French, but, said the latter (M. Bourgeois), if both in Germany and France the great resources which are now devoted to military organisation were, at least in part, put to the service of peaceful and productive activity, the grand total of the prosperity of each country would not cease to increase at an even more rapid rate.

Edition: current; Page: [76]

The limitation of armaments and the reduction of military burdens as means of reducing the chances of war were remedies which appealed to the popular imagination; but the discussions showed that the difficulties in carrying them into effect, which had never been absent from the minds of statesmen, were unsurmountable. The military forces of a nation do not always correspond with the amounts of their military budgets or the numbers of men enrolled in time of peace. The position of no two states is identical: geographical, physical, and political conditions, the density, rapidity of growth, and state of education of the population, the position of a state in regard to colonies, coaling stations and means of communication, its dependence for food supplies on ocean-borne trade, its financial credit and natural resources, are all factors to be taken into account. It was not found possible to frame any formula which could apply to all states, and as M. Nélidow stated in 1907, keen differences of opinion soon broke out, and the debates assumed such a character, that, instead of the desired understanding, there was a danger of a disagreement which might have proved fatal to the rest of the labours of the Conference. Formal homage was paid to the Tsar’s ideal by the passing of the Resolution which declared that the restriction of military budgets was extremely (grandement) desirable, and by the emission of the Vœu that Governments would examine the possibility of an agreement as to the limitation of armed forces and war budgets.

The subject of the reduction of military budgets and disarmament was absent from the circular of Count Benckendorff. Much had happened since 1899. The position of Russia after the termination of the Russo-Japanese war did not permit her to consider that the limitation of armaments was an urgent question. In the interval of the two Conferences the question had however not been allowed to remain dormant. The subject was discussed in the House of Commons on 10th May, 1906, and in the House of Lords on the 25th May, and in the French and Italian Chambers of Deputies in June of the same year1. Subsequently Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, when Prime Minister, expressed himself strongly against the policy of huge armaments and in favour of the reconsideration of the subject by the Powers2. Notwithstanding the fact that the British Government had reason to anticipate that the discussion of the question would lead to no fruitful results, the British delegates were instructed to bring it forward at the Conference of 19073. At the Fourth Plenary Edition: current; Page: [77] Meeting of the Conference on the 18th August, Sir Edward Fry proposed that the Conference should confirm the Resolution adopted in 1899 in regard to the limitation of the military charges, and, in view of their great increase, should put it on record that it is eminently (hautement) desirable that Governments should resume their study of the question1. The British Plenipotentiary in his speech drew attention to the fact that between 1898 and 1906 the military expenditure of Europe, the United States and Japan had increased from £251,000,000 to £320,000,000, and stated that with a view of assisting in a reduction of this non-productive expenditure the British Government would be willing to communicate annually their programme to other Powers who would pursue the same course. The late Lord Goschen in a speech in 1906 in the House of Lords made a somewhat similar proposal, but on this occasion Sir Edward Fry on behalf of the British Government made the offer formally to the whole world. So far no Power seems to have accepted it. Sir Edward Fry’s motion received the support of the French delegate, M. Bourgeois, and the President communicated to the Conference a note from the delegates of Argentine and Chili containing the terms of a treaty which had been entered into on the 28th May, 1902, for the mutual reduction of the armaments of their countries for five years2. The discussion was felt however to be purely academic. “Contact with reality,” said M. Nélidow, “soon showed that the noble ideal of the Tsar concealed practical difficulties when it became a question of putting it into application.” The Resolution, which committed no one, was carried unanimously with applause.

The problem of disarmament or the limitation of armaments is one of the greatest difficulty. Armaments are not a cause of war in themselves; often they afford the best guarantee of peace. The sense of insecurity felt by nations, and the increase of their means of defence are due to moral causes; they spring from a lack of international confidence and the instinct of self-preservation. Disarmament, or even the reduction of armaments will not be effected so long as there is the fear that while some Powers adopt this course others will not. The lack of confidence in the protestations of pacific intentions which some of the greatest military Powers make from time to time prevents the reduction of the vast burdens which all the great Powers are increasingly putting on their citizens. Until the causes of international distrust are removed, progress towards the solution of the disarmament problem will be stayed. “La deuxième Conférence,” writes M. de Lapradelle, “n’accorde à la limitation des armamens, proclamée Edition: current; Page: [78] grandement désirable en 1899, hautement désirable en 1907, qu’une attention indifférente et lointaine, négligemment fixée dans un vœu sceptique, dont la molle formule cherche moins à flatter les amateurs de mirages qu’à leur adoucir la peine de l’illusion déçue1.”

The immunity of enemy private property at sea2.Of the other Vœux which were expressed by the Conference of 1899, No. 1 produced a practical result in the Geneva Convention of 1906, and Nos. 2 and 6 form the basis of Conventions Nos. 5, 9 and 13 of the Conference of 1907. No. 3 appears up to the present to have been fruitless. No. 4 has already been dealt with. There remains only No. 5 in which the Conference expressed the wish that the proposal which contemplates the declaration of the inviolability of private property in naval warfare may be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration.

At the First Hague Conference the United States delegates presented the following proposition: “The private property of all citizens or subjects of the signatory Powers, with the exception of contraband of war, shall be exempt from capture or seizure on the high seas or elsewhere by the armed vessels or the military forces of any of the said signatory Powers. But nothing herein contained shall extend exemption from seizure to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval forces of any of the said Powers3.” The Conference did not consider the discussion of this proposition to be within its competence, but adopted the Vœu set forth in the Final Act.

At the Second Conference the subject was assigned to the Fourth Committee, and M. Fromageot presented their Report at the Seventh Plenary Meeting4. The proposition was again brought forward by the United States Delegation and was framed in similar terms to those in Edition: current; Page: [79] which it had been presented in 1899 by Mr A. D. White1, and Mr Choate’s speech in moving it in the Committee followed similar lines of reasoning.The United States proposal in 1907. He traced the historical continuity of the doctrine onwards from 1783 when Benjamin Franklin proposed to Great Britain a treaty that in case of war between the two Powers all traders with their unarmed vessels employed in commerce should be allowed to pass freely unmolested. He cited treaties which had been entered into embodying the principle of abolition of capture of private property and the numerous expressions of opinion in its favour from statesmen, merchants and jurists. He urged the analogy of land warfare, the lack of military interest in the destruction of commerce, reasons of humanity, the losses occasioned to neutrals, the need for limiting war to the armed forces of the belligerents, and the risk of calling out a spirit of revenge and reprisals, and he concluded by intimating that President Roosevelt desired a vote of the Conference on the American proposal. The Russian delegates were of opinion that the question was not yet ready for solution, for the American proposition presupposed preparatory agreements and experience which were lacking up to the present time. The dread of great pecuniary losses both to belligerents and neutrals by the outbreak of war was, it was pointed out, one of the strongest guarantees of the peace of the world. The delegates of Brazil, Sweden and Norway supported the American proposal. The latter speaking for a Power largely interested in shipping, and for a country which he hoped would always be neutral, preferred that the self-interest of neutrals who would certainly gain by the maintenance of the status quo should give place to principles of humanity. The delegates of Holland, Greece and Austria also spoke on the same side, which received the qualified support of the German Plenipotentiary, Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, who, however, contended that the subject could not be considered by itself, as it was too closely allied to the questions of blockade and contraband to be able to be settled until these questions were first solved. The Portuguese delegate expressed a similar view. Strong opposition to the American proposal came from the Argentine and Colombian delegates, the latter (M. Triana) observing that the maintenance of the rule was essential for countries with great natural wealth which might excite the cupidity of stronger Powers. Sir Ernest Satow, speaking for Great Britain, opposed the American proposal2. He pointed out that the adoption of it would produce an abolition of Edition: current; Page: [80] commercial blockade, that attempts to limit blockades would produce friction, but while unable to accept the American proposal Great Britain desired to have the interests of neutrals respected, hence the British proposal for the abolition of contraband.

The unanimous acceptance of the American proposal was obviously not possible, but before a vote was taken on it various proposals for modifying the existing rigour of the law of capture were taken into consideration.

Other proposals in 1907 for mitigating the rules of capture of private property at sea.Brazil proposed that pending the acceptance of the American proposition, the Powers should put in force the principles of Articles 23, 28, 46, 47 and 53 of the Convention of 1899 on the laws and customs of war on land. These as further explained by M. Ruy Barbosa would enable a belligerent to capture enemy merchantmen and cargo, even when neutral, if the necessities of war so demanded, receipts being given as if for requisitions: while the crew of a captured enemy were to be put ashore in a neutral port1.

The Belgian proposition consisting of 12 Articles was to substitute sequestration for capture of enemy ships and their cargoes, the crews being liberated on condition of not serving against the captor during the war; and to forbid the destruction of prizes except under special circumstances. At the termination of the war, property so sequestered was to be returned, or if sold or destroyed its value to be handed to the former owners2.

The Dutch delegate proposed that exemption should be accorded to every ship to which the enemy had delivered a passport certifying that it would not be used as a ship of war, and subject to certain modifications he supported the Belgian proposal.

Lastly, the French delegate, while willing to accept the United States proposition if a unanimous agreement could be reached, suggested certain modifications in the existing rule in the meantime. He argued that as war is a relation of state to state, interference with the commerce of the enemy is perfectly justifiable. It is a powerful means of coercion, but its legitimate exercise should be directed against the resources of the state and not against private individuals, and therefore it should not be used as a means of gain to individuals. With a view of carrying out these ideas, he expressed the desire (vœu) that the distribution of prize-money among the crews of the capturing ships should be suppressed, and that means should be taken to ensure that the loss occasioned by the capture of private property should fall on the state.

Edition: current; Page: [81]

Result of the discussion at the Hague in 1907.The American proposition of absolute immunity from capture of enemy property at sea was put to the vote, when 21 states voted for, 11 against, and one abstained; 11 states were absent. The states voting for were: Germany (with the reservations before mentioned1), the United States, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Greece, Hayti, Italy, Norway, Holland, Persia, Roumania, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Against: Colombia, Spain, France, Great Britain, Japan, Mexico, Montenegro, Panama, Portugal, Russia and Salvador. Abstained, Chili.

On the Brazilian proposition for the assimilation of the laws of war on sea to those on land, 13 states voted for, 12 against. It was therefore withdrawn.

On the Belgian proposition for the substitution of sequestration for confiscation 14 states voted for the 1st Article, 9 against, 7 being absent. It was therefore withdrawn.

The President (M. de Martens) sought to bring about a compromise by proposing the “Wish” that at the commencement of hostilities Powers should declare if, and under what conditions, they would renounce the right of capture, but various objections were raised and it was withdrawn. A vote was then taken on the French proposal for the suppression of prize-money as modified by the Austro-Hungarian delegate, who had proposed the participation by the State in the losses by capture. The first part expressing the desire that Powers which maintained the right of capture should be invited to consider means of abolishing prize-money was adopted by 16 to 4, 14 states abstaining: on the second part in favour of State indemnity, only 7 states voted for (these included Great Britain), while 13 voted against, and 14 abstained. Here, so far as the Committee were concerned, the matter terminated, but the Brazilian proposition is largely reflected in the fourth “Wish” adopted in the Final Act which records that the Powers should apply, as far as possible, to war by sea the principles of the Convention relative to the laws and customs of war on land.

An examination of this question in all its bearings is impossible in this connection. The instructions of the British delegates clearly set forth the view which the Government of this country took on the matter before the Conference, and the results of the Conference showed that the questions of the immunity of enemy private property at sea as well as those of contraband and blockade must all be considered together in relation to the proposed creation of an International Prize Court, and the law which it is to administer.

Edition: current; Page: [82]

The “Wishes” enumerated in the Final Act of the Second Conference are the summary of its failures to reach any definite conclusion.

Obligatory arbitration.The Final Act of 1907, after an enumeration of the 13 Conventions and the Declaration agreed upon states that the delegates unanimously admitted the principle of obligatory arbitration, and declares that certain disputes, in particular those relating to the interpretation and application of the provisions of international agreements, may be submitted to obligatory arbitration without any restriction, it ends with the rhetorical statement that though it had not been found feasible to conclude a Convention in this sense the Powers had learnt to understand one another and to draw closer together and had “succeeded in the course of this long collaboration in evolving a lofty conception of the common welfare of humanity.” This was adopted at the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Conference by 41 votes; the United States, Japan and Roumania did not vote.

The problem of obligatory arbitration was considered by the First Committee, and its Sub-Committee, and various propositions were examined by a Special Committee (Committee “A”) which held 16 meetings. The Report of Baron Guillaume which was presented to the Ninth Plenary Meeting is a document of great length and contains a résumé of the propositions and arguments which the Committees had had under consideration1.

Article 16 of the Convention of 1899 for the pacific settlement of international disputes recognised arbitration as the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle in questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions. It was hoped by many states that the Conference of 1907 would go further and produce a Convention whereby the Powers represented would agree to accept compulsory arbitration in disputes regarding certain definite matters. Various proposals with this object were presented by the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Portugal, Servia, Sweden, Great Britain and the United States, but the discussion chiefly turned on the Portuguese proposal, based upon a draft prepared by the Inter-parliamentary Union which was subsequently amended by, and to a large degree embodied in, a proposal formulated by Great Britain and the United States and supported by France. Under Edition: current; Page: [83] the Portuguese proposal the contracting Powers agreed to submit to arbitration, without any reservations, disputes on some 18 subjects: the British proposal eliminated several and altered the definitions of others. The draft in this form was called the “Projet du Comité d’Examen” or “Projet anglo-portugais-américain.”

The chief opposition came from Germany. Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, while declaring himself favourable to the principle of obligatory arbitration under certain conditions and reservations, made it clear that he was not prepared to go beyond this general acceptance of principle. His main line of argument was as follows. If awards are given of a contradictory character regarding the interpretation of international treaties to which many states are parties, the existence of these treaties will be imperilled. Awards in contradiction with judicial verdicts of national tribunals in respect of the interpretation and application of international treaties will create an impossible situation. Awards to the effect that a state ought to alter its laws in accordance with an international treaty may produce serious conflicts with legislative bodies. And as regards the lists submitted, some matters were too unimportant to include, others were too serious without the reservation of “honour and vital interests1.”

It was evident that Germany would not fall in line with the great majority of the Powers on these questions, though Baron Marschall’s arguments were equally cogent in regard to the proposal to establish an international prize court which he was supporting. Strenuous endeavours were made to frame lists of subjects which would receive the acceptance of the Powers. The British proposal contained a table with a list of 22 subjects against which states should write their acceptance or rejection. Germany, however, was not prepared to accept or formulate any list. The Austro-Hungarian delegate (M. Mérey de Kapos-Mère) proposed that the Conference should content itself with a declaration which accepted the general principle of obligatory arbitration, but should state that, as difficulties were experienced in arriving at an agreement, the Conference would invite the Governments represented to make a further study of the questions and submit them to an international Committee2. This failed to receive the unanimous support of the Sub-Committee. Italy submitted another amendment by way of an addition to Article 16 of the Convention for the pacific settlement of disputes, whereby the Powers undertook to study the question and report by the 31st Dec. 1908 to the Dutch Government the matters which they Edition: current; Page: [84] were prepared to make the subject of a Convention on obligatory arbitration, but this also was rejected by Germany. Thus the attempts of the two members of the Triple Alliance to facilitate the adhesion of the third to some form of obligatory arbitration were unsuccessful. After weeks of fruitless endeavour to reach unanimity the Anglo-Portuguese-American proposals were submitted to the Committee and voted upon. The debate lasted two days, when this draft was carried by 32 votes against 9: 3 states abstained from voting. The majority agreed to accept obligatory arbitration in disputes concerning the interpretation and application of treaties with regard to the following matters: (1) mutual relief of indigent sick persons; (2) international protection of labour; (3) means of preventing collisions at sea; (4) weights and measures; (5) measurement of vessels; (6) wages and effects of deceased seamen; (7) protection of literary and artistic works; also for claims for pecuniary damages when the principle of indemnity was recognised by the parties. The states which voted against the project were: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, Roumania, Switzerland and Turkey. Italy, Japan and Luxemburg abstained from voting—the Japanese delegate, though not voting, announced that his Government was not prepared to accept obligatory arbitration, as the Court might adopt legal principles in opposition to those which his Government had adopted. The subjects on which the majority agreed to accept compulsory arbitration were not matters of great importance, but even these would have been welcomed as affording evidence of a practical acceptance of the principle. The opposition of Germany and Austria-Hungary, and the abstention of Italy, were fatal to their acceptance.

Notwithstanding the largeness of the majority, the Committee, acting on the principle that unanimity was requisite for a Convention, limited its recommendation to the acceptance of the Vœu suggested by Count Tornielli, which the Conference adopted. Mr Choate, however, was unable to accept this, as he considered that it constituted a real and serious retreat, and its adoption would imperil the cause of arbitration; he therefore abstained from voting at the Ninth Plenary Meeting. Japan and Roumania also abstained. The principle of obligatory arbitration was therefore accepted nem. con.

In one important point, however, the Conference was able to register a success, namely, Convention No. 2, respecting the limitation of force for the recovery of contract debts, which in effect makes arbitration compulsory in such cases1.

Edition: current; Page: [85]

Judicial Arbitration Court.The first Vœu of the Second Conference relates to an annexed draft for the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court, and will be discussed in connection with the text of the draft Convention1.

Neutrals in belligerent territory2.The second and third Vœux emanated from the Second Committee to which was referred the subject of the rights and duties of neutrals on land. The second Vœu expresses the desire that in case of war the responsible authorities, civil and military, should make it their special duty to ensure and safeguard the maintenance of pacific relations, more especially the commercial and industrial relations, between the inhabitants of the belligerent states and neutral countries. By the third the Conference expresses the opinion that the Powers should regulate, by special treaties, the position, as regards military charges of foreigners residing within their territories.

The Second Committee, for which Colonel Borel (Swiss delegate) acted as “Reporter,” presented a report to the Fifth Plenary Meeting of the Conference, in which they recommended the addition of two chapters to the Regulations for war on land containing 11 Articles which were based on a draft introduced by the German delegate. Chapter 1, containing draft Articles 61-63, dealt with the definition of a neutral; Chapter 2, containing draft Articles 64-68, dealt with services rendered by neutrals, and the treatment of neutral property. The discussion at the Fifth Plenary Meeting on the 7th Sept. showed so much divergence of opinion with regard to the draft Articles 64 and 65, and so many reservations were made, that the draft was remitted to the Committee for further consideration. The Articles in question proposed to confer special benefits on neutral aliens resident in belligerent territory, both as regards the treatment of their persons and property. It was proposed to enact that belligerents should not requisition neutrals for services having direct bearing on the war except for sanitary services or sanitary police absolutely demanded by the circumstances (64). That such exemption from service should not apply to persons who had voluntarily enlisted in a belligerent army, nor to persons belonging to the army of a belligerent state in virtue of the legislation of that state (65). As regards neutral property it was proposed that no contribution of war should be levied on neutrals (66); that the destruction, injury or seizure of neutral property should be prohibited except in case Edition: current; Page: [86] of absolute necessity, and then compensation should be paid (67); that belligerents should undertake to grant compensation for use of neutral immoveable property (68); and also for expropriation or use of neutral moveable property (69). The difficulty in regard to the draft Articles 64 and 65 turned partly on the difference of treatment as regards military service by various states of domiciled aliens and their children born within their territory, in which there is a striking lack of uniformity. Several of the Spanish-American states have been engaged in controversies with European Powers who have considered that the principle of nationality by parentage ought to exempt the children of their nationals, born within the territory of such states, from military service1. Several states have, by treaties, expressly guarded against the compulsory enrolment of their subjects for other than police purposes2. Some states, such as Switzerland, have replaced military service by a tax, and France and Spain have, by treaty of 1862, agreed that Spaniards born in France, and Frenchmen born in Spain are liable for military service in France and Spain respectively, unless they can prove that they have performed the service in their own countries3. As regards the special benefits it was proposed to confer on neutral property, Great Britain, France, Russia and Holland contended that aliens by taking up their residence in a state must submit to the treatment accorded to its nationals by the invader, and that contributions were levied ratione loci not ratione personae. The opposing principles were those of nationality and enemy domicile. Special difficulties in applying the suggested Articles were also pointed out by the British and Japanese delegates. Notwithstanding the hearty support accorded to the draft Articles by the United States and Swiss delegates, they failed of acceptance; Articles 61-63 of the German draft alone were adopted and form Articles 16-19 of Convention No. 54. The Committee recommended the adoption of the two Vœux which were unanimously accepted. We have dealt so far with the second; the fulfilment of the first does not appear to be very probable. The purpose of military operations is to bring the enemy to terms as speedily as possible, and a belligerent can best do this by cutting off the supplies of his adversary from neutral sources. His business is to hamper his opponent by all possible legitimate means, he will not be likely to assist and protect the maintenance of commercial and industrial relations Edition: current; Page: [87] between the inhabitants of his enemy’s state and neutrals, when by so doing he will naturally tend to increase the duration of the struggle1. War is more than a relation of state to state.

The laws and customs of naval warfare2.The fourth Vœu covers a wider field than the second and third. Questions relating to naval warfare entered into the work of all the four Committees of the Second Conference. The first Committee elaborated a draft Convention for an International Prize Court, the second dealt with declarations of war, a matter common to warfare by land and sea; the third and fourth formed a combined Committee on maritime questions under the presidencies of Count Tornielli and M. de Martens.

Of all departments of international law, that which relates to naval warfare, and the duties of neutrals therein, is in the most unsatisfactory condition. Jurists cannot be entirely acquitted of the charge of having assisted in producing this result. Sometimes the rules adopted by the state of which a publicist is a citizen, have been enunciated by him as if they were universally accepted as international law, and no small number of “incidents” and “strained relations” between states have been produced by the ignorance of the people of one state of the rules of naval warfare observed by another. In the case of land warfare there have been no changes in the weapons in use or the mode of conduct of hostilities during the past century comparable to the change from wooden sailing vessels to great floating metal fortresses propelled by steam power. The rules of maritime warfare, elaborated when wooden walls were the defence of a sea-girt state, are seen to be antiquated, and in some cases useless, when applied to modern conditions. Not only are the problems, by which belligerents themselves are faced, of increasing complexity, but in a still higher degree difficulties are experienced by neutrals in fulfilling their rôle of abstaining from all interference in a pending conflict. The dislocation of neutral trade, springing from an extension of the idea of contraband, the doctrine of “continuous voyage,” the divergent views of great naval Powers on the subject of blockade, and the danger to innocent neutral merchantmen from floating mines, produces increasing friction between belligerents and neutrals. The two great wars which had taken place since 1899 had brought these questions into dangerous prominence, and afford sufficient explanation why problems relating to naval warfare occupied so much of the attention of the Second Hague Edition: current; Page: [88] Conference. Unlike the laws of war on land, which, previously to the First Conference, had been considered in detail at the Brussels Conference and by the Institute of International Law, both of which bodies had prepared draft regulations, admirably adapted to form a basis for the work of the Conference, the laws of naval warfare as a whole (and apart from the treatment of the sick and wounded) had never received the careful study of an international gathering of the Powers. In many important points it has long been recognised that there are two divergent views, the Anglo-American and the Continental, and the failure of the Conference to produce a code of laws for naval warfare analogous to that which the First Conference elaborated for land warfare is not a matter for surprise. The “questionnaire,” prepared by M. de Martens for the basis of the discussions of the Fourth Committee, was framed in the following terms: “Within what limits are the provisions of the Convention of 1899 relating to the laws of war on land applicable to the operations of war on sea?” Considerable labour and much time were devoted to an examination of the general question of a code of naval warfare, as well as to a consideration of specific subjects which were entrusted to the Committee.

The “questionnaire” of M. de Martens was examined by a Comité d’Examen and a report prepared by M. de Karnebeck, but time did not admit of its being taken into consideration by the whole Committee. The difficulties in the way of arriving at a solution of the numerous questions connected with maritime warfare were explained by M. de Martens at the meeting of the Committee on the 18th Sept. He pointed out that historically there was a sharp line of demarcation between land and sea warfare. That, whereas in the case of the former, soldiers from Epaminondas to Gustavus Adolphus had themselves endeavoured to frame the rules, and the First Conference had before it the work of the Brussels Conference, in the matter of naval warfare the case was quite different. The instructions of a few great naval commanders, the decisions of Prize Courts and especially those of Lord Stowell, and naval manuals prepared by various Governments, were the sources for the law of naval warfare, and all were more or less tainted with national aspirations and the requirements of political expediency. M. Fromageot also pointed out in his report1 that the attempt to adapt the Rules of Land Warfare of 1899 to naval warfare would necessitate a change not only in drafting and form, but that they would even require fundamental modifications. The principles, however, underlying these regulations were recommended to the Conference as being applicable to maritime warfare, and the fourth Vœu Edition: current; Page: [89] was proposed, and unanimously adopted by the Conference, that the preparation of regulations relative to the laws and customs of naval warfare should be considered at the next Conference, and that meantime the Powers should apply the principles of the Convention of 1899 to war by sea. The Committee prepared a draft in parallel columns showing suggested changes in the application of these rules1. The problem relating to blockade and contraband, and the question as to the legality of sinking neutral prizes were however found to be insoluble2.

Destruction of neutral prizes3.On this latter subject the “questionnaire” of M. de Martens was as follows: “Is the destruction of merchant ships under a neutral flag engaged in war time in carrying troops or contraband forbidden by the laws of different countries or by international practice?” “Is the destruction of all neutral prizes illegitimate according to existing national laws and according to the practice in naval wars?”

In examining these questions the Committee refrained from endeavouring to formulate a statement as to what was the existing law, devoting its labours to discussions de lege ferenda rather than de lege lata, but it considered that there was a close connection between this subject and the question of the free access of prizes to neutral ports which was under consideration by the Third Committee.

In the course of the study of the matter by the Fourth Committee four proposals presented by the delegates of Great Britain, Russia, the United States and Japan came under consideration. These four were subsequently reduced to two, the United States and Japan supporting the British proposals.

The Russian proposal which was the first to be examined by the Examining Committee forbade the destruction of neutral prizes except in cases where the non-destruction would endanger the safety of the captor or the success of his operations. The arguments advanced by Colonel Ovtchinnokow in support of this proposal were that by the fact of Edition: current; Page: [90] capture the property in the prize passed to the captor, and that the subsequent decision of a Prize Court confirmed and did not create the right of ownership. The right of destruction should and would naturally be exercised with great reserve, for a captor would not lightly destroy his own property, and when it was exercised, persons and, as far as possible, cargo and papers on board should be preserved for use of Prize Courts, and to assist in fixing indemnities, if any, to neutrals. If the Prize Court subsequently decided against the validity of the capture, that would entail a liability to make compensation. For military or other reasons it might be impossible to take a captured ship into a port for condemnation, and absolutely to forbid its destruction would place states not possessing ports (hors de leurs côtes métropolitaines), into which prizes could be conducted, in a position of unjustifiable inferiority, and this would be increased if additional restrictions were adopted, as was proposed, on access of belligerents and their prizes to neutral ports.

The British proposal was framed to carry out the instructions given by Sir Edward Grey “that Great Britain has always maintained that the right to destroy is confined to enemy vessels only1,” and was that the destruction of neutral prizes is forbidden, and the captor must release a neutral ship which it cannot bring in for adjudication before a Prize Court. Sir Ernest Satow in supporting this proposal contended that destruction of neutral prizes was forbidden by existing practice, and pointed out that the Regulations of the Institute of International Law on maritime prizes, which in 1882 were drafted so as to make no distinction between captured enemy and neutral vessels, were in 1887 altered so that the right to destroy was limited to enemy vessels2. The rule of the British Admiralty, based on decisions of Lord Stowell, was clear, and Commanders are directed, when unable to send their prizes in for adjudication, “to release the vessel and cargo without ransom3.” In answer to the Russian argument based on the difference of the geographical situation of states, the British delegate urged that if this prevented the exercise of the right of capture of neutral ships carrying contraband or guilty of breach of blockade, they ought nevertheless to be set free. He concluded by stating that if Edition: current; Page: [91] the destruction of neutral prizes were allowed, there would be but little difference between neutral and enemy ships, and neutral governments would be almost powerless to protect their merchantmen.

The German delegate “shared entirely” the Russian point of view, while the United States and Japanese delegates supported the British; the Italian delegate pointed out the intimate connection between the subject and the right of using neutral ports, and a combined meeting of the two Examining Committees was held with the following result: free access to neutral ports for belligerent prizes was carried by a small majority (9 for, 3 against, 6 abstentions), prohibition of destruction, made by most conditional to free access, was carried by a slightly larger majority (11 for, 4 against, 2 abstentions), the Russian proposal for right to destroy had a small majority (6 for, 4 against, 7 abstentions)1.

The subject of the destruction of neutral prizes was brought into striking prominence during the Russo-Japanese war by the sinking by the Russians of various neutral merchantmen, the Knight Commander, the Hip-sang, the St Kilda, the Ikhoma, the Oldhamia, the Thea and others. The British Government entered a strong protest against this procedure, which it characterised as “a serious breach of international law”; and a distinguished English publicist terms it an “outrage” and a “gross breach of international law2.”

It will be noticed that the “questionnaire” of M. de Martens referred to the “laws of different countries” and “international practice.” Sir Ernest Satow asked for the view of the Committee on the existing state of international law, but M. de Martens objected to put this question to the vote3. The “laws of different countries” as evidenced by their naval instructions undoubtedly show a lack of uniformity, but such instructions have no international force, as will be seen from Lord Salisbury’s correspondence with Germany in 1901 in the cases of the Herzog and Bundesrath4. According to the Naval Codes and Prize Regulations of Russia, the United States and Japan, the sinking of neutral prizes is allowed under certain circumstances5; the British proposal was however supported by the delegates of the two latter states. The British Manual of Naval Prize Law prohibits this procedure. From Naval Codes and the opinions of certain writers on international law (chiefly continental), the language of the British Government cannot be wholly Edition: current; Page: [92] supported, but it is certainly supported by modern international practice. In no modern naval war has any Government put forward such a doctrine as that enunciated by the Russian, and no belligerent since the Declaration of Paris has acted as the Russians. The doctrine of the Russian Government would, as Lord Lansdowne stated, justify the destruction of any neutral ship taken by a belligerent vessel which started on her voyage with a crew sufficient only for her requirements, and therefore unable to furnish prize crews for her captures; it is in effect a negation of the Declaration of Paris.

There is a clear distinction between the right of seizure of enemy and neutral ships. The former is the legitimate exercise of a right of appropriation of all enemy property found on the high seas, the latter is exercised only for the purpose of punishing certain special acts which do not necessarily involve condemnation of the ship1. If the destruction of enemy ships is now generally recognised as lawful only in special cases, the list of exceptions should either vanish altogether, or be reduced to the minutest dimensions in the case of neutral prizes. The “Institut de Droit International” in 1887 pronounced in favour of the first alternative which is undoubtedly supported by modern practice. An agreement on this subject would materially aid in maintaining the peace of the world by removing a not improbable cause of war on the part of a neutral Power whose commerce was being ruined by the adoption by a belligerent of the practice advocated by the Russian Government2.

Beginnings of a Code of naval warfare.The Conference was, however, able to make some progress towards a Code of naval warfare by the adoption of the Conventions relating to the status of enemy merchant ships at the outbreak of hostilities (No. 6), the Convention relative to the conversion of merchant ships into war ships (No. 7), the Convention relative to the laying of automatic submarine contact mines (No. 8), the Convention respecting bombardment by naval forces in time of war (No. 9), the Convention placing certain restrictions on the exercise of the right of capture in naval warfare (No. 11), the Convention for the creation of an international prize court (No. 12), and the Convention concerning the rights and duties of neutral Powers in naval war (No. 13). These Conventions are of unequal value, and some bear evident traces of a desire that some agreement on the subject to which they relate might be registered after so many weeks of labour; they will, doubtless, on many points need revision by the next Conference.

Edition: current; Page: [93]

The next Hague Conference1.The First Conference had closed without making any provision for the summoning of another. The Second Conference was dragging on, hampered by its want of preparation and of adherence to parliamentary precedents, and many of those who looked for solid results were “in genuine anxiety about the consequence of a real collapse,” and possessed by a “genuine desire that the Hague institution should not perish of what were not, perhaps, essential defects2.” A Meeting of the First Delegates was held on the 14th September to consider the situation, and it was resolved to bring before the next Plenary Meeting a Vœu with reference to a future Conference. The United States Delegation was instructed to “favour the adoption of a resolution by the Conference providing for the holding of further Conferences within fixed periods and arranging the machinery by which such Conferences may be called and the terms of the programme may be arranged, without awaiting any new and specific initiative on the part of the powers or any one of them.” This had been recommended by the Inter-parliamentary Congress in 1904. The Conferences would then become real international assemblies presided over by a President chosen without any regard to the requirements of diplomatic etiquette, and discussing a programme which had not been prepared for it, but which it had previously settled for itself. The actual form in which the Vœu found acceptance is as it appears in the Final Act, and M. Nélidow, the President of the Conference, proposed it at the Sixth Plenary Meeting on the 21st Sept., but the initiative must be assigned to the United States Delegation. “The somewhat slow and at times uncertain progress of our labours,” said the President, “as well as the impossibility which the Conference finds of solving some of the problems submitted to it, or which have been brought forward in the course of our labours, have suggested to some of our colleagues the idea of taking into consideration the advantage of another meeting of the Conference, and of the necessity of preparing for it in advance a detailed programme and the method of its working and organisation3.” In these words the President concisely specified some of the causes of the want of success which had attended the wearisome and laborious discussions on many of the topics which had been under consideration. The Roumanian delegate, M. Beldiman, in supporting the Vœu paid a tribute of homage to the August Initiator of the First and Second Conferences, adding that the Edition: current; Page: [94] Vœu in his opinion did not prejudge the taking of the same august initiative in the future, while the Austro-Hungarian delegate in rendering grateful homage to the Tsar added that they considered the initiative of Russia was definitely accepted in this matter. A general desire was expressed that the Queen of Holland would extend her hospitality to the next Conference. It will be seen that the speeches of the Roumanian and Austro-Hungarian delegates go beyond the actual words of the Vœu. To whomsoever the initiative of the next Conference may belong, if in 1915 the Third Conference should meet in accordance with this Vœu, two years before that date a preparatory Committee is to collect the various proposals to be submitted, to ascertain the subjects which are ripe for embodiment in an international regulation and to prepare a programme which the Governments shall decide upon in sufficient time to enable it to be carefully examined by the countries interested. The Committee is also to be entrusted with the work of proposing a system of organisation and procedure for the Conference itself. The Second Hague Conference has thus taken an important step, and, taught by its own tedious and cumbersome procedure, it has endeavoured to spare its successor from suffering from the like causes. If Hague Conferences, meeting in the future at specified intervals, are to develope into a world legislature, a veritable “Parliament of man,” they can only be certain of producing beneficial and lasting results if the states taking part have thoroughly made up their minds both in regard to the matters to be discussed, and the views which their representatives are to support. The delegates of future Conferences will also be spared the chagrin and annoyance from which on several important occasions Plenipotentiaries suffered in 1907, when, owing to lack of instructions, they were unable to speak with any authority for the states they represented; while the latter will not hurriedly, and without due warning, have to formulate a policy on any topic which may be introduced without previous notice and consideration.

Edition: current; Page: [95]

THE CONVENTIONS OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCES OF 1899 AND 19071.

I.: Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

Edition: current; Page: [96]

1.: Règlement Pacifique des Conflits Internationaux.

Convention pour le Règlement Pacifique des Conflits Internationaux.

Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges; Sa Majesté le Roi de Danemark; Sa Majesté le Roi d’Espagne, et en son nom Sa Majesté la Reine-Régente du Royaume; le Président des États-Unis d’Amérique; le Président des États-Unis Mexicains; le Président de la République Française; Sa Majesté le Roi des Hellènes; Son Altesse le Prince de Monténégro; Sa Majesté la Reine des Pays-Bas; Sa Majesté Impériale le Schah de Perse; Sa Majesté le Roi de Portugal et des Algarves; Sa Majesté le Roi de Roumanie; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies; Sa Majesté le Roi de Siam; Sa Majesté le Roi de Suède et de Norvège; et Son Altesse Royale le Prince de Bulgarie1:

Convention pour le Règlement Pacifique des Conflits Internationaux.

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse; le Président des États-Unis d’Amérique; le Président de la République Argentine; Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Autriche, Roi de Bohême, &c., et Roi Apostolique de Hongrie; Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges; le Président de la République de Bolivie; le Président de la République des États-Unis du Brésil; Son Altesse Royale le Prince de Bulgarie; le Président de la République de Chili; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Chine; le Président de la République de Colombie; le Gouverneur provisoire de la République de Cuba; Sa Majesté le Roi de Danemark; le Président de la République Dominicaine; le Président de la République de l’Équateur; Sa Majesté le Roi d’Espagne; le Président de la République Française; Sa Majesté le Roi du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande et des Territoires Britanniques au delà des mers, Empereur des Indes; Sa Majesté le Roi des Hellènes; le Président de la République de Guatémala; le Président de la République d’Haïti; Sa Majesté le Roi d’Italie; Sa Majesté l’Empereur du Japon; Son Altesse Royale le Grand-Duc de Luxembourg, Duc de Nassau; le Président des États-Unis Mexicains; Son Altesse Royale le Edition: current; Page: [98] Prince de Monténégro; le Président de la République de Nicaragua; Sa Majesté le Roi de Norvège; le Président de la République de Panama; le Président de la République du Paraguay; Sa Majesté la Reine des Pays-Bas; le Président de la République du Pérou; Sa Majesté Impériale le Schah de Perse; Sa Majesté le Roi de Portugal et des Algarves, &c.; Sa Majesté le Roi de Roumanie; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies; le Président de la République du Salvador; Sa Majesté le Roi de Serbie; Sa Majesté le Roi de Siam; Sa Majesté le Roi de Suède; le Conseil Fédéral Suisse; Sa Majesté l’Empereur des Ottomans; le Président de la République orientale de l’Uruguay; le Président des États-Unis de Venezuela:

1899

Animés de la ferme volonté de concourir au maintien de la paix générale;

Résolus à favoriser de tous leurs efforts le règlement amiable des conflits internationaux;

Reconnaissant la solidarité qui unit les membres de la société des nations civilisées;

Voulant étendre l’empire du droit et fortifier le sentiment de la justice internationale;

Convaincus que l’institution permanente d’une juridiction arbitrale accessible à tous, au sein des Puissances indépendantes, peut contribuer efficacement à ce résultat;

Considérant les avantages d’une organisation générale et régulière de la procédure arbitrale;

Estimant avec l’Auguste Initiateur de la Conférence Internationale de la Paix qu’il importe de consacrer dans un accord international les principes d’équité et de droit sur lesquels reposent la sécurité des États et le bien-être des peuples;

Désirant conclure une Convention à cet effet, ont 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

Animés de la ferme volonté de concourir au maintien de la paix générale;

Résolus à favoriser de tous leurs efforts le règlement amiable des conflits internationaux;

Reconnaissant la solidarité qui unit les membres de la société des nations civilisées;

Voulant étendre l’empire du droit et fortifier le sentiment de la justice internationale;

Convaincus que l’institution permanente d’une juridiction arbitrale accessible à tous, an sein des Puissances indépendantes, peut contribuer efficacement à ce résultat;

Considérant les avantages d’une organisation générale et régulière de la procédure arbitrale;

Edition: current; Page: [100]

Estimant avec l’Auguste Initiateur de la Conférence Internationale de la Paix qu’il importe de consacrer dans un accord international les principes d’équité et de droit sur lesquels reposent la sécurité des États et le bien-être des peuples;

Désireux, dans ce but, de mieux assurer le fonctionnement pratique des Commissions d’enquéte et des tribunaux d’arbitrage et de faciliter le recours à la justice arbitrale lorsqu’il s’agit de litiges de nature à comporter une procédure sommaire;

Ont jugé nécessaire de reviser sur certains points et de compléter l’œuvre de la Première Conférence de la Paix pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux;

Les Hautes Parties contractantes ont résolu de conclure une nouvelle 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 de ce qui suit:

Titre I.: Du Maintien de la Paix Générale.

Art. 1.

En vue de prévenir autant que possible le recours à la force dans les rapports entre les États, les Puissances signataires conviennent d’employer tous leurs efforts pour assurer le règlement pacifique des différends internationaux.

Titre I.: Du Maintien de la Paix Générale.

Art. 1.

(Aucune modification.)1

Edition: current; Page: [102]

Titre II.: Des Bons Offices et de la Médiation.

Art. 2.

En cas de dissentiment grave ou de conflit, avant d’en appeler aux armes, les Puissances signataires conviennent d’avoir recours, en tant que les circonstances le permettront, aux bons offices ou à la médiation d’une ou de plusieurs Puissances amies.

Titre II.: Des Bons Offices et de la Médiation.

Art. 2.

(Aucune modification.)1

Art. 3.

Indépendamment de ce recours, les Puissances signataires jugent utile qu’une ou plusieurs Puissances, étrangères au conflit, offrent de leur propre initiative, en tant que les circonstances s’y prêtent, leurs bons offices ou leur médiation aux États en conflit.

Le droit d’offrir les bons offices ou la médiation appartient aux Puissances étrangères au conflit, même pendant le cours des hostilités.

L’exercice de ce droit ne peut jamais être considéré par l’une ou l’autre des Parties en litige comme un acte peu amical.

Art. 3.

Indépendamment de ce recours, les Puissances signataires jugent utile et désirable qu’une ou plusieurs Puissances, étrangères au conflit, offrent de leur propre initiative, en tant que les circonstances s’y prêtent, leurs bons offices ou leur médiation aux États en conflit.

Le droit d’offrir les bons offices ou la médiation appartient aux Puissances étrangères au conflit, même pendant le cours des hostilités.

L’exercice de ce droit ne peut jamais être considéré par l’une ou l’autre des Parties en litige comme un acte peu amical.

Art. 4.

Le rôle du médiateur consiste à concilier les prétentions opposées et à apaiser les ressentiments qui peuvent s’être produits entre les États en conflit.

Art. 4.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 5.

Les fonctions du médiateur cessent du moment où il est constaté, soit par l’une des Parties en litige, soit par le médiateur lui-même, que les moyens de conciliation proposés par lui ne sont pas acceptés.

Art. 5.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [104]

Art. 6.

Les bons offices et la médiation, soit sur le recours des Parties en conflit, soit sur l’initiative des Puissances étrangères au conflit, ont exclusivement le caractère de conseil et n’ont jamais force obligatoire.

Art. 6.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 7.

L’acceptation de la médiation ne peut avoir pour effet, sauf convention contraire, d’interrompre, de retarder ou d’entraver la mobilisation et autres mesures préparatoires à la guerre.

Si elle intervient après l’ouverture des hostilités, elle n’interrompt pas, sauf convention contraire, les opérations militaires en cours.

Art. 7.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 8.

Les Puissances signataires sont d’accord pour recommander l’application, dans les circonstances qui le permettent, d’une médiation spéciale sous la forme suivante:—

En cas de différend grave compromettant la paix, les États en conflit choisissent respectivement une Puissance à laquelle ils confient la mission d’entrer en rapport direct avec la Puissance choisie d’autre part, à l’effet de prévenir la rupture des relations pacifiques.

Pendant la durée de ce mandat dont le terme, sauf stipulation contraire, ne peut excéder trente jours, les États en litige cessent tout rapport direct au sujet du conflit, lequel est considéré comme déféré exclusivement aux Puissances médiatrices. Celles-ci doivent appliquer tous leurs efforts à régler le différend.

En cas de rupture effective des relations pacifiques, ces Puissances demeurent chargées de la mission commune de profiter de toute occasion pour rétablir la paix.

Art. 8.

(Aucune modification.)1

Edition: current; Page: [106]

Titre III.: Des Commissions Internationales d’Enquête.

Art. 9.

Dans les litiges d’ordre international n’engageant ni l’honneur ni des intérêts essentiels et provenant d’une divergence d’appréciation sur des points de fait, les Puissances signataires jugent utile que les parties qui n’auraient pu se mettre d’accord par les voies diplomatiques instituent, en tant que les circonstances le permettront, une Commission internationale d’enquête chargée de faciliter la solution de ces litiges en éclaircissant, par un examen impartial et consciencieux, les questions de fait.

Titre III.: Des Commissions Internationales d’Enquête.

Art. 9.

Dans les litiges d’ordre international n’engageant ni l’honneur ni des intérêts essentiels et provenant d’une divergence d’appréciation sur des points de fait, les Puissances contractantes jugent utile et désirable que les parties qui n’auraient pu se mettre d’accord par les voies diplomatiques instituent, en tant que les circonstances le permettront, une Commission internationale d’enquête chargée de faciliter la solution de ces litiges en éclaircissant, par un examen impartial et consciencieux, les questions de fait.

Art. 10.

Les Commissions internationales d’enquête sont constituées par convention spéciale entre les parties en litige.

La convention d’enquête précise les faits à examiner et l’étendue des pouvoirs des commissaires.

Elle règle la procédure.

L’enquête a lieu contradictoirement.

La forme et les délais à observer, en tant qu’ils ne sont pas fixés par la convention d’enquête, sont déterminés par la Commission elle-même.

Art. 10.

Les Commissions internationales d’enquête sont constituées par convention spéciale entre les parties en litige.

La convention d’enquête précise les faits à examiner; elle détermine le mode et le délai de formation de la Commission et l’étendue des pouvoirs des commissaires.

Edition: current; Page: [108]

Elle détermine également, s’il y a lieu, le siège de la Commission et la faculté de se déplacer, la langue dont la Commission fera usage et celles dont l’emploi sera autorisé devant elle, ainsi que la date à laquelle chaque Partie devra déposer son exposé des faits, et généralement toutes les conditions dont les Parties sont convenues.

Si les Parties jugent nécessaire de nommer des assesseurs, la convention d’enquéte détermine le mode de leur désignation et l’étendue de leurs pouvoirs.

Art. 11.

Si la convention d’enquête n’a pas désigné le siège de la Commission, celleci siégera à La Haye.

Le siège une fois fixé ne peut être changé par la Commission qu’avec l’assentiment des Parties.

Si la convention d’enquête n’a pas déterminé les langues à employer, il en est décidé par la Commission.

Art. 11.

Les Commissions internationales d’enquête sont formées, sauf stipulation contraire, de la manière déterminée par l’article 32 de la présente Convention.

Art. 12.

Sauf stipulation contraire, les Commissions d’enquête sont formées de la manière déterminée par les articles 45 et 57 de la présente Convention.

Art. 13.

En cas de décès, de démission ou d’empêchement, pour quelque cause que ce soit, de l’un des commissaires, ou éventuellement de l’un des assesseurs, il est pourvu à son remplacement selon le mode fixé pour sa nomination.

Edition: current; Page: [110]

Art. 14.

Les Parties ont le droit de nommer auprès de la Commission d’enquête des agents spéciaux avec la mission de Les représenter et de servir d’intermédiaires entre Elles et la Commission.

Elles sont, en outre, autorisées à charger des conseils ou avocats nommés par Elles, d’exposer et de soutenir leurs intéréts devant la Commission.

Art. 15.

Le Bureau International de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage sert de greffe aux Commissions qui siègent à La Haye, et mettra ses locaux et son organisation à la disposition des Puissances contractantes pour le fonctionnement de la Commission d’enquête.

Art. 16.

Si la Commission siège ailleurs qu’à La Haye, elle nomme un Secrétaire général dont le Bureau lui sert de greffe.

Le greffe est chargé, sous l’autorité du Président, de l’organisation matérielle des séances de la Commission, de la rédaction des procès-verbaux et, pendant le temps de l’enquête, de la garde des archives, qui seront ensuite versées au Bureau International de La Haye.

Art. 17.

En vue de faciliter l’institution et le fonctionnement des Commissions d’enquête, les Puissances contractantes recommandent les règles suivantes qui seront applicables à la procédure d’enquête en tant que les Parties n’adopteront pas d’autres règles.

Edition: current; Page: [112]

Art. 18.

La Commission réglera les détails de la procédure non prévus dans la convention spéciale d’enquéte ou dans la présente Convention, et procédera à toutes les formalités que comporte l’administration des preuves.

Art. 19.

L’enquête a lieu contradictoirement.

(Voyez Art. 10 (1899).)

Aux dates prévues, chaque Partie communique à la Commission et à l’autre Partie les exposés des faits, s’il y a lieu, et, dans tous les cas, les actes, pièces et documents qu’elle juge utiles à la découverte de la vérité, ainsi que la liste des témoins et des experts qu’Elle désire faire entendre.

Art. 20.

La Commission a la faculté, avec l’assentiment des parties, de se transporter momentanément sur les lieux où Elle juge utile de recourir à ce moyen d’information, ou d’y déléguer un ou plusieurs de ses membres. L’autorisation de l’État sur le territoire duquel il doit être procédé à cette information devra être obtenue.

Art. 21.

Toutes constatations matérielles, et toutes visites des lieux doivent être faites en présence des agents et conseils des Parties ou eux dûment appelés.

Art. 22.

La Commission a le droit de solliciter de l’une ou l’autre Partie telles explications ou informations qu’elle juge utiles.

Edition: current; Page: [114]

Art. 12.

Les Puissances en litige s’engagent à fournir à la Commission internationale d’enquête, dans la plus large mesure qu’Elles jugeront possible, tous les moyens et toutes les facilités nécessaires pour la connaissance complète et l’appréciation exacte des faits en question.

Art. 23.

Les Parties s’engagent à fournir à la Commission d’enquête, dans la plus large mesure qu’Elles jugeront possible, tous les moyens et toutes les facilités nécessaires pour la connaissance complète et l’appréciation exacte des faits en question.

Elles s’engagent à user des moyens dont Elles disposent d’après leur législation intérieure, pour assurer la comparution des témoins ou des experts se trouvant sur leur territoire et cités devant la Commission.

Si ceux-ci ne peuvent comparaitre devant la Commission, Elles feront procéder à leur audition devant leurs autorités compétentes.

Art. 24.

Pour toutes les notifications que la Commission aurait à faire sur le territoire d’une tierce Puissance contractante, la Commission s’adressera directement au Gouvernement de cette Puissance. Il en sera de même s’il s’agit de faire procéder sur place à l’établissement de tous moyens de preuce.

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.

La Commission aura aussi toujours la faculté de recourir à l’intermédiaire de la Puissance sur le territoire de laquelle elle a son siège.

Edition: current; Page: [116]

Art. 25.

Les témoins et les experts sont appelés à la requête des Parties ou d’office par la Commission, et, dans tous les cas, par l’intermédiaire du Gouvernement de l’État sur le territoire duquel ils se trouvent.

Les témoins sont entendus, successivement et séparément, en présence des agents et des conseils et dans un ordre à fixer par la Commission.

Art. 26.

L’interrogatoire des témoins est conduit par le Président.

Les membres de la Commission peuvent néanmoins poser à chaque témoin les questions qu’ils croient convenables pour éclaircir ou compléter sa déposition, ou pour se renseigner sur tout ce qui concerne le témoin dans les limites nécessaires à la manifestation de la vérité.

Les agents et les conseils des Parties ne peuvent interrompre le témoin dans sa déposition, ni lui faire aucune interpellation directe, mais peuvent demander au Président de poser au témoin telles questions complémentaires qu’ils jugent utiles.

Art. 27.

Le témoin doit déposer sans qu’il lui soit permis de lire aucun projet écrit. Toutefois, il peut être autorisé par le Président à s’aider de notes ou documents si la nature des faits rapportés en nécessite l’emploi.

Edition: current; Page: [118]

Art. 28.

Procès-verbal de la déposition du témoin est dressé séance tenante et lecture en est donnée au témoin. Le témoin peut y faire tels changements et additions que bon lui semble et qui seront consignés à la suite de sa déposition.

Lecture faite au témoin de l’ensemble de sa déposition, le témoin est requis de signer.

Art. 29.

Les agents sont autorisés au cours ou à la fin de l’enquête, à présenter par écrit à la Commission et à l’autre Partie tels dires, réquisitions, ou résumés de fait qu’ils jugent utiles à la découverte de la vérité.

Art. 30.

Les délibérations de la Commission ont lieu à huis clos et restent secrètes.

Toute décision est prise à la majorité des membres de la Commission.

Le refus d’un membre de prendre part au vote doit être constaté dans le procès-verbal.

Art. 31.

Les séances de la Commission ne sont publiques et les procès-verbaux et documents de l’enquête ne sont rendus publics qu’en vertu d’une décision de la Commission, prise avec l’assentiment des Parties.

Art. 32.

Les Parties ayant présenté tous les éclaircissements et preuves, tous les témoins ayant été entendus, le Président prononce la clôture de l’enquête et la Commission s’ajourne pour délibérer et rédiger son rapport.

Edition: current; Page: [120]

Art. 13.

La Commission internationale d’enquête présente aux Puissances en litige son rapport signé par tous les membres de la Commission.

Art. 33.

Le rapport est signé par tous les membres de la Commission.

Si un des membres refuse de signer, mention en est faite; le rapport reste néanmoins valable.

Art. 34.

Le rapport de la Commission est lu en séance publique, les agents et les conseils des parties présents ou dûment appelés.

Un exemplaire du rapport est remis à chaque partie.

Art. 14.

Le rapport de la Commission internationale d’enquête, limité à la constatation des faits, n’a nullement le caractère d’une sentence arbitrale. Il laisse aux Puissances en litige une entière liberté pour la suite à donner à cette constatation.

Art. 35.

Le rapport de la Commission, limité à la constatation des faits, n’a nullement le caractère d’une sentence arbitrale. Il laisse aux Parties une entière liberté pour la suite à donner à cette constatation.

Art. 36.

Chaque Partie supporte ses propres frais et une part égale des frais de la Commission.

Titre IV.: De l’Arbitrage International.

Chapitre I.: De la Justice Arbitrale.

Art. 15.

L’arbitrage international a pour objet le règlement de litiges entre les États par des juges de leur choix et sur la base du respect du droit.

Titre IV.: De l’Arbitrage International.

Chapitre I.: De la Justice Arbitrale.

Art. 37.

L’arbitrage international a pour objet le règlement de litiges entre les États par les juges de leur choix et sur la base du respect du droit.

Le recours à l’arbitrage implique l’engagement de se soumettre de bonne foi à la sentence.

(Voyez Art. 18 (1899).)

Edition: current; Page: [122]

Art. 16.

Dans les questions d’ordre juridique, et en premier lieu dans les questions d’interprétation ou d’application des Conventions Internationales, l’arbitrage est reconnu par les Puissances Signataires comme le moyen le plus efficace et en même temps le plus équitable de régler les litiges qui n’ont pas été résolus par les voies diplomatiques.

Art. 38.

Dans les questions d’ordre juridique, et en premier lieu dans les questions d’interprétation ou d’application des Conventions internationales, l’arbitrage est reconnu par les Puissances contractantes comme le moyen le plus efficace et en même temps le plus équitable de régler les litiges qui n’ont pas été résolus par les voies diplomatiques.

En conséquence, il serait désirable que, dans les litiges sur les questions susmentionnées, les Puissances contractantes eussent, le cas échéant, recours à l’arbitrage, en tant que les circonstances le permettraient.

Art. 17.

La convention d’arbitrage est conclue pour des contestations déjà nées ou pour des contestations éventuelles.

Elle peut concerner tout litige ou seulement les litiges d’une catégorie déterminée.

Art. 18.

La convention d’arbitrage implique l’engagement de se soumettre de bonne foi à la sentence arbitrale.

(Voyez Art. 37 (1907).)

Art. 39.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 19.

Indépendamment des Traités généraux ou particuliers qui stipulent actuellement l’obligation du recours à l’arbitrage pour les Puissances signataires, ces Puissances se réservent de conclure, soit avant la ratification du présent Acte, soit postérieurement, des accords nouveaux, généraux, ou particuliers, en vue d’étendre l’arbitrage obligatoire à tous les cas qu’Elles jugeront possible de lui soumettre.

Art. 40.

Indépendamment des Traités généraux ou particuliers qui stipulent actuellement l’obligation du recours à l’arbitrage pour les Puissances contractantes, ces Puissances se réservent de conclure des accords nouveaux, généraux ou particuliers, en vue d’étendre l’arbitrage obligatoire à tous les cas qu’Elles jugeront possible de lui soumettre.

Edition: current; Page: [124]

Chapitre II.: De la Cour permanente d’arbitrage.

Art. 20.

Dans le but de faciliter le recours immédiat à l’arbitrage pour les différends internationaux qui n’ont pu être réglés par la voie diplomatique, les Puissances signataires s’engagent à organiser une Cour permanente d’arbitrage, accessible en tout temps et fonctionnant, sauf stipulation contraire des Parties, conformément aux règles de procédure insérées dans la présente Convention.

Chapitre II.: De la Cour permanente d’arbitrage.

Art. 41.

Dans le but de faciliter le recours immédiat à l’arbitrage pour les différends internationaux qui n’ont pu être réglés par la voie diplomatique, les Puissances contractantes s’engagent à maintenir, telle qu’elle a été établie par la Première Conférence de la Paix, la Cour permanente d’arbitrage, accessible en tout temps et fonctionnant, sauf stipulation contraire des Parties, conformément aux règles de procédure insérées dans la présente Convention.

Art. 21.

La Cour permanente sera compétente pour tous les cas d’arbitrage, à moins qu’il n’y ait entente entre les Parties pour l’établissement d’une juridiction spéciale.

Art. 42.

La Cour permanente est compétente pour tous les cas d’arbitrage, à moins qu’il n’y ait entente entre les Parties pour l’établissement d’une juridiction spéciale.

Art. 22.

Un Bureau international établi à La Haye sert de greffe à la Cour.

Ce Bureau est l’intermédiaire des communications relatives aux réunions de celle-ci.

Il a la garde des archives et la gestion de toutes les affaires administratives.

Les Puissances signataires s’engagent à communiquer au Bureau international de La Haye une copie certifiée conforme de toute stipulation d’arbitrage intervenue entre Elles et de toute sentence arbitrale les concernant et rendue par des juridictions spéciales.

Elles s’engagent à communiquer de même au Bureau les lois, règlements, et documents constatant éventuellement l’exécution des sentences rendues par la Cour.

Art. 43.

La Cour permanente a son siège à La Haye.

(Voyez Art. 25 (1899).)

Un Bureau international sert de greffe à la Cour; il est l’intermédiaire des communications relatives aux réunions de celle-ci; il a la garde des archives et la gestion de toutes les affaires administratives.

Les Puissances contractantes s’engagent à communiquer au Bureau, aussitôt que possible, une copie certifiée Edition: current; Page: [126] conforme de toute stipulation d’arbitrage intervenue entre Elles et de toute sentence arbitrale Les concernant et rendue par des juridictions spéciales.

Elles s’engagent à communiquer de même au Bureau les lois, règlements, et documents constatant éventuellement l’exécution des sentences rendues par la Cour.

Art. 23.

Chaque Puissance Signataire désignera, dans les trois mois qui suivront la ratification par elle du présent Acte, quatre personnes au plus, d’une compétence reconnue dans les questions de droit international, jouissant de la plus haute considération morale et disposées à accepter les fonctions d’arbitres.

Les personnes ainsi désignées seront inscrites, au titre de Membre de la Cour, sur une liste qui sera notifiée à toutes les Puissances signataires par les soins du Bureau.

Toute modification à la liste des arbitres est portée, par les soins du Bureau, à la connaissance des Puissances signataires.

Deux ou plusieurs Puissances peuvent s’entendre pour la désignation en commun d’un ou de plusieurs Membres.

La même personne peut être désignée par des Puissances différentes.

Les Membres de la Cour sont nommés pour un terme de six ans. Leur mandat peut être renouvelé.

En cas de décès ou de retraite d’un Membre de la Cour, il est pourvu à son remplacement selon le mode fixé pour sa nomination.

Art. 44.

Chaque Puissance contractante désigne quatre personnes au plus, d’une compétence reconnue dans les questions de droit international, jouissant de la plus haute considération morale et disposées à accepter les fonctions d’arbitre.

Les personnes ainsi désignées sont inscrites, au titre de Membres de la Cour, sur une liste qui sera notifiée à toutes les Puissances contractantes par les soins du Bureau.

Toute modification à la liste des arbitres est portée, par les soins du Bureau, à la connaissance des Puissances contractantes.

Deux ou plusieurs Puissances peuvent s’entendre pour la désignation en commun d’un ou de plusieurs Membres.

La même personne peut être désignée par des Puissances différentes.

Les Membres de la Cour sont nommés pour un terme de six ans. Leur mandat peut être renouvelé.

En cas de décès ou de retraite d’un membre de la Cour, il est pourvu à son remplacement selon le mode fixé pour sa nomination, et pour une nouvelle période de six ans.

Edition: current; Page: [128]

Art. 24.

Lorsque les Puissances signataires veulent s’adresser à la Cour permanente pour le règlement d’un différend survenu entre Elles, le choix des arbitres appelés à former le Tribunal compétent pour statuer sur ce différend, doit être fait dans la liste générale des Membres de la Cour.

A défaut de constitution du Tribunal arbitral par l’accord immédiat des Parties, il est procédé de la manière suivante:—

Chaque Partie nomme deux arbitres et ceux-ci choisissent ensemble un surarbitre.

En cas de partage des voix, le choix du surarbitre est confié à une Puissance tierce, désignée de commun accord par les Parties.

Si l’accord ne s’établit pas à ce sujet, chaque Partie désigne une Puissance différente, et le choix du surarbitre est fait de concert par les Puissances ainsi désignées.

Le Tribunal étant ainsi composé, les Parties notifient au Bureau leur décision de s’adresser à la Cour et les noms des arbitres.

Le Tribunal arbitral se réunit à la date fixée par les Parties.

Les Membres de la Cour, dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions et en dehors de leur pays, jouissent des privilèges et immunités diplomatiques.

(Voyez Art. 46 (1907).)

Art. 25.

Le Tribunal arbitral siège d’ordinaire à La Haye.

(Voyez Art. 43 (1907).)

Le siège ne peut, sauf le cas de force majeure, être changé par le Tribunal que de l’assentiment des Parties.

Art. 45.

Lorsque les Puissances contractantes veulent s’adresser à la Cour permanente pour le règlement d’un différend survenu entre Elles, le choix des arbitres appelés à former le Tribunal compétent pour statuer sur ce différend, doit être fait dans la liste générale des Membres de la Cour.

A défaut de constitution du Tribunal Arbitral par l’accord des Parties, il est procédé de la manière suivante:

Chaque Partie nomme deux arbitres, dont un seulement peut être son national ou choisi parmi ceux qui ont été désignés par Elle comme Membres de la Cour Permanente. Ces arbitres choisissent ensemble un surarbitre.

En cas de partage des voix, le choix du surarbitre est confié à une Puissance tierce, désignée de commun accord par les Parties.

Si l’accord ne s’établit pas à ce sujet, chaque Partie désigne une Puissance différente, et le choix du surarbitre est fait de concert par les Puissances ainsi désignées.

Si, dans un délai de deux mois, ces deux Puissances n’ont pu tomber d’accord, chacune d’Elles présente deux candidats pris sur la liste des Membres de la Cour Permanente, en dehors des Membres désignes par les Parties et n’étant les nationaux d’aucune d’Elles. Le sort détermine lequel des candidats ainsi présentés sera le surarbitre.

Art. 46.

Dès que le Tribunal est composé, les Parties notifient au Bureau leur Edition: current; Page: [130] décision de s’adresser à la Cour, le texte de leur Compromis, et les noms des arbitres.

Le Bureau communique sans délai à chaque arbitre le Compromis et les noms des autres Membres du Tribunal.

Le Tribunal se réunit à la date fixée par les Parties. Le Bureau pourvoit à son installation.

Les Membres du Tribunal, dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions et en dehors de leur pays, jouissent des privilèges et immunités diplomatiques.

Art. 26.

Le Bureau international de La Haye est autorisé à mettre ses locaux et son organisation à la disposition des Puissances signataires pour le fonctionnement de toute juridiction spéciale d’arbitrage.

La juridiction de la Cour permanente peut être étendue, dans les conditions prescrites par les Règlements, aux litiges existant entre des Puissances non-signataires ou entre des Puissances signataires et des Puissances non-signataires, si les Parties sont convenues de recourir à cette juridiction.

Art. 47.

Le Bureau est autorisé à mettre ses locaux et son organisation à la disposition des Puissances contractantes pour le fonctionnement de toute juridiction spéciale d’arbitrage.

La juridiction de la Cour permanente peut être étendue, dans les conditions prescrites par les Règlements, aux litiges existant entre des Puissances non-contractantes, ou entre des Puissances contractantes et des Puissances non-contractantes, si les Parties sont convenues de recourir à cette juridiction.

Edition: current; Page: [132]

Art. 27.

Les Puissances signataires considèrent comme un devoir, dans le cas où un conflit aigu menacerait d’éclater entre deux ou plusieurs d’entre Elles, de rappeler à celles-ci que la Cour permanente leur est ouverte.

En conséquence, Elles déclarent que le fait de rappeler aux Parties en conflit les dispositions de la présente Convention, et le conseil donné, dans l’intérêt supérieur de la paix, de s’adresser à la Cour permanente ne peuvent être considérés que comme actes de bons offices.

Art. 48.

Les Puissances contractantes considèrent comme un devoir, dans le cas où un conflit aigu menacerait d’éclater entre deux ou plusieurs d’entre Elles, de rappeler à celles-ci que la Cour permanente leur est ouverte.

En conséquence, Elles déclarent que le fait de rappeler aux Parties en conflit les dispositions de la présente Convention, et le conseil donné, dans l’intérêt supérieur de la paix, de s’adresser à la Cour permanente, ne peuvent être considérés que comme actes de bons offices.

En cas de conflit entre deux Puissances, l’une d’Elles pourra toujours adresser au Bureau international une note contenant sa déclaration qu’Elle serait disposée à soumettre le différend à un arbitrage.

Le Bureau devra porter aussitôt la déclaration à la connaissance de l’autre Puissance.

Art. 28.

Un Conseil administratif permanent composé des Représentants diplomatiques des Puissances signataires accrédités à La Haye et du Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas qui remplira les fonctions de Président, sera constitué dans cette ville le plus tôt possible après la ratification du présente Acte par neuf Puissances au moins.

Ce Conseil sera chargé d’établir et d’organiser le Bureau international, lequel demeurera sous sa direction et sous son contrôle.

Il notifiera aux Puissances la constitution de la Cour et pourvoira à l’installation de celle-ci.

Il arrêtera son règlement d’ordre ainsi que tous autres règlements nécessaires.

Il décidera toutes les questions administratives qui pourraient surgir touchant le fonctionnement de la Cour.

Il aura tout pouvoir quant à la nomination, la suspension, ou la révocation des fonctionnaires et employés du Bureau.

Il fixera les traitements et salaires et contrôlera la dépense générale.

La présence de cinq membres dans les réunions dûment convoquées suffit pour permettre au Conseil de délibérer valablement. Les décisions sont prises à la majorité des voix.

Le Conseil communique sans délai aux Puissances signataires les règlements adoptés par lui. Il leur adresse chaque année un rapport sur les travaux de la Cour, sur le fonctionnement des services administratifs et sur les dépenses.

Art. 49.

Le Conseil administratif permanent, composé des Représentants diplomatiques des Puissances contractantes accrédités à La Haye et du Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas, qui remplit les fonctions de Président, a la direction et le contrôle du Bureau international.

Edition: current; Page: [134]

Le Conseil arrête son règlement d’ordre ainsi que tous autres règlements nécessaires.

Il décide toutes les questions administratives qui pourraient surgir touchant le fonctionnement de la Cour.

Il a tout pouvoir quant à la nomination, la suspension, ou la révocation des fonctionnaires et employés du Bureau.

Il fixe les traitements et salaires, et contrôle la dépense générale.

La présence de neuf membres dans les réunions dûment convoquées suffit pour permettre au Conseil de délibérer valablement. Les décisions sont prises à la majorité des voix.

Le Conseil communique sans délai aux Puissances contractantes les règlements adoptés par lui. Il leur présente chaque année un rapport sur les travaux de la Cour, sur le fonctionnement des services administratifs, et sur les dépenses. Le rapport contient également un résumé du contenu essentiel des documents communiqués au Bureau par les Puissances en vertu de l’article 43, alinéas 3 et 4.

Art. 29.

Les frais du Bureau seront supportés par les Puissances signataires dans la proportion établie pour le Bureau international de l’Union postale universelle.

Art. 50.

Les frais du Bureau seront supportés par les Puissances contractantes dans la proportion établie pour le Bureau international de l’Union postale universelle.

Les frais à la charge des Puissances adhérentes seront comptés à partir du jour où leur adhésion produit ses effets.

Edition: current; Page: [136]

Chapitre III.: De la Procédure Arbitrale.

Art. 30.

En vue de favoriser le développement de l’arbitrage, les Puissances signataires ont arrêté les règles suivantes qui seront applicables à la procédure arbitrale, en tant que les Parties ne sont pas convenues d’autres règles.

Chapitre III.: De la Procédure Arbitrale.

Art. 51.

(Aucune modification.)1

Art. 31.

Les Puissances qui recourent à l’arbitrage signent un acte spécial (compromis) dans lequel sont nettement déterminés l’objet du litige ainsi que l’étendue des pouvoirs des arbitres. Cet acte implique l’engagement des Parties de se soumettre de bonne foi à la sentence arbitrale.

(Voyez Art. 37, al. 2 (1907).)

Art. 52.

Les Puissances qui recourent à l’arbitrage signent un compromis dans lequel sont déterminés l’objet du litige, le délai de nomination des Arbitres, la forme, l’ordre et les délais dans lesquels la communication visée par l’Article 63 devra être faite, et le montant de la somme que chaque Partie aura à déposer à titre d’avance pour les frais.

Le compromis détermine également, s’il y a lieu, le mode de nomination des arbitres, tous pouvoirs spéciaux éventuels du Tribunal, son siège, la langue dont il fera usage et celles dont l’emploi sera autorisé devant lui, et généralement toutes les conditions dont les Parties sont convenues.

Art. 53.

La Cour permanente est compétente pour l’établissement du compromis, si les Parties sont d’accord pour s’en remettre à elle.

Elle est également compétente, même Edition: current; Page: [138] si la demande est faite seulement par l’une des Parties, après qu’un accord par la voie diplomatique a été vainement essayé, quand il s’agit:

1. D’un différend rentrant dans un Traité d’arbitrage général conclu ou renouvelé après la mise en vigueur de cette Convention et qui prévoit pour chaque différend un compromis et n’exclut pour l’établissement de ce dernier ni explicitement ni implicitement la compétence de la Cour. Toutefois, le recours à la Cour n’a pas lieu si l’autre Partie déclare qu’à son avis le différend n’appartient pas à la catégorie des différends à soumettre à un arbitrage obligatoire, à moins que le Traité d’arbitrage ne confère au Tribunal arbitral le pouvoir de décider cette question préalable;

2. D’un différend provenant de dettes contractuelles réclamées à une Puissance par une autre Puissance comme dues à ses nationaux, et pour la solution duquel l’offre d’arbitrage a été acceptée. Cette disposition n’est pas applicable si l’acceptation a été subordonnée à la condition que le compromis soit établi selon un autre mode.

(Voyez 2 H. C. 1907.)

Art. 54.

Dans les cas prévus par l’Article précédent, le compromis sera établi par une Commission composée de cinq membres désignés de la manière prévue à l’Article 45, alinéas 3 à 6.

Le cinquième membre est de droit Président de la Commission.

Edition: current; Page: [140]

Art. 32.

Les fonctions arbitrales peuvent être conférées à un arbitre unique ou à plusieurs arbitres désignés par les Parties à leur gré, ou choisis par Elles parmi les Membres de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage établie par le présent Acte.

A défaut de constitution du Tribunal par l’accord immédiat des Parties, il est procédé de la manière suivante:

Chaque Partie nomme deux arbitres et ceux-ci choisissent ensemble un surarbitre.

En cas de partage des voix, le choix du surarbitre est confié à une Puissance tierce, désignée de commun accord par les Parties.

Si l’accord ne s’établit pas à ce sujet, chaque Partie désigne une Puissance différente et le choix du surarbitre est fait de concert par les Puissances ainsi désignées.

Art. 55.

Les fonctions arbitrales peuvent être conférées à un arbitre unique ou à plusieurs arbitres désignés par les Parties à leur gré, ou choisis par Elles parmi les Membres de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage établie par la présente Convention.

A défaut de constitution du Tribunal par l’accord des Parties, il est procédé de la manière indiquée à l’Article 45, alinéas 3 à 6.

Art. 33.

Lorsqu’un Souverain ou un Chef d’État est choisi pour arbitre, la procédure arbitrale est réglée par lui.

Art. 56.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 34.

Le surarbitre est de droit Président du Tribunal.

Lorsque le Tribunal ne comprend pas de surarbitre, il nomme lui-même son Président.

Art. 57.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 58.

En cas d’établissement du compromis par une Commission, telle qu’elle est visée à l’Article 54, et sauf stipulation contraire, la Commission elle-même formera le Tribunal d’arbitrage.

Edition: current; Page: [142]

Art. 35.

En cas de décès, de démission ou d’empêchement, pour quelque cause que ce soit, de l’un des arbitres, il est pourvu à son remplacement selon le mode fixé pour sa nomination.

Art. 59.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 36.

Le siège du Tribunal est désigné par les Parties. A défaut de cette désignation le Tribunal siège à La Haye.

Le siège ainsi fixé ne peut, sauf le cas de force majeure, être changé par le Tribunal que de l’assentiment des Parties.

Art. 60.

A défaut de désignation par les Parties, le Tribunal siège à La Haye.

Le Tribunal ne peut siéger sur le territoire d’une tierce Puissance qu’avec l’assentiment de celle-ci.

Le siège une fois fixé ne peut être changé par le Tribunal qu’avec l’assentiment des Parties.

Art. 61.

Si le Compromis n’a pas déterminé les langues à émployer, il en est décidé par le Tribunal.

(Voyez Art. 38 (1899).)

Art. 37.

Les Parties ont le droit de nommer auprès du Tribunal des délégués ou agents spéciaux, avec la mission de servir d’intermédiaires entre Elles et le Tribunal.

Elles sont en outre autorisées à charger de la défense de leurs droits et intérêts devant le Tribunal, des conseils ou avocats nommés par Elles à cet effet.

Art. 38.

Le Tribunal décide du choix des langues dont il fera usage et dont l’emploi sera autorisé devant lui.

(Voyez Art. 61 (1907).)

Art. 62.

Les Parties ont le droit de nommer auprès du Tribunal desagents spéciaux, avec la mission de servir d’intermédiaires entre Elles et le Tribunal.

Elles sont, en outre, autorisées à charger de la défense de leurs droits et intérêts devant le Tribunal des conseils ou avocats nommés par Elles à cet effet.

Les Membres de la Cour permanente ne peuvent exercer les fonctions d’agents, conseils ou avocats, qu’en faveur de la Puissance qui les a nommés Membres de la Cour.

Edition: current; Page: [144]

Art. 39.

La procédure arbitrale comprend en règle générale deux phases distinctes: l’instruction et les débats.

L’instruction consiste dans la communication faite par les agents respectifs, aux Membres du Tribunal et à la Partie adverse, de tous actes imprimés ou écrits et de tous documents contenant les moyens invoqués dans la cause. Cette communication aura lieu dans la forme et dans les délais déterminés par le Tribunal en vertu de l’Article 49.

Les débats consistent dans le développement oral des moyens des Parties devant le Tribunal.

Art. 63.

La procédure arbitrale comprend en règle générale deux phases distinctes: l’instruction écrite et les débats.

L’instruction écrite consiste dans la communication faite par les agents respectifs, aux Membres du Tribunal et à la Partie adverse, des mémoires, des contre-mémoires, et, au besoin, des répliques; les Parties y joignent toutes pièces et documents invoqués dans la cause. Cette communication aura lieu, directement ou par l’intermédiaire du Bureau International, dans l’ordre et dans les délais déterminés par le Compromis.

Les délais fixés par le Compromis pourront être prolongés de commun accord par les Parties, ou par le Tribunal quand il le juge nécessaire pour arriver à une décision juste.

Les débats consistent dans le développement oral des moyens des Parties devant le Tribunal.

Art. 40.

Toute pièce produite par l’une des Parties doit être communiquée à l’autre Partie.

Art. 64.

Toute pièce produite par l’une des Parties doit être communiquée, en copie certifiée conforme, à l’autre Partie.

Art. 65.

A moins de circonstances spéciales, le Tribunal ne se réunit qu’après la clóture de l’instruction.

Edition: current; Page: [146]

Art. 41.

Les débats sont dirigés par le Président.

Ils ne sont publics qu’en vertu d’une décision du Tribunal, prise avec l’assentiment des Parties.

Ils sont consignés dans des procès-verbaux rédigés par des secrétaires que nomme le Président. Ces procès-verbaux ont seuls caractère authentique.

Art. 66.

Les débats sont dirigés par le Président.

Ils ne sont publics qu’en vertu d’une décision du Tribunal, prise avec l’assentiment des Parties.

Ils sont consignés dans des procès-verbaux rédigés par des secrétaires que nomme le Président. Ces procès-verbaux sont signés par le Président et par un des secrétaires; ils ont seuls caractère authentique.

Art. 42.

L’instruction étant close, le Tribunal a le droit d’écarter du débat tous actes ou documents nouveaux qu’une des Parties voudrait lui soumettre sans le consentement de l’autre.

Art. 67.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 43.

Le Tribunal demeure libre de prendre en considération les actes ou documents nouveaux sur lesquels les agents ou conseils des parties appelleraient son attention.

En ce cas, le Tribunal a le droit de requérir la production de ces actes ou documents, sauf l’obligation d’en donner connaissance à la Partie adverse.

Art. 68.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 44.

Le Tribunal peut, en outre, requérir des agents des Parties la production de tous actes et demander toutes explications nécessaires. En cas de refus, le Tribunal en prend acte.

Art. 69.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [148]

Art. 45.

Les agents et les conseils des Parties sont autorisés à présenter oralement au Tribunal tous les moyens qu’ils jugent utiles à la défense de leur cause.

Art. 70.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 46.

Ils ont le droit de soulever des exceptions et des incidents. Les décisions du Tribunal sur ces points sont définitives et ne peuvent donner lieu à aucune discussion ultérieure.

Art. 71.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 47.

Les membres du Tribunal ont le droit de poser des questions aux agents et aux conseils des Parties et de leur demander des éclaircissements sur les points douteux.

Ni les questions posées, ni les observations faites par les Membres du Tribunal pendant le cours des débats ne peuvent être regardées comme l’expression des opinions du Tribunal en général ou de ses Membres en particulier.

Art. 72.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 48.

Le Tribunal est autorisé à déterminer sa compétence en interprétant le Compromis ainsi que les autres Traités qui peuvent être invoqués dans la matière, et en appliquant les principes du droit international.

Art. 73.

Le Tribunal est autorisé à déterminer sa compétence en interprétant le Compromis ainsi que les autres Actes et documents qui peuvent être invoqués dans la matière, et en appliquant les principes du droit.

Art. 49.

Le Tribunal a le droit de rendre des ordonnances de procédure pour la direction du procès, de déterminer les formes et délais dans lesquels chaque Partie devra prendre ses conclusions et de procéder à toutes les formalités que comporte l’administration des preuves.

Art. 74.

Le Tribunal a le droit de rendre des ordonnances de procédure pour la direction du procès, de déterminer les formes, l’ordre et les délais dans lesquels chaque Partie devra prendre ses conclusions finales, et de procéder à toutes les formalités que comporte l’administration des preuves.

Edition: current; Page: [150]

Art. 75.

Les Parties s’engagent à fournir au Tribunal, dans la plus large mesure qu’elles jugeront possible, tous les moyens nécessaires pour la décision du litige.

Art. 76.

Pour toutes les notifications que le Tribunal aurait à faire sur le territoire d’une tierce Puissance Contractante, le Tribunal s’adressera directement au Gouvernement de cette Puissance. Il en sera de même s’il s’agit de faire procéder sur place à l’établissement de tous moyens de preuve.

Les requétes adressées à cet effet seront exécutées suivant les moyens dont la Puissance requise dispose d’après sa législation intérieure. Elles ne peuvent étre refusées que si cette Puissance les juge de nature à porter atteinte à Sa souveraineté ou à Sa sécurité.

Le Tribunal aura aussi toujours la faculté de recourir à l’intermédiaire de la Puissance sur le territoire de laquelle il a son siège.

Art. 50.

Les agents et les conseils des Parties ayant présenté tous les éclaircissements et preuves à l’appui de leur cause, le Président prononce la clôture des débats.

Art. 77.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 51.

Les délibérations du Tribunal ont lieu à huis clos.

Toute décision est prise à la majorité des membres du Tribunal.

Le refus d’un membre de prendre part au vote doit être constaté dans le procès-verbal.

Art. 78.

Les délibérations du Tribunal ont lieu à huis clos et restent secrètes.

Toute décision est prise à la majorité de ses membres.

Edition: current; Page: [152]

Art. 52.

La sentence arbitrale, votée à la majorité des voix, est motivée. Elle est rédigée par écrit et signée par chacun des membres du Tribunal.

Ceux des membres qui sont restés en minorité peuvent constater, en signant, leur dissentiment.

Art. 79.

La sentence arbitrale est motivée. Elle mentionne les noms des arbitres; elle est signée par le Président et par le greffier ou le secrétaire faisant fonctions de greffier.

Art. 53.

La sentence arbitrale est lue en séance publique du Tribunal, les agents et les conseils des Parties présents ou dûment appelés.

Art. 80.

La sentence est lue en séance publique, les agents et les conseils des Parties présents ou dûment appelés.

Art. 54.

La sentence arbitrale, dûment prononcée et notifiée aux agents des Parties en litige, décide définitivement et sans appel la contestation.

Art. 81.

La sentence, dûment prononcée et notifiée aux agents des Parties, décide définitivement et sans appel la contestation.

Art. 82.

Tout différend qui pourrait surgir entre les Parties, concernant l’interprétation et l’exécution de la sentence, sera, sauf stipulation contraire, soumis au jugement du Tribunal qui l’a rendue.

Art. 55.

Les Parties peuvent se réserver dans le compromis de demander la revision de la sentence arbitrale.

Dans ce cas, et sauf stipulation contraire, la demande doit être adressée au Tribunal qui a rendu la sentence. Elle ne peut être motivée que par la découverte d’un fait nouveau qui eût été de nature à exercer une influence décisive sur la sentence et qui, lors de la clôture des débats, était inconnu du Tribunal lui-même et de la Partie qui a demandé la revision.

La procédure de revision ne peut être ouverte que par une décision du Tribunal constatant expressément l’existence du fait nouveau, lui reconnaissant les caractères prévus par le paragraphe précédent et déclarant à ce titre la demande recevable.

Le compromis détermine le délai dans lequel la demande de revision doit être formée.

Art. 83.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [154]

Art. 56.

La sentence arbitrale n’est obligatoire que pour les Parties qui ont conclu le compromis.

Lorsqu’il s’agit de l’interprétation d’une Convention à laquelle ont participé d’autres Puissances que les Parties en litige, celles-ci notifient aux premières le Compromis qu’elles ont conclu. Chacune de ces Puissances a le droit d’intervenir au procès. Si une ou plusieurs d’entre elles ont profité de cette faculté, l’interprétation contenue dans la sentence est également obligatoire à leur égard.

Art. 84.

La sentence arbitrale n’est obligatoire que pour les Parties en litige.

Lorsqu’il s’agit de l’interprétation d’une Convention à laquelle ont participé d’autres Puissances que les Parties en litige, celles-ci avertissent en temps utile toutes les Puissances Signataires. Chacune de ces Puissances a le droit d’intervenir au procès. Si une ou plusieurs d’entre elles ont profité de cette faculté, l’interprétation contenue dans la sentence est également obligatoire à leur égard.

Art. 57.

Chaque Partie supporte ses propres frais et une part égale des frais du Tribunal.

Art. 85.

(Aucune modification.)

Chapitre IV.: De la Procédure Sommaire d’Arbitrage.

Art. 86.

En vue de faciliter le fonctionnement de la justice arbitrale, lorsqu’il s’agit de litiges de nature à comporter une Edition: current; Page: [156] procédure sommaire, les Puissances contractantes arrêtent les règles ciaprès, qui seront suivies en l’absence de stipulations différentes, et sous réserve, le cas échéant, de l’application des dispositions du Chapitre III, qui ne seraient pas contraires.

Art. 87.

Chacune des Parties en litige nomme un arbitre. Les deux arbitres ainsi désignés choisissent un surarbitre. S’ils ne tombent pas d’accord à ce sujet, chacun présente deux candidats pris sur la liste générale des Membres de la Cour permanente en dehors des Membres indiqués par chacune des Parties Elles-mêmes et n’étant les nationaux d’aucune d’Elles; le sort détermine lequel des candidats ainsi présentés sera le surarbitre.

Le surarbitre préside le Tribunal, qui rend ses décisions à la majorité des voix.

Art. 88.

A défaut d’accord préalable, le Tribunal fixe, dès qu’il est constitué, le délai dans lequel les deux Parties devront lui soumettre leurs mémoires respectifs.

Art. 89.

Chaque Partie est représentée devant le Tribunal par un agent qui sert d’intermédiaire entre le Tribunal et le Gouvernement qui l’a désigné.

Art. 90.

La procédure a lieu exclusivement par écrit. Toutefois, chaque Partie a le droit de demander la comparution de témoins et d’experts. Le Tribunal Edition: current; Page: [158] a, de son côté, la faculté de demander des explications orales aux agents des deux Parties, ainsi qu’aux experts et aux témoins dont il juge la comparution utile.

Dispositions Générales.

Titre V.: Dispositions Finales.

Art. 91.

La présente Convention dûment ratifiée remplacera, dans les rapports entre les Puissances contractantes, la Convention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux du 29 juillet, 1899.

Art. 58.

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 qui ont été représentées à la Conférence internationale de la Paix de La Haye.

Art. 92.

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 Edition: current; Page: [160] 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. 59.

Les Puissances non-signataires qui ont été représentées à la Conférence internationale de la Paix pourront 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. 93.

Les Puissances non-signataires qui ont été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix pourront 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 conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix 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. 60.

Les conditions auxquelles les Puissances qui n’ont pas été représentées à la Conférence internationale de la Paix, pourront adhérer à la présente Convention, formeront l’objet d’une entente ultérieure entre les Puissances contractantes.

Art. 94.

Les conditions auxquelles les Puissances qui n’ont pas été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, pourront adhérer à la présente Convention, formeront l’objet d’une entente ultérieure entre les Puissances contractantes.

Art. 95.

La présente Convention produira effet, pour les Puissances qui auront participé au premier dépôt de ratifications, soixante jours après la date du Edition: current; Page: [162] 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. 61.

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 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. 96.

S’il arrivait qu’une des Puissances contractantes voulút 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. 97.

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 92, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (Article 93, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (Article 96, 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 contractantes.

Edition: current; Page: [97]

1.: Pacific Settlement of International Disputes

Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

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 the United States of America; the President of the 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,

Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; the President of the United States of America; the President of the Argentine Republic; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, &c., and Apostolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; the President of the Republic of Bolivia; the President of the Republic of the United States of Brazil; His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria; the President of the Republic of Chile; His Majesty the Emperor of China; the President of the Republic of Colombia; the Provisional Governor of the Republic of Cuba; His Majesty the King of Denmark; the President of the Dominican Republic; the President of the Republic of Ecuador; His Majesty the King of Spain; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; the President of the Republic of Guatemala; the President of the Republic of Haïti; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau; the President of the United States of Mexico; His Royal Edition: current; Page: [99] Highness the Prince of Montenegro; the President of the Republic of Nicaragua; His Majesty the King of Norway; the President of the Republic of Panamá; the President of the Republic of Paraguay; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the President of the Republic of Peru; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Portugal and of the Algarves, &c.; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; the President of the Republic of Salvador; His Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden; the Swiss Federal Council; His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans; the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay; the President of the United States of Venezuela:

1899

animated by the sincere desire to work for the maintenance of the general peace;

Resolved to promote by their best efforts the friendly settlement of international disputes;

Recognizing the solidarity uniting the members of the society of civilized nations;

Desirous of extending the empire of law, and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice;

Convinced that the permanent institution of a Tribunal of Arbitration, accessible to all, in the midst of independent Powers, will contribute effectively to this result;

Having regard to the advantages of the general and regular organization of the procedure of arbitration;

Sharing the opinion of the august Initiator of the International Peace Conference that it is expedient to record in an international agreement the principles of equity and right on which are based the security of States and the welfare of peoples;

Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries,

[Names of Plenipotentiaries.]

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

1907

Animated by the sincere desire to work for the maintenance of general peace;

Resolved to promote by their best efforts the friendly settlement of international disputes;

Recognizing the solidarity uniting the members of the society of civilized nations;

Desirous of extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice;

Convinced that the permanent institution of a Tribunal of Arbitration accessible to all, in the midst of independent Powers, will contribute effectively to this result;

Having regard to the advantages of the general and regular organization of the procedure of arbitration;

Edition: current; Page: [101]

Sharing the opinion of the august Initiator of the International Peace Conference that it is expedient to record in an international agreement the principles of equity and right on which are based the security of States and the welfare of peoples; and

Being desirous, with this object, of insuring the better working in practice of Commissions of Inquiry and Tribunals of Arbitration, and of facilitating recourse to arbitration in cases which allow of a summary procedure;

Have deemed it necessary to revise in certain particulars and to complete the work of the First Peace Conference for the pacific settlement of international disputes;

The High Contracting Parties have resolved to conclude a new Convention for this purpose, 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:—

Title I.: On the Maintenance of the General Peace.

Art. 1.

With a view of obviating, as far as possible, recourse to force in the relations between States, the Signatory Powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of international differences.

Part I.: On the Maintenance of General Peace.

Art. 1.

(No change.)1

Edition: current; Page: [103]

Title II.: On Good Offices and Mediation.

Art. 2.

In case of serious disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, the Signatory Powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.

Part II.: On Good Offices and Mediation.

Art. 2.

(No change.)1

Art. 3.

Independently of this recourse, the Signatory Powers deem it expedient that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance.

Powers, strangers to the dispute, have the right to offer good offices or mediation, even during the course of hostilities.

The exercise of this right can never be regarded by either of the parties at variance as an unfriendly act.

Art. 3.

Independently of this recourse, the Contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance.

Powers, strangers to the dispute, have the right to offer good offices or mediation, even during the course of hostilities.

The exercise of this right can never be regarded by either of the parties at variance as an unfriendly act.

Art. 4.

The part of the mediator consists in reconciling the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment which may have arisen between the States at variance.

Art. 4.

(No change.)

Art. 5.

The duties of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the contending parties, or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted.

Art. 5.

(No change.)

Edition: current; Page: [105]

Art. 6.

Good offices and mediation, undertaken either at the request of the contending parties or on the initiative of Powers strangers to the dispute, have exclusively the character of advice, and never have binding force.

Art. 6.

(No change.)

Art. 7.

The acceptance of mediation cannot, in default of agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting, delaying or hindering mobilization or other measures of preparation for war.

If mediation takes place after the commencement of hostilities, the military operations in progress are not interrupted, in default of agreement to the contrary.

Art. 7.

(No change.)

Art. 8.

The Signatory Powers are agreed in recommending the application, when circumstances allow, of special mediation in the following form:—

In case of a serious difference endangering peace, the contending States choose respectively a Power, to which they intrust the mission of entering into direct communication with the Power chosen on the other side, with the object of preventing the rupture of pacific relations.

For the period of this mandate, the term of which, in default of agreement to the contrary, cannot exceed thirty days, the States at variance cease from all direct communication on the subject of the dispute, which is regarded as referred exclusively to the mediating Powers. These Powers shall use their best efforts to settle the dispute.

In case of a definite rupture of pacific relations, these Powers remain jointly charged with the task of taking advantage of any opportunity to restore peace.

Art. 8.

(No change.)1

Edition: current; Page: [107]

Title III.: On International Commissions of Inquiry.

Art. 9.

In disputes of an international nature involving neither honour nor vital interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the Signatory Powers deem it expedient that the parties, who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an International Commission of Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these disputes by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation.

Part III.: On International Commissions of Inquiry.

Art. 9.

In disputes of an international nature involving neither honour nor vital interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the Contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable that the parties who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an International Commission of Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these disputes by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation.

Art. 10.

International Commissions of Inquiry are constituted by special agreement between the contending parties.

The Inquiry Convention defines the facts to be examined and the extent of the powers of the Commissioners.

It settles the procedure.

At the inquiry both sides must be heard.

The form and the periods to be observed, if not stated in the Inquiry Convention, are decided by the Commission itself.

Art. 10.

International Commissions of Inquiry are constituted by special agreement between the contending parties.

The Inquiry Convention defines the facts to be examined: it determines the manner and period within which the Commission is to be formed and the extent of the powers of the Commissioners.

Edition: current; Page: [109]

It also determines, if there is occasion for it, where the Commission is to meet, and whether it may remove to another place, the language the Commission shall use and the languages the use of which shall be authorized before it, as well as the date on which each party must deposit its statement of facts, and, generally speaking, all the conditions upon which the parties have agreed.

If the parties consider it necessary to appoint Assessors, the Inquiry Convention shall determine the mode of their selection and the extent of their powers.

Art. 11.

If the Inquiry Convention has not determined where the Commission is to sit, it shall sit at The Hague.

The place of sitting, once fixed, cannot be altered by the Commission except with the assent of the parties.

Unless the Inquiry Convention has specified the languages to be employed, the question shall be decided by the Commission.

Art. 11.

International Commissions of Inquiry are formed, unless otherwise stipulated, in the manner determined by Article 32 of the present Convention.

Art. 12.

In default of agreement to the contrary, Commissions of Inquiry shall be formed in the manner determined by Articles 45 and 57 of the present Convention.

Art. 13.

Should one of the Commissioners or one of the Assessors, if there be any, either die, resign, or be unable for any reason whatever to act, the same procedure is followed in filling his place which was followed in appointing him.

Edition: current; Page: [111]

Art. 14.

The parties are entitled to appoint special agents to attend the Commission of Inquiry, whose duty it is to represent them and to act as intermediaries between them and the Commission.

They are further authorized to engage counsel or advocates, appointed by themselves, to state their case and uphold their interests before the Commission.

Art. 15.

The International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration acts as registry for the Commissions which sit at The Hague, and shall place its offices and staff at the disposal of the Contracting Powers for the use of the Commission of Inquiry.

Art. 16.

If the Commission sits elsewhere than at The Hague, it appoints a Secretary-General, whose office serves as registry.

It is the function of the registry, under the control of the President, to make the necessary arrangements for the sittings of the Commission, the preparation of the Minutes and, while the inquiry lasts, for the custody of the archives, which shall subsequently be transferred to the International Bureau at The Hague.

Art. 17.

In order to facilitate the constitution and working of Commissions of Inquiry, the Contracting Powers recommend the following rules, which shall be applicable to the inquiry procedure in so far as the parties do not adopt other rules.

Edition: current; Page: [113]

Art. 18.

The Commission shall settle the details of the procedure not covered by the special Inquiry Convention or the present Convention, and shall arrange all the formalities required for dealing with the evidence.

Art. 19.

On the inquiry both sides must be heard.

(Cp. Art. 10 (1899).)

At the dates fixed, each party communicates to the Commission and to the other party the statements of facts, if any, and, in all cases, the instruments, papers, and documents which it considers useful for ascertaining the truth, as well as the list of witnesses and experts whose evidence it wishes to be heard.

Art. 20.

The Commission is entitled, with the assent of the parties, to move temporarily to any place where it considers it may be useful to have recourse to taking evidence by this means, or to send thither one or more of its members. Permission must be obtained from the State on whose territory evidence has to be taken in this way.

Art. 21.

Every investigation, and every examination of a locality, must be made in the presence of the agents and counsel of the parties or after they have been duly summoned.

Art. 22.

The Commission is entitled to ask from either party such explanations and information as it thinks fit.

Edition: current; Page: [115]

Art. 12.

The Powers at variance undertake to afford to the International Commission of Inquiry, within the widest limits they may think practicable, all means and facilities necessary to enable it to become completely acquainted with, and to accurately understand the facts at issue.

Art. 23.

The Parties undertake to afford to the Commission of Inquiry, within the widest limits they may think practicable, all the means and facilities necessary to enable it to become completely acquainted with, and accurately to understand the facts at issue.

They undertake to make use of the means at their disposal under their municipal law, to secure the appearance of the witnesses or experts who are in their territory and have been summoned before the Commission.

If the witnesses or experts are unable to appear before the Commission, the parties shall arrange for their evidence to be taken before the qualified officials of their own country.

Art. 24.

For the service of all notices by the Commission in the territory of a third Contracting Power, the Commission shall apply direct to the Government of such Power. The same rule shall apply in the case of steps being taken in order to procure evidence on the spot.

Requests for this purpose are to be executed so far as the means which the Power applied to possesses under municipal law allow. They cannot be rejected unless the Power in question considers they are calculated to impair its sovereign rights or its safety.

The Commission will also be entitled in all cases to have recourse to the intervention of the Power on whose territory it sits.

Edition: current; Page: [117]

Art. 25.

The witnesses and experts are summoned on the request of the parties or by the Commission of its own motion, and, in every case, through the Government of the State in whose territory they are.

The witnesses are heard in succession and separately, in the presence of the agents and counsel, and in the order fixed by the Commission.

Art. 26.

The examination of witnesses is conducted by the President.

The members of the Commission may however put to each witness questions which they consider likely to throw light on and complete his evidence, or elicit information on any point concerning the witness within the limits of what is necessary in order to get at the truth.

The agents and counsel of the parties may not interrupt the witness when he is making his statement, nor put any direct question to him, but they may ask the President to put such additional questions to the witness as they think expedient.

Art. 27.

The witness must give his evidence without being allowed to read any written proof. He may, however, be permitted by the President to consult notes or documents if the nature of the facts referred to necessitates their employment.

Edition: current; Page: [119]

Art. 28.

A Minute of the evidence of the witness is drawn up forthwith and read to the witness. The latter may make such alterations and additions as he thinks necessary, which shall be recorded at the end of his statement.

When the whole of his statement has been read to the witness, he is required to sign it.

Art. 29.

The agents are authorized, in the course of or at the close of the inquiry, to present in writing to the Commission and to the other party such statements, requisitions, or summaries of the facts as they consider useful for ascertaining the truth.

Art. 30.

The Commission considers its decisions in private and the proceedings remain secret.

All questions are decided by a majority of the members of the Commission.

If a member declines to vote, the fact must be recorded in the Minutes.

Art. 31.

The sittings of the Commission are not public, nor are the Minutes and documents connected with the inquiry published, except in virtue of a decision of the Commission taken with the consent of the parties.

Art. 32.

After the parties have presented all the explanations and evidence, and the witnesses have all been heard, the President declares the inquiry terminated, and the Commission adjourns to deliberate and to draw up its Report.

Edition: current; Page: [121]

Art. 13.

The International Commission of Inquiry communicates its Report to the Powers at variance, signed by all the members of the Commission.

Art. 33.

The Report is signed by all the members of the Commission.

If one of the members refuses to sign, the fact is mentioned; but the validity of the Report is not affected.

Art. 34.

The Report of the Commission is read in open Court, the agents and counsel of the parties being present or duly summoned to attend.

A copy of the Report is furnished to each party.

Art. 14.

The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry being limited to a finding of fact, has in no way the character of an Arbitral Award. It leaves to the Powers at variance entire freedom as to the effect to be given to the finding.

Art. 35.

The Report of the Commission, being limited to a finding of fact, has in no way the character of an Arbitral Award. It leaves to the Parties entire freedom as to the effect to be given to the finding.

Art. 36.

Each party pays its own expenses and an equal share of the expenses of the Commission.

Title IV.: On International Arbitration.

Chapter I.: On the System of Arbitration.

Art. 15.

International arbitration has for its object the settlement of differences between States by judges of their own choice, and on the basis of respect for law.

Part IV.: On International Arbitration.

Chapter I.: On the System of Arbitration.

Art. 37.

International arbitration has for its object the settlement of disputes between States by judges of their own choice and on the basis of respect for law.

Recourse to arbitration implies an engagement to submit loyally to the Award.

(Cp. Art. 18 (1899).)

Edition: current; Page: [123]

Art. 16.

In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Signatory Powers as the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.

Art. 38.

In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Contracting Powers as the most effective, and, at the same time, the most equitable means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.

Consequently, it would be desirable that, in disputes regarding the above-mentioned questions, the Contracting Powers should, if the case arise, have recourse to arbitration, in so far as circumstances permit.

Art. 17.

The Arbitration Convention is concluded for questions already existing or for questions which may arise eventually.

It may embrace any dispute or only disputes of a certain category.

Art. 18.

The Arbitration Convention implies the engagement to submit loyally to the Award.

(See Art. 37 (1907).)

Art. 39.

(No change.)

Art. 19.

Independently of general or private Treaties expressly stipulating recourse to arbitration as obligatory on the Signatory Powers, these Powers reserve to themselves the right of concluding, either before the ratification of the present Act or later, new agreements, general or private, with a view to extending obligatory arbitration to all cases which they may consider possible to submit to it.

Art. 40.

Independently of general or private Treaties expressly stipulating recourse to arbitration as obligatory on the Contracting Powers, the said Powers reserve to themselves the right of concluding new agreements, general or particular, with a view to extending compulsory arbitration to all cases which they may consider possible to submit to it.

Edition: current; Page: [125]

Chapter II.: On the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Art. 20.

With the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences, which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the Signatory Powers undertake to organize a permanent Court of Arbitration, accessible at all times and acting, in default of agreement to the contrary between the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention.

Chapter II.: On the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Art. 41.

With the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences, which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the Contracting Powers undertake to maintain the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as established by the First Peace Conference, accessible at all times, and acting, in default of agreement to the contrary between the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention.

Art. 21.

The Permanent Court shall be competent for all arbitration cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special Tribunal.

Art. 42.

The Permanent Court is competent for all arbitration cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special Tribunal.

Art. 22.

An International Bureau, established at the Hague, serves as registry for the Court.

This Bureau is the channel for communications relative to the meetings of the Court.

It has the custody of the archives and conducts all the administrative business.

The Signatory Powers undertake to communicate to the International Bureau at the Hague a duly certified copy of any agreement concerning arbitration arrived at between them, and of any award concerning them delivered by a special Tribunal.

They likewise undertake to communicate to the Bureau the laws, regulations, and documents if any, showing the execution of the awards given by the Court.

Art. 43.

The seat of the Permanent Court is at the Hague.

(Cp. Art. 25 (1899).)

An International Bureau serves as registry for the Court. It is the channel for communications relative to the meetings of the Court; it has the custody of the archives and conducts all the administrative business.

The Contracting Powers undertake to communicate to the Bureau, as soon as possible, a duly certified copy Edition: current; Page: [127] of any agreement concerning arbitration arrived at between them and of any award concerning them delivered by a special Tribunal.

They likewise undertake to communicate to the Bureau the laws, regulations, and documents if any, showing the execution of the Awards given by the Court.

Art. 23.

Within the three months following its ratification of the present Act, each Signatory Power shall select four persons at the most, of known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of Arbitrators.

The persons thus selected shall be inscribed, as Members of the Court, in a list which shall be notified by the Bureau to all the Signatory Powers.

Any alteration in the list of Arbitrators is brought by the Bureau to the knowledge of the Signatory Powers.

Two or more Powers may agree on the selection in common of one or more Members.

The same person may be selected by different Powers.

The Members of the Court are appointed for a term of six years. Their appointments can be renewed.

Should a Member of the Court die or resign, the same procedure is followed in filling the vacancy as was followed in appointing him.

Art. 44.

Each Contracting Power selects four persons at the most, of known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of Arbitrator.

The persons thus selected are inscribed, as Members of the Court, in a list which shall be notified to all the Contracting Powers by the Bureau.

Any alteration in the list of Arbitrators is brought by the Bureau to the knowledge of the Contracting Powers.

Two or more Powers may agree on the selection in common of one or more Members.

The same person may be selected by different Powers.

The Members of the Court are appointed for a term of six years. Their appointments can be renewed.

Should a Member of the Court 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.

Edition: current; Page: [129]

Art. 24.

When the Signatory Powers wish to have recourse to the Permanent Court for the settlement of a difference which has arisen between them, the Arbitrators called upon to form the Tribunal to decide this difference must be chosen from the general list of Members of the Court.

Failing the composition of the Arbitration Tribunal by direct agreement between the parties, the following course shall be pursued:—

Each party appoints two Arbitrators, and these together choose an Umpire.

If the votes are equally divided, the choice of the Umpire is intrusted to a third Power, selected by agreement between the parties.

If an agreement is not arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made in concert by the Powers thus selected.

As soon as the Tribunal has been constituted, the parties notify to the Bureau their determination to have recourse to the Court and the names of the Arbitrators.

The Tribunal of Arbitration assembles at the date fixed by the parties.

The Members of the Tribunal, in the performance of their duties and when outside their own country, enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

Art. 25.

The Tribunal of Arbitration has its ordinary seat at the Hague.

(See Art. 43 (1907).)

Except in cases of necessity, the place of session can only be altered by the Tribunal with the assent of the parties.

Art. 45.

When the Contracting Powers wish to have recourse to the Permanent Court for the settlement of a difference which has arisen between them, the Arbitrators called upon to form the Tribunal to decide this difference must be chosen from the general list of Members of the Court.

Failing the composition of the Arbitration Tribunal by agreement between the parties, the following course shall be pursued:—

Each party appoints two Arbitrators, of whom one only can be its national or chosen from among the persons selected by it as Members of the Permanent Court. These Arbitrators together choose an Umpire.

If the votes are equally divided, the choice of the Umpire is intrusted to a third Power, selected by agreement between the parties.

If an agreement is not arrived at on this subject each party selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made in concert by the Powers thus selected.

If, within two months’ time, these two Powers cannot come to an agreement, each of them presents two candidates taken from the list of Members of the Permanent Court, exclusive of the Members selected by the parties and not being nationals of either of them. Which of the candidates thus presented shall be Umpire is determined by lot.

Art. 46.

As soon as the Tribunal has been constituted, the parties notify to the Edition: current; Page: [131] Bureau their determination to have recourse to the Court, the text of their Compromis1, and the names of the Arbitrators.

The Bureau communicates without delay to each Arbitrator the Compromis, and the names of the other members of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal assembles at the date fixed by the parties. The Bureau makes the necessary arrangements for its meeting.

The Members of the Tribunal, in the performance of their duties and when outside their own country, enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

Art. 26.

The International Bureau at the Hague is authorized to place its offices and its staff at the disposal of the Signatory Powers for the use of any special Board of Arbitration.

The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may, within the conditions laid down in the Regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Signatory Powers, or between Signatory Powers and non-Signatory Powers, if the parties are agreed to have recourse to the Court.

Art. 47.

The Bureau is authorized to place its offices and staff at the disposal of the Contracting Powers for the use of any special Board of Arbitration.

The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may, within the conditions laid down in the Regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Contracting Powers or between Contracting Powers and non-Contracting Powers, if the parties are agreed to have recourse to the Court.

Edition: current; Page: [133]

Art. 27.

The Signatory Powers consider it their duty, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between two or more of them, to remind these latter that the Permanent Court is open to them.

Consequently, they declare that the fact of reminding the parties at variance of the provisions of the present Convention, and the advice given to them, in the highest interests of peace, to have recourse to the Permanent Court, can only be regarded as in the nature of good offices.

Art. 48.

The Contracting Powers consider it their duty, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between two or more of them, to remind these latter that the Permanent Court is open to them.

Consequently, they declare that the fact of reminding the parties at variance of the provisions of the present Convention, and the advice given to them, in the highest interests of peace, to have recourse to the Permanent Court, can only be regarded as in the nature of good offices1.

In case of dispute between two Powers, one of them may always address to the International Bureau a note containing a declaration that it would be ready to submit the dispute to arbitration.

The Bureau must at once inform the other Power of the declaration.

Art. 28.

A Permanent Administrative Council composed of the Diplomatic Representatives of the Signatory Powers accredited to the Hague and of the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will act as President, shall be instituted in this town as soon as possible after the ratification of the present Act by at least nine Powers.

This Council will be charged with the establishment and organization of the International Bureau, which will be under its direction and control.

It will notify to the Powers the constitution of the Court and will provide for its installation.

It will settle its rules of procedure and all other necessary regulations.

It will decide all questions of administration which may arise with regard to the business of the Court.

It will have entire control over the appointment, suspension or dismissal of the officials and employés of the Bureau.

It will fix the payments and salaries, and control the general expenditure.

At meetings duly summoned the presence of five members is sufficient to render valid the discussions of the Council. The decisions are taken by a majority of votes.

The Council communicates to the Signatory Powers without delay the Regulations adopted by it. It furnishes them with an annual Report on the labours of the Court, the working of the staff, and the expenditure.

Art. 49.

The Permanent Administrative Council, composed of the Diplomatic Representatives of the Contracting Powers accredited to The Hague and of the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs, who acts as President, is charged with the direction and control of the International Bureau.

Edition: current; Page: [135]

The Council settles its rules of procedure and all other necessary regulations.

It decides all questions of administration which may arise with regard to the business of the Court.

It has entire control over the appointment, suspension, or dismissal of the officials and employés of the Bureau.

It fixes the payments and salaries, and controls the general expenditure.

At meetings duly summoned, the presence of nine members is sufficient to render valid the discussions of the Council. The decisions are taken by a majority of votes.

The Council communicates to the Contracting Powers without delay the regulations adopted by it. It furnishes them with an annual Report on the labours of the Court, the working of the staff, and the expenditure. The Report likewise contains a summary of the more important contents of the documents communicated to the Bureau by the Powers in virtue of Article 43, paragraphs 3 and 4.

Art. 29.

The expenses of the Bureau shall be borne by the Signatory Powers in the proportion fixed for the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.

Art. 50.

The expenses of the Bureau shall be borne by the Contracting Powers in the proportion fixed for the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.

The expenses to be charged to the acceding Powers shall be reckoned from the date on which their accession takes effect.

Edition: current; Page: [137]

Chapter III.: On Arbitration Procedure.

Art. 30.

With a view of encouraging the development of arbitration, the Signatory Powers have agreed on the following Rules, which shall apply to arbitration procedure, except in so far as other Rules shall have been agreed on by the parties.

Chapter III.: On Arbitration Procedure.

Art. 51.

(No change.)1

Art. 31.

The Powers which have recourse to arbitration sign a special Act (Compromis), in which the subject of the dispute is clearly defined, as well as the extent of the Arbitrators’ powers. This Act implies the undertaking of the parties to submit loyally to the award.

(See Art. 37, par. 2 (1907).)

Art. 52.

The Powers which have recourse to arbitration sign a Compromis, in which the subject of the dispute is clearly defined, the time allowed for appointing Arbitrators, the form, order, and time in which the communication referred to in Article 63 must be made, and the amount of the sum which each party must deposit in advance to defray the expenses.

The Compromis likewise defines, if there is occasion for it, the manner of appointing Arbitrators, the special powers, if any, conferred on the Tribunal, the place of meeting, the language it shall use, and the languages the employment of which shall be authorized before it, and, generally speaking, all the conditions on which the parties are agreed.

Art. 53.

The Permanent Court is competent to settle the Compromis, if the parties are agreed to have recourse to it for the purpose.

It is similarly competent, even if the Edition: current; Page: [139] request is only made by one of the parties, when all attempts to reach an understanding through the diplomatic channel have failed, in the case of:

1. A dispute covered by a general Treaty of Arbitration concluded or renewed after the present Convention has come into force, and providing for a Compromis in all disputes and not either explicitly or implicitly excluding the settlement of the Compromis from the competence of the Court. Recourse cannot, however, be had to the Court if the other party declares that in its opinion the dispute does not belong to the category of disputes which can be submitted to obligatory arbitration, unless the Treaty of Arbitration confers upon the Arbitration Tribunal the power of deciding this preliminary question;

2. A dispute arising from contract debts claimed from one Power by another Power as due to its nationals, and for the settlement of which the offer of arbitration has been accepted. This provision is not applicable if acceptance is subject to the condition that the Compromis should be settled in some other way.

(Cp. 2 H. C. 1907.)

Art. 54.

In the cases contemplated in the preceding Article, the Compromis shall be settled by a Commission consisting of five members selected in the manner laid down in Article 45, paragraphs 3 to 6.

The fifth member is ex officio President of the Commission.

Edition: current; Page: [141]

Art. 32.

The duties of Arbitrator may be conferred on a single Arbitrator or on several Arbitrators selected by the parties as they please, or chosen by them from the Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration established by the present Act.

Failing the constitution of the Tribunal by direct agreement between the parties, the following course shall be pursued:

Each party appoints two Arbitrators, and these latter together choose an Umpire.

In case of equal voting, the choice of the Umpire is intrusted to a third Power, selected by the parties by common accord.

If no agreement is arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made in concert by the Powers thus selected.

Art. 55.

The duties of Arbitrator may be conferred on a single Arbitrator or on several Arbitrators selected by the parties as they please, or chosen by them from the Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration established by the present Convention.

Failing the composition of the Tribunal by agreement between the parties, the course referred to in Article 45, paragraphs 3 to 6, is followed.

Art. 33.

When a Sovereign or the Chief of a State is chosen as Arbitrator, the arbitration procedure is settled by him.

Art. 56.

(No change.)

Art. 34.

The Umpire is ex officio President of the Tribunal.

When the Tribunal does not include an Umpire, it appoints its own President.

Art. 57.

(No change.)

Art. 58.

When the Compromis is settled by a Commission, as contemplated in Article 54, and in default of agreement to the contrary, the Commission itself shall form the Arbitration Tribunal.

Edition: current; Page: [143]

Art. 35.

In case of the death, retirement or disability from any cause of one of the Arbitrators, the same procedure is followed in filling the vacancy as was followed in appointing him.

Art. 59.

(No change.)

Art. 36.

The Tribunal’s place of session is selected by the parties. Failing this selection the Tribunal sits at the Hague.

The place of session thus fixed cannot, except in case of necessity, be altered by the Tribunal, except with the assent of the Parties.

Art. 60.

The Tribunal sits at The Hague, unless some other place is selected by the parties.

The Tribunal may only sit in the territory of a third Power with the latter’s consent.

The place of session once fixed cannot be altered by the Tribunal, except with the assent of the Parties.

Art. 61.

Unless the Compromis has specified the languages to be employed, the question shall be decided by the Tribunal.

(Cp. Art. 38 (1899).)

Art. 37.

The parties are entitled to appoint delegates or special agents to attend the Tribunal, for the purpose of acting as intermediaries between themselves and the Tribunal.

They are further authorized to retain, for the defence of their rights and interests before the Tribunal, counsel or advocates appointed by them for this purpose.

Art. 38.

The Tribunal decides on the choice of languages to be used by itself, and to be authorized for use before it.

(See Art. 61 (1907).)

Art. 62.

The parties are entitled to appoint special agents to attend the Tribunal, for the purpose of acting as intermediaries between themselves and the Tribunal.

They are further authorized to retain for the defence of their rights and interests before the Tribunal counsel or advocates appointed by them for the purpose.

The Members of the Permanent Court may not act as agents, counsel or advocates except on behalf of the Power which has appointed them Members of the Court.

Edition: current; Page: [145]

Art. 39.

As a general rule arbitration procedure comprises two distinct phases; pleadings and oral discussions.

The pleadings consist in the communication by the respective agents to the members of the Tribunal and the opposing party of all printed or written Acts and of all documents containing the pleas relied on in the case. This communication shall be made in the form and within the time fixed by the Tribunal in accordance with Article 49.

The discussions consist of the oral development of the pleas of the parties before the Tribunal.

Art. 63.

As a general rule, arbitration procedure comprises two distinct phases: written pleadings and oral discussions.

The written pleadings consist in the communication by the respective agents to the members of the Tribunal and the opposing party, of cases, countercases, and, if necessary, of replies; the parties annex thereto all papers and documents relied on in the cause. This communication shall be made either directly or through the intermediary of the International Bureau, in the order and within the time fixed by the Compromis.

The time fixed by the Compromis may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, or by the Tribunal when the latter considers it necessary for the purpose of reaching a just decision.

The discussions consist of the oral developments of the pleas of the parties before the Tribunal.

Art. 40.

Every document produced by one party must be communicated to the other party.

Art. 64.

A duly certified copy of every document produced by one party must be communicated to the other party.

Art. 65.

Unless special circumstances arise, the Tribunal does not meet until the pleadings are closed.

Edition: current; Page: [147]

Art. 41.

The discussions are under the direction of the President.

They are not public unless it be so decided by the Tribunal, with the assent of the parties.

They are recorded in minutes drawn up by the Secretaries appointed by the President. These minutes are the only authentic record.

Art. 66.

The discussions are under the direction of the President.

They are not public unless it be so decided by the Tribunal, with the assent of the parties.

They are recorded in minutes drawn up by the Secretaries appointed by the President. These minutes are signed by the President and by one of the Secretaries and are the only authentic record.

Art. 42.

After the close of the pleadings, the Tribunal is entitled to exclude from the discussion all fresh papers or documents which one party may wish to submit to it without the consent of the other.

Art. 67.

(No change.)

Art. 43.

The Tribunal is free to take into consideration fresh papers or documents to which its attention may be drawn by the agents or counsel of the parties.

In that case, the Tribunal has the right to require the production of such papers or documents, but is obliged to make them known to the opposite party.

Art. 68.

(No change.)

Art. 44.

The Tribunal may also call upon the agents of the parties to furnish all necessary papers and explanations. In case of refusal the Tribunal takes note of it.

Art. 69.

(No change.)

Edition: current; Page: [149]

Art. 45.

The agents and counsel of the parties are authorised to present orally to the Tribunal all the arguments they may think expedient in support of their case.

Art. 70.

(No change.)

Art. 46.

They are entitled to raise objections and points.

The decisions of the Tribunal thereon are final, and cannot form the subject of any subsequent discussion.

Art. 71.

(No change.)

Art. 47.

The members of the Tribunal are entitled to put questions to the agents and counsel of the parties, and to ask them for explanations on doubtful points.

Neither the questions put nor the remarks made by members of the Tribunal in the course of the discussions are to be regarded as an expression of opinion by the Tribunal in general, or by its members in particular.

Art. 72.

(No change.)

Art. 48.

The Tribunal is authorised to determine its competence by interpreting the Compromis as well as the other Treaties which may be adduced in the matter and by applying the principles of international law.

Art. 73.

The Tribunal is authorised to determine its competence by interpreting the Compromis as well as the other papers and documents which may be adduced in the matter and by applying the principles of law.

Art. 49.

The Tribunal is entitled to make rules of procedure for the conduct of the case, to decide the forms and time in which each party must conclude its arguments, and to arrange all the formalities required for taking evidence.

Art. 74.

The Tribunal is entitled to make rules of procedure for the conduct of the case, to decide the forms, order, and time in which each party must conclude its arguments, and to arrange all the formalities for taking evidence.

Edition: current; Page: [151]

Art. 75.

The parties undertake to supply the Tribunal, within the widest limits they may think practicable, with all the information required for deciding the dispute.

Art. 76.

For the service of all notices by the Tribunal in the territory of a third Contracting Power, the Tribunal shall apply direct to the Government of such Power. The same rule shall apply in the case of steps being taken in order to procure evidence on the spot.

Requests for this purpose are to be executed so far as the means which the Power applied to possesses under its municipal law allow. They cannot be rejected unless the Power in question considers they are calculated to impair its sovereign rights or its safety.

The Tribunal will also be entitled in all cases to act through the Power on whose territory it sits.

Art. 50.

When the agents and counsel of the parties have submitted all the explanations and evidence in support of their case, the President shall declare the discussion closed.

Art. 77.

(No change.)

Art. 51.

The deliberations of the Tribunal take place in private

All questions are decided by a majority of members of the Tribunal.

The refusal of a member to vote must be recorded in the procès-verbal.

Art. 78.

The deliberations of the Tribunal take place in private and the proceedings remain secret.

All questions are decided by a majority of the members of the Tribunal.

Edition: current; Page: [153]

Art. 52.

The Award, given by a majority of votes, must state the reasons on which it is based. It is drawn up in writing and signed by each member of the Tribunal.

Those members who are in the minority may record their dissent when signing.

Art. 79.

The Award must state the reasons on which it is based. It recites the names of the Arbitrators and is signed by the President and by the Registrar or the Secretary acting as Registrar.

Art. 53.

The Award is read out at a public sitting of the Tribunal, the agents and counsel of the parties being present, or duly summoned to attend.

Art. 80.

The Award is read out at a public sitting, the agents and counsel of the parties being present or duly summoned to attend.

Art. 54.

The Award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of the parties at variance, settles the dispute definitely and without appeal.

Art. 81.

The Award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of the parties, settles the dispute definitely and without appeal.

Art. 82.

Any dispute arising between the parties as to the interpretation and execution of the Award shall, in default of agreement to the contrary, be submitted to the decision of the Tribunal which pronounced it.

Art. 55.

The parties may in the Compromis reserve the right to demand the revision of the Award.

In this case, and unless there be an agreement to the contrary, the demand must be addressed to the Tribunal which pronounced the Award. It can only be made on the ground of the discovery of some new fact which is calculated to exercise a decisive influence upon the Award, and which, at the time the discussion was closed, was unknown to the Tribunal and to the party demanding revision.

Proceedings for revision can only be instituted by a decision of the Tribunal expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing in it the character described in the preceding paragraph, and declaring the demand admissible on this ground.

The Compromis fixes the period within which the demand for revision must be made.

Art. 83.

(No change.)

Edition: current; Page: [155]

Art. 56.

The Award is only binding on the parties who concluded the Compromis.

When there is a question of interpreting a Convention to which Powers other than those at variance are parties, the latter notify to the former the Compromis they have concluded. Each of these Powers has the right to intervene in the case. If one or more of them avail themselves of this right, the interpretation contained in the Award is equally binding on them.

Art. 84.

The Award is only binding on the parties to the proceedings.

When there is a question of interpreting a Convention to which Powers other than those at variance are parties, the latter shall inform all the Signatory Powers in good time. Each of these Powers has the right to intervene in the case. If one or more of them avail themselves of this right, the interpretation contained in the Award is equally binding on them.

Art. 57.

Each party pays its own expenses and an equal share of those of the Tribunal.

Art. 85.

(No change.)

Chapter IV.: On Arbitration by Summary Procedure.

Art. 86.

With a view of facilitating the working of the system of arbitration in disputes admitting of a summary Edition: current; Page: [157] procedure, the Contracting Powers adopt the following rules, which shall be observed in the absence of other arrangements and with the reservation that the provisions of Chapter III apply so far as they are not inconsistent with these rules.

Art. 87.

Each of the parties at variance appoints an Arbitrator. The two Arbitrators thus selected choose an Umpire. If they do not agree on this point, each of them proposes two candidates taken from the general list of the Members of the Permanent Court exclusive of the Members appointed by either of the parties and not being nationals of either of them; which of the candidates thus proposed shall be the Umpire is determined by lot.

The Umpire presides over the Tribunal, which gives its decisions by a majority of votes.

Art. 88.

In default of previous agreement, the Tribunal, as soon as it is constituted, settles the time within which the two parties shall submit their respective cases to it.

Art. 89.

Each party is represented before the Tribunal by an agent, who serves as intermediary between the Tribunal and the Government which has appointed him.

Art. 90.

The proceedings are conducted exclusively in writing. Each party, however, is entitled to ask that witnesses and experts should be called. The Edition: current; Page: [159] Tribunal, on its part, has the right to ask for oral explanations from the agents of the two parties, as well as from the experts and witnesses whose appearance in Court it may consider useful.

General Provisions.

Part V.: Final Provisions.

Art. 91.

The present Convention, duly ratified, shall replace, as between the Contracting Powers, the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of the 29th July, 1899.

Art. 58.

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 Powers who were represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague.

Art. 92.

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 Edition: current; Page: [161] 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 at the same time inform the Powers of the date on which it received the notification.

Art. 59.

The non-Signatory Powers which were represented at the International Peace Conference can accede to the present Convention. For this purpose they must make known their accession to the Contracting Powers by a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

Art. 93.

Non-Signatory Powers which have been invited to the Second Peace Conference 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 invited to the Second Peace Conference 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. 60.

The conditions on which the Powers not represented at the International Peace Conference may accede to the present Convention shall form the subject of a subsequent agreement between the Contracting Powers.

Art. 94.

The conditions on which the Powers not invited to the Second Peace Conference may accede to the present Convention shall form the subject of a subsequent agreement between the Contracting Powers.

Art. 95.

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 Edition: current; Page: [163] of the procès-verbal recording such deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which 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. 61.

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

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and affixed their seals to it.

Done at The Hague, the 29th July, 1899, in a single original, which shall remain 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. 96.

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. 97.

A register kept by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 92, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 93, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 96, 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 Contracting Powers.

Edition: current; Page: [164]

I.: Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes1.

The work of the First Conference.The most important result of the First Conference in the opinion of Sir Julian Pauncefote, the First British delegate, was the production of a Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes. “It was elaborated by a Committee composed of distinguished jurists and diplomatists and it constitutes a complete code on the subject of good offices, mediation and arbitration. Its most striking and novel feature is the establishment of a Permanent Court of international arbitration, which has so long been the dream of the advocates of peace, destined, apparently, until now never to be realized2.” This Convention was the work of the Third Committee in 1899, which commenced its labours with an examination of a draft communicated to the Conference by the Russian Delegation. This contained no provision for the establishment of a permanent international tribunal of arbitration. Edition: current; Page: [165] Proposals with this object were submitted to the Conference by the British delegates who worked in collaboration with those of the United States who had received instructions to present a project of an international tribunal not dissimilar to the British in some respects, “though hampered with provisions relating to procedure,” but these proposals were not pressed, and the American delegates supported the British draft. In the course of the examination of the various projects, the British proposals were ultimately taken as a basis. The work of the Committee and its results were summarised in the able report of M. le Chevalier Descamps whose labours in the cause of International Arbitration were acknowledged by the Committee, extracts from his Essay on Arbitration being printed and circulated among the members1.

The Convention is divided into four Titles: (i) on the maintenance of the general peace (1 article); (ii) on good offices and mediation (7 articles); (iii) International Commission of Inquiry (6 articles); (iv) International Arbitration (42 articles).

This Convention is a noteworthy advance on previous attempts to extend the principle of arbitration as a means of settlement of international disputes, and by far the most important part of it is Chapter ii. of the Fourth Title which creates a Permanent Court of Arbitration, the credit for which is chiefly due to the combined labours of the British and United States delegates. The Russian draft contemplated little more than the framing of Rules of Procedure for international tribunals, which, whatever the merit of those rules, would not materially have advanced the cause of arbitration. The expression “Permanent Court” does not accurately describe the institution created by this Convention under which each of the signatory Powers agreed within three months after its ratification to select four persons at the most of known competency in questions of Edition: current; Page: [166] international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of arbitrators (Art. 23). When any of the signatory Powers desire to have recourse to the Permanent Court the arbitrators are to be chosen from the list of members of the Court. The Court is only permanent in the sense that there now came into existence a body of duly qualified arbitrators, ready and willing if called upon to undertake the work of assisting in the peaceful settlement of disputes, and provided with general rules of procedure for the fulfilment of their office. Four times since 1899 has a body constituted under the term of this Convention come into being and delivered judgment1, and certain defects had become apparent in the working of the Court. A Commission of Inquiry, constituted with somewhat wider powers than those provided by Title iii. of the Convention, settled a most important dispute between Great Britain and Russia, and from its proceedings improvements in the Convention were seen to be advisable.

The object of the Second Conference.The Circular of Count Benckendorff of the 3rd April, 1906, placed as the first item in the proposed Programme for the consideration of the Second Hague Conference: “(1) Improvements to be made in the provisions of the Convention relative to the pacific settlement of international disputes, so far as the Court of Arbitration and the International Commissions of Inquiry are concerned.” These subjects were entrusted to the First Committee under the presidency of M. Léon Bourgeois, and its two Sub-Committees designated as Committee A and C respectively, for which Baron Guillaume acted as Reporter. The Report of the First Committee, containing an account of their discussions and the changes proposed in the Convention of 1899, was presented to the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Conference on the 16th Oct. 19072. The result was the adoption of a revised Convention of 97 Articles, which when ratified replaces as between the contracting Powers the Convention of 1899. A comparison of the two Conventions shows how far the original Convention remains unchanged, and the additions which the Conference was able to make.

The preamble points out that the object of the revision is to ensure the better working in practice of commissions of inquiry and tribunals of arbitration, and of facilitating recourse to arbitration in cases which allow of a summary procedure. It is on these matters that the chief changes will be found. Chapter iv. of Part iv. on arbitration by summary procedure is wholly new.

Edition: current; Page: [167]

Good offices and mediation.Except for the substitution of the word “contracting” for “signatory” Powers, and the addition of the words “and desirable” in Article 3 which now reads that “the contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable” that strangers to a dispute shall as far as circumstances allow offer their good offices or mediation to states at variance, there is no alteration in the first 8 Articles of the 1899 Convention. The addition of the words “and desirable” was made on the proposition of the First Delegate of the United States, Mr Choate. The word “contracting” is throughout the Convention substituted for “signatory.”

An endeavour was made by the Haytian delegate to modify Art. 8 in such a way that the two Powers chosen by the states at variance should themselves nominate a third to act as mediator, but it was felt that not only would this increase the difficulty of the situation, but was not in harmony with the scheme of mediation of the Article.

There is according to many writers on international law a theoretical difference between mediation and good offices, but this is not observed in the text of the Convention. The difference is, however, more theoretical than practical, and both consist in a friendly interposition of a third Power to adjust differences and lead to a pacific solution of a dispute between two Powers at variance1.

International Commissions of Inquiry.The subject of International Commissions of Inquiry was dealt with in 6 Articles in the Convention of 1899, but in that of 1907 it occupies 28 Articles. The institution had proved its value, and the Conference availed itself of the experience which had been gained by the North Sea Commission which sat in 19052. The occasion of this Commission was an incident which occurred in the progress of the Russian Baltic Fleet to the Far East during the Russo-Japanese War. On the night of October 21-22, 1904, some ships of the Russian Fleet fired on the Hull fishing fleet which was engaged in fishing off the Dogger Bank in the North Sea. Two men were killed, several injured, one boat was sunk and others damaged. The attack had every appearance of a deliberate outrage, and Lord Lansdowne immediately addressed a note to the Russian Minister demanding an apology, compensation and the punishment of the offenders. The tension between Great Britain and Russia was great, and for a short time war appeared Edition: current; Page: [168] to be inevitable. The Russian Government maintained that Japanese torpedo-boats were concealed among the fishing fleet, and that consequently the firing took place as an operation of war. The presence of Japanese boats was denied by Great Britain. Russia professed her readiness to make compensation if the facts were not as she alleged. The dispute turned therefore on a question of fact, and by a Declaration of Nov. 25, 1904, the two Powers “agreed to entrust to an International Commission of Inquiry, assembled in accordance with Articles ix.-xiv. of the Hague Convention of July 29, 1899, for the pacific settlement of international disputes, the care of elucidating by an impartial and conscientious examination the question of fact relating to the incident which took place during the night of Oct. 21-22, 1904, in the North Sea—in the course of which the firing of cannon of the Russian Fleet occasioned the loss of a boat and the death of two persons belonging to a flotilla of British fishermen, and also damages to the boats of the said flotilla, and wounds to the crew of some of these boats.” The Commission was composed of five members: two officers in the British and Russian Navies respectively (Admiral Sir L. A. Beaumont and Admiral Kaznakov); two naval officers chosen by the United States and France (Admirals Davis and Fournier); and a fifth member chosen by the Emperor of Austria (Admiral Baron Spaun). Great Britain and Russia each appointed a jurist as assessor (but without a vote), and agents. By the 52nd Article the terms of the Inquiry were explained to be the following: “The Commission shall make an inquiry into and draw up a report upon all the circumstances relating to the North Sea incident, and particularly upon the question of where the responsibility lies, and upon the degree of the blame affecting the nationals of the two High Contracting Powers, or of other countries, in case their responsibility should be ascertained by the inquiry.” The latter part of this clause referred to the alleged liability of Japan. The terms of the reference are thus wider than those contemplated by Art. 14 of the Convention of 1899 which limits the Report of the Commission “to a statement of facts.” The Commission was entrusted with the fullest powers even to the extent of apportioning the blame for the occurrence, and this in a matter which both Powers might well have contended to be a difference involving “honour” and “vital interests,” which is expressly excluded from the operation of the Convention by the terms of Art. 9.

Details of the procedure were left to the Commission which met in Paris on December 22, 1904, and delivered its award on February 26, 1905.

The Commission was occupied for four days in settling the procedure to be observed, the Convention of 1899 having enacted no such rules.

Edition: current; Page: [169]

Both Powers undertook to afford to the Commission all possible means and facilities to enable it to obtain a thorough knowledge and appreciation of the facts, and to bear an equal share of the expenses of the Commission which reported to the two Governments the results of their inquiry.

The Commission reported (the Russian Admiral alone dissenting) that no Japanese torpedo-boats had been present, that the firing was therefore unjustifiable, that the Commander of the Fleet (Admiral Rojdestvensky) was responsible; but these facts were “not of a nature to cast any discredit on the humanity of Admiral Rojdestvensky or the personnel of his squadron.” Russia subsequently paid the sum of £65,000 by way of indemnity.

The rules of procedure adopted by the North Sea Commission were communicated to the Committee of the Conference, of which Sir Edward Fry, who had acted as British legal assessor at the Commission, was a member.

Article 9 (99), though the subject of considerable discussion, remains unchanged save for two verbal alterations similar to those made in Article 3. The discussion chiefly turned on two proposals of M. de Martens, (1) to substitute the words “agree” for “deem it expedient,” and (2) to add to the functions of Commissions of Inquiry the duty of fixing responsibility, as was done in the North Sea Inquiry, though M. de Martens did not insist on the use of the word “responsibility.” The effect of the acceptance would, it was thought by many of the delegates, have been to make the establishment of such Commissions compulsory “as far as circumstances allow,” and M. de Martens could not carry his point. The fact that Great Britain and Russia had been able to agree under the terms of the Article of the Convention of 1899, determined the Committee to leave it intact.

Considerable additions are made to Art. 10, which in the main are similar to the rules adopted in the North Sea Commission, to which are also due a number of the subsequent Articles in this Part. The place of meeting is to be the Hague unless the Inquiry Convention decides otherwise; the Commission settles the question of the language to be used unless the Inquiry Convention determines it (Art. 11). Art. 17 recommends a set of rules for use by Commissions of Inquiry, which are embodied in the subsequent Articles and are based on a draft presented by the British and French delegate. The mode of procedure adopted is that usual in continental courts of justice. The witnesses are examined by the President. Article 35 reproduces Art. 14 (99). The Russian delegate proposed to modify this Article as follows: “The Powers at variance, having obtained knowledge of the facts and responsibilities declared by the International Commission of Inquiry, are free either to conclude a friendly Edition: current; Page: [170] arrangement, or to have recourse to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague.” The object of this proposal was to exclude the possibility of the Powers who had constituted an International Commission of Inquiry which had reported on the facts having recourse to war. It was based on the consideration that, if two Powers had been able to agree to constitute a Commission of Inquiry, they should be able to go farther in the manifestation of their attachment to peace1. The Committee was unable to accept this proposal which appeared to imply obligatory arbitration as a necessary consequence of recourse to Commissions of Inquiry, and which they feared would have tended to diminish the number of cases of appeal to this method of peaceful settlement of disputes.

The Articles on the subject of International Commissions of Inquiry mark an advance on those of the Convention of 1899, though the non-acceptance of the amendments mentioned shows that the subject was approached in an extremely conservative spirit. The new rules adopted had for the more part stood the test of actual practice, and were therefore accepted as ready for embodiment in an international Act, but any changes of principle in the nature of an approach to compulsion could find no acceptance. If Great Britain and Russia had, at a time when relations between them were strained almost to breaking point, been enabled to terminate the period of tension in a friendly manner, it was thought that other states might on future occasions do the same.

International Arbitration.Part iv. is concerned with International Arbitration and is divided into four chapters, dealing with the system of arbitration, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, arbitration procedure, and arbitration by summary procedure.

Chapter i. The system of arbitration.Article 37 blends Arts. 15 and 18 (99). Article 38 reproduces Art. 16 (99), which recognises that arbitration is the most effective and equitable means of settling disputes in questions of a legal nature and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions. This Article is, in the words of Sir Edward Fry, “the corner-stone of the Convention.” A clause is now added stating that “consequently, it would be desirable that, in disputes regarding the above-mentioned questions, the contracting Powers should in that case have recourse to arbitration, in so far as circumstances permit.” It is hardly possible to frame a clause in a more cautious or non-committal form of words. Its author was M. de Mérey, one of the Austro-Hungarian Edition: current; Page: [171] delegates. As has already been explained it was round this Article that the various propositions for obligatory arbitration grouped themselves1. They all took the form of suggestions making recourse to arbitration (which the Article recognised as an equitable solution of disputes) under certain conditions obligatory. They all failed of acceptance and no change was made save the addition of the clause just mentioned2. There are no further changes in Chapter i.

Chapter ii. The Permanent Court.Articles 41 and 42 are re-enactments of Arts. 20 and 21 (99). A slight addition is made in Article 43, where the words “as soon as possible” were added on the proposition of the German delegate in accordance with the recommendation of the arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” case, and with a view of adding precision to the terms of the Article.

Article 44 clears up a doubt which existed under Art. 23 (99) as to the length of time for which a member of the Court held office when he had been nominated to fill the place of another who had died or retired3.

Article 45 contains some slight changes which however were not arrived at without considerable discussion. As a result of these amendments, each party chooses two arbitrators, but only one of them may be a national or chosen from among the persons nominated by it as members of the Permanent Court. This was in the nature of a compromise, as M. Lammasch (Austro-Hungarian delegate) proposed that no national judge should be appointed where the tribunal was composed of only three members.

In connection with the alterations in this Article it may be noticed that under the Protocol of the 7th May, 1903, with reference to the Venezuelan Arbitration, the Tsar was invited to name from among the members of the Permanent Court three arbitrators, none of whom should be subjects of any of the signatory Powers or creditors. It was not without some Edition: current; Page: [172] difficulty that the Tsar was able to comply with the request. He first nominated, in addition to M. Mouravieff, M. Lardy, Swiss Minister at Paris, and Professor Henning Matzen, Judge of the High Court of Denmark, but the two latter declined, as their countrymen were not disinterested in the litigation. MM. Lammasch and de Martens were then nominated and accepted1.

In all the four cases, except that of the Japanese leases, the arbitrators were not nationals of the parties to the Arbitration. In the “Pious Funds” and “Venezuela” cases nationals were excluded by the terms of the Compromis, and although there was no such exclusion in the “Muscat Dhows” case, nationals of the parties were not included.

Art. 24 (99) provided no solution for the case where in choosing an umpire the different Powers selected by each party failed to agree; consequently a new paragraph is added to Article 45 under which each Power, if they cannot agree within two months, presents two candidates, and the drawing of lots decides which of them shall be umpire.

Article 46 contains the last three paragraphs of Art. 24 (99); the words “without delay” were added for the same reasons as in the case of Article 43.

Article 47 contains no material change.

Article 48 marks an important alteration in Art. 27 (99), an alteration not arrived at without considerable discussion. Two amendments to Art. 27 (99) were moved, one by the Delegation of Peru, the other by the Delegation of Chili2. It was thought by the Conference of 1899 that the Article would provide a valuable means of assisting in the maintenance of peace, for by it the signatory Powers consider it their duty, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between two or more of them, to remind these latter that the Permanent Court is open to them. The Article had however practically been a dead letter. The Peruvian delegate therefore proposed that in case of dispute between two Powers, one of them can always, by a note addressed to the International Bureau at the Hague, declare that it is disposed to submit the dispute to arbitration; the note to contain a short statement of the question in dispute from the point of view of the Power sending it, and the Bureau to communicate it to the other Power, and place itself at the disposition of both Powers in order to facilitate an exchange of views between them and a possible conclusion of a Compromis. The Chilian proposition was in the nature of an amendment to the Peruvian, limiting the cases to Edition: current; Page: [173] which it was applicable to disputes subsequent to the present Convention, and allowing the application of the Power to be made by telegraph. It further limited the function of the Bureau to one of administration, whereas the Peruvian proposal seemed to give to it the character of a compulsory mediator, which was going beyond the principle of the Convention of 1899. These proposals received the support of Baron D’Estournelles de Constant on behalf of France, but he suggested that it would be sufficient, and in harmony with the general principles of the Convention, if one Power merely addressed to the Bureau a note announcing its willingness to arbitrate, and the Bureau’s function should consist in communicating this to the other Power. The function of the Bureau would thus in no sense be political, it would be “an international letter box.” He agreed that this provision should not have a retroactive effect. In the discussion, the French view was supported by the United States, British, Russian and Brazilian delegates, the former pointing out that on several occasions the faculty offered by Art. 27 (99) had been successfully exercised by President Roosevelt in the case of South American States. On the other hand, the delegates of Austria-Hungary and Japan spoke against the proposal. The former contending that Art. 27 (99) had not been appealed to, though occasions for it had certainly not been wanting, it was therefore inopportune to extend it. A vote was taken, when 34 states voted for the Article as it now stands. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Japan, Roumania, Sweden and Turkey voted against it; Greece, Luxemburg and Montenegro were absent. It remains to be seen whether the additional paragraph will render the Article more efficacious than Art. 27 of the former Convention.

Mr J. B. Scott on behalf of the United States renewed the Declaration made in 1899 on the subject of Art. 27, which now becomes Article 48.

“The Delegation of the United States of America in signing the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, such as is proposed by the International Conference of the Peace, makes the following declaration:

“Nothing contained in this Convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or policy or internal administration of any foreign state: nor shall anything contained in the said Convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of its traditional attitude towards purely American questions1.”

Edition: current; Page: [174]

Article 50 is a modification of Art. 29 (99). The new paragraph was rendered necessary in consequence of the accession to the Convention of 1899 on the 14th June, 1907, of a large number of Powers who had taken no part in the Conference of 1899. The expenses of the Bureau charged to the acceding Powers are to commence from the date of their accession and not from that of the ratification.

Chapter iii. Arbitration procedure.In this Part there are a few changes, some of drafting, others of more importance. Article 53 is new and gives fuller powers to the Permanent Court in the settlement of the Compromis when both parties agree; it also gives it a similar power on the request of one of the parties when attempts to reach an understanding through the diplomatic channel have failed in two classes of disputes. If, however, one of the Powers declares that in its opinion the dispute does not belong to one of the specified classes, this function of the Permanent Court is excluded, a proviso which may have an important limitation on the effectiveness of this Article. (See also Article 73.)

Article 57 re-enacts 34 (99). The judges in the “Pious Funds” case pointed out that in their opinion certain inconveniences existed in reference to Article 32 (99) and the following Articles, under which the arbitrators named by the Powers at variance were obliged to choose an umpire who became by right President of the Tribunal, and they recommended that the arbitrators should be left free to choose the President of the Tribunal from among themselves, and that the nomination of the President should be made at the first sitting of all the members. A proposal in this sense was made by the Russian delegate when Art. 34 (99) was under consideration, but failed to meet with the acceptance of the Committee.

Article 60 makes provision for the case of the Tribunal sitting elsewhere than at the Hague, or on the territory of one of the parties, and adds a clause to 36 (99) providing that the consent of the third Power shall be necessary in such cases.

Article 38 (99) provided that the Tribunal should decide on the choice of language to be used by itself, and to be authorised for use before it. In the arbitration in the “Pious Funds” case and “Venezuela” case, the difficulties in this respect were very apparent, and considerable delay was occasioned by the necessity for translations being made owing to the ignorance of certain of the officials, and in the latter case in consequence of the large number of states with different languages involved Edition: current; Page: [175] in the dispute. The arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” case therefore recommended, and the arbitrators in the “Venezuela” case supported the recommendation, that the Compromis should make the question of the languages to be employed clear, and that the choice of agents and counsel before the Tribunal should be made in conformity with the desire of the Powers at variance on the question of the languages to be employed before the Tribunal. The question was discussed by the Committee, and a compromise between the view adopted by Art. 38 (99) which left the decision to the judges, and the view advanced by the German and Russian delegates excluding this matter from the decision of the Tribunal, was reached. Article 61 leaves the decision to the Tribunal where the Compromis has not determined the languages to be employed.

Article 37 (99) left to the parties an absolute freedom in the choice of agents, counsel and advocates. The arbitrators in the “Venezuela” case, in their note of the 22nd Feb. 1904, drew the attention of the Governments to the inconveniences which may arise from allowing members of the Permanent Court to act as agents or advocates. Counsel acting for Venezuela had, during the proceedings, also addressed a note to the members of the Administrative Council and the judges on the same subject. The arbitrators pointed out that the personal relations existing between all the members of the Permanent Court might have an influence on the progress of the proceedings. “The scientific authority of a member of the Permanent Court would create for him a predominating position in the case when he was charged to represent his own Government before it. Moreover a member of the Permanent Court appearing in one case as agent might in another case be acting as arbitrator, and there might be a danger that the impartiality of the agent and the decision to be pronounced might be compromised, as he who was yesterday appearing as counsel and obtained a favourable verdict might to-day be sitting as judge, and the judge of yesterday appearing before him as counsel.” The British Government strongly supported this point of view, and Sir Henry Howard put the question directly to the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court. The British Government lodged a formal protest against the appointment by the French Government of M. Louis Renault, a member of the Permanent Court, as its agent. The French Government equally strongly affirmed their right to appoint M. Renault, and denied that anyone “especially among the other litigants had a right to contest it.”

The arbitrators having no power to settle the point drew the attention of the signatories of the Convention to the question which had been raised Edition: current; Page: [176] and the Conference took it into consideration. Three alternatives were possible, either to leave the Article of 1899 untouched, which was supported by France and Belgium; or in all cases to forbid members of the Permanent Court to appear as agents or counsel, which was the proposition of Great Britain, the United States and Russia; or to limit the occasions when members of the Permanent Court could appear before it as agents, counsel or advocates to cases where they are employed by the Powers which appointed them members of the Court, which was proposed by Germany. The German compromise was accepted by the addition of a paragraph to Article 62 on the understanding that it did not prevent members of the Permanent Court from giving legal advice to the parties at variance.

Article 63 makes certain changes in Art. 39 (99) on the lines suggested by the arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” case, the third paragraph embodying an amendment moved by Sir Edward Fry, one of the arbitrators in that case.

Article 73. The object of this Article which re-enacts with a slight change Art. 48 (99) is clearly brought out in the Report by M. le Chevalier Descamps in 1899. It is to enable the Tribunal to decide the limits of its own competence. If the Tribunal were not empowered to decide the extent of its own jurisdiction under the Compromis, it would be rendered impotent whenever one of the parties, even against the weight of evidence, chose to contest the jurisdiction of the Court1.

Articles 75 and 76 are new and are based on the Franco-British Draft on Commissions of Inquiry (see Articles 23 and 24).

Articles 51 and 52 (99) were considered together by the Committee, and M. Loeff on behalf of the Netherlands moved the suppression of the second paragraph of Art. 52 (99) which enables the dissentient members of the Court to state their dissent, while the first paragraph requires that all the members shall sign the award. He pointed out that the provisions of this Article were in opposition to the fundamental principle of arbitration procedure which requires the sentence to be final omni sensu, so that all discussion on it outside the Tribunal shall cease; the expression of dissent tended to revive discussion on the matter which had been adjudicated upon, and to endanger the acceptance of the decision. The Committee adopted this point of view and further amended the Article so that the signature of a dissenting member of the Tribunal is no longer required. The award under Article 79 is now to be signed only by the President and the Edition: current; Page: [177] Registrar, or the Secretary acting as Registrar. The form thus adopted is that in which decisions of the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council are recorded.

The suppression of Art. 55 (99), which deals with the question of the revision of the award, was moved by M. de Martens who had in 1899 opposed its enactment. The arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” case had expressed the “wish” “that in the Compromis the least possible use should be made of the power given by Article 55.” M. de Martens urged that the prime object of arbitration is the termination of a dispute. The revision of the award is contrary to this idea as it allows the Powers at variance to continue the dispute; he also pointed out that in no one of the four cases heard before the Hague Tribunal had the demand for revision been made. In opposition to this view of M. de Martens it was pointed out that arbitration is not solely for the purpose of terminating a difference, but that it is before all things a means of settling by agreement a dispute which has been left to the judgment of arbitrators freely chosen. Every stage of arbitration depends upon the voluntary action of the parties. Why then should recourse to revision be forbidden them? Further, the Tribunal might have been misled; new facts unknown at the moment when the award was given might come to light, and it would be regrettable if revision under such circumstances were excluded; and even if Art. 55 (99) were suppressed, the parties might provide for revision in the Compromis. M. de Martens’ views failed of acceptance, and Article 83 re-enacts Art. 55 (99).

Chapter iv. Summary arbitration.One of the objections to the Permanent Court was the cost of the proceedings which made it difficult for poorer states to avail themselves of it, and also that as the choice of arbitrators was limited to members of the Permanent Court it might render recourse to it impossible in technical disputes. The French Delegation therefore presented a draft intended to be supplementary to the Convention, and in no way destined to replace it, but to adapt its principles to the settlement of disputes of a technical nature, and others not contemplated by the Conference of 1899. The choice of arbitrators in summary cases is therefore not limited to those on the list of the Permanent Court. The Committee adopted the French draft, and embodied it in the present Convention, making certain necessary changes, accepting in Article 87 the principle in regard to the appointment of umpire which they had rejected in the case of the Permanent Court1.

The changes made in the Convention are on the whole only in the Edition: current; Page: [178] nature of developments of the principles adopted in 1899. The influence of the recommendations made by the arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” and “Venezuelan” cases is especially noteworthy. Perhaps the most important change is that in Article 48 to which attention has already been directed. A state conscious of the justice of its claims can now appeal to the Hague Tribunal, and leave it to its opponent either to accept arbitration or face public opinion.

A protocol de compromis for the reference to arbitration of the dispute between France and Germany on the Casablanca affair was signed on the 24th Nov. 1908. In matters not specifically regulated by the Compromis the parties agreed to be bound by the terms of the foregoing Convention notwithstanding the fact that it had not at the time been ratified by either state. This will apparently be the first case to be heard before the Permanent Court under the new Convention.

Great Britain and the United States signed a Convention on the 27th January, 1909, for submitting to arbitration disputes which have arisen between them as to the interpretation of a Treaty of 1818 on the subject of fishery rights on the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador, etc.1 The Tribunal of Arbitration is to be chosen from the general list of members of the Permanent Court at the Hague in accordance with the provisions of Article 45 of the Convention of 1907. The provisions of this Convention, except Articles 53 and 54, are to govern the proceedings. The Tribunal is to be empowered to recommend for the consideration of the parties rules and a method of procedure under which questions which may arise in the future regarding the exercise of liberties under the Convention of 1818 may be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the award. If the parties shall not adopt the rules and method of procedure recommended, or if they shall not, subsequent to the award, agree upon such rules and procedure, any differences which may arise between them relating to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1818, or the effect and application of the award of the Tribunal, shall be referred informally to the Permanent Court at the Hague for decision by the summary procedure provided by Chapter iv. of the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes2.

The signatory Powers.None of the states which signed the Convention of 1899 have abstained from signing the new Convention except Nicaragua: the remaining 43 states enumerated in the Preamble have all signed, but eight have made the reservations which follow.

Edition: current; Page: [179]

Reservations.The United States signed under reservation of the declaration made by Mr Scott as set out previously1, a declaration which was renewed by Mr Hill at the Plenary Meeting on the 16th Oct. 1907.

Brazil signed under reserve of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 53 which relate to the powers conferred on the Permanent Court to settle the Compromis on the request of one of the parties in the case where the parties have not been able to agree.

Greece and Switzerland made similar reserves in the case of paragraph 2 of the same Article.

Chili signed subject to a reservation on Art. 39.

Japan signed under reserve of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 48 and paragraph 2 of Article 53 and Article 54.

Roumania signed under reservation on Arts. 37, 38 and 40.

Turkey signed under reservation of the following declarations: “The Ottoman Delegation declares, in the name of his government, that while it is not unmindful of the beneficent influence which good offices, mediation, commissions of inquiry and arbitration are able to exercise on the maintenance of the pacific relations between states; in giving its adhesion to the whole of the Draft, it does so on the understanding that such methods remain, as before, purely optional; it could in no case recognise them as having an obligatory character rendering them susceptible of leading directly or indirectly to an intervention.

“The Imperial Government proposes to remain the sole judge of the occasions when it shall be necessary to have recourse to the different proceedings or to accept them without its determination on the point being liable to be viewed by the signatory states as an unfriendly act.

“It is unnecessary to add that such methods should never be applied in cases of internal order.”

Edition: current; Page: [180]

II.: The Recovery of Contract Debts.

II.: Convention concernant la Limitation de l’Emploi de la Force pour le Recouvrement de Dettes Contractuelles.

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

Désireux d’éviter entre les nations des conflits armés d’une origine pécuniaire, provenant de dettes contractuelles, réclamées au Gouvernement d’un pays par le Gouvernement d’un autre pays comme dues à ses nationaux,

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:—

II.: Convention respecting the Limitation of the Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts.

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

Being desirous of avoiding between nations armed conflicts originating in a pecuniary dispute respecting contract debts claimed from the Government of one country by the Government of another country as due to its nationals,

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.

Les Puissances contractantes sont convenues de ne pas avoir recours à la force armée pour le recouvrement de dettes contractuelles réclamées au Gouvernement d’un pays par le Gouvernement d’un autre pays comme dues à ses nationaux.

Toutefois, cette stipulation ne pourra être appliquée quand l’État débiteur refuse ou laisse sans réponse une offre d’arbitrage, ou, en cas d’acceptation, rend impossible l’établissement du compromis, ou, après l’arbitrage, manque de se conformer à la sentence rendue.

Art. 1.

The Contracting Powers agree not to have recourse to armed force for the recovery of contract debts claimed from the Government of one country by the Government of another country as being due to its nationals.

This undertaking is, however, not applicable when the debtor State refuses or neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration, or, after accepting the offer, renders the settlement of the Compromis impossible, or, after the arbitration, fails to submit to the award.

Edition: current; Page: [181]

Art. 2.

Il est de plus convenu que l’arbitrage, mentionné dans l’alinéa 2 de l’article précédent, sera soumis à la procédure prévue par le titre IV, chapitre 3, de la Convention de La Haye pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux. Le jugement arbitral détermine, sauf les arrangements particuliers des Parties, le bienfondé de la réclamation, le montant de la dette, le temps, et le mode de paiement.

Art. 2.

It is further agreed that the arbitration mentioned in the second paragraph of the preceding Article shall be subject to the procedure laid down in Part IV, Chapter 3, of the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The award shall determine, except where otherwise agreed between the parties, the validity of the claim, the amount of the debt, and the time and mode of payment.

Art. 3.

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. 3.

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 Edition: current; Page: [182] 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.

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 conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix 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. 4.

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 invited to the Second Peace Conference 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. 5.

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, 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. 5.

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, 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. 6.

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. 6.

In the event of one of the Contracting Powers wishing to denounce the present Convention, the denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Edition: current; Page: [183] 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. 7.

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 3, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (Article 4, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (Article 6, 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 contractantes.

Art. 7.

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

Edition: current; Page: [184]

Convention No. 2. The limitation of the employment of force for the recovery of contract debts1.

Connection of this Convention with the “Drago doctrine.”In the course of the correspondence which followed on the Circular of Count Benckendorff of the 3rd April, 1906, the United States expressed their intention of raising the question of restricting the employment of force for the recovery of ordinary public debts resulting from contracts. The genesis of this proposal is to be found in the combined blockade by Great Britain, Germany and Italy of the coasts of Venezuela in 1902, the Note of Dr Luis Drago of the 29th Dec. of the same year, the message to Congress of President Roosevelt of the 5th Dec. 1905, and the resolution passed at the Third Pan-American Congress at Rio de Janeiro in 1906. The cause of the blockade was the inability of the three Powers to obtain satisfaction for claims which they made on behalf of their subjects. Previous to the blockade Germany invited Venezuela to submit the claims of her subjects to arbitration; Great Britain in calling the attention of Venezuela to the claims of British subjects, including therein “an arrangement for the foreign debt,” asked for the admission in principle and payment of some of them, and the acceptance by Venezuela of the “decisions of a mixed Commission with respect to the amount and guarantee for payment,” and Italy requested Venezuela to “be good enough to declare itself disposed to give to the claims of her subjects the attention which may put an end to further discussion, accepting the opinion of a mixed Commission2.” To all of these requests Venezuela Edition: current; Page: [185] returned answer that her own laws were conclusive on these matters, and the offer of arbitration was ignored. The claims for which the governments were pressing were based on various grounds; injuries sustained during revolutionary proceedings, deferred interest on public debt outstanding on bonds issued by the Venezuelan government for construction of railways and other public works, and special contracts. The three Powers being unable to obtain redress blockaded the ports of La Guaira, Carevero, Guanta, Campano and the mouths of the Orinoco in December, 1902, seized the Venezuelan fleet, and in the course of the operations bombarded La Guaira, Puerto Cabello and Maracaibo1. On the 29th Dec. 1902, Dr Luis M. Drago, the Foreign Minister of the Argentine Republic, addressed a Note to Señor Mérou, the Argentine Minister in Washington, with reference to these proceedings. In his note he confined himself to considerations with reference to the forcible collection of public debts suggested by the events then in progress. He argued that creditors in advancing a loan take into account the security offered, the resources of the country, etc., and make their terms accordingly. While admitting that the payment of its public debt is absolutely binding on a state, he maintained that the debtor state has a right to choose the manner and time of payment, in which it has as much interest as the creditor himself, or more, since its credit and national honour are involved. It may be highly inconvenient and detrimental to the best interests of a state to be compelled to pay at a given time, but this is not a defence for bad faith, disorder and deliberate and voluntary insolvency. The Argentine people, he continued, “has felt alarmed on learning that the failure to meet the service of the public debt of Venezuela has been assigned as one of the causes which have led to the seizure of her fleet and the bombardment of one of her ports, and a war blockade rigorously established along her coasts2.” They were alarmed lest the action of the Powers should establish a precedent dangerous to the security and peace of the nations of South America, for “the collection of loans by military means implies territorial occupation to make it effective, and territorial occupation signifies the suppression over the sphere of such occupation of the government of the country wherein it extended,” a situation obviously at variance with the Monroe Doctrine. He then quoted from the famous Edition: current; Page: [186] message of President Monroe of the 22 Dec. 1823 the declarations on non-colonisation and non-intervention on the American continent and pointed out the tendency of European nations to single out the South American countries as an ample field for future territorial expansion, and the danger lest European nations should make use of “financial intervention” as a pretext for conquest. “The only thing that the Argentine Republic maintains, and which she would see with great satisfaction consecrated...by a nation, such as the United States...is the principle that there cannot be European territorial expansion in America or oppression of the peoples of this continent, because their unfortunate financial condition might oblige one or more of them to put off the fulfilment of its obligations: that is to say...that a public debt cannot give rise to the right of intervention, and much less to the occupation of the soil of any American nation by any European Power.” It is this last sentence which contains the principle which has become known as the “Drago Doctrine,” a principle which its author considers to be supplementary to or explanatory of the Monroe Doctrine.Drago and Calvo doctrines distinguished. Though sometimes confused with a doctrine associated with the name of the late distinguished South American jurist, Dr Calvo1, it is, as is pointed out by Mr Amos S. Hershey, much narrower in scope. “Calvo absolutely denies that a government is responsible by way of indemnity for any losses or injuries sustained by foreigners in time of internal troubles, civil war, or for injuries resulting from such violence (provided the government is not at fault) on the grounds that the admission of such a principle of responsibility would ‘establish an unjustifiable inequality between nationals and foreigners,’ and would undermine the independence of weaker states2.”

The note of Dr Drago was not immediately successful in procuring a pronouncement of the United States such as was desired, but in his message of 5th Dec. 1905 President Roosevelt dealt with the Drago doctrine. After stating that the United States would not enforce contractual obligations on behalf of its citizens by an appeal to arms, and expressing the wish that other states would take the same view, he pointed out that there were two alternatives: “On the one hand, this country would certainly decline to go to war to prevent a foreign government from collecting a just debt; on the other hand, it is very inadvisable to permit any foreign Power to take possession, even temporarily, of the Customs Houses of an American Republic in order to enforce the payment of its obligations, for such temporary occupation Edition: current; Page: [187] might turn into a permanent occupation. The only escape from these alternatives may at any time be that we must ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement by which so much as possible of a just debt shall be paid. It is far better that this country should put through such an arrangement, rather than allow any foreign country to undertake it.”

Dr Drago’s doctrine was not new, it had been enunciated by “the illustrious Hamilton,” and American Secretaries of State from Alexander Hamilton to Colonel Hay have made declarations of varying import in regard to it.

The question of the use of force for the collection of public debts came before the Third Pan-American Conference which met at Rio de Janeiro in July—August, 1906, when a resolution was passed recommending “to the governments represented therein that they consider the point of inviting the Second Peace Conference at the Hague to consider the question of the compulsory collection of public debts: and in general, means tending to diminish between nations conflicts having an exclusively pecuniary origin.”

On the eve of the Hague Conference Dr Drago published both in Europe and America an elaborate exposition of the doctrine that had become associated with his name1. In it he drew a distinction between ordinary contracts and public loans, and contended that as regards the former, a state acts as a legal person acquiring rights and accepting definite obligations in respect of certain specified individuals, and in case of denial of justice by the national courts the common and accepted principles of international law obtain, a state “avoiding by means of payment the action which, though unjust, a foreign state might take to compel it.” In the case of debts arising from domestic or foreign loans through the emission of bonds at a fixed interest, which constitute public debts, the suspension of payment brings with it a profound disturbance of the finances and economic resources of the debtor country, thus giving occasion for intervention and the subordination of the local government to the creditor nation, as has been instanced in the cases of Turkey and Egypt. “This is what the Argentine Republic sought to avoid. Its doctrine is in consequence before all and above all a statement of policy2.”

The subject was one peculiarly well suited for discussion by an international assembly. Divergent views had been expressed by leading Edition: current; Page: [188] publicists, and international practice was equally divergent1. If there had been a generally accepted practice and doctrine as to the cases when intervention was recognised as legal, the question might have been dealt with by applying these principles, but here, again, international practice and doctrine are in an unsettled condition. There had undoubtedly been cases in which a strong creditor state had bullied a weak one into payment, while the cases which had come before arbitration courts had not infrequently shown that the amount ultimately awarded fell very far short of that claimed2.

Had Venezuela consented to go to arbitration, instead of flouting the great Powers who were courteously endeavouring to obtain redress for their subjects, she would, as subsequent events showed, have had nothing to fear. Cases which came before the Venezuelan Mixed Commission in 1903 showed that of four claims advanced two only were successful, and in one of these a claim for $8,100,000 resulted in an award of only $668,000, less than one-twelfth of the claim3.

What was wanted was some mode of procedure which while it prevented poor but honest debtor states from being oppressed by powerful grasping creditors, at the same time ensured that no state should be able to shelter itself behind the aegis of a stronger, and allege possible territorial occupation or political complication as a means of evading the just demands of its creditors.

The United States proposition.The subject was introduced at the Hague Conference by General Porter, one of the Plenipotentiaries of the United States, on the 2nd July, but, in accordance with the instructions of the United States Government4, his proposal made no distinction Edition: current; Page: [189] between public loans and other contractual debts, a distinction which is the essence of the Drago doctrine and for which there is no authority in respect of the means which governments have taken in case of non-fulfilment of obligations. “No such distinction has indeed been drawn by any government,” says Professor Westlake1. The wording of the United States proposal was as follows:

“With the object of avoiding between nations armed conflicts of a purely pecuniary origin, arising from contract debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another as due to its subjects or citizens, and in order to guarantee that all contractual debts of this nature which have not been found capable of settlement in a friendly manner by diplomatic means shall be submitted to arbitration, it is agreed that no recourse to a coercive measure implicating the employment of military or naval forces for the recovering of such contractual debts shall be had until an offer of arbitration has been made by the creditor and refused or left unanswered by the debtor state, or until arbitration has taken place and the debtor state has failed to comply with the decision given.

“It is further agreed that this arbitration shall be in conformity with the procedure in Chapter iii. of the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes adopted at the Hague, and that it shall determine the justice and the amount of the debt, the time and mode of its settlement, and the guarantee, if necessary, to be given during any delay in the payment2.”

This proposition, called throughout the discussion the “Porter proposition,” was made to the Committee entrusted with the subject of obligatory arbitration. It was accorded a special examination, as while it was evident that the possibility of reaching any definite conclusion on this subject generally was felt to be doubtful, there was good reason to believe that the American proposal would have a favourable reception. Such proved to be the case.

In introducing his proposal, General Porter pointed out the danger to the peace of the world occasioned by the employment of pacific blockade Edition: current; Page: [190] or the use of force for the purpose of collecting unadjusted contractual debts. The object of the American proposal was to stop the resources of states from being exploited by speculators and adventurers. The forcible collection of debts was detrimental to all states, for if pacific blockade was ineffectual states had recourse to a war blockade as was the case in Venezuela, the trade of the world was for the time being dislocated, and the government of the creditor state often found itself put to great expense for the collection of a comparatively small sum. He instanced a case where the United States had once used 19 warships and spent £760,000 to recover £18,0001. If recourse to force were recognised as lawful only when the resources of arbitration had failed, advantages would accrue to all the states of the world.

Dr Drago (Argentine) in the discussion spoke at considerable length, reproducing largely his published views, and making the reservations set out below. M. Ruy Barbosa (Brazil) strongly supported the proposal, though he desired to add words providing that no acquisition of territory should be recognised except after failure to accept arbitration by the state claiming an alteration of boundaries—a matter clearly alien to the subject.

The discussion which followed on General Porter’s speech made it evident that a change in the wording would be required. The Italian delegate pointed out that too great emphasis was laid on the forcible remedy, while recourse to arbitration was not made obligatory on the creditor state. The Swedish delegate said that an indirect sanction to the employment of force was given in all cases which were not expressly provided for. The Venezuelan delegate refused to be content with anything less than the absolute prohibition of the use of force in all cases. The Committee finally adopted the proposition in much the same form as that in which it now appears in the Convention, slight changes having been made by the Drafting Committee.

In its final form the Convention came before the 9th Plenary Meeting of the Conference on the 16th Oct. when all the 44 states represented voted for it, except Belgium, Roumania, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela: these five states abstained from taking part in the vote.

The signatory States.Up to the present time the Convention has been signed by all the states enumerated in the Final Act except Belgium, Brazil, China, Luxemburg, Nicaragua, Roumania, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela.

The following states have signed with reservations: The Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Colombia, Dominica, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Peru, Salvador and Uruguay.

Edition: current; Page: [191]

The reservations are as follow:

The reservations.The Argentine Republic adopts the reservations made by Dr Drago in Committee, viz. (1) “In regard to debts arising from ordinary contracts between the national of a state and a foreign government, recourse shall not be had to arbitration except in the specific case of denial of justice by the tribunals of the country which made the contract; the legal remedies must first be exhausted. (2) Public loans, with issue of bonds, constituting the national debt, cannot in any circumstances give rise to military aggression or to the effective occupation of the territory of any American state.”

Guatemala and Salvador make similar reservations.

Bolivia signs under reservation, as the Convention implies the legalisation by the Conference of a certain class of wars or at least interventions, based on disputes which relate neither to the honour or vital interest of the creditor states.

Colombia “does not accept in any case the employment of force for the recovery of debts of any kind. She only accepts arbitration after the final decision of the courts of the debtor countries.”

Dominica makes a reservation in the case of the sentence “or after accepting the offer, renders the settlement of the Compromis impossible” (rend impossible le compromis) as the interpretation may lead to excessive consequences which would be the more regrettable as they are provided for and avoided in Art. 53 of the new Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes1.

Ecuador signs under reservation of a declaration against any use of force for the settlement of debts.

Greece signs under the reservation that the provisions contained in paragraph 2 of Art. 1 and Art. 2 shall in no way affect existing stipulations, nor the laws in force in Greece.

Peru signs under the reserve that the principles laid down in this Convention cannot apply to claims or differences arising from contracts entered into by a state with the subjects of a foreign state when it is expressly stipulated in such contracts that the claims or differences must be submitted to the judges and tribunals of the country.

Uruguay signs under reserve of the second paragraph of Article 1, because the Delegation considers that refusal to submit to arbitration can always be made rightfully if the fundamental law of the debtor state, Edition: current; Page: [192] previous to the contract which occasioned the misunderstandings or disputes, or the said contract itself has fixed that such misunderstandings or disputes shall be settled by the tribunals of the said country.

The abstention from signature of 10 states, and the reservations in the case of 10 others, considerably weaken the force of this Convention, especially as the states abstaining or making reservations are mainly those against whom it has been found necessary to exercise force in the past.

The signatory Powers have in effect accepted the principle of obligatory arbitration in one important class of cases, no reservations being made in the Convention regarding “honour and vital interests”—a point emphasised by the Roumanian delegate. The Permanent Court at the Hague will therefore in cases of this kind which come before it have a wide field for its labours which will involve an examination of the whole circumstances of the claim and the validity of the excuses of the debtor. It will thus be enabled to administer justice transcending the mere letter of the law1. It is to be regretted that so many states in whose interests the proposal of the United States was chiefly made have thought fit either to abstain altogether, or to sign with such far-reaching reservations as to deprive themselves of the benefit which would accrue to an honest debtor state from an examination of all its circumstances by an independent tribunal.

The Argentine reservation.The Convention provides that recourse shall not be had to armed force for the recovery of contract debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another country as being due to its nationals except

(1) when the debtor state refuses

or (2) neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration,

or (3) after accepting an offer of arbitration prevents any Compromis from being agreed upon,

or (4) after arbitration fails to comply with the award.

The first paragraph of the reservation made by the Argentine delegate2, and adopted by the delegates of Guatemala, Colombia, Salvador, and Uruguay requires consideration. It was urged strongly in Committee by Venezuela and most of the Latin American states that the Convention would gain in precision, while possible misunderstanding and abuse of its provisions would be prevented, if it was made quite clear that in all cases of contract debts, where the laws of the debtor state allow proceedings to be taken against it in its own courts, such proceedings must first be taken, and an evident denial of justice proved to exist before the state is Edition: current; Page: [193] compelled to appear before an international tribunal, or run the risk of the creditor state having recourse to the employment of armed force to support its national’s demands.

During the discussion in the Sub-Committee, General Porter in reply to M. de Martens said that the intention of the authors of the proposal was to limit the application of force to the cases where the subjects of one state who were creditors of another addressed themselves to their government with the object of recovering the amount which was due to them; and that it was understood that it was entirely in the discretion of the government interested to intervene in this dispute between its nationals and a foreign state1.

It is for every government to appreciate the justice of the claims which any of its nationals may have against another state, before determining whether those claims shall be pressed by diplomatic methods. The fact that such claims have or have not been judicially considered by the tribunals of the debtor state is doubtless of great importance in assisting a government in arriving at a conclusion. But the mere fact of their having been dealt with judicially will not preclude a government from pressing for a settlement. All state judiciaries are not above suspicion; but where no doubts exist as to the impartiality of the tribunal or the competence of the judges the creditor ought to exhaust all the legal resources of the debtor state before appealing to his own state for aid, and this is the course invariably followed.

The temptation to a powerful state with territorial ambitions and an increasing population to seize upon the occasion of a dispute between one of its nationals and the government of a state with a small population but large natural wealth, as a means of obtaining an outlet for its surplus population, was emphasised in the now historic despatch of Dr Drago. The Monroe Doctrine will, in the case of American states, probably prevent actual territorial acquisition, while states outside the Western Hemisphere can rely on the sense of justice, or the self-interest of the other Powers to protect their territory from seizure on such a plea.

The meaning of “dettes contractuelles.”In the course of the discussions in Committee2 the delegates of the Argentine Republic and Servia raised the question of the meaning of the term “dettes contractuelles” which they considered as too vague. The use of these words, they contended, would give rise to misunderstanding, for they would include debts arising from conventions entered into between one Edition: current; Page: [194] state and the subjects of another as well as those arising from contracts between states and states. General Porter replied that the distinction between the two kinds of debts had little importance here, as in the case of public debts, as well as the emission of obligations of rentes, the creditors would be sufficiently protected by the general principles of international law; on the other hand in the case of contractual debts, the protection of the rights of creditors would be assured by the American proposition1. Nor could he consent to delete all mention of armed force as demanded by his last interlocutors. He desired it however to be understood that this extreme measure was reserved solely for the case of refusal to execute an arbitral award. This reply was not of a nature to satisfy Dr Drago, who thought it dangerous to retain the contested expression. The delegate of Guatemala considered that the American proposition did not refer in any way to state loans, or public debts properly so called. The words of the Convention make no distinction between debts of all kinds arising from contracts.

Obligations are recognised as springing from two main sources, contract and delict. States which borrow money, buy ships and armaments, grant leases or concessions, and generally enter into transactions of the nature which in private law fall under the head of contracts, by so doing purport to create legal relations between themselves and those with whom they deal. When, as is generally the case, a state allows legal proceedings to be taken against it in its own courts, whether technically as an act of grace, as in English law by Petition of Right2, or under statutory provisions which may provide special formalities, in all such cases as the foregoing contractual obligations may be said to exist.

Under the head of delictual obligations would come claims for injury to person or property of aliens arising from the neglect of a state to protect those who are sojourning within its borders. The Convention excludes such cases, for as the exposé des motifs presented by General Porter in support of his proposition stated: “This proposal is concerned solely with claims based on contracts entered into between a state and the individuals of another country and has no reference to claims for injuries done to resident aliens3.”

Edition: current; Page: [195]

The attempt on the part of Dr Drago to distinguish between contractual debts and public debts, such as bonds to bearer in the hands of foreign subjects, appears, as has been already stated, to be ill-founded. The initiative taken by the United States in introducing the subject was the direct result of the intervention in Venezuela when a “public debt” was forcibly collected, and the object of the Porter Proposition was to put an end to the disputes which this intervention had occasioned. The terms of the Convention lend no support to those who would contend that the term “dettes contractuelles” is used only in the sense of contractual obligations other than public debts, and the reservations made by the various Latin American states make it clear that it was understood by them as applying to contractual debts in the widest sense1. The indefiniteness of the answer which General Porter gave to the Argentine and Servian delegates, and the variations made in the terminology of the drafts during the course of the examination of the question suggest that the American delegate was not always quite clear in his own mind as to the extent to which the Committee was prepared to go. In the first draft he speaks of debts of a “purely pecuniary origin arising from contractual debts2.” Subsequently the phrase used is “ordinary public debts having their origin in contracts.” In the Examining Committee he spoke of “wars having a purely pecuniary origin being avoided” and subsequently at the same sitting he stated that the United States desired that in cases “of debts or claims of any nature whatever” recourse should always be had to arbitration3. But looking at the Convention as finally adopted and having regard to the fact that Dr Drago formulated reservations clearly indicating that the Convention did not adopt his distinction, and that this has been endorsed by several Latin American states while several others have withheld their signatures altogether, there appears no doubt that the term “dettes contractuelles” is used in the widest sense, including both public debts and ordinary contracts.

The Conference, as has been noticed above, refused to accept the Argentine amendment which required that recourse must first be had to the courts of the debtor state and only permitted a demand for arbitration in case of an evident denial of justice. The rejection of Edition: current; Page: [196] this amendment was due to the existence of states whose judiciaries are imperfectly organised and in which it was common knowledge that even in cases where a creditor could in theory sue in the courts of the debtor state, he had no prospects of success, whatever the intrinsic merit of his claim. The decision of a court against a creditor or the suspension of payment by an executive or legislative act deprives a creditor of his right of suit, his debt ceases to be contractual from the municipal standpoint; but such an act of sovereignty may be appreciated by an international tribunal, the debt still remains contractual from the point of view of international law—whenever a wrong has been done to the subject of one state by the organs of another, the state has the right to obtain redress for its national1; the method of redress for a wrong ensuing from a breach of a contractual obligation is under this Convention by arbitration. “The intent of the Convention,” says Professor G. W. Scott, “is to refer to international tribunals the very delicate and difficult task of determining the liability of one state to another where the public governmental acts of the one have annulled or modified the contracts which it had with the subjects of another2.” It is however not a case of compulsory arbitration on both sides, the creditor must propose, the debtor may reject. But the Convention does not contemplate an immediate and peremptory summons to the debtor to appear on a writ specially endorsed by the creditor as for a claim of a purely pecuniary nature arising from a contract debt. If the debtor state is willing to go to arbitration the Compromis is then settled by the two states, and the opinion of the court is taken on a “case stated” by the parties in conflict who may also agree upon the law to be applied. The debtor state may decline to arbitrate. It may be that such a state adopting the view of Dr Drago that “it is particularly difficult to determine the financial position and solvency of a debtor state without the most minute enquiry into its administration, a matter closely bound up with the political and social organisation of the nation,” will refuse to allow such an examination to be made with a view of its international liability being determined. The alternative is that the creditor state may have recourse to armed force to recover the contract debt. This as in the past may or may not be treated by the debtor as a casus belli, but the creditor having recourse to war, after and not before attempting a peaceful solution of the dispute, will henceforth occupy a far stronger moral as well as legal position than formerly.

Edition: current; Page: [197]

It is to be noticed that the United States in signing this Convention did not think it necessary, as in the case of the first Convention, to make any reservation embodying the Monroe Doctrine1. Dr Drago both in his despatch and his speech at the Hague Conference laid great stress on the intimate connection between the declaration of policy which he was enunciating and that which President Monroe laid down in his famous message.

Edition: current; Page: [198]

III.: Convention relative to the Commencement of Hostilities.

III.: Convention relative à l’Ouverture des Hostilités.

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

Considérant que, pour la sécurité des relations pacifiques, il importe que les hostilités ne commencent pas sans un avertissement préalable;

Qu’il importe, de même, que l’état de guerre soit notifié sans retard aux Puissances neutres;

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:—

III.: Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities.

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

Considering that it is important, in order to ensure the maintenance of pacific relations, that hostilities should not commence without previous warning;

That it is equally important that the existence of a state of war should be notified without delay to neutral Powers; and

Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries:

[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.

Les Puissances contractantes reconnaissent que les hostilités entre elles ne doivent pas commencer sans un avertissement préalable et non équivoque, qui aura, soit la forme d’une déclaration de guerre motivée, soit celle d’un ultimatum avec déclaration de guerre conditionnelle.

Art. 1.

The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between them must not commence without a previous and unequivocal warning, which shall take the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war.

Edition: current; Page: [199]

Art. 2.

L’état de guerre devra être notifié sans retard aux Puissances neutres et ne produira effet à leur égard qu’après réception d’une notification qui pourra être faite même par voie télégraphique. Toutefois les Puissances neutres ne pourraient invoquer l’absence de notification, s’il était établi d’une manière non douteuse qu’en fait elles connaissaient l’état de guerre.

Art. 2.

The state of war should be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may even be made by telegraph. Nevertheless, neutral Powers cannot plead the absence of notification if it be established beyond doubt that they were in fact aware of the state of war.

Art. 3.

L’Article 1 de la présente Convention produira effet en cas de guerre entre deux ou plusieurs des Puissances contractantes.

L’Article 2 est obligatoire dans les rapports entre un belligérant contractant et les Puissances neutres également contractantes.

Art. 3.

Article 1 of the present Convention shall take effect in case of war between two or more of the Contracting Powers.

Article 2 is binding as between a belligerent Power which is a party to the Convention and neutral Powers which are also parties to the Convention.

Art. 4.

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. 4.

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 Edition: current; Page: [200] 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. 5.

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. 5.

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. 6.

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. 6.

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.

Edition: current; Page: [201]

Art. 7.

S’il arrivait qu’une des Hautes Parties 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. 7.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties 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. 8.

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 4, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (Article 5, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (Article 7, 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. 8.

A register kept by the Netherland Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 4, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 5, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 7, 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.

Edition: current; Page: [202]

Convention No. 3. The commencement of hostilities1.

Declaration of war.The report of the Second Committee on the opening of hostilities was presented by M. Renault at the 5th Plenary Meeting of the Conference. It emanated from an Examining Committee of eighteen members.

There are few subjects connected with the laws of war on which a greater amount of divergence has appeared in the writings of publicists than the necessity for a declaration of war preceding the outbreak of hostilities; it has also led to frequent recriminations among belligerents. Russia accused Japan of gross treachery because her torpedo-boats attacked their warships at Port Arthur before a formal declaration of war had been made, a charge which was embodied in a Circular of Count Lamsdorff on the 22nd Feb. 1904 to the Russian diplomatic representatives at foreign courts. It is unnecessary to enter into a detailed examination of the practice of states and the theories of writers on this matter. General Maurice in his work on this subject which was published in 1883 examines the commencements of the wars that had taken place from 1700 to 1872, and during this period he found that less than 10 cases had occurred in which an actual declaration of war, prior to hostilities, had been made. In his article on this subject in the Nineteenth Century and after (April, 1904) he points out that the practice of not issuing a preliminary declaration was common to all the great Powers: “Numerically, within Edition: current; Page: [203] the time I more particularly examined, Britain struck thirty of these blows, France thirty-six, Russia seven (not reckoning her habitual practice towards Turkey and other bordering Asiatic States, including China), Prussia seven, Austria twelve, the United States five at least.”

In modern times there has been a tendency to revert to the older order of procedure under which a formal defiance was made before the outbreak of hostilities. The Franco-German War, 1870, and the Russo-Turkish War, 1877, both commenced with a formal declaration, while in the case of the Spanish-American War, 1898, and the Boer War, 1899, ultimatums, which are forms of conditional declaration, were presented.

Amongst this diversity of theory and practice one rule emerged with clearness, namely that “an attack which nothing had foreshadowed would be infamous1.” A gross violation of international law would be committed by the commencement of hostilities in time of peace without a previous controversy and negotiations with a view to a peaceful settlement2.

The Committee wisely refrained from a definite pronouncement as to whether there was a positive rule of international law on the subject; “we have,” they reported, “only to ask ourselves whether it is advisable to establish one and in what terms.” To the first part of this question an affirmative answer was returned. The Committee took as its basis for discussion a proposition of the French delegate, with amendments proposed by the Dutch and Belgian Delegations. The French proposal was based on the resolutions passed by the Institut de Droit International at its meeting at Ghent in September, 1906, when, after a careful examination of the whole question, the following rules were adopted3.

(1) It is in accordance with the requirements of International Law, and with the spirit of loyalty which nations owe to each other in their mutual relations, as well as in the common interest of all states, that hostilities should not commence without previous and unequivocal notice.

(2) This notice may take the form of a declaration of war pure and simple, or that of an ultimatum, duly notified to the adversary by the state about to commence war.

(3) Hostilities should not begin till after the expiry of a delay sufficient to ensure that the rule of previous and unequivocal notice may not be considered as evaded.

Article 1 of the French draft embodied rules 1 and 2 adopted by the Institut and was framed in the words which now form Article 1 of this Convention. The object of the proposal was to prevent an attack by one Power on another by surprise. The reasons to be given in the declaration are required because “Governments ought not to have recourse to such an extreme measure without giving reasons. Everyone, whether citizens of Edition: current; Page: [204] the countries about to become belligerents or of neutral states, ought to know why there is to be a war in order to judge of the conduct of the two adversaries. We, of course, do not cherish the illusion that the real reasons for a war will always be given; but the difficulty of definitely stating reasons, the necessity of advancing those which have no foundation or are out of proportion to the gravity of war, will naturally have the effect of attracting the attention of neutral states and of enlightening public opinion1.” There was no opposition to the principle of the French proposal, but difficulties of a constitutional order were raised by the Delegations of the United States and Cuba; on further consideration, however, these were seen to be avoided by the form in which the proposition was introduced2.

The amendment of General den Beer Poortugael, the Dutch plenipotentiary, was proposed with the object of modifying Article 1 by providing that hostilities should not commence until the lapse of 24 hours from the time when an unequivocal declaration of war accompanied by reasons, or an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war had been received by the government of the adversary. This was supported by Colonel Michelson on behalf of Russia on the ground that if a definite period was recognised it would enable a state to make certain economies, and to this extent might be a step towards the reduction of the military burdens of states which would then not feel the necessity of always keeping their establishments on a war footing and ready for instant mobilisation: and furthermore it would provide an opportunity for neutral Powers to employ their efforts at bringing about a reconciliation. The Dutch amendment was rejected by 16 to 13, with 5 abstentions. The discussions appear only to have dealt with the question from the point of view of land warfare. The position of armies is invariably well-known, but the delay of 24 hours, by enabling a change in the position of naval forces, the whereabouts of which are frequently matters of conjecture, might have most important consequences in the initial stages of belligerent operations3.

The second Article of the French draft provided that “the state of war must be notified without delay to neutral Powers.” The Belgian delegate proposed to add that the notification might be made even by telegraph, and should only take effect as regards neutral Powers forty-eight hours after its receipt. It was felt that this might have been interpreted as permitting neutrals to act during this period in a way contrary to the principles of neutrality, and the amendment was rejected. The proposal that notification might be made by telegraph was accepted, and the Committee added the last sentence of Article 1 to meet the possible case of a neutral Edition: current; Page: [205] failing to receive notification. The mere absence, therefore, of official notification will not exonerate a neutral Power from the performance of its duties if it can be shown that it was actually aware of the existence of war. It has for many years been the practice of belligerents to issue notifications to neutrals at the commencement of war; the contracting Powers now formally accept the obligation to do so. The importance of notification is apparent both as regards the general principles of neutrality, and the freedom from capture of belligerent ships ignorant of the outbreak of war1.

The Convention is a useful contribution to the rules of International Law. By Article 1 the contracting Parties recognise that they are now under an obligation2 to each other to issue an absolute or conditional declaration before the commencement of hostilities, whatever differences of opinion on this point may previously have existed. But although the contracting Powers have agreed on a rule that hostilities are not to commence without previous warning, they have not precluded the possibility of a surprise attack, for the Conference rejected the Dutch proposal for the very limited delay of twenty-four hours between the presentation of the declaration and the outbreak of hostilities. “No forms give security against disloyal conduct3.”

The Chinese delegate put two very pertinent questions during the discussions. He asked for a definition of war, as distinct from “military expeditions,” and he also desired to know what was to happen if a state against which war was declared did not wish to fight: no answer appears to have been made to these enquiries. The difficulty of distinguishing between non-belligerent and belligerent action in cases of reprisals and pacific blockade (“war sub modo”) was not considered by the Committee4. The practice of states, however, enables definite conclusions to be drawn with regard to the second point, and a state not wishing to resist would find itself subjected to all the consequences of a state of belligerency.

Signatory Powers.This Convention has been signed by all the states enumerated in the Final Act except China and Nicaragua.

Edition: current; Page: [206]

IV.: Les Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre.

II.: Convention concernant les Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre.

1899

Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges; Sa Majesté le Roi de Danemark; Sa Majesté le Roi d’Espagne, et, en son nom, Sa Majesté la Reine-Régente du Royaume; le Président des États-Unis Mexicains; le Président de la République Française; Sa Majesté le Roi des Hellènes; Son Altesse le Prince de Monténégro; Sa Majesté la Reine des Pays-Bas; Sa Majesté Impériale le Schah de Perse; Sa Majesté le Roi de Portugal et des Algarves; Sa Majesté le Roi de Roumanie; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies; Sa Majesté le Roi de Siam; Sa Majesté le Roi de Suède et de Norvège, et Son Altesse Royale le Prince de Bulgarie1;

Considérant que, tout en recherchant les moyens de sauvegarder la paix et de prévenir les conflits armés entre les nations, il importe de se préoccuper également du cas où l’appel aux armes serait amené par des évènements que leur sollicitude n’aurait pu détourner;

Animés du désir de servir encore, dans cette hypothèse extrême, les intérêts de l’humanité et les exigences toujours progressives de la civilisation;

Estimant qu’il importe, à cette fin, de reviser les lois et coutumes générales de la guerre, soit dans le but de les définir avec plus de précision, soit afin d’y tracer certaines limites destinées à en restreindre autant que possible les rigueurs;

S’inspirant de ces vues recommandées aujourd’hui, comme il y a vingt-cinq ans, lors de la Conférence de Bruxelles de 1874, par une sage et généreuse prévoyance;

Ont, dans cet esprit, adopté un grand nombre de dispositions qui ont pour objet de définir et de régler les usages de la guerre sur terre.

Selon les vues des Hautes Parties contractantes, ces dispositions, dont la rédaction a été inspirée par le désir de diminuer les maux de la guerre, autant que les nécessités militaires le permettent, sont destinées à servir de règle générale de conduite aux belligérants, dans leurs rapports entre eux et avec les populations.

Il n’a pas été possible toutefois de concerter dès maintenant des stipulations s’étendant à toutes les circonstances qui se présentent dans la pratique.

D’autre part, il ne pouvait entrer dans les intentions des Hautes Parties contractantes que les cas non prévus fussent, faute de stipulation écrite, laissées à l’appréciation arbitraire de ceux qui dirigent les armées.

En attendant qu’un Code plus complet des lois de la guerre puisse être édicté, les Hautes Parties contractantes jugent opportun de constater que, dans les cas non compris dans les dispositions réglementaires adoptées par elles, les populations et les belligérants restent sous la sauvegarde et sous l’empire des principes du droit des gens, tels qu’ils résultent des usages établis entre nations civilisées, des lois de l’humanité et des exigences de la conscience publique;

Elles déclarent que c’est dans ce sens que doivent s’entendre notamment les Articles 1 et 2 du Règlement adopté;

Les Hautes Parties contractantes désirant conclure une Convention à cet effet ont nommé pour leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:

[Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.]

Lesquels, après s’être communiqué leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus de ce qui suit:—

IV.: Convention concernant les Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre.

1907

Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse; &c.2

Considérant que, tout en recherchant les moyens de sauvegarder la paix et de prévenir les conflits armés entre les nations, il importe de se préoccuper également du cas où l’appel aux armes serait amené par des évènements que leur sollicitude n’aurait pu détourner;

Animés du désir de servir encore, dans cette hypothèse extrême, les intérêts de l’humanité et les exigences toujours progressives de la civilisation;

Edition: current; Page: [208]

Estimant qu’il importe, à cette fin, de reviser les lois et coutumes générales de la guerre, soit dans le but de les définir avec plus de précision, soit afin d’y tracer certaines limites destinées à en restreindre autant que possible les rigueurs;

Ont jugé nécessaire de compléter et de préciser sur certains points l’œuvre de la Première Conférence de la Paix qui, s’inspirant, à la suite de la Conférence de Bruxelles de 1874, de ces idées recommandées par une sage et généreuse prévoyance a adopté des dispositions ayant pour objet de définir et de régler les usages de la guerre sur terre.

Selon les vues des Hautes Parties contractantes, ces dispositions, dont la rédaction a été inspirée par le désir de diminuer les maux de la guerre, autant que les nécessités militaires le permettent, sont destinées à servir de règle générale de conduite aux belligérants, dans leurs rapports entre eux et avec les populations.

Il n’a pas été possible toutefois de concerter dès maintenant des stipulations s’étendant à toutes les circonstances qui se présentent dans la pratique;

D’autre part, il ne pouvait entrer dans les intentions des Hautes Parties contractantes que les cas non prévus fussent, faute de stipulation écrite, laissées à l’appréciation arbitraire de ceux qui dirigent les armées.

En attendant qu’un Code plus complet des lois de la guerre puisse être édicté, les Hautes Parties contractantes jugent opportun de constater que, dans les cas non compris dans les Edition: current; Page: [210] dispositions réglementaires adoptées par elles, les populations et les belligérants restent sous la sauvegarde et sous l’empire des principes du droit des gens, tels qu’ils résultent des usages établis entre nations civilisées, des lois de l’humanité et des exigences de la conscience publique.

Elles déclarent que c’est dans ce sens que doivent s’entendre notamment les Articles 1 et 2 du Règlement adopté.

Les Hautes Parties contractantes, désirant conclure une nouvelle 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 de ce qui suit:—

Art. 1.

Les Hautes Parties contractantes donneront à leurs forces armées de terre des instructions qui seront conformes au “Règlement concernant les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre,” annexé à la présente Convention.

Art. 1.

(Aucune modification.)1

Art. 2.

Les dispositions contenues dans le Règlement visé à l’article 1er ne sont obligatoires que pour les Puissances contractantes, en cas de guerre entre deux ou plusieurs d’entre elles.

Ces dispositions 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. 2.

Les dispositions contenues dans le Règlement visé à l’article 1er ainsi que dans la présente Convention ne sont applicables qu’entre les Puissances contractantes, et seulement si les belligérants sont tous parties à la Convention.

Edition: current; Page: [212]

Art. 3.

La Partie belligérante qui violerait les dispositions du dit Règlement sera tenue à indemnité, s’il y a lieu. Elle sera responsable de tous actes commis par les personnes faisant partie de sa force armée.

Art. 4.

La présente Convention dûment ratifiée remplacera, dans les rapports entre les Puissances contractantes, la Convention du 29 juillet, 1899, concernant les lois et coutumes de la guerre sur terre.

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. 3.

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. 5.

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 Edition: current; Page: [214] 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’alinea précédent, le dit Gouvernement leur fera connaître en même temps la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.

Art. 4.

Les Puissances non-signataires 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. 6.

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. 7.

La présente Convention produira effet, pour les Puissances qui auront participé au premier dépôt de ratifications, soixante jours après la date du Edition: current; Page: [216] 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. 5.

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 ont signé la présente Convention et l’ont revêtue de leurs cachets.

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.

Annexe à la Convention.

Art. 8.

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. 9.

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 5, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (Article 6, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (Article 8, 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.

Edition: current; Page: [218]

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.

Annexe à la Convention.

Règlement concernant les Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre.

Section I.: Des Belligérants.

Chapitre I.: De la Qualité de Belligérant.

Art. 1.

Les lois, les droits et les devoirs de la guerre ne s’appliquent pas seulement à l’armée, mais encore aux milices et aux corps de volontaires réunissant les conditions suivantes:—

1. D’avoir à leur tête une personne responsable pour ses subordonnés;

2. D’avoir un signe distinctif fixe et reconnaissable à distance;

3. De porter les armes ouvertement; et

4. De se conformer dans leurs opérations aux lois et coutumes de la guerre.

Dans les pays où les milices ou des corps de volontaires constituent l’armée ou en font partie, ils sont compris sous la dénomination “d’armée.”

Règlement concernant les Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre.

Section I.: Des Belligérants.

Chapitre I.: De la Qualité de Belligérant.

Art. 1.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [220]

Art. 2.

La population d’un territoire non occupé qui, à l’approche de l’ennemi, prend spontanément les armes pour combattre les troupes d’invasion sans avoir eu le temps de s’organiser conformément à l’Article 1er, sera considérée comme belligérante si elle respecte les lois et coutumes de la guerre.

Art. 2.

La population d’un territoire non occupé qui, à l’approche de l’ennemi, prend spontanément les armes pour combattre les troupes d’invasion sans avoir eu le temps de s’organiser conformément à l’Article 1er, sera considérée comme belligérante si elle porte les armes ouvertement et si elle respecte les lois et coutumes de la guerre.

Art. 3.

Les forces armées des Parties belligérantes peuvent se composer de combattants et de non-combattants. En cas de capture par l’ennemi, les uns et les autres ont droit au traitement des prisonniers de guerre.

Art. 3.

(Aucune modification.)

Chapitre II.: Des Prisonniers de Guerre.

Art. 4.

Les prisonniers de guerre sont au pouvoir du Gouvernement ennemi, mais non des individus ou des corps qui les ont capturés.

Ils doivent être traités avec humanité.

Tout ce qui leur appartient personnellement, excepté les armes, les chevaux, et les papiers militaires, reste leur propriété.

Chapitre II.: Des Prisonniers de Guerre.

Art. 4.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 5.

Les prisonniers de guerre peuvent être assujettis à l’internement dans une ville, forteresse, camp, ou localité quelconque, avec obligation de ne pas s’en éloigner au delà de certaines limites déterminées; mais ils ne peuvent être enfermés que par mesure de sûreté indispensable.

Art. 5.

Les prisonniers de guerre peuvent être assujettis à l’internement dans une ville, forteresse, camp, ou localité quelconque, avec obligation de ne pas s’en éloigner au delà de certaines limites déterminées; mais ils ne peuvent être enfermés que par mesure de sûreté indispensable, et seulement Edition: current; Page: [222] pendant la durée des circonstances qui nécessitent cette mesure.

Art. 6.

L’État peut employer, comme travailleurs, les prisonniers de guerre, selon leur grade et leurs aptitudes. Ces travaux ne seront pas excessifs et n’auront aucun rapport avec les opérations de la guerre.

Les prisonniers peuvent être autorisés à travailler pour le compte d’administrations publiques ou de particuliers, ou pour leur propre compte.

Les travaux faits pour l’État sont payés d’après les tarifs en vigueur pour les militaires de l’armée nationale exécutant les mêmes travaux.

Lorsque les travaux ont lieu pour le compte d’autres administrations publiques ou pour des particuliers, les conditions en sont réglées d’accord avec l’autorité militaire.

Le salaire des prisonniers contribuera à adoucir leur position, et le surplus leur sera compté au moment de leur libération, sauf défalcation des frais d’entretien.

Art. 6.

L’État peut employer, comme travailleurs, les prisonniers de guerre, selon leur grade et leurs aptitudes, à l’exception des officiers. Ces travaux ne seront pas excessifs et n’auront aucun rapport avec les opérations de la guerre.

Les prisonniers peuvent être autorisés à travailler pour le compte d’administrations publiques ou de particuliers, ou pour leur propre compte.

Les travaux faits pour l’État sont payés d’après les tarifs en vigueur pour les militaires de l’armée nationale exécutant les mêmes travaux, ou, s’il n’en existe pas, d’après un tarif en rapport avec les travaux exécutés.

Lorsque les travaux ont lieu pour le compte d’autres administrations publiques ou pour des particuliers, les conditions en sont réglées d’accord avec l’autorité militaire.

Le salaire des prisonniers contribuera à adoucir leur position, et le surplus leur sera compté au moment de leur libération, sauf défalcation des frais d’entretien.

Art. 7.

Le Gouvernement au pouvoir duquel se trouvent les prisonniers de guerre est chargé de leur entretien.

A défaut d’une entente spéciale entre les belligérants, les prisonniers de guerre seront traités, pour la nourriture, le couchage et l’habillement, sur le même pied que les troupes du Gouvernement qui les aura capturés.

Art. 7.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [224]

Art. 8.

Les prisonniers de guerre seront soumis aux lois, règlements et ordres en vigueur dans l’armée de l’État au pouvoir duquel ils se trouvent.

Tout acte d’insubordination autorise, à leur égard, les mesures de rigueur nécessaires.

Les prisonniers évadés, qui seraient repris avant d’avoir pu rejoindre leur armée ou avant de quitter le territoire occupé par l’armée qui les aura capturés, sont passibles de peines disciplinaires.

Les prisonniers qui, après avoir réussi à s’évader, sont de nouveau faits prisonniers, ne sont passibles d’aucune peine pour la fuite antérieure.

Art. 8.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 9.

Chaque prisonnier de guerre est tenu de déclarer, s’il est interrogé à ce sujet, ses véritables noms et grade et, dans le cas où il enfreindrait cette règle, il s’exposerait à une restriction des avantages accordés aux prisonniers de guerre de sa catégorie.

Art. 9.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 10.

Les prisonniers de guerre peuvent être mis en liberté sur parole, si les lois de leur pays les y autorisent, et, en pareil cas, ils sont obligés, sous la garantie de leur honneur personnel, de remplir scrupuleusement, tant vis-à-vis de leur propre Gouvernement que vis-à-vis de celui qui les a faits prisonniers, les engagements qu’ils auraient contractés.

Dans le même cas, leur propre Gouvernement est tenu de n’exiger ni accepter d’eux aucun service contraire à la parole donnée.

Art. 10.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [226]

Art. 11.

Un prisonnier de guerre ne peut être contraint d’accepter sa liberté sur parole; de même le Gouvernement ennemi n’est pas obligé d’accéder à la demande du prisonnier réclamant sa mise en liberté sur parole.

Art. 11.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 12.

Tout prisonnier de guerre, libéré sur parole et repris portant les armes contre le Gouvernement envers lequel il s’était engagé d’honneur, ou contre les alliés de celui-ci, perd le droit au traitement des prisonniers de guerre et peut être traduit devant les tribunaux.

Art. 12.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 13.

Les individus qui suivent une armée sans en faire directement partie, tels que les correspondants et les reporters de journaux, les vivandiers, les fournisseurs, qui tombent au pouvoir de l’ennemi et que celui-ci juge utile de détenir, ont droit au traitement des prisonniers de guerre, à condition qu’ils soient munis d’une légitimation de l’autorité militaire de l’armée qu’ils accompagnaient.

Art. 13.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 14.

Il est constitué, dès le début des hostilités, dans chacun des États belligérants et, le cas échéant, dans les pays neutres qui auront recueilli des belligérants sur leur territoire, un bureau de renseignements sur les prisonniers de guerre. Ce bureau, chargé de répondre à toutes les demandes qui les concernent, reçoit des divers services compétents toutes les indications nécessaires pour lui permettre d’établir une fiche individuelle pour chaque prisonnier de guerre. Il est tenu au courant des internements et des mutations, ainsi que des entrées dans les hôpitaux et des décès.

Le Bureau de Renseignements est également chargé de recueillir et de centraliser tous les objets d’un usage personnel, valeurs, lettres, &c., qui seront trouvés sur les champs de bataille ou délaissés par des prisonniers décédés dans les hôpitaux et ambulances, et de les transmettre aux intéressés.

Art. 14.

Il est constitué, dès le début des hostilités, dans chacun des États belligérants, et, le cas échéant, dans les pays neutres qui auront recueilli des belligérants sur leur territoire, un bureau de renseignements sur les prisonniers de guerre. Ce bureau, chargé de répondre à toutes les demandes qui les concernent, reçoit des divers services compétents toutes les indications Edition: current; Page: [228] relatives aux internements et aux mutations, aux mises en liberté sur parole, aux échanges, aux évasions, aux entrées dans les hôpitaux, aux décès, ainsi que les autres renseignements nécessaires pour établir et tenir à jour une fiche individuelle pour chaque prisonnier de guerre. Le bureau devra porter sur cette fiche le numéro matricule, les nom et prénom, l’âge, le lieu d’origine, le grade, le corps de troupe, les blessures, la date et le lieu de la capture, de l’internement, des blessures et de la mort, ainsi que toutes les observations particulières. La fiche individuelle sera remise au Gouvernement de l’autre belligérant après la conclusion de la paix.

Le bureau de renseignements est également chargé de recueillir et de centraliser tous les objets d’un usage personnel, valeurs, lettres, &c., qui seront trouvés sur les champs de bataille ou délaissés par des prisonniers libérés sur parole, échangés, évadés, ou décédés dans les hôpitaux et ambulances, et de les transmettre aux intéressés.

Art. 15.

Les Sociétés de Secours pour les prisonniers de guerre, régulièrement constituées selon la loi de leur pays et ayant pour objet d’être les intermédiaires de l’action charitable, recevront, de la part des belligérants, pour elles et pour leurs agents dûment accrédités, toute facilité, dans les limites tracées par les nécessités militaires et les règles administratives, pour accomplir efficacement leur tâche d’humanité. Les Délégués de ces sociétés pourront être admis à distribuer des secours dans les dépôts d’internement, ainsi qu’aux lieux d’étape des prisonniers repatriés, moyennant une permission personnelle délivrée par l’autorité militaire, et en prenant l’engagement par écrit de se soumettre à toutes les mesures d’ordre et de police que celle-ci prescrirait.

Art. 15.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [230]

Art. 16.

Les bureaux de renseignements jouissent de la franchise de port. Les lettres, mandats et articles d’argent, ainsi que les colis postaux destinés aux prisonniers de guerre ou expédiés par eux, seront affranchis de toutes taxes postales, aussi bien dans les pays d’origine et de destination que dans les pays intermédiaires.

Les dons et secours en nature destinés aux prisonniers de guerre seront admis en franchise de tous droits d’entrée et autres, ainsi que des taxes de transport sur les chemins de fer exploités par l’État.

Art. 16.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 17.

Les officiers prisonniers pourront recevoir le complément, s’il y a lieu, de la solde qui leur est attribuée dans cette situation par les Règlements de leur pays, à charge de remboursement par leur Gouvernement.

Art. 17.

Les officiers prisonniers recevront la solde à laquelle ont droit les officiers de même grade du pays où ils sont retenus, à charge de remboursement par leur Gouvernement.

Art. 18.

Toute latitude est laissée aux prisonniers de guerre pour l’exercice de leur religion, y compris l’assistance aux offices de leur culte, à la seule condition de se conformer aux mesures d’ordre et de police prescrites par l’autorité militaire.

Art. 18.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [232]

Art. 19.

Les testaments des prisonniers de guerre sont reçus ou dressés dans les mêmes conditions que pour les militaires de l’armée nationale.

On suivra également les mêmes règles en ce qui concerne les pièces relatives à la constatation des décès, ainsi que pour l’inhumation des prisonniers de guerre, en tenant compte de leur grade et de leur rang.

Art. 19.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 20.

Après la conclusion de la paix, le repatriement des prisonniers de guerre s’effectuera dans le plus bref délai possible.

Art. 20.

(Aucune modification.)

Chapitre III.: Des Malades et des Blessés.

Art. 21.

Les obligations des belligérants concernant le service des malades et des blessés sont régies par la Convention de Genève du 22 Août, 1864, sauf les modifications dont celle-ci pourra être l’objet.

Chapitre III.: Des Malades et des Blessés.

Art. 21.

Les obligations des belligérants concernant le service des malades et des blessés sont régies par la Convention de Genève.

Section II.: Des Hostilités.

Chapitre I.: Des moyens de nuire à l’Ennemi, des Sièges et des Bombardements.

Art. 22.

Les belligérants n’ont pas un droit illimité quant au choix des moyens de nuire à l’ennemi.

Section II.: Des Hostilités.

Chapitre I.: Des Moyens de Nuire à l’Ennemi, des Sièges et des Bombardements.

Art. 22.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [234]

Art. 23.

Outre les prohibitions établies par des Conventions spéciales, il est notamment interdit:—

(a) D’employer du poison ou des armes empoisonnées;

(b) De tuer ou de blesser par trahison des individus appartenant à la nation ou à l’armée ennemie;

(c) De tuer ou de blesser un ennemi qui, ayant mis bas les armes ou n’ayant plus les moyens de se défendre, s’est rendu à discrétion;

(d) De déclarer qu’il ne sera pas fait de quartier;

(e) D’employer des armes, des projectiles ou des matières propres à causer des maux superflus;

(f) D’user indûment du pavillon parlementaire, du pavillon national ou des insignes militaires et de l’uniforme de l’ennemi, ainsi que des signes distinctifs de la Convention de Genève;

(g) De détruire ou de saisir des propriétés ennemies, sauf les cas où ces destructions ou ces saisies seraient impérieusement commandées par les nécessités de la guerre.

Art. 23.

Outre les prohibitions établies par des Conventions spéciales, il est notamment interdit—

(a) D’employer du poison ou des armes empoisonnées;

(b) De tuer ou de blesser par trahison des individus appartenant à la nation ou à l’armée ennemie;

(c) De tuer ou de blesser un ennemi qui, ayant mis bas les armes ou n’ayant plus les moyens de se défendre, s’est rendu à discrétion;

(d) De déclarer qu’il ne sera pas fait de quartier;

(e) D’employer des armes, des projectiles ou des matières propres à causer des maux superflus;

(f) D’user indûment du pavillon parlementaire, du pavillon national ou des insignes militaires et de l’uniforme de l’ennemi, ainsi que des signes distinctifs de la Convention de Genève;

(g) De détruire ou de saisir des propriétés ennemies, sauf les cas où ces destructions ou ces saisies seraient impérieusement commandées par les nécessités de la guerre;

(h) De déclarer éteints, suspendus ou non recevables en justice, les droits et actions des nationaux de la Partie adverse.

Il est également interdit à un belligérant de forcer les nationaux de la Partie adverse à prendre part aux opérations de guerre dirigées contre leur pays, même dans le cas où ils auraient été à son service avant le commencement de la guerre.

Edition: current; Page: [236]

Art. 24.

Les ruses de guerre et l’emploi des moyens nécessaires pour se procurer des renseignements sur l’ennemi et sur le terrain sont considérés comme licites.

Art. 24.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 25.

Il est interdit d’attaquer ou de bombarder des villes, villages, habitations ou bâtiments qui ne sont pas défendus.

Art. 25.

Il est interdit d’attaquer ou de bombarder, par quelque moyen que ce soit, des villes, villages, habitations ou bâtiments qui ne sont pas défendus.

Art. 26.

Le Commandant des troupes assaillantes, avant d’entreprendre le bombardement, et sauf le cas d’attaque de vive force, devra faire tout ce qui dépend de lui pour en avertir les autorités.

Art. 26.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 27.

Dans les sièges et bombardements, toutes les mesures nécessaires doivent être prises pour épargner, autant que possible, les édifices consacrés aux cultes, aux arts, aux sciences et à la bienfaisance, les hôpitaux et les lieux de rassemblement de malades et de blessés, à condition qu’ils ne soient pas employés en même temps à un but militaire.

Le devoir des assiégés est de désigner ces édifices ou lieux de rassemblement par des signes visibles spéciaux qui seront notifiés d’avance à l’assiégeant.

Art. 27.

Dans les sièges et bombardements, toutes les mesures nécessaires doivent être prises 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 et de blessés, à condition qu’ils ne soient pas employés en même temps à un but militaire.

Le devoir des assiégés est de désigner ces édifices ou lieux de rassemblement par des signes visibles spéciaux qui seront notifiés d’avance à l’assiégeant.

Art. 28.

Il est interdit de livrer au pillage même une ville ou localité prise d’assaut.

Art. 28.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [238]

Chapitre II.: Des Espions.

Art. 29.

Ne peut être considéré comme espion que l’individu qui, agissant clandestinement ou sous de faux prétextes, recueille ou cherche à recueillir des informations dans la zone d’opérations d’un belligérant, avec l’intention de les communiquer à la partie adverse.

Ainsi les militaires non déguisés qui ont pénétré dans la zone d’opérations de l’armée ennemie, à l’effet de recueillir des informations, ne sont pas considérés comme espions. De même, ne sont pas considérés comme espions: les militaires et les non-militaires, accomplissant ouvertement leur mission, chargés de transmettre des dépêches destinées, soit à leur propre armée, soit à l’armée ennemie. A cette catégorie appartiennent également les individus envoyés en ballon pour transmettre les dépêches, et, en général, pour entretenir les communications entre les diverses parties d’une armée ou d’un territoire.

Chapitre II.: Des Espions.

Art. 29.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 30.

L’espion pris sur le fait ne pourra être puni sans jugement préalable.

Art. 30.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 31.

L’espion qui, ayant rejoint l’armée à laquelle il appartient, est capturé plus tard par l’ennemi, est traité comme prisonnier de guerre et n’encourt aucune reponsabilité pour ses actes d’espionnage antérieurs.

Art. 31.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [240]

Chapitre III.: Des Parlementaires.

Art. 32.

Est considéré comme parlementaire l’individu autorisé par l’un des belligérants à entrer en pourparlers avec l’autre et se présentant avec le drapeau blanc. Il a droit à l’inviolabilité ainsi que le trompette, clairon ou tambour, le porte-drapeau et l’interprète qui l’accompagneraient.

Chapitre III.: Des Parlementaires.

Art. 32.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 33.

Le chef auquel un parlementaire est expédié n’est pas obligé de le recevoir en toutes circonstances.

Il peut prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires afin d’empêcher le parlementaire de profiter de sa mission pour se renseigner.

Il a le droit, en cas d’abus, de retenir temporairement le parlementaire.

Art. 33.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 34.

Le parlementaire perd ses droits d’inviolabilité, s’il est prouvé, d’une manière positive et irrécusable, qu’il a profité de sa position privilégiée pour provoquer ou commettre un acte de trahison.

Art. 34.

(Aucune modification.)

Chapitre IV.: Des Capitulations.

Art. 35.

Les capitulations arrêtées entre les Parties contractantes doivent tenir compte des règles de l’honneur militaire.

Une fois fixées, elles doivent être scrupuleusement observées par les deux Parties.

Chapitre IV.: Des Capitulations.

Art. 35.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [242]

Chapter V.: De l’Armistice.

Art. 36.

L’armistice suspend les opérations de guerre par un accord mutuel des parties belligérantes. Si la durée n’en est pas déterminée, les parties belligérantes peuvent reprendre en tout temps les opérations, pourvu toutefois que l’ennemi soit averti en temps convenu, conformément aux conditions de l’armistice.

Chapter V.: De l’Armistice.

Art. 36.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 37.

L’armistice peut être général ou local. Le premier suspend partout les opérations de guerre des États belligérants; le second, seulement entre certaines fractions des armées belligérantes et dans un rayon déterminé.

Art. 37.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 38.

L’armistice doit être notifié officiellement et en temps utile aux autorités compétentes et aux troupes. Les hostilités sont suspendues immédiatement après la notification ou au terme fixé.

Art. 38.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 39.

Il dépend des Parties contractantes de fixer, dans les clauses de l’armistice, les rapports qui pourraient avoir lieu, sur le théâtre de la guerre, avec les populations et entre elles.

Art. 39.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 40.

Toute violation grave de l’armistice, par l’une des Parties, donne à l’autre le droit de le dénoncer et même, en cas d’urgence, de reprendre immédiatement les hostilités.

Art. 40.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [244]

Art. 41.

La violation des clauses de l’armistice, par des particuliers agissant de leur propre initiative, donne droit seulement à réclamer la punition des coupables et, s’il y a lieu, une indemnité pour les pertes éprouvées.

Art. 41.

(Aucune modification.)

Section III.: De l’Autorité Militaire sur le Territoire de l’État Ennemi.

Art. 42.

Un territoire est considéré comme occupé lorsqu’il se trouve placé de fait sous l’autorité de l’armée ennemie.

L’occupation ne s’étend qu’aux territoires où cette autorité est établie et en mesure de s’exercer.

Section III.: De l’Autorité Militaire sur le Territoire de l’État Ennemi.

Art. 42.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 43.

L’autorité du pouvoir légal ayant passé de fait entre les mains de l’occupant, celui-ci prendra toutes les mesures qui dépendent de lui en vue de rétablir et d’assurer, autant qu’il est possible, l’ordre et la vie publics en respectant, sauf empêchement absolu, les lois en vigueur dans le pays.

Art. 43.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 44.

Il est interdit de forcer la population d’un territoire occupé à prendre part aux opérations militaires contre son propre pays.

Art. 44.

Il est interdit à un belligérant de forcer la population d’un territoire occupé à donner des renseignements sur l’armée de l’autre belligérant ou sur ses moyens de défense.

Art. 45.

Il est interdit de contraindre la population d’un territoire occupé à prêter serment à la Puissance ennemie.

Art. 45.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [246]

Art. 46.

L’honneur et les droits de la famille, la vie des individus et la propriété privée, ainsi que les convictions religieuses et l’exercice des cultes, doivent être respectés.

La propriété privée ne peut pas être confisquée.

Art. 46.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 47.

Le pillage est formellement interdit.

Art. 47.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 48.

Si l’occupant prélève, dans le territoire occupé, les impôts, droits et péages établis au profit de l’État, il le fera, autant que possible, d’après les règles de l’assiette et de la répartition en vigueur, et il en résultera pour lui l’obligation de pourvoir aux frais de l’administration du territoire occupé dans la mesure où le Gouvernement légal y était tenu.

Art. 47.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 49.

Si, en dehors des impôts visés à l’article précédent, l’occupant prélève d’autres contributions en argent dans le territoire occupé, ce ne pourra être que pour les besoins de l’armée ou de l’administration de ce territoire.

Art. 49.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 50.

Aucune peine collective, pécuniaire ou autre, ne pourra être édictée contre les populations à raison de faits individuels dont elles ne pourraient être considérées comme solidairement responsables.

Art. 50.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [248]

Art. 51.

Aucune contribution ne sera perçue qu’en vertu d’un ordre écrit et sous la responsabilité d’un général-en-chef.

Il ne sera procédé, autant que possible, à cette perception que d’après les règles de l’assiette et de la répartition des impôts en vigueur.

Pour toute contribution, un reçu sera délivré aux contribuables.

Art. 51.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 52.

Des réquisitions en nature et des services ne pourront être réclamés des communes ou des habitants, que pour les besoins de l’armée d’occupation. Ils seront en rapport avec les ressources du pays et de telle nature qu’ils n’impliquent pas pour les populations l’obligation de prendre part aux opérations de la guerre contre leur patrie.

Ces réquisitions et ces services ne seront réclamés qu’avec l’autorisation du commandant dans la localité occupée.

Les prestations en nature seront, autant que possible, payées au comptant; sinon, elles seront constatées par des reçus.

Art. 52.

Des réquisitions en nature et des services ne pourront être réclamés des communes ou des habitants, que pour les besoins de l’armée d’occupation. Ils seront en rapport avec les ressources du pays et de telle nature qu’ils n’impliquent pas pour les populations l’obligation de prendre part aux opérations de la guerre contre leur patrie.

Ces réquisitions et ces services ne seront réclamés qu’avec l’autorisation du commandant dans la localité occupée.

Les prestations en nature seront, autant que possible, payées au comptant; sinon, elles seront constatées par des reçus, et le paiement des sommes dues sera effectué le plus tôt possible.

Art. 53.

L’armée qui occupe un territoire ne pourra saisir que le numéraire, les fonds et les valeurs exigibles appartenant en propre à l’État, les dépôts d’armes, moyens de transport, magasins et approvisionnements et, en général, toute propriété mobilière de l’État de nature à servir aux opérations de la guerre.

Le matériel des chemins de fer, les télégraphes de terre, les téléphones, les bateaux à vapeur et autres navires, en dehors des cas régis par la loi maritime, de même que les dépôts d’armes et en général toute espèce de munitions de guerre, même appartenant à des sociétés ou à des personnes privées, sont également des moyens de nature à servir aux opérations de la guerre, mais devront être restitués, et les indemnités seront réglées à la paix.

Art. 53.

L’armée qui occupe un territoire ne pourra saisir que le numéraire, les fonds et les valeurs exigibles appartenant en propre à l’État, les dépôts d’armes, moyens de transport, magasins et approvisionnements et, en Edition: current; Page: [250] général, toute propriété mobilière de l’État de nature à servir aux opérations de la guerre.

Tous les moyens affectés sur terre, sur mer et dans les airs à la transmission des nouvelles, au transport des personnes ou des choses, en dehors des cas régis par le droit maritime, les dépôts d’armes et, en général, toute espèce de munitions de guerre, peuvent être saisis, même s’ils appartiennent à des personnes privées, mais devront être restitués et les indemnités seront réglées à la paix.

Art. 54.

Le matériel des chemins de fer provenant d’États neutres, qu’il appartienne à ces États ou à des sociétés ou personnes privées, leur sera renvoyé aussitôt que possible.

Art. 54.

Les câbles sous-marins reliant un territoire occupé à un territoire neutre ne seront saisis ou détruits que dans le cas d’une nécessité absolue. Ils devront également être restitués et les indemnités seront réglées à la paix.

Art. 55.

L’État occupant ne se considérera que comme administrateur et usufruitier des édifices publics, immeubles, forêts et exploitations agricoles appartenant à l’État ennemi et se trouvant dans le pays occupé. Il devra sauvegarder le fonds de ces propriétés et les administrer conformément aux règles de l’usufruit.

Art. 55.

(Aucune modification.)

Art. 56.

Les biens des communes, ceux des établissements consacrés aux cultes, à la charité et à l’instruction, aux arts et aux sciences, même appartenant à l’État, seront traités comme la propriété privée.

Toute saisie, destruction ou dégradation intentionnelle de semblables établissements, de monuments historiques, d’œuvres d’art et de science, est interdit et doit être poursuivie.

Art. 56.

(Aucune modification.)

Edition: current; Page: [252]

Section IV.: Des Belligérants Internés et des Blessés Soignés chez les Neutres.

Art. 57.

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

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

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

Art. 58.

A défaut de convention spéciale, l’État 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.

Edition: current; Page: [254]

Art. 59.

L’État 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, l’État neutre est tenu 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 l’État neutre, de manière qu’ils ne puissent de nouveau prendre part aux opérations de la guerre. Celui-ci aura les mêmes devoirs quant aux blessés ou malades de l’autre armée qui lui seraient confiés.

Art. 60.

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

Edition: current; Page: [207]

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

Edition: current; Page: [209]

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 Edition: current; Page: [211] 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.

Edition: current; Page: [213]

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 of Edition: current; Page: [215] 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. 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 Edition: current; Page: [217] 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.

Edition: current; Page: [219]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [221]

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 while Edition: current; Page: [223] the 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.)

Edition: current; Page: [225]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [227]

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 Edition: current; Page: [229] 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.)

Edition: current; Page: [231]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [233]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [235]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [237]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [239]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [241]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [243]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [245]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [247]

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.)

Edition: current; Page: [249]

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 Edition: current; Page: [251] 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.)

Edition: current; Page: [253]

(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

Edition: current; Page: [255]

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

Edition: current; Page: [256]

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 Edition: current; Page: [257] 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 Edition: current; Page: [258] 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 Edition: current; Page: [259] 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, Edition: current; Page: [260] 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 Edition: current; Page: [261] 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 Edition: current; Page: [262] 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, Edition: current; Page: [263] 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-C