His Excellency Lord Reay asks for a postponement of the question because of its importance.

Mr. Göppert having asked if this matter is not related rather to the program of the second subcommission, the President remarks to him that it is of a mixed character and has equal relation to both subcommissions, adding that it will be sent to the committee of examination.

The Austro-Hungarian proposition relative to Article 53 and the Japanese proposition relative to Article 572 are referred to the next meeting.

His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki announces that the words in case of violation should be struck out from the text of the new Article 57b proposed by his delegation, and which in consequence should read as follows: A parole given to a neutral State by the persons mentioned in Article 57a shall be deemed equivalent to one given to the adverse party.

Before closing the meeting, the President proceeds to the appointment of the committee of examination, which will comprise, besides members of the bureau of the Second Commission, Major General VON GÜNDELL, Major General Baron GIESL VON GIESLINGEN, Lieutenant General AMOUREL, Lieutenant General Sir EDMOND R. ELLES, Major General YOSHIFURU AKIYAMA, his Excellency Lieutenant General Jonkheer DEN BEER POORTUGAEL, and Major General YERMOLOW.

The calls will be directed to the members of the committee with the least possible delay, so as to enable them to meet before the end of the week. The meeting adjourns at 5: 10 o'clock.

1 Annex 7.

2 Annex 10.

THIRD MEETING

JULY 24, 1907

His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert presiding.

The meeting opens at 3:15 o'clock.

The minutes of the second meeting are adopted.

The President reminds the subcommission that during its last meeting it entrusted to a committee of examination the care of examining the amendments proposed by different delegations to several articles of the Regulations of 1899 respecting the "Laws and customs of war on land."

The committee met on the 13th of July. It charged Major General Baron GIESL VON GIESLINGEN with the summing up of his labors, and the report of the latter has been distributed to the members of the subcommission. It is upon his conclusions that we are to act to-day.

1

The first amendment examined by the committee related to Article 13 and emanated from the delegation of Japan, which proposed a new wording thus expressed:

The ressortissants of a belligerent, inhabiting the territory of the opposing party shall not be interned unless the exigencies of war make it necessary.

The PRESIDENT calls attention to the character of this amendment, which has nothing in common with the present Article 13, and to the gravity of its issues. It follows from its text that a civil population, not belligerent, might be interned even en masse without previous trial and without allegation of grievances, under the pretext that the exigencies of war make it necessary. He recalls briefly the discussion of the amendment in question which took place in the meeting of July 10, and adds that the committee of examination has been inclined to discard it.

He asks the first delegate of Japan if under these circumstances he believes that it should be maintained.

His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki declares that the Japanese delegation does not abandon its amendment. He reserves the privilege of speaking later in justification of it.

[115] Major General von Gündell states that the proposition of the Japanese delegation provides the new Article 13a not as a substitute for, but as an addition to the old Article 13.

The President calls attention to the fact that in reality the terms of the report are not exact in this regard, but that the new Article 13a which the Japanese delegation seemed to have abandoned, appears to be contradictory to the decisions of the Conference of 1899, and he therefore requests Mr. TsUDZUKI

1

2 Annex 10.

Annex to this day's minutes.

to be good enough to resume the discussion of the subject if the proposition is maintained.

Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki takes the floor to explain the meaning of his amendment which consists principally in protecting from internment after the beginning of war, the ressortissants of the belligerent who reside in the territory of the adversary. It has been said that there were only two cases of internment of this kind, but it seems that history shows more than that and it is our duty to determine for the future just what authority a belligerent may exercise in this respect. The Italian proposition, deposited as an amendment to the Japanese proposition, is, moreover, closely connected and it would be well to examine them together.

The President asks his Excellency the President of the Conference to take the chair for a few minutes so that he may answer the Japanese delegate on the subject under discussion.

His Excellency Mr. NELIDOW having taken the chair, his Excellency Mr. Beernaert explains the reasons of fact and law which, in his opinion, stand in the way of the adoption of the Japanese amendment. According to the principles which served as a basis for the 1899 Convention, war is limited to belligerents, and the civilian population cannot be made to suffer from it either in regard to their honor, life, family rights, private property, or religious convictions and practice.

But, the Japanese proposition in the form of a restriction to the rights of the belligerents, again calls these principles into question. To intern someone is to deprive him of his liberty and to strike inoffensive inhabitants.

The first delegate of Japan tells us that he is referring only to the ressortissants of the adversary living in the territory of the belligerent and not in their own territory occupied by the latter. Why this distinction and how justified? Here is France at war with Germany. The German authorities who could not intern the inhabitants of the occupied territory in France, could compel the French people of Cologne to go live in Dantzig; and that, not as an act of national authority but by virtue of a Convention agreed to by France.

The Convention in force permits only the internment of prisoners of war (Articles 3, 52) and on the proposal of the delegation of Cuba, this right was modified unanimously. Neutral Powers intern only the belligerent troops who come into their territory to lay down their arms (Articles 57, 58). Are these provisions now to be extended to all the ressortissants of the belligerent living in enemy territory?

There is, I think, no example of such internments in any of the wars of Europe and I know of no precedents, except those of Cuba and the Transvaal, which are not very commendable.

But those who are interned must be fed. The homes they have been compelled to leave must be guarded, and I see nothing like this in the Japanese proposition.

Moreover, the interests in view are covered by the right which every nation has to expel any foreigners who appear to it dangerous.

[116] His Excellency Count Tornielli calls attention to the fact that when Article 13a of the Japanese proposition first came up for discussion, he had requested that the provisions of this article protecting the ressortissants of

'Annex 11.

a belligerent living in the territory of the adverse party against a general measure of internment not sufficiently justified by the necessities of war, be extended to cases of expulsion. No action having been taken on this subject and the question having been referred to the drafting committee of the first subcommission, the Italian delegation stated its views in an amendment which it sent to this committee through his Excellency the President of the Second Commission. It does not appear that the drafting committee has taken cognizance of this amendment. At any rate the report of the committee does not make the slightest allusion to it.

If the Japanese delegation had abandoned the proposition it made in presenting Article 13a, the Italian delegation would not have insisted upon having its amendment taken into consideration. It would have considered the Regulations of 1899 sufficient. But since Japan maintains its article, the delegation of Italy must explain very briefly its amendment and the reasons therefor.

Since it appears that the Japanese proposition aims at certain instances which have occurred since 1899 and which would lead to doubt in respect of the right of the ressortissants of a belligerent State to continue to enjoy, in the territory of the adverse party, the protection of the local laws as regards their persons, property and business affairs, the Italian delegation thought that this principle, which had formerly been generally applied, should be sanctioned by a provision of the new convention. While desiring to take into consideration as far as possible the exigencies of military interests, the Italian delegation has added two exceptions to the statement of the general principle, for the cases in which it would be dangerous for the belligerent to allow the ressortissants of the enemy to reside in certain localities. The first of these exceptions applies to measures of internment: the second to the measure of expulsion. As to this second, it has already been objected that the right of expelling a foreigner is written in the police laws of a great number of States and that, consequently, it would be useless and even dangerous to include it in an international agreement. The Italian delegation does not deny that this objection is well founded; but when in its proposition it says that individuals may be expelled if their conduct is considered dangerous, it means to affirm that on the other hand expulsions en masse are forbidden.

His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert considers that the right of expulsion belongs to each particular State, and that it is a question for the local legislations to regulate. According to him a world convention should not interfere in this matter.

His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki says that there is a connection of ideas between the Japanese proposition and the Italian amendment inasmuch as the first concerns internments en masse and the latter expulsions en masse. But the Japanese delegation will not insist upon a vote on its original proposition provided that the interpretation in the sense of its proposition is inserted in the minutes.

His Excellency Mr. Milovanovitch states that the Japanese proposition tends to regulate the conditions under which the ressortissants of a belligerent may be interned. The PRESIDENT, he says, declared that this provision would put the Conference back a step; but it is proper to recall that one of the two examples cited in this discussion, that taken from the concentration camps of the Transvaal, happened since the Conference of 1899.

[117] His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert observes that that Conference did not

include representatives from the Transvaal and that the conventions of 1899 were closed conventions.

His Excellency Mr. Milovanovitch states precisely his opinion, asking that it be specified how the provisions of the 1899 Convention on this subject must be interpreted. If they forbid internments en masse the Japanese amendment would constitute a step backward; but, in the contrary case, it would be a step forward.

His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert having replied by reading again Articles 3 and 5 on the one hand, and Article 43 of the 1899 Convention on the laws of war on the other, his Excellency Mr. MILOVANOVITCH declares that under these conditions he agrees with him.

His Excellency Count Tornielli declares his willingness to accept the interpretation just given to Article 5 of the 1899 Regulations. This interpretation would be to the effect that since it is permitted to subject prisoners of war to internment, the other ressortissants of the enemy State who are not prisoners cannot be interned. Article 5 would doubtless have this same meaning if it stated that prisoners alone can be interned. But will Article 5 in its present form always receive the interpretation which his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT wishes to give to it? Doubting this, Count TORNIELLI does not think it necessary to renounce all hope of obtaining the approval of the subcommission regarding his amendment so long as the Japanese delegation maintains its proposition.

His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert reminds his Excellency Count TORNIELLI that Article 5 states expressly that prisoners of war can be interned, which furnishes a forcible argument a contrario, and that, on the other hand, the inhabitants of occupied territory have the right, by virtue of Article 43, to the maintenance of public order and safety by respect for the laws in force,-which implies an interdiction of all arbitrary measures.

As to foreign ressortissants in the territory of the belligerent, they are subject to the local legislation and he considers internments or expulsions en masse as belonging to another age.

His Excellency Count Tornielli states that as an argument for the rejection of the Italian proposition the provisions of Article 43 are cited. While regretting the necessity of insisting, he confines himself in his turn to asking his colleagues to take into consideration the place occupied by this article in the 1899 Regulations. It is inserted in section 3 entitled: "On military authority over the territory of the hostile State"; he therefore finds no application therein to the question of the treatment to be applied by a belligerent on its own territory to the ressortissants of the other belligerent.

Concerning the objection of his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT relative to the right of expulsion depending upon local legislation, the speaker does not deny that this right of sovereignty should be exercised especially in legislative freedom. He thinks, nevertheless, that the treaties and conventions freely accepted by the States often lead them to introduce modifications in their internal laws in order to adapt them to the engagements made reciprocally with other countries. That happens in the case of a great many conventions and treaties.

His Excellency Mr. Nelidow, president, proposes to scatter all differences of opinion by taking a vote on it.

[118] His Excellency Mr. Carlin believes it best to vote first on the Japanese