The President proposes to leave it to the drafting committee to fix the place for the new article if the Conference decides that it ought to be adopted. The PRESIDENT lays before the Commission for its discussion the renewal of the Declaration of 1899 relating to the prohibition of launching projectiles and explosives from balloons, as brought up by the delegation of Belgium.1 His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow reads the following declaration: The proposal that the delegation of Russia had the honor to make to the last meeting of the first subcommission of this Commission and the second part of the proposal presented at the same time by the delegation of Italy, were inspired by the same thought: to add to Article 25 of the Regulations of 1899 concerning the laws and customs of war on land a provision that would assure for all time to undefended towns, villages, dwellings and buildings immunity from attack or bombardment even by means of balloons or other new analogous means. [16] Considering that these two proposals look to the same end, that they are in entire agreement and complementary to each other, the delegations of Russia and Italy have in common drawn up a text of the said article to be submitted to this Commission, as follows: ARTICLE 25 It is forbidden to attack or bombard, with artillery, or by throwing projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are not defended, and not to observe, when throwing the above-mentioned projectiles or explosives, the accepted restrictions for bombardments in land and sea warfare, so far as those restrictions are compatible with this new method of fighting. We like to hope, gentlemen, that in this unified form the two propositions, which had already in the last meeting of the subcommission won almost unanimity of votes, will to-day be able to deserve your complete approval. The President reminds the Commission that the renewal of the Declaration. of 1899 relating to balloons was adopted by 29 votes (two being conditional under reservation of unanimity) against 6. This Convention has a duration of only five years while the Russian proposal is definitive; as such it should find its place in the code of laws and customs of war on land. His Excellency Count Tornielli declares that he supports the Russian proposal. Major General Amourel then remarks that the French delegation is completely in accord with those of Russia and Italy as respects such prohibition. But he must add that this is already contained in Article 25 which prohibits bombardment of undefended towns, villages, etc., by projectiles thrown in any way whatever, both from balloons and from batteries of artillery. In these circumstances he must ask whether the enumeration proposed by the delegation of Russia will strengthen the principle in view to spare as far as possible the places and buildings in question. On the contrary he thinks it would be preferable to make the present text of Article 25 more precise by inserting the words: "by any means whatever," after the words: "It is forbidden to attack or bombard." Such an addition would certainly offer better guaranties both for the present and the future. After an exchange of views between the President and his Excellency Mr. Tcharykow on the subject of the French proposal, which consists in keeping Article 25 with the addition of the words "by any means whatever," his Excellency Mr. Tornielli declares that he accepts it. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow, Major General von Gündell and Colonel Sapountzakis also indicate their support. The President says that the Commission is unanimous in adopting the proposal thus amended.1 The Belgian proposal relating to the Declaration of 1899 is likewise adopted by the Commission, no request that it be put to vote being made. [17] Brigadier General Davis asks to speak on the minutes of the meeting of August 7 which contained the following passage: 2 The President recalls that the Convention of 1899 was completed by two other Declarations, one relating to "prohibition of bullets which expand in the human body" and the other "dealing with prohibition of the use of asphyxiating projectiles," and that nobody asked for the revision of these two declarations. He adds that the same procès-verbal mentions that "the modification or abrogation of this Declaration does not appear in the program and that the restrictive proposal of the United States is not connected therewith." However, the delegation of the United States recalls that on July 8 it filed a proposal thus worded: The use of bullets that inflict unnecessarily cruel wounds, such as explosive bullets and, in general, every kind of bullet that exceeds the limit. necessary for placing a man immediately hors de combat should be forbidden. On July 10 this proposal was printed and distributed in the usual manner. In these circumstances the delegation of the United States finds it difficult. to understand "that nobody asked for the revision of these two declarations." His wish in submitting his proposal on July 8 was to secure consideration of the proposal thus formulated and submitted to the Commission. In the procès-verbal of July 31 an interpretation was given to the program that the delegation of the United States, to its great regret, cannot share, that is to say, that the declarations of the conventions of 1899 can be modified only at the suggestion of a Power which denounces them. The Government of the United States is not one of the signatories of the third Declaration, and consequently is not in a position to denounce it in the manner and form prescribed in the Convention. The present situation is as follows: A proposal to modify the rules of war on land has been submitted by this delegation but has not received consideration in this subcommission. On July 8, when the proposal was filed, this delegation had no means of knowing that it could not be taken into consideration as being a modification of Declaration No. 3. As a final word on this point, I especially address those gentlemen among 1 Annex 16. 2 Post, p. 153 [159]. • Annex 17. the delegates who are officers in the armies of the nations represented here. You are familiar with the whistle of bullets, you are accustomed to the sight of dead and wounded. We have regulated the operations of war, we have improved the situation of neutral individuals; these are acts of high justice, but we must not forget the combatant officers and the private soldiers who bear the burdens of war. I trust that this Conference, convoked in the name of humanity, will not forget the fate of those who suffer the real losses and difficulties of the battle-field. The duty of the delegation of the United States has been fulfilled; the duty of the Conference begins where that of the delegation ends. The President takes note of the remarks of the delegate of the United States which will appear in the procès-verbal, and he remarks that the question raised by General DAVIS was put to the Commission and that no one opposed the solution there given to it. The question can therefore no longer be discussed, but the PRESIDENT thinks too that it has been decided correctly. The program outlined for the Conference by the Russian Government more than a year [18] ago mentioned the revision of the Regulations of war and renewal of the Declaration relating to balloons, but no proposal was made as to the two other Declarations which no Power has denounced, and which preserve their full obligatory force for one year at least. The United States did not even refer their proposal to them. The PRESIDENT then observes that the text proposed is identical with that which Captain CROZIER first offered in 1899 and which was unanimously rejected as insufficient. Mr. CROZIER himself then signed the Declaration in its present form. The PRESIDENT declares the discussion closed and adjourns the meeting after having thanked the Commission for the active and enlightened assistance that it brought to the study of the questions submitted to it. The meeting adjourns at 12:40 o'clock. [19] Annex AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS OF 1899 RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND Renewal of the Declaration OF JULY 29, 1899, PROHIBITING THE LAUNCHING OF PROJECTILES AND EXPLOSIVES FROM BALLOONS REPORT TO THE COMMISSION 1 The program of the first subcommission comprised two questions: 1. The examination of the amendments proposed by the several delegations to the Regulations of 1899 respecting the laws and customs of war on land; 1 1 Reporter, Major General Baron GIESL VON GIESLINGEN. See also the report to the first subcommission (annex to the third meeting of this subcommission) and the report to the Conference, vol. i, p. 93 [96]. 2. The renewal of the Declaration of 1899 to prohibit the launching of projectiles from balloons. 1. The first four meetings were devoted to the Regulations of 1899. As was said by the president in his opening address, "In its entirety the work of 1899 is satisfying. . . . It constitutes a body of rules which the high contracting parties engage themselves to impose upon their troops and which thus forms a powerful conventional obligation." Thanks to the harmony which has reigned in our assembly, there resulted an almost unanimous agreement, and, since the first session of the Second Conference, the adhesion of Switzerland and of China has made it almost complete. The amendments which have just been proposed arise, not from the need of recasting the Regulations of 1899, but from that of improving them by the addition of some matters of detail. They have been retouched, but not altered in any essential particular. It may be remarked that it was only at the last moment that amendments for this purpose were forthcoming. The order of the day of the first meeting contained none. But, during the course of the meeting, some were filed by the delegations of the Netherlands, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and· Spain; and these were followed by many others, emanating from the delegations of Japan, Italy, Cuba, Denmark and Belgium.1 These amendments had reference to Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 17, 22, 23, 27, 35, 45, 46, 52, 53 and 57. Those, however, which related to Article 57, on the treatment of interned belligerents and the care of wounded in neutral [20] countries, were referred to the second subcommission, which was charged with the study of all questions concerning neutrality, and its program already included the proposal to add to the Regulations in force a new section. on the treatment of neutral persons in belligerent territory. It seemed to the first subcommission that the questions bearing directly on neutral persons, or concerning the rights and duties of neutral States, should not appear in Regulations governing the relations of belligerents with each other. or with the inhabitants of invaded or occupied territory, as such regulations are intended to be communicated to troops in the shape of instructions in time of war. ARTICLE 1. German amendment 2 The amendment proposed by the German delegation to Article 1 respecting the laws, rights and duties of war, as regards the militia and the volunteer corps, tended to exact a previous notification from the opposing party of the “fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance" which they are obliged to carry. It was evident from the discussion that the proposed addition would be considered as an aggravation of the present régime, by reason of the new duties imposed upon the belligerents by this rule. It was remarked that the Powers do not notify one another of the model of the uniform adopted for their troops and that the real distinctive mark of the combatants consists in the open carrying of arms. The amendment was rejected by 23 votes against 11. 1 Annexes 2-15. 2 Annex 2. ARTICLE 2. German amendment1 This amendment related to risings in mass. It required that, .o be regarded as belligerents, 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, must respect the laws and customs of war as stipulated in the old text, and also carry arms openly. It seemed to the subcommission that this amendment had no other effect than to make the original text more definite without modifying its meaning to the prejudice of the population concerned. The amendment was carried by 30 votes to 3, with 2 delegations, those of Switzerland and Montenegro, not voting. The first of these delegations explained its abstention by the fear that the public opinion of its country would only see in the new text an aggravation of the critical conditions existing at present. ARTICLE 4. Japanese amendment? This amendment, like the following, concerns Chapter II relative to prisoners of war. It tended to add to objects such as arms, horses and military papers which, although their own personal property, cannot be left in their possession, all other objects appropriate for military use. [21] It cited particularly maps, bicycles, optical instruments, etc. The amendment was rejected by 29 votes against 6. ARTICLE 5. Cuban amendment 3 The Cuban delegation proposed that the conditions required by Article 5 for the internment of prisoners of war be completed by a clause stipulating that they can be confined "only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist.” This addition was adopted by a very large majority. ARTICLE 6. Spanish and Japanese amendments* The Spanish delegation proposed in the first place to modify the first paragraph so as to exempt officers who are prisoners of war from being compelled to work. A German additional amendment, which was accepted by the Spanish delegation, provides, in favor of non-commissioned officers, that prisoners of war can only be employed as laborers according to their rank as well as according to their aptitude. These changes were adopted without opposition, as well as an amendment proposed by Japan which provided that "If there are no rates in force," the work for the State must be paid for "at a rate suitable for the work executed." A second amendment presented by the Spanish delegation had for its object the omission in the last paragraph of the article of the clause relative to the 1 Annex 2. 2 Annex 10. 3 Annex 5. Annexes 6 and 10. |