Here reference can be meant only to combat on board ship, very rare to-day in maritime war; the provision explains itself. Article 7 is approved. ARTICLE 8 (new) Hospital ships and sick wards of vessels are no longer entitled to protection if they are employed for the purpose of injuring the enemy. The fact of the staff of the said ships and sick wards being armed for maintaining order and for defending the sick and wounded, and the presence of wireless telegraphy apparatus on board, is not a sufficient reason for withdrawing protection. On the subject of Article 8 the Reporter points out that this article is the adaptation pure and simple of the Geneva Convention of 1906 to war on sea with the exception of the last part of paragraph 2 concerning the presence on board of a wireless telegraphy installation. This amendment proposed by the delegation of the Netherlands 1 was approved by the committee of examination. The Reporter, referring to paragraph 5 of Article 4 relating to the commissioner whom belligerents can put on board a hospital ship, examines the case where a neutral hospital ship having on board a commissioner of one of the belligerents meets a war vessel of the other belligerent. Can this commissioner be made prisoner? He thinks that the Commission. is in agreement for the negative. Since the armed personnel placed on board hospital ships cannot be made prisoners all the more reason for not making prisoner of the commissioner whose duty it is to watch over and direct the personnel. It will nevertheless be well that this remark be inserted in the report presented to the Conference. The President asks the Commission if it is wise to allow a radio telegraphic installation on board a hospital ship. These apparatuses can receive communications not addressed to the hospital ship. Their presence is consequently of a nature to beget suspicions with regard to the ships in question. The PRESIDENT therefore begs the Commission to express itself on the advisability of keeping in Article 8 (new) the terms: " and the presence of wireless telegraphy apparatus on board." His Excellency Vice Admiral Jonkheer Röell explains that if a commander of a fleet fears the inconveniences of wireless installation on board a hospital ship he may either have the transmitting apparatus removed or have the aerial wires cut. 2 The Reporter observes that if Article 8 is voted in the text proposed by the committee of examination it will be necessary to insert in the report to the Conference the observations made by Admiral RÖELL with regard to the power of belligerents to remove apparatus of radio telegraphy on board a hospital ship. He adds that it would be of interest if the technical delegates would kindly furnish the Commission with some information of a nature to make clear to it the use of such apparatus and the inconvenience that might follow from the point of view of belligerents. [301] Rear Admiral Arago explains that the transmitting apparatus is more complicated and more difficult to use than the receiving apparatus. He thinks with Admiral RÖELL that the belligerent will always have power to remove 1 Annex 40. * See the report to the Conference, vol. i, p. 67 [70]. the aerial wires or even the whole transmitting installation but, as the employment of such apparatus is so widespread as to have become an absolute necessity for navigation, if the Commission suppresses the use of such apparatus on hospital ships it would, in his opinion, probably regret it later. Captain Ottley, in the name of the British delegation, observes that the inconveniences which will result from the presence of radio telegraphy on board a hospital ship may be very serious while the advantages from a humanitarian point of view will be of slight importance. In view of the importance of the question he begs the president to submit it to a vote. Rear Admiral Arago remarks that the commissioner who may be put by belligerents on hospital ships might serviceably exercise control over the use made of the radio telegraphic apparatus. The President is of the opinion that after this exchange of views it would be well to divide the vote on Article 8 into two parts. The first part, which includes paragraphs 1 and 2 up to the clause relating to the radio telegraphic apparatus, can be considered as approved as it has aroused no comment. The vote on the last half of paragraph 2 results as follows: 23 for maintaining the text as proposed by the committee of examination; 8 against; and 12 abstentions. The President then passes to Article 9 which is read: ARTICLE 9 Belligerents may appeal to the charity of the commanders of neutral merchant ships, yachts, or boats to take on board and tend the sick and wounded. Vessels responding to this appeal, and also vessels which have of their own accord rescued sick, wounded, or shipwrecked men, shall enjoy special protection and certain immunities. In no case can they be captured for having such persons on board. The Reporter suggests that this text is like that presented by the committee of examination, but after reflection several of the members of the committee were of the opinion that it would be well for it to undergo some changes in conformity with the considerations set forth in the report on the motion of Colonel OVTCHINNIKOW: "It is a question of an appeal addressed to a merchantman by a belligerent vessel needing its absolute and immediate assistance. By reason of this circumstance it is to the interest of the war vessel to ignore the infractions that the merchantman may have committed previously and to promise it, for example, not to exercise the right of search with respect to it. We consequently propose to add after the words " for having such persons on board" the following " but, apart from special undertakings that have been made to them, they remain liable to the consequences of violations of neutrality they may have committed." The President asks whether after having heard the explanations of the REPORTER no one wishes the floor on the subject of the addition that has just been proposed. [302] Colonel Ovtchinnikow expresses the hope that the Commission will adopt this change. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow observes, in the name of the British delegation, that it would be best to keep the more precise and restrictive term of "capture" used by the 1899 Convention instead of "consequences." After an exchange of views between the President, the Reporter, and his Excellency Sir Ernest Satow, it is agreed to put the word "capture" back. Article 9 is then put to vote and adopted with this final addition “but, apart from special undertakings that have been made to them, they remain liable to capture for any violations of neutrality they may have committed." The President then reads Article 10 which is approved without any change.1 Article 11 is then read. ARTICLE 11 Sailors and soldiers on board, when sick or wounded, as well as other persons officially attached to fleets or armies, to whatever nation they belong, shall be respected and tended by the captors. With regard to Article 11 the Reporter, on a remark made to him by the delegation of the Netherlands, proposes that this article shall read in the following manner: "Sailors and soldiers on board, as well as other persons officially attached to fleets or armies, when sick or wounded, to whatever nation they belong shall be respected and tended by the captors." The article thus modified by changing the place of the words "sick or wounded" is approved. ARTICLE 12 (new) Any war-ship belonging to a belligerent may demand that sick, wounded, or shipwrecked men on board military hospital ships, hospital ships belonging to relief societies or to private individuals, merchant ships, yachts, or boats, whatever the nationality of these vessels, should be handed over. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow repeats the reservations that he has already presented in the subcommission on Article 12. Subject to this reservation Article 12 is approved. Articles 13 and 14 are approved without discussion.2 ARTICLE 15 The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick who are landed at a neutral port, with the consent of the local authorities, must, unless an arrangement is made to the contrary between the neutral State and the belligerent States, be guarded by the neutral State so as to prevent their again taking part in the operations of the war. The expenses of tending them in hospital and interning them shall be borne by the State to which the shipwrecked, sick, or wounded belong. His Excellency Mr. Hammarskjöld presents the following observations on the subject of this article: I am not unaware that the proposed Article 15 is like the old Article 10. which however was not ratified and consequently does not enjoy the authority of the articles in force. [303] But I would remark that Article 13 also has reference to the obligation of neutrals with regard to measures to be taken to prevent the shipwrecked. etc.. from again taking part in the war: nevertheless, the expressions used in Articles 13 and 15 are not identical. 1 Article 13 savs that measures must be taken that they do not again take Annex B to this day's minutes. 1 Ibid. part in the operations of the war." Whilst, according to Article 15, the shipwrecked, etc., must "be guarded by the neutral State so as to prevent their again taking part in the operations of the war," which is much more positive. The difference between the expressions might cause one to believe there is a difference in principle which would perhaps not be justified. I ask if it would not be wise to bring the two wordings together. In any case the obligation of neutrals, even according to Article 15, cannot be absolute. Evidently it will be impossible to completely prevent escapes. The Reporter answers that the difference in wording of the two articles is explained by the difference in the situations. The commander of a neutral war vessel which has taken on board wounded or sick cannot guard the individuals taken on board; it is otherwise with local authorities in neutral countries dealing with disembarked persons. Of course all that can be asked of the authority of the neutral country is that it shall not be negligent; whatever responsibility it incurs presupposes, as is well understood, a fault on its part. His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert says that this provision was in its place in the 1899 Convention because at that time there was no question up of the rights and duties of neutrals, but that as this subject is on the program of the present Conference the Article 10 under discussion would perhaps be better placed in the agreement to be reached on the rights and duties of neutrals under study by the Second Commission. The Reporter makes the objection that the results of the deliberations of the other Commission cannot be foreseen; besides, it seems useful to keep the rule that was formerly adopted in the Convention in preparation as the Convention should be sufficient in itself. This Convention will thus be a complete body of precise instructions for naval commanders. His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert agrees with this view. His Excellency Turkhan Pasha then refers to the reservation made by his Government in 1899 on the unratified Article 10, and he renews it for Article 15 while awaiting new instructions. The President then reads Articles 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 which are approved without discussion.1 ARTICLE 25 (new) The present Convention, duly ratified, shall replace as between contracting States, the Convention of July 29, 1899. The Convention of 1899 remains in force as between the Parties which signed it but which do not also ratify the present Convention. With regard to Article 25 Chevalier von Weil, delegate of Austria-Hungary, asks and obtains the substitution of the expression "contracting Powers for the expression "contracting States." [304] All the articles of the text proposed by the committee of examination having been approved, the President takes the floor and speaks as follows: Gentlemen, we have just finished our work on one of the four topics assigned to the Third Commission. We can congratulate ourselves, for we are. easily the first to lay before the Conference a complete organic project in which all the rules of the Conventions of Geneva for the amelioration of the condition of the sick and wounded that can be applied to maritime warfare have been given a place. It is due to the marvelous genius for hard work of our eminent reporter, Mr. LOUIS RENAULT, and to the fertile activity of your second subcommission that this satisfying result has been obtained. You have not allowed yourselves either to be halted by the relative dryness of the subject or discouraged by the facile criticism that designated us as organizers of war. We recall, gentlemen, that very often have our colleagues whose special task is to keep before us the technical and practical side of military questions had occasion to point out to us that by our regulation we had created impediments to the conduct of naval operations. This argument has not always affected us. We had above all an anxiety to assure a real improvement in the condition of the victims of maritime warfare; if it happens now that as a consequence of the principles that we have confirmed and the rules that we have defined the means of injuring each other are somewhat fettered, we can rejoice thereat, for we have not been convoked at The Hague to facilitate war, but gradually to dispel its horrors. We have not been successful in reconciling the divergent opinions on all points; but we can hope that the differences that exist are not important enough to cause the failure of our work in its last stage. The reporter has already said with his customary clearness, and I will myself dwell on this point, that in any case the new Convention does not bring to an end the binding force of the Convention of July 29, 1899. We have constantly had the text thereof under our eyes, and we have not affected it in any way. It, therefore, survives in all its plenitude for the States that have signed and ratified it. If some of these States hesitated to give their signature or their ratification to the Convention that we have just proposed, these States would continue to remain bound with regard to the other signatories of the 1899 Convention by the clauses of that international act which has not been denounced. (Loud applause.) The President then indicates the order of the work of the second subcommission which is still to deal with "the rules adaptable to belligerent vessels in neutral ports." The subcommission has before it four proposals: one from Japan,1 one from Spain, one from Great Britain, and one from Russia. He proposes to convene the bureau of the subcommission together with four delegates designated by the four above-named delegations to draw up a questionnaire. The PRESIDENT says that he will communicate the day upon which this committee may meet. His Excellency Mr. TSUDZUKI, first delegate of Japan and Captain CHACÓN, naval delegate of Spain, are made members of this committee. The delegations of Russia and of Great Britain postpone naming their representatives. The meeting adjourned at 12:45 o'clock. 1 Annex 46. " Annex 47. Annex 44. • Annex 48. |