As no State had asked for a revision of these two Declarations, the subcommission was of the opinion that any discussion thereof would be out of order. They had been concluded for an indefinite term, and can be denounced only by giving one year's notice in advance. No Power has expressed such an intention. Moreover, their modification or abrogation does not appear in the program, and the proposition of the United States looking to a prohibition 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,'" has no connection therewith. Great Britain, which did not sign these two Declarations in 1899, has announced through its delegation that it was adhering to both. The delegation of Portugal also has announced that its Government will sign the first one. It was particularly agreeable to the subcommission to record these important adhesions at the moment of terminating its labors and, before declaring its task accomplished, the PRESIDENT took occasion to felicitate the Conference. The observations contained in the present report will permit the Second Commission to render an account of the work of the first subcommission and of the results arrived at by the latter, with a view to completing and interpreting the provisions adopted by the First Conference. It is for the Commission now to pass upon these results. 1 Annex 17. [32] THIRD MEETING AUGUST 30, 1907 His Excellency Mr. Beernaert presiding. The meeting is opened at 10:40 o'clock. The minutes of the second meeting are adopted. The President speaks as follows: The Conference has already in plenary meeting approved the work of your first subcommission the same as you yourselves had approved it. We have now to begin the second part of our task by the examination of the questions which our second subcommission has had to study. It seemed especially fitting that Mr. ASSER should preside over the assembly to-day and I urged him to do so, but my efforts were in vain. At least, I am thus afforded the very great pleasure of rendering homage to the proved science and impartiality with which he has directed our debates. Happy are the assemblies well presided over! Mr. ASSER is of those regarding whom all the forms of praise have been exhausted, but it will be permitted me to thank him cordially in the name of all. (Loud applause.) Three reports are on the order of the day and they sum up with talent and clearness the questions on which you have to decide. First is that of Mr. LOUIS RENAULT on the opening of hostilities.1 Can war break out suddenly without previous notice at the risk of taking everybody unawares, or is it necessary to give a formal notification, stating the reasons. Moreover, is it necessary that neutrals be notified and how? On both sides is it desirable that there should be a given period of time between the notification and the opening of hostilities, and in order that the neutrals may be held to discharge their duties? On both points there were differences of view within your subcommission. We were unanimous in holding that war should be formally declared and that the motives should be stated, but the majority held that the granting of a period of grace was inconsistent with military exigencies of the present day (16 votes against 13 with 5 abstentions), and it was even decided that it was not [33] necessary that the neutral States should receive notice of the opening of hostilities if it were certain that they were aware of the existence of the state of war. This discussion is analyzed in Mr. RENAULT's report with his usual clearness and as all of you have it before you it would appear to be useless to reread it. You have only to pass upon the two articles of the draft Regulations 2 and I believe it necessary to read them to you again. DRAFT REGULATIONS ON THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES I. The contracting Powers recognize that hostilitites between themselves must not commence without a previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war. II. The existence of a state of war must 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, however, be given by telegraph. However, it is understood that neutral Powers cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war. No objections being raised to this text, the PRESIDENT declares it adopted. The President declares that the order of the day calls next for the examination of two notable reports presented by Colonel BOREL on the rights and duties of neutral States on land and on the treatment of neutrals in the territory of belligerents. The first of these reports1 has treated of the rights and duties of neutral States. This question was not taken up in its entirety either by the Brussels Conference or by the first meeting of The Hague, and in the regulations of the laws of war there were inserted only a few provisions bearing upon it. The work submitted to us will render a signal service to all the States and more especially to the small ones. They will know beforehand their rights and duties and will avoid the difficulties that formerly arose whenever war awoke interests and desires. The draft arrangement concerning the rights and duties of neutral States on land, presented by the committee of examination of the second subcommission 2 is submitted for discussion. Article 1, providing that the territory of neutral States is inviolable, is approved without discussion. The same applies to Article 2, thus worded: Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral State. [34] The President reads Article 3: Belligerents are likewise forbidden : a. to erect on the territory of a neutral State a wireless telegraph station or any other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with the belligerent forces on land or sea; b. to use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral State. Colonel Michelson reads the following declaration: The delegation of Russia has the honor to declare, concerning Article 3, that it will accept the first paragraph a. As to the second paragraph b of this article, first of all, the wording seems to us very obscure: does it treat of radiotelegraphic installations only or of telegraphic installations in general? If it is a question of telegraphic installations in general, paragraph b will be, in our opinion, in direct contradiction with the meaning of Article 8. In fact, if paragraph b of Article 3, and Article 8 should. function simultaneously, it would necessarily result that the same belligerent, by 'Annex B to this day's minutes. 'Annex 34 virtue of Article 8, would have the right to employ telegraphic installations belonging, on the territory of a neutral State, to this neutral, and at the same time, by virtue of the prohibition contained in paragraph b, would not have the right to use on this same territory installations which might be his, the belligerent's, own property, a result which would seem to us at the least abnormal. Besides, gentlemen, it will always be difficult if not impossible to prove that installations for telegraphic communication established in time of peace on foreign territory by a Government or by grantees and ressortissants of a State which has become belligerent, may have been constructed solely with a view to war. These installations will have in the majority of cases an absolutely pacific character and will serve commercial ends the benefits of which will be enjoyed not only by the countries become belligerent but also by all the other neutral countries. The neutral State which grants a telegraph concession to foreign subjects naturally always derives some advantages therefrom. The prohibitive character of paragraph b would deprive it of these advantages, would have then disadvantageous consequences for the neutrals themselves, and would without doubt interrupt the peaceful and normal development of the international telegraphic and radiotelegraphic system, so necessary to the civilization of the entire world. I ask permission, gentlemen, to elucidate the considerations mentioned by an example, taken, so to speak, from life. There exists at this moment more than one telegraph line under foreign control and ownership which crosses my country and has stations there. Thus, the English telegraph line, called the Indo-European, passes over Southern Russia for hundreds of kilometers. Supposing that paragraph b of Article 3 were adopted together with Article 8, and supposing that a war should break out between England and any other country whatsoever, Russia would then be obligated, by virtue of Article b in its present wording, sustained besides by the stipulations of Article 5, to close this line to the use of Great Britain, and, on the other hand, by virtue of Article 8, she would be obligated to open this same line to the use of the adverse party, a condition of affairs which presents itself as absolutely inadmissible, practically impossible of execution, and, besides, contrary to the very principle of impartial neutrality. [35] The President asks Colonel MICHELSON if, as an expression of these observations, he proposes an amendment. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow remarks simply that the delegation of Russia will be unable to vote upon Article 3 in its present form. The Reporter calls attention to the fact that the objections raised by the delegation of Russia appear to be hardly justified in view of the text of Article 3, and the commentary devoted thereto in the report. What is referred to in Article 3, letter b, is the supposition of a military servitude conceded in time of peace by one State to another and permitting the latter to install on the territory of the former stations or other apparatus for its exclusive use. In case of war a mili tary installation of this kind could not be used, on neutral territory, by the belligerent State which would have established it there previously. On the other hand, the lines established by foreign companies, or even by foreign States, and designed for public service, escape the application of Article 3, letter b, and are governed by Article 8 of the draft. His Excellency Lord Reay declares that he accepts without exception, in the name of the British delegation, the interpretation just given by Colonel BOREL on the subject of Article 3. He asks that it be made a matter of record in the minutes and adheres under this reservation to the text under discussion. Colonel Michelson would prefer to have all ambiguity in regard to this article dispelled by modifying its wording. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow states that he reserves the right to present an amendment later.1 Under these conditions the President declares Article 3 provisionally reserved. ARTICLE 4 Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral State to assist the belligerents. The Japanese delegation had proposed an amendment tending to forbid also the establishment of bases of supplies, but it did not return to it and the above text is adopted unchanged. The President reads Article 5 whose text is as follows: ARTICLE 5 The neutral State must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory. It is not called upon to suppress acts in violation of neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory. The delegation of Japan not taking up again its proposal relative to the extension of the obligation of the neutral State to the territories where it has jurisdiction, this text is adopted without further remark. ARTICLE 6 The responsibility of a neutral State is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents. His Excellency Réchid Bey asks what will be the limit assigned to these frontier passages. He refers to the case of individuals who, after having crossed separately, would unite on the other side. [36] The Reporter calls attention to the commentary especially devoted to Article 6 in the report. What the project prohibits, what the neutral State must prevent, is the formation or organization of corps or bands on its territory. It is there that the necessary criterion must be found to appreciate hypotheses such as that assumed by his Excellency the delegate of Turkey. If individuals crossing the frontier or preparing to cross it, their number, their attitude, their continuous marching past, or other circumstances, permit of proving the existence of an organization which until then may have escaped the surveillance of the authorities, the neutral State must do its utmost to arrest the formation of such bands on its territory. On the other hand, what the individuals who have crossed the frontier separately do beyond the frontier engages in no way the responsibility of the neutral State, which is bound to suppress only the acts committed on its own territory. ARTICLE 7 A neutral State is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet. The President thinks that certain passages of the report, in so far as coneern Article 7 as well as Article 68, might seem a little excessive and he calls the 1 Annex 35. |