[341]

THIRD MEETING

AUGUST 8, 1907

His Excellency Count Tornielli presiding.

The meeting opened at 3 o'clock.

The minutes of the second meeting of the Commission, as well as the minutes of the third, fourth and fifth meetings of the second subcommission, are approved.

The President mentions the object of the plenary meeting which is the examination of the draft Convention relating to naval bombardment of ports, towns and villages in time of war.1

The clear and precise report of the distinguished reporter, Mr. GEORGIOS STREIT, having already been distributed some days ago, his Excellency Count TORNIELLI thinks that the assembly will not deem it necessary to give it a preliminary reading. He will merely ask the reporter to be so kind as to read the part of his report concerning each article piecemeal as the articles come under discussion. At the same time the Commission will take account of the purely editorial formulas presented by the delegation of Belgium after the close of the debates in the committee of examination.3

ARTICLE 1

It is forbidden to bombard by naval forces undefended ports, towns, villages, dwelllings or buildings.

A town is not considered defended by the sole fact that submarine mines are anchored off the harbor.

The President indicates that it seems to him that Article 1 should not meet with any opposition, especially as regards paragraph 1, which he reads.

No objection being presented to this provision, it is considered as approved. The President then reads paragraph 2 of Article 1 and asks the reporter to read the part of his report dealing with that provision.

Mr. Georgios Streit (reporter) thanks the Commission for the honor done. him by entrusting to him the report on the two delicate subjects referred [342] to the first subcommission, and expresses to the president his gratitude for the kind words that he has just uttered regarding him. He then reads the following passage of the report:

The first article of the project which we have the honor to submit to you corresponds in its first paragraph to Article 25 of the Regulations of Annex B to this day's minutes. Bombardment by naval forces of undefended towns, villages and dwellings; see also vol. i, fourth meeting, pp. 86-88 [89-90].

2

Annex A to this day's minutes.

Annex B to this day's minutes.

1899 respecting the laws and customs of war on land; it extends to naval forces the prohibition against bombardment of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings. We did not think it best to specify, as did the original propositions of the United States and Netherlands,' that the prohibition relates to undefended "and unfortified" towns, etc. In the first place, it should be firmly established that the existence of fortifications does not of itself suffice to permit the bombardment of the place fortified if the fortifications are not defended; and, secondly, every legitimate anxiety seems to be swept away by the provision of Article 2 which, even in the case of undefended towns, etc., concedes the possibility of directing a bombardment against them for the purpose of destroying by cannon fire, under certain conditions, military works, or military or naval establishments, and consequently any fortifications.

With respect to the meaning of "undefended "-and the attention of the subcommission was particularly drawn to this point by his Excellency General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL and Captain BURLAMAQUI, who considered especially the case of a town defended only on the side of the sea-we believed that we should refrain from formulating a definition in the text itself of the project, in view of the difficulty of defining precisely this purely negative idea. The identical wording of the Regulations on war on land, we may add, has not given rise to controversy on this head. But the subcommission expressly refers to the explanations given in the meeting of July 18 of the first subcommission of the Third Commission, in order that they may serve as an interpretation of its text. His Excellency General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL drew a particular distinction between the defense of a coast and the defense of a town situated near the coast. The defense of the coast might necessitate firing on the instruments themselves of such defense, but a right of bombarding the town which the defense of the coast might indirectly serve, unless the town itself were defended, should not be granted.

Another question along the same line was examined. It was common to the two topics assigned to this subcommission, and was settled by the technical committee charged with the final drafting of the regulations concerning the laying of mines. The question was whether a town should be considered as defended in the sense of paragraph 1 by the sole fact that automatic submarine contact mines are anchored off its harbor. It seemed that the question should receive a negative answer, as the sole fact of the existence of automatite contact mines before a place could not justify a bombardment of that place. Nevertheless, there was some hesitation as to the phrasing to give this particular idea, and some members of the committee expressed reservations with respect to the text adopted as well as to the usefulness of a declaration on this subject. The majority of the committee believed that this point should be expressly mentioned, and there was unanimous agreement that the most natural place for the stipulation was in the provisions concerning the bombardment of undefended places. Hence paragraph 2 of Article 1.

The President, after having remarked that the considerations just listened to refer to the whole of Article 1, recalls that only paragraph 2 of this article is under discussion; he asks if anybody desires to make remarks on the subject of this provision.

[343] Captain Ottley, in the name of the British delegation, reads the following declaration:

1 Annexes 1 and 4.