attention of the assembly and especially that of the Reporter to it. The latter declares that as the passages pointed out contain nothing essential, he will suppress them. Under these conditions Article 7 is adopted without further remark.

ARTICLE 8

A neutral State is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.

The President recalls that his Excellency Lord REAY requested, as stated in the report of Colonel BOREL, "that it be specified that the liberty of a neutral State to transmit messages, by means of its telegraph lines on land, its submarine cables or its wireless apparatus, does not imply that it has any right to use them or permit their use in order to render manifest assistance to one of the belligerents."

His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow again takes up the observations already formulated by the delegation of Russia on the subject of paragraph b of Article 3. The delegation of Russia proposes to add to paragraph b of Article 3 the following words: b. to use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral State “for purely military purposes and closed to public service." 1

Mr. Louis Renault asks if it would not suffice, in order to meet the objections of the Russian delegation, to insert the word military before the word installation in paragraph b, Article 3. The strictly military character of the installations in question is in reality quite sufficiently indicated by paragraph a, and the addition of this word in paragraph b would preserve the necessary bond between the two without there being any inconsistency between the stipulations of this article and that of Article 8 which has in view an entirely distinct hypothesis.

[37] His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki objects to the new wording proposed by the delegation of Russia, observing that the cases in which either wireless telegraphic apparatus or telegraphic cables are devoted to an exclusively military use are extremely rare since they can occur only in the immediate zone of hostilities. It is necessary then, according to him, to consider the methods of telegraphic or telephonic transmission which are in the hands of the Governments and which are destined for military use, although not exclusively; and these are the ones which the initial Japanese proposal, which served as a basis for the articles under discussion, had had in view.

Colonel Michelson remarks that the observation of his Excellency Mr. TSUDZUKI can only confirm the objections of the delegation of Russia since what the latter wishes to prevent is the introduction of a censorship in the public service at the risk of hindering international commercial communication.

The President remarks that the modifications proposed by the delegations of Russia and of France answer the same purpose. First, he puts to a vote the first of these amendments, taking into consideration the order in which it was presented.

The amendment is adopted by 31 votes to 2, and 3 abstentions.

Voting for: Germany, United States of America, Argentine, Austria

1 Annex 35.

Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Spain, France, Greece, Haiti, Italy, Luxemburg, Mexico, Montenegro, Panama, Paraguay, Netherlands, Persia, Roumania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Switzerland, Turkey and Venezuela.

Voting against: Great Britain, Japan.

Not voting: Norway, Portugal, Sweden.

Following this vote his Excellency Lord Reay makes reservations respecting Articles 3, 8 and 9, paragraph 2.

The President having asked him on what points they were taken as regards Article 3, he specifies that they apply to the whole article and not to any special point.

His reservations are recorded.

His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki likewise makes reservations to Article 3, paragraph b.

No objection arises to the text of Article 9, thus worded:

ARTICLE 9

Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by the neutral State in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents. A neutral State must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus. The President declares this article adopted with the above-mentioned reservations.

A neutral State which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty. If it allows them to remain in its territory it may assign them a place of residence.

The same rule applies to prisoners of war brought by troops taking refuge in the territory of a neutral State.

Major General Yermolow reads the following declaration:

The delegation of Russia has the honor to declare that it will accept the first paragraph of Article 10.

As to paragraph 2 of this article, it seems to us in the proposed wording to be contrary to the duties of neutrality.

In fact, gentlemen, the very principle of neutrality demands that a neutral State commit no act which can work to the advantage of one of the belligerents and to the detriment of the other. But in liberating prisoners of war brought into its territory by troops seeking refuge there, will not the neutral State give, by this very act so to speak, reinforcements to that one of the belligerents from whom the liberated prisoners were taken? And if one of the belligerents has not himself succeeded in delivering, on the theater of war, those of his men who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, it would seem that no neutral State should have the right to come to his aid in doing for him what he has not succeeded in doing for himself, in returning to him his lost men and in interning, on the other hand, the troops of the adverse party which brought them in. Moreover, gentlemen, we think that the proposed wording of the second paragraph of Article 10 would in reality be in contradiction to the provisions of Article 59 of the Regulations of 1899. For this article prescribes that "wounded or sick brought into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, must be guarded by the neutral State, so as to ensure their not taking part

again in the operations of the war." If, then, the neutral State has not the power to liberate wounded or sick prisoners brought into its territory by a belligerent, why and how could it have the right to liberate able-bodied prisoners brought into its territory by the same belligerent?

In view of the considerations stated, the delegation of Russia proposes to add to the second paragraph of Article 10 the following words: "on condition that the neutral State guard these prisoners so as to ensure their not taking part again in the operations of the war, or else liberate them only on parole."

The Reporter puts the Commission on guard against the confusion to which two very distinct situations might give rise. Article 59 of the Regulations of 1899, to which Major General YERMOLOW referred, in reality concerns the sending into neutral territory of wounded or sick belonging to belligerent forces. The second paragraph of Article 10 bears upon an entirely different case, that of a body of troops which is constrained to seek refuge in the territory of a neutral State and which thus obeys an absolute necessity in order to escape a capitulation. If the neutral State retained the prisoners of war cited by Article 10, paragraph 2, of the project, might not the victorious belligerent reproach him for failure in his duty of impartiality, in prolonging, beyond the time when the internment puts an end to it, the effects of the power which the captor had exercised over these prisoners?

[39] Major General Yermolow having maintained the point of view of the Russian delegation by removing all confusion in this respect, his Excellency Mr. Carlin calls attention to the fact that in leaving at liberty the prisoners of war which are brought into it by troops taking refuge on its territory, the neutral State only admits a consequence which would have manifested itself if the troops had capitulated instead of seeking refuge on neutral territory. Would not the neutral State expose itself to the reproach of the other belligerent if, in place of admitting this consequence, it violated it by interning prisoners who, without that, would have obtained their liberty following the capitulation?

His Excellency Mr. Milovanovitch supports the observations of Major General YERMOLOW: he considers it necessary, both from a theoretical and a practical point of view, to apply to the prisoners a treatment identical to that applied to the belligerents who brought them into neutral territory. If these last were compelled to take refuge on neutral territory, may it not be said that the prisoners were forced even more to do so. There results, therefore, that the same treatment must be applied to both.

Major General von Gündell is entirely in accord with the views expressed by his Excellency Mr. CARLIN. He believes he can cite a peremptory example in support of this thesis: Article 1 of the project in discussion declares in effect that the territory of a neutral State is inviolable; but, if instead of the frontier of a neutral State it is a question of a maritime frontier where one of the belligerents would corner an armed force of the other party, the latter would not hesitate to capitulate and the prisoners of war who were in the ranks would be by this act liberated. It cannot be otherwise when it is a question of passage into neutral territory.

Colonel Michelson objects that the belligerents have in their possession maps permitting them to foresee all the consequences of their movements. One cannot then, according to him, compare the case of a troop cornered on a maritime frontier to that of a troop which crosses the frontier of a neutral State. The victor

himself must take the necessary measures to cut off the retreat of the enemy on to neutral territory in order to deliver his prisoners. The thesis of his Excellency Mr. CARLIN would tend to give to the victorious belligerent in such a case all the advantages which a capitulation would give him. According to this reasoning the neutral State would be obliged then to return not only the prisoners but also the war material taken from the enemy, which has not been admitted.

The President remarks that the question has been extensively discussed by the committee. The objections, he says, bear only upon paragraph 2 of the article, and he considers its first paragraph adopted without discussion.

He reads the new wording proposed for the second paragraph and puts it to a vote, specifying that if the addition proposed by the delegation of Russia is not adopted, the result of this vote will be to maintain the original text.

The Russian amendment is rejected by 31 votes against 3 and 2 abstentions. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow makes reservations, in the name of the delegation of Russia, to the second paragraph of Article 10.

[40]

Article 10 is adopted.

ARTICLE 11

The fact of a neutral State resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as an act of hostility.

The President, after stating that this article might have been considered as unnecessary, declares it adopted without observations. The Danish amendment but lately proposed and set aside, has not been presented again.

Article 57a and b, emanating from the Japanese delegation,1 referred by the first subcommission to the second, and set aside by the committee, are not produced again. The proposition is then discarded.

The PRESIDENT adds that there remains nothing more to regulate on the subject of the rights and duties of neutrals but a question of form. While reserving to the drafting committee the care of arranging it, the Reporter suggests a solution which in his opinion would be a happy one and which would consist in establishing a special convention on this subject.2

The PRESIDENT asks the assembly if it has any remarks to make on this subject, and declares his personal assent; the drafting committee will take into consideration such of these remarks as may concern it. He recalls that the same remark is applicable to the articles of Section IV of the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land.

The PRESIDENT: We pass now to Colonel BOREL's second report on the subject of neutrals themselves, and to the project annexed thereto relative to a new section to be added to the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land."

This project begins with a definition of the word "ressortissants" which might give rise to confusion.

Does this still modern expression concern only nationals or is it applied also to domiciled aliens?

The dictionaries say qui ressort de or du ressort, which does not throw much light on the question.

The Reporter thinks that if the drafting committee is of the opinion that the word "ressortissant " is ambiguous, it will itself find a more exact term.

The President recalls that the two meanings have already been given to the word "ressortissant," and that it is expedient therefore to call the attention of the committee to it. The same word must not apply to two things.

His Excellency Mr. Hagerup believes that the double meaning of the word "ressortissant" ought to be taken into consideration conformably to the legislative acts which have accepted the principle of nationality or that of domicile.

His Government accepts neither Article 64 nor Article 65 unless the amendment of Great Britain is adopted.

The Reporter proposes, for the sake of harmony, to replace the word "ressortissants" by the word "nationals," and believes that the question can be settled

the same in the other commissions.

[41] Article 61 is declared adopted under the following form:

ARTICLE 61

The nationals of a State which is not taking part in the war shall be considered as neutrals.

His Excellency Lord Reay reads the following declaration:

GENTLEMEN: I would like to say a few words in justification of the attitude adopted by the British Government in regard to the proposition made by the delegation of Germany 1 for the improvement of the condition of neutrals in time. of war on land.

1

Great Britain has always been among the first to seek to mitigate the evils and rigors of war, and she has not failed to give proofs of it in the past. It is then not the principle of the German project but the method extolled which seems to her to be subject to criticism.

This project, gentlemen, contains two fundamental principles which admit for the neutrals:

1. Exemption from all military service.

2. A more favorable treatment in regard to property than that which would be accorded to nationals.

We recognize that as a general rule the neutral is exempt from all military service in the State where he resides. However, in the British colonies and, in a certain measure, in all countries in process of development, the situation is quite different, and the entire population, without distinction of nationality, may be called to arms to defend their menaced homes.

Articles 64 and 65 of the project do not forbid the foreigner to enlist of his own accord and to serve in the national army, but expressly oppose the use of all constraint even if used in the interest of the individual constrained. If the project were adopted just as it is, a foreigner would have the right first to refuse to serve in the militia and then to demand indemnification for losses sustained when he would have done nothing to defend his property. It seems logical that the right of the foreigner to indemnification should necessarily involve the recognition of the right of the State to requisition his services for the defense of the common interests.

The committee of examination in the first place worded Article 65 as follows: 1 Annex 36.