posals, and certainly they have not done away with those that are intimately connected with the difficulties considered.

His Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW seems to me to recognize the competence of the Conference but to have doubts regarding that of the Third Commission. In my opinion the distribution of the work among the Commissions has nevertheless been determined with great precision. The Third Commission is charged, as everybody seems to have admitted up to the present, with the question of the rights and duties of neutrals at sea in general, and this is what justifies the deposit of a British proposal on this subject. It is therefore competent to consider the special point brought out by the placing of mines as concerns neutrals. And especially so, as the subject of mines and torpedoes has been expressly referred to it.

Finally his Excellency Mr. TCHARYKOW has filed a proposition with the aim of assimilating neutrals to belligerents with respect to the technical conditions to be observed in the laying of mines. I have heard this proposal with great interest. But it is clear that the competence of the Commission cannot be restricted to that single article of regulation. If we are competent to examine these conditions, we are also competent to make a general regulation.

On the subject of opportuneness of discussing the question of mines, I have hardly any need to insist..

The solutions are prepared. The committee and the Commission have examined the two kinds of guaranties proper to introduce, the guaranties relating to the construction of the apparatus, and the guaranties relating to the limits within which they may be placed. The rules and the pre cautions that can be required of neutrals are analogous to those that are imposed upon belligerents. Here we have matters that are closely united in intimate connection, forming almost an indivisible whole.

And the urgency of a regulation for neutrals is as pressing as that for belligerents. Neutrals certainly have the right to defend themselves against unlawful violations of their neutrality. But they ought to safeguard the great interests of commerce and humanity. Moreover they have a great interest themselves in laying down provisions that will define their rights and prevent regrettable discussions and disputes.

The public welfare and the security of commerce, the sentiment of brotherhood and regard for public opinion command us not to give over to the perils of uncertainty and arbitrariness the use of these particularly dangerous machines, torpedoes and submarine mines. (Repeated applause.)

His Excellency Mr. Nelidow states that he has not denied the competence of the Conference. He only said that the question was not written in the program, but at the same time he affirms the necessity of regulating the laying of mines by neutrals in the interest of navigation and from the standpoint of humanity.

The general discussion being closed, and the question having been sufficiently elucidated by the debate, the President desires to answer his Excellency Mr. RUY BARBOSA on the subject of the obligation of the Conference to keep within its program, an obligation which the first delegate of Brazil seems to have put in doubt.

[373] With every exchange of communications between two Governments, there arises a bond if the proposal made by one is accepted by the other.

The States that have accepted the program of the Conference have contracted in this respect an obligation that continues after the meeting of their representatives. The Russian circular of July 1906 was accepted by most of the States without reservation; but certain States on the other hand gave their acceptance while formulating some reservations. This is why the cabinet of St. Petersburg brought these reservations to the attention of all the adhering Governments.

These reservations were likewise accepted by the different States, and consequently there results an engagement concerning the program of the Conference which can neither be disputed nor placed in discussion. Count TORNIELLI, in his capacity as president of the Commission, thinks he should affirm this principle. He then cites the special program of the Third Commission, which has to deal with the laying of torpedoes and with the status of belligerent vessels in neutral ports. The rest of what relates to maritime war was referred to the Fourth Commission. As to the British proposal concerning the rights of neutrals, cited by his Excellency Mr. VAN DEN HEUVEL, it relates directly to the second point on the program of the Commission with a certain extension natural to the subject. In view of the distribution of the work among the Commissions, his Excellency Sir E. SATOW expressed the opinion that it was necessary to leave it to the Conference to decide whether the question under debate belonged to the Third Commission or not. The PRESIDENT consequently asks Sir E. SATOW whether he desires a vote on the restricted interpretation proposed by him.

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow declares that he does not insist on his view. He thinks that the British delegation will be able to vote, exceptis excipiendis, for the proposal made by his Excellency Mr. TCHARYKOW.

The President, after having pointed out the seriousness of the limitation that the right granted neutrals to place mines would impose on the free circulation of peaceable shipping in territorial waters, states that the Commission has shown itself favorable to the regulation of laying of mines by neutrals.

Their Excellencies Messrs. Hagerup and Tcharykow agree that their respective proposals may be combined by the committee of examination.

The President remarks that since they are agreed in favor of the regulation, they ought also to look into the obligation on the part of neutrals to give warning of the mines they have laid.

Captain Burlamaqui de Moura remarks that the question of the notification is already dealt with in the Brazilian proposal distributed to the first subcommission. It would be necessary only to make a special article of it.

The President then proposes to refer the questions to the committee of examination.

No remark being made, this reference is decided upon.

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 o'clock.

'Annex 13.

[374]

Annex

QUESTIONS OF COMPETENCE RAISED IN THE COMMITTEE OF EXAMINATION OF THE FIRST SUBCOMMISSION OF THE THIRD COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO MINES

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION 1

In the course of the deliberations of the committee of examination, instituted by the first subcommission of the Third Commission to study the propositions referred to it concerning the laying of automatic contact mines and to prepare a draft project on this subject, a preliminary question as to the extent of its powers was raised, which the committee thought itself incompetent to settle and which the committee has the honor to bring before the Third Commission in order that it may determine the scope of its work on the basis of the decision which the Commission may make.

In the subcommission there were different proposals intended to include in the regulations of mines provisions also relating to the right of neutrals to lay mines for the purpose of preserving their neutrality, and regulating that right in a way similar to that adopted for belligerents.

No objection in principle having been made on this subject in the subcommission, the said proposals with the others are referred to the committee of examination.

But in the committee some members put the question, whether the regulation of the right of neutrals to place mines was not outside the competence of the Commission, indeed even that of the present Conference.

It was recalled that the program of the Conference communicated to the Powers by the Imperial Government of Russia and accepted by them, mentioned the question concerning the laying of mines among the "special operations of war"; it would thus seem that the said program intended to submit to the Conference only the regulation of the laying of mines by belligerents and not take up the question of the laying of mines by neutrals.

Other members of the committee, on the contrary, were of the opinion that, as the two subjects are so closely bound together, such a limitation would not seem to have been contemplated by the program. Moreover, among the subjects that the Conference would have to deal with there was also found the topic relating to the "rights and duties of neutrals at sea," which would imply the possibility of also regulating the right of neutrals to lay mines.

Confronted by this difference in views, the committee believed that it could not make a decision. Before dealing also with the limits that might be imposed on the use of mines by neutrals, it awaits the decision of the Commission on this preliminary question, the solution of which appears to the committee to be outside the scope of its competency.

'Reporter: Mr. GEORGIOS STREIT.

[375]

FIFTH MEETING

SEPTEMBER 17, 1907

His Excellency Count Tornielli presiding.

The meeting opened at 3 o'clock.

The minutes of the fourth meeting of August 28 were approved.

The President delivers the following address.

GENTLEMEN: The committee to which your First Commission referred the examination of the questions concerning the laying of submarine mines has finished its long and arduous task. In its name our eminent reporter, Mr. GEORGIOS STREIT, has rendered a report whose arrangement and lucidity we have all admired. Fortunately the effort was not beyond his strength. He has overcome great difficulties. (Hearty applause.) It now rests with us to over

come ours.

As has been very well said in the report, the draft regulations before us are the first attempt to regulate in an international agreement a difficult and relatively new matter. It is a question of introducing into international legislation uniform provisions which are allied with the general principle, already enunciated by the Conference, that the choice of a means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited for belligerents. But the questions which we are called upon to solve are particularly difficult in that they present themselves to us from three different points of view.

Humanitarian considerations, the fundamental principles of maritime law, the interests of national defense, should I not add the supreme interest which in the heart of all nations attaches itself to the diminution of certain pecuniary charges, find by turns their application in the resolutions which a public opinion, that still feels the effect of relatively recent exciting events, awaits from us with anxiety.

The echo of these events, coming from the Far East, reverberates everywhere. As early as the month of December, 1904, the question of the international regulation of the employment of submarine mines was considered in the Italian Parliament. It provoked on the part of the Minister for Foreign [376] Affairs the formal declaration that Italy was ready to discuss and solve this problem at the Hague Conference.

Such, gentlemen, is the great confidence which has been bestowed upon us by all at the commencement of our work. Let us take care not to betray this confidence at the end of our arduous task. We have been asked, we are still being asked to reconcile divergent interests in delicate questions.

The accomplishment of such a work requires that, in view of the very great advantage of establishing the common law for all nations in regard to naval war, Governments willingly make the necessary renunciations, and even some 1 Annex A to this day's minutes.

1

indispensable sacrifices. It is only thus that, in developing and consolidating the harmony of interests, one works effectively for the good-will and reciprocal confidence which are the only true and firm bases for pacific international relations.

The President then says that the report of the committee having been distributed two days ago, it is most probable that all the delegates have taken cognizance of it. If no one demands a reading in extenso, it will be considered. read. It is necessary, however, to take account of the fact that this same report, with the modifications made necessary by the debates, will serve for the transmission of the draft to the plenary Conference. That is why it will be necessary later to deliberate and perhaps to vote upon the report.

The PRESIDENT adds the following: Before approaching the discussion of the regulations, article by article, I would suggest that the reporter be requested. to read us the passage of his report in which, reviewing the essential points which obtained a majority in the committee, he gives us a brief survey of the regulations in their entirety which are proposed to us.

The Reporter, after thanking the President as well as the members of the Commission for their kindly expressions concerning his report, reads the following passage:

The principles unanimously accepted may be summed up as follows: 1. There is a fundamental distinction to be made between anchored automatic contact mines and unanchored mines; the latter may be used everywhere, but they should be constructed in such a way as to become harmless within the lapse of a very short time; it should be the same with torpedoes that have missed their mark.

2. As to anchored mines, a limitation is necessary as to space, that is to say, as regards the places where it shall be permissible to lay them.

3. But as this limitation cannot be absolute and as it does not exclude in every case the possibility of laying anchored mines where peaceful shipping should be entitled to rely upon free navigation, it is necessary here again to have recourse to a limitation in duration, that is to say, a limitation of the time during which the mine is dangerous, which would be possible, thanks to modern technical invention. We have likewise been able to reach a unanimous decision:

That every anchored mine should be constructed in such a way as to become harmless in case it breaks its moorings and goes adrift.

By this happy combination of the limitations as to space, with the technical conditions that we have just mentioned, a very appreciable improvement can be effected over the present state of things. On several occa[377] sions it has been strongly emphasized that the obligation of employing anchored mines that become harmless as soon as they have broken from their moorings constitutes a very great advance over the present situation. 4. These provisions are completed by rules, also voted unanimously, establishing an obligation on States employing anchored mines not only to take all possible measures of precaution, particularly in notifying the dangerous regions (Article 6), but also to remove at the end of the war the anchored mines that have been laid, and, in every case, to provide so far as possible that the mines made use of become harmless after the lapse of a short time, so that they do not remain dangerous long after the close of the war.

5. Finally, the general consent of the States represented in the committee of examination was given to some transitory provisions undertaking