there is no accord upon the interdiction of the destruction of neutral prizes, the provision of Article 23 has become superfluous. But on the contrary his Excellency Mr. VAN DEN HEUVEL has set forth with great eloquence, and with remarkably lofty ideas, the value of this article to the draft. He has observed that it was inspired by the great principle of respect for private property at sea, and that by preserving it we will render homage to this exalted idea.

The PRESIDENT then puts to a vote the omission of Article 23 asked by the delegations of Great Britain and Sweden.

There are 7 yeas against 29 nays, 5 not voting and 2 absent.

Voting for: Denmark, Spain, Great Britain, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Sweden.

Voting against: Germany, Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bolivia, United States of Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Greece, [Haiti (?)] Italy, United Mexican States, Montenegro, Panama, Paraguay, Netherlands, Peru, Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Serbia, Siam, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Not voting: United States of America, China, Cuba, Luxemburg, Persia.
Absent: Guatemala, Nicaragua.

The President therefore declares that Article 23 is maintained.

He then reads Articles 24, 25, 26, and 27,1 which are successively adopted without discussion.

[483] The PRESIDENT thinks that the draft Convention whose articles have just been voted should be completed by certain final provisions. The Drafting Committee should attend to that; but perhaps Mr. RENAULT, president of the subcommittee, would like to say something relative thereto?

Mr. Louis Renault explains that the indispensable final provisions have not been placed in the draft for the reason that they are now being prepared by the Drafting Committee. The most important provision is evidently that concerning the extent of the application of the Convention. It is probable that the Drafting Committee will prepare a formula stating that in order for the Convention to be applicable, it is necessary that the two belligerents be signatories; otherwise it should not apply, even in regard to neutral signatory States. That is the solution adopted for the Convention creating the International Prize Court.

Regarding the other final provisions, they are merely protocol clauses for which the Commission can refer itself to the Drafting Committee.

The President then takes the floor and delivers the following address: GENTLEMEN: We have completed our work; have we been successful? The plenary Conference will utter the final word. Meanwhile I think it my duty to make a statement concerning the work of the Third Commission. This has been divided into four questions, three of which deal with humanitarian ideas whose progressive application is entirely to the credit of our own era. The fourth question, which we have barely finished, was of a very different character."

We commenced with the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the revised Geneva Convention of 1906. We had to complete the convention which the First Peace Conference established in 1899. Our work was facilitated by the remarkable proposition of the German delegation. We have been able 1 1 Annex 65.

to demonstrate how easy it is to act in concert upon the application of principles and ideas which, having matured in the public mind, have entered the universal conscience.

We received from the First Peace Conference the heritage of questions relative to the bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force. We have succeeded in solving certain complicated problems which our predecessors had no desire to broach. Such, gentlemen, is the practical result of a real progress made in the development of humanitarian ideas. This proof should be all the more necessary to us since we have certainly never. yielded to those impulses which at times manifest themselves when sentiment holds sway and usurps some of the world space occupied by realities.

The three declarations of 1899, inspired by the principle that belligerents do not have an unlimited right as to the choice of a means of injuring the enemy, were adopted by our predecessors in a very different frame of mind. from that prevailing during the study of the third of our questions, that of the laying of torpedoes and submarine mines. The complexity of the interests at stake, the uncertainties of the scientific problems in a matter in which mystery and secrecy hold so large a place, perhaps even other considerations, rendered our task more delicate perforce than difficult.

We had to study the various kinds of mines. By analogy with what has been established for certain kinds of projectiles, there was never any [484] question of a general interdiction of all mines and torpedoes. It was desired to limit their employment by putting in first of all the considerations suggested by respect for the principle of the liberty and security of naval lanes.

In order that this principle might be fully applied, it was necessary that we regulate also the other part of the question, that is to say, the part dealing with the places where the use of mines should be permitted. We were occupied with it a long time; and finally, in spite of the very deep regret felt by many of us, we have been obliged, in our turn, to leave to our successors the pursuit of an agreement which we have been unable to attain. Nevertheless, we have not limited ourselves to expressing a vau. We have set the time when the question is to be taken up again and decided. This time will not be more than seven years hence.

The fourth question which was confided to us was, as I have just said, of a very different nature. In approaching it we have fearlessly followed the initiative of our British colleagues and, in seeking to determine the rules to be applied to belligerent war-ships in neutral ports, we accepted the even larger task of presenting to the Conference the draft of a convention concerning the rights and duties of neutral Powers in naval war.

We had before us the rules adopted in the different countries. They constituted incompatible elements, often even contradictory. It was a question of coordinating them, of harmonizing them, and of proceeding to their codification. We found ourselves engaged in a complete elaboration of a uniform legislation, in which principles of justice dominate, to be sure, though they seem to be there merely for the purpose of supplying the legal formulas necessary to the concrete statement of the conciliation of interests, having in view the advantages born of certitude. In order to succeed, it was necessary at first to lay down certain well-established and generally-admitted principles. We then

found ourselves in agreement that the interests of neutrals should be given precedence.

Thus we sought to localize war by facilitating the exercise of neutrality.

I do not plead extenuating circumstances in stating that the time was lacking for the complete success of this work of an almost exclusively diplomatic nature. The conciliation of interests could result only from reciprocal renunciations made with the conviction of acquiring equivalent advantages. It is understood that the modus operandi imposed by the exigencies of a world conference could have been good only if, instead of having to commence by setting up guide-posts, it had just been necessary for us to put the finishing touches to a work already prepared in advance.

Let us congratulate ourselves nevertheless for not having become discouraged. We have shown perseverance in a task that has been at times a thankless We have had the honor to be assisted by the counsels and large experience of a man whose juridical knowledge is accompanied by a remarkable perception and a very sane judgment. Though I fear to offend the modesty of this perfect savant, I cannot fail in the duty of mentioning his name here again, in the best pages of the history of the Conference. I refer to our colleague, Mr. LOUIS RENAULT. (Applause.) Were it not for the fear of imposing upon your kindly attention, I would like to mention specially many others among us who have contributed so largely to a work which, until now, has been unsuccessfully attempted by learned institutions.

It is true that we have not done all. Let us not flatter ourselves with the idea that our work is complete and perfect. We bequeath to our successors the task of revising it. They will find in the goodly number of ideas which we have only outlined, new subjects for development. For myself, I deeply [485] regret not being able to propose to you, in view of the prevailing conditions of our own time, the study and examination of the idea of the limitation of the state of war to certain zones. Perhaps we might have been emanating therefrom the fruitful conception of the localization of naval war. This would have been a great progress. Let us content ourselves with indicating that we have seen the vision of the just and useful things which remain to be done.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your constantly expressed approval of my efforts. Your cordial collaboration will be one of the very dear memories of my life. (Hearty applause.)

His Excellency Mr. Nelidow then speaks in the following terms: GENTLEMEN: We cannot permit the closing of the meetings of the Third Commission without expressing to its president our gratitude and appreciation.

The Third Commission had an extremely difficult task to perform, and if it has not been able to arrive at complete and precise solutions of all the questions mentioned in its program, it is not due to any lack of conscientious and persevering labor, but to the force of circumstances.

The draft, whose examination has just been completed, constitutes a profound study of one of the most important questions of naval law. Up to the present time neither conferences, special commissions nor the institutes of international law have been able to broach the study of the grave problem of the rights and duties of neutrals in naval war.

It was, therefore, a great credit to the Third Commission to undertake it. The simple search of a certain number of solutions of very great significance

constitutes a great progress towards the future codification of international regulations of war at sea. Let us have faith, gentlemen, in an agreement upon the results obtained to-day, which will pave the way for a future conference to seek more easily the equitable regulation of the numerous questions on this important subject which remain to be solved.

I propose, gentlemen, to offer to his Excellency Count TORNIELLI our most hearty thanks for the indefatigable labor, the dogged perseverance, the prudence and spirit of conciliation with which he has directed our debates.

As a matter of fact, it is to him, as well as to the eminent reporter of the Third Commission, that we owe in large part the results of the conscientious labor which ends to-day. (Applause.)

The President then adds:

Allow me, in the name of all, to express our compliments and our sincere gratitude to our secretaries. They have, by their activity and competence, given us entire satisfaction. The time will come when they will replace us in the leading roles. Will they encourage me in the belief that in lending us their arduous assistance, they have not wasted their time? Gentlemen, I thank you. (Applause.)

The meeting is adjourned at 5:45 o'clock.

66

[486]

Annex

DRAFT CONVENTION REGARDING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS IN NAVAL WAR

REPORT TO THE COMMISSION 1

Among the topics for the consideration of the Conference the Russian program2 mentioned "The rights and duties of neutrals at sea," and, hereunder, the question of contraband; the rules applicable to belligerent vessels in neutral ports; destruction, in cases of force majeure, of neutral merchant ships captured as prizes." The first and third questions have been assigned to the Fourth Commission; the second was reserved for the Third Commission.

The Commission had before it four different projects:

'This report was submitted by a committee of examination composed of his Excellency Count TORNIELLI (Italy), chairman; Mr. LOUIS RENAULT (France), reporter; Rear Admiral SIEGEL (Germany), Rear Admiral SPERRY (United States), Captain BURLAMAQUI DE MOURA (Brazil), his Excellency Lou TSENG-TSIANG (China), Mr. VEDEL (Denmark), Captain CHACÓN (Spain), his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW (Great Britain), Captain CASTIGLIA (Italy), his Excellency Mr. TSUDZUKI (Japan), his Excellency Mr. HAGERUP (Norway), Captain FERRAZ (Portugal), his Excellency Mr. TCHARYKOW (Russia), his Excellency Mr. HAMMARSKJÖLD (Sweden), and his Excellency TURKHAN PASHA (Turkey). The report has been completed to include the last session of the Third Commission.

2

See vol. i, in initio.

1. A draft from the delegation of Japan defining the position of belligerent ships in neutral waters; 1

2. A draft from the delegation of Spain on the same subject; 2

3. A proposal from the British delegation in the form of a draft Conven tion concerning the rights and duties of neutral States in naval war; 3

3

4. A proposal from the delegation of Russia containing draft provisions defining the position of belligerent war-ships in neutral ports.*

It will be noticed at once that the British proposal has a greater scope than the three other proposals, since, unlike them, it does not confine itself to the status of belligerent war-ships in neutral ports and waters, but also deals with the rights and duties of neutral States in general in naval war.

The Commission has not considered itself bound by the exact terms in which its jurisdiction was defined by the Conference at the time when the several [487] topics were distributed among the Commissions. It has examined the different articles of the British proposition embracing the whole subject of the situation of neutral States in naval war. It is believed that at a time when an International Prize Court is being created, it would be wise to develop to as great a degree as possible a codification of international maritime law in time of war. Thus the work of the Third Commission will be harmonized with that of the Second Commission, which covers the rights and duties of neutral States in war on land. This explains the general title given to the project and accepted unhesitatingly by the committee of examination.

5

In order to facilitate study of the subject, the second subcommission decided that there should be submitted to it a paper indicating the questions involved in the several proposals. The list of questions facilitated an exchange of views in the meetings of July 27 and 30 and August 1. The matter was then referred to a committee of examination, which made a thorough study of it in a series of thirteen meetings from August 6 to September 28. The draft which we are about to analyze was submitted to two readings; the second taking place in the meetings of September 11, 12, and 28, of which the minutes have been distributed. It was finally approved by the Third Commission in its session of October 4.

The necessity of precise regulations having for their end the removal of the difficulties and even conflicts in this branch of the law of neutrality has been asserted on all sides. Recent experience has added its weight to theoretical considerations in an emphatic and most startling manner.

Land warfare regularly pursues its course on the territory of the belligerents. In exceptional circumstances alone is there any direct contact between the armed forces of a belligerent and the authorities of neutral countries; when such contact does take place, as when troops flee into neutral territory, the situation is relatively simple; customary or written positive law applies in a well-defined manner. The case is otherwise in naval war. The war vessels of the belligerents cannot always remain in the theater of hostilities; they need to enter harbors, and they do not always find harbors of their own countries near by. Here geographical situation exerts a powerful influence upon war, since