In view of the foregoing, the Ottoman delegation requests the Conference to kindly agree to the insertion, in the Convention to be prepared, of a special clause recognizing the Red Crescent as the distinctive sign of inviolability of the hospital ships of the Ottoman Empire. The President states that the Ottoman declaration seems to relate to Article 5, and that therefore the Turkish delegation might formulate its proposition at the time Article 5 is taken up for discussion. The PRESIDENT thereupon proposes, as a method of working, that the Convention of 18991 be read, as also the amendments proposed by the German delegation, it being well understood that the articles to which no amendments are proposed shall be considered as being preserved: Article 1: No modification. Article 2: No modification. Article 3: Amendment presented by the German delegation. The PRESIDENT recalls the explanations offered on the subject by Rear Admiral SIEGEL and asks whether the subcommission accepts this amendment or whether anyone has any observations to make. Mr. Louis Renault (reporter) declares that this amendment is of great importance and that there is a difference of opinion between the French and German delegations on this point. With this reservation, he approves the German project and joins in the thanks expressed by the PRESIDENT in this regard. Mr. Louis RENAULT wishes to explain the status of the question and the reasons for the difference of opinion which he has pointed out. It is a question here of neutral hospital ships belonging to private individuals; he recalls the fact that in 1899 a certain hesitation arose on this subject, the question having been asked at that time whether the ships in question ought to preserve the autonomy of the flag or whether they ought on the contrary to enter the service of one of the belligerents and be placed under its direct supervision. It was agreed to decide the question in the negative for the reason that the supervisory measures provided by the Convention with respect to hospital ships of whatever nature were sufficient. These measures relate, of course, to all vessels, whether they belong to the Government or to private individuals, to neutral nations or belligerents. It was considered that these measures were calculated to safeguard the interests of the belligerents. At Geneva, in 1906, it was necessary to settle a similar question with regard to land warfare, namely, as to what national flag ought to be hoisted by neutral ambulances. It was impossible to refer to the Convention of 1864, which prescribed that the national flag should accompany the flag of the Red Cross, for that Convention did not relate to neutral ambulances, but solely to those belonging to the belligerents. It must be remembered that in land warfare neutral ambulances act on ground occupied by the belligerents and necessarily within the lines of one of them. This is a capital consideration which triumphed in 1906 and which led to placing neutral ambulances under the direct supervision of one of the belligerents. It was thought that, by analogy, it would be possible to adapt to neutral hospital ships the solution which prevailed in 1906 with regard to neutral ambulances. But it is important to observe that this analogy is somewhat deceptive. 1 Annex 38. * Annex 39. [558] The situations are not identical, but on the contrary there is a great difference between hospital ships and neutral ambulances. The latter have no independence; the belligerents exercise an absolute power over them, whereas a hospital ship operates in the open sea without any of the belligerents being allowed to exercise an absolute authority over it. It must be remarked, moreover, that a neutral hospital ship does not necessarily place itself in the service of one of the belligerents. For instance: Following a great naval operation, a hospital ship proceeds from a neighboring port to the scene of hostilities and there gathers up the wounded of the two parties. By reason of these circumstances, peculiar to maritime war, it will be understood why the maintenance of the autonomy of hospital ships is justified. It is for these reasons that the speaker proposes to reject the German modification of Article 3, the consequence of which would be, as was explained by Rear Admiral SIEGEL, to abolish the final paragraph of Article 5. Rear Admiral Siegel justifies the proposed modification on grounds of a military nature. There are drawbacks about allowing neutral hospital ships to move about freely within the radius of action of the operations. They may impede the movements of the naval forces and expose themselves to danger. As regards the question of strict neutrality, by placing these vessels under the supervision of one of the belligerents they are exempted from any suspicion of an unfriendly act and all difficulties of this character are thus removed. Mr. Louis Renault declares that he is not competent to speak in this connection, but he observes that the committee of 1899, in which he alone represented the civilian element, had decided in favor of the maintenance of the autonomy of neutral hospital ships. The President thinks that in view of the difference of opinion which has just been manifested it appears preferable to leave the question open; it will no doubt be easier to reach a solution by allowing the delegates to make a previous unofficial examination of the matter, the results of which they may make known at a subsequent meeting. Article 3 is consequently reserved. The President thereupon reads Article 4, to which no modifications are proposed; then he reads Article 5, and Article 5a (new text),1 the examination of which ought to be reserved owing to their connection with the modifications proposed for Article 3. He states that it is in regard to Article 5 that the Ottoman delegate might deposit his proposition, which would be printed and distributed. His Excellency Baron Marschall von Bieberstein presents some observations regarding the declaration previously made by the first delegate from Turkey and according to which the Ottoman Government, while pointing out the necessity of using the Red Crescent on its hospital ships, declares that it will continue to respect the Red Cross flag. His Excellency Baron MARSCHALL VON BIEBERSTEIN is convinced that by reason of the aforementioned declaration of his Excellency TURKHAN PASHA, the German Government will find no obstacle in the way of recognizing and, if necessary, of protecting the hospital flag of the Ottoman Government the same as that of the Red Cross. But he remarks that at the end of his declaration the first Ottoman delegate reserved the right to propose the insertion of an article relating to the right on 1 the part of the Ottoman Government to choose and use a special flag. By reason of the difficulties which would attend the necessary modification of the previous conventions, he requests the first delegate from Turkey not to act on his request for the insertion of a special article and to confine himself to his declaration. [559] His Excellency Turkhan Pasha explains that he simply desires to secure reciprocity, and that he expects from the Conference a solution calculated to satisfy his Government. The President takes note of the declaration of the Ottoman delegation. His Excellency Samad Khan Momtas-es-Saltaneh makes the following declaration of the Persian delegation: I also think, as his Excellency the first delegate from Germany just said, that there is no reason for the Conference to modify the previous Conventions; but in this connection I deem it useful to recall the fact that Persia, finding herself in the same circumstances explained by his Excellency the first delegate from Turkey in his declaration (which is backed by his Excellency Baron MARSCHALL), had to make reservations regarding Article 18 when she signed the Geneva Convention of 1906. As I had the honor to explain last year, as delegate from my country to the Conference for the revision of the Geneva Convention, the difficulties in the way of using the Red Cross as the distinctive sign for hospital ships do not arise from the religious idea of the cross, which is venerated itself, but from historical considerations. It is in order to insure efficient protection to these ships, which is the main object we are all pursuing here, that it is proper, as his Excellency Baron MARSCHALL has just demonstrated so well, to be as liberal in regard to the use by Persia of the Lion and the Red Sun on a white background on her hospital ships, as in regard to the use of the Red Crescent by Turkey. His Excellency Mr. Carlin deems it his duty, on behalf of the Swiss delegation, to make a remark and a reservation in regard to the declarations which have just been made. He remarks that in accordance with the precise terms of Article 18 of the Geneva Convention of July 6, 1906, no religious significance is attached to the emblem of the Red Cross, this having been unanimously decided at the last Geneva Conference and also recognized by China in the communication made by her delegation at the plenary session of the Third Commission on June 24. His Excellency Mr. CARLIN reads Article 18 of said Convention, worded thus: Out of respect to Switzerland the heraldic emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground, formed by the reversal of the federal colors, is continued as the emblem and distinctive sign of the sanitary service of armies. He adds that it is evident that the declarations of the Turkish and Persian delegations can relate only to maritime war and can not in any wise affect the Conventions of 1864 and 1906. But he says that it is nevertheless true that it is a question here solely of the adaptation of the principles of these Conventions to maritime warfare and that one of those principles-unanimously admitted, with the exception of Persia, by the Conference of 1906-is the adoption of the Red Cross as the sole sign. Having made these remarks, and in view of the effect which these declarations might have on the Conventions of 1864 and 1906, his Excellency Mr. CARLIN must formally reserve the right to define the attitude of his Government still more precisely when Articles 5 and 5a of the German proposition come up for final discussion and when he has received further instructions from the Federal Council. His Excellency Samad Khan Momtas-es-Saltaneh observes that he was permitted to sign the Geneva Convention of 1906 in spite of the reservations which he made in regard to Article 18, and that there is therefore no necessity of reverting to this question. [560] The President expresses the opinion that this discussion may be usefully resumed at the time of examination of the Ottoman proposition if it is presented, or in connection with Article 5. He thereupon reads Article 5b (new),1 which ought to be reserved owing to its connection with Articles 3 and 5. He then reads Article 5c (new). Rear Admiral Siegel thinks he ought to explain, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, that the first part of this article does not relate to the case in which there is a combat between two vessels. The infirmary is a part of the vessel and cannot be particularly respected or protected against the risk run by the vessel itself. It is a question only of the case in which a vessel falls into the hands of the enemy by surprise. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow infers from this explanation that there would be advantage in giving this provision a rewording in order to elucidate its meaning. Mr. Louis Renault shares this opinion. His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert proposes that the new draft be drawn up by Rear Admiral SIEGEL, who agrees to do it. The President states that the examination of the new text will take place at a subsequent meeting. He thereupon reads Article 5d (new).2 His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow observes that the words "and sick wards of vessels" appear to have been inserted by way of analogy with Article 7 of the Convention of 1906. He proposes that these words be omitted as being useless, for it cannot be imagined that the nurses or other persons employed in the infirmaries of the vessels can commit acts injurious to the enemy. Rear Admiral Siegel sees no objection to making this omission. The President consequently reads Article 5d as modified, and adds that as there is no opposition this article will not come up again for discussion. He then passes on to article 5e. Mr. Louis Renault observes that the new provision which has just been read seems to be for the purpose of reproducing the provisions of the Convention of 1906, he admits the spirit of the new proposition, but he thinks it goes too much into details which hardly apply to the operations of maritime war. It would be preferable in his opinion to condense the provisions of Article 5e into a more general formula, and he believes it will be easy to reach an understanding in this regard with the authors of the proposition. Rear Admiral Siegel declares that he willingly agrees that a rewording shall be made. 1 Annex 39. The President consequently reserves this article, which will be submitted to a new examination. He thereupon reads Article 6 of the Convention of 1899 1 and then Article 6 as modified by the German proposition.2 He observes that paragraph 2 of the German proposition might constitute a special article. Mr. Louis Renault thinks that this provision might normally be embodied in Article 9. A discussion then follows regarding the exact content of Article 6 as amended by the German proposition; it is recognized that the new article [561] ought to be composed of Article 6 of the Convention of 1899 interpolated between paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6 of the German draft. Mr. Max Huber asks for some explanations in regard to the new wording of Article 6, which appears to be based on Article 5 of the Geneva Convention of 1906. He asks whether the wording in question is for the purpose of enlarging the sense of the said Article 5. Is it a question of a right or a privilege (option) on the part of the belligerents? After an exchange of views and with the consent of Rear Admiral Siegel, the President explains that any idea of a right of requisition should be discarded. His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert insists that Article 6 shall be subjected to a careful revision; he takes the liberty to point out the obscurity of the first paragraph; can the special protection and immunities which it mentions depend on the will of the belligerents? This would appear to be inadmissible. It must be remembered that this is only a first reading. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel makes some observations in regard to the apparently restrictive nature of the respective provisions of the paragraphs of the German proposition. It would not be right, for instance, to exclude from the benefit of special protection and immunities the hospital ships which spontaneously offer their assistance to the sick and wounded. Rear Admiral Siegel explains that it is understood that these advantages shall accrue to both categories and he admits the utility of a rewording. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow asks whether the special protection and immunities are, according to the idea of the authors of the proposition, to be granted by both belligerents or only by the interested one. Rear Admiral Siegel answers that it is a question of immunities to be granted by the adversary. His Excellency Mr. Léon Bourgeois observes to him that this discussion. appears to be due to a slight misunderstanding. There can be no doubt but that, whatever be the circumstances under which the hospital ships have been assigned to their mission, general rules ought to establish the immunities which they are to enjoy. These immunities ought not to depend on the will of the belligerents, and it is for the Convention whose provisions are now under discussion to determine them. Rear Admiral Siegel acquiesces in this view. Mr. Louis Renault says that the wording of Article 6 (new) was certainly inspired by the corresponding article of the Geneva Convention, which mentions appealing to the charitable zeal of the inhabitants. Now this peculiar situation of land warfare has no exact equivalent in naval war. 1 Annex 38. 2 Annex 39. |