Count TORNIELLI and the vau submitted by Admiral SIEGEL. The keeping of men on board is a guaranty to the neutral, relieving him of any responsibility for the deterioration of the interned vessel.

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow inquires whether there is a similar provision in the regulations concerning war on land.

The President and the Reporter observe that the situation is entirely different in land warfare, in which arms, munitions, etc., are less valuable than ships, which may easily deteriorate from lack of care and even become wholly unfit for use. Moreover, if no provision on the subject were formulated and neutrals were left free, their responsibilities would be increased.

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow is of the opinion that it would be better not to dictate the course the neutral State must follow with respect to the vessel. The President then puts to vote the Italian amendment, which is adopted by 11 yeas to 2 nays, with 1 abstention.

The result of the vote is as follows:

Yeas: Germany, United States of America, Brazil, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, and Turkey.

Nays: Great Britain and Japan.

Abstentions: Norway.

Rear Admiral Siegel inquires as to the import of the word, "unlawfully" (illicitement), appearing in the Swedish proposal.

[639] His Excellency Mr. Hammarskjöld explains that this word refers to the case of vessels entering a port in violation of a prohibition or prescription enacted by the neutral State. It is of course understood that if a belligerent vessel enters a neutral port in violation of a rule of which it is unaware, it will not be interned for so doing. The vessel must have refused to leave, in spite of notification by the neutral authorities.

With reference to paragraph 2 of Article 24, his Excellency Mr. Tcharykow asks what the status of the crew of a belligerent ship interned in a neutral port will be. Will these seamen be prisoners of war of the belligerent, or are they in the power of the neutral State? If the neutral is obliged to take charge of them, in case he desires them set free and the other belligerent does not consent thereto, would not this be a restriction on the sovereignty of the neutral State? The President recalls that the case is similar to that of troops interned in neutral territory.

To meet the observations presented with regard to this paragraph, it is agreed, after an exchange of views by his Excellency Sir Ernest Satow, his Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki, his Excellency Mr. Tcharykow, the President, and the Reporter, that the final wording must be correlated with the corresponding formula of the regulations governing war on land.

The President passes to Article 25, which he reads:1

A neutral Government is bound to exercise all necessary diligence in its own ports and waters, and with regard to every person within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the above-mentioned obligations and duties.

The Reporter says that there is an amendment to this article, presented by the delegations of Belgium and of the Netherlands. This amendment modifies Article 25 as follows:

Annex 63.

A neutral Government is bound to exercise such surveillance as the means at its disposal allow to prevent any violation of the above-mentioned obligations and duties in its ports and waters.

Article 25 is adopted in this revised form.

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow, however, states that he reserves his vote on this text, which he desires to study.

The President passes to Article 26:

If it deems it necessary in order better to safeguard its neutrality a neutral State is free to maintain or establish stricter provisions than those which are laid down by the present Convention.

He recalls that this article was not adopted on the first reading. He asks whether the delegation of Japan insists upon retaining Article 26. Inasmuch as the principle contained in this article appears in paragraph 6 of the preamble, it is perhaps not absolutely necessary to retain the article.

His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki observes that, in his opinion, the provisions of the preamble refer only to the case of a neutral State's changing the rules contained in the present Convention, while Article 26 covers the case of a neutral State's enacting a stricter law outside of the Convention. It is therefore necessary to preserve this article, so that the neutral State may be left free to establish stricter rules outside of this international act. The conditions stipulated by the Convention are, in effect, the maximum that belligerents may demand of neutrals.

[640] His Excellency Mr. KEIROKU TSUDZUKI will nevertheless agree to the withdrawal of this article, in view of the opposition thereto, but with the reservation that Japan will always consider that it has the right to interpret it as has been stated.

The President passes to Article 27:

The exercise by a neutral State of the rights laid down in this agreement within the limits there indicated can under no circumstances be considered by one or other belligerent as an unfriendly act.

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow says that he does not understand the necessity for this article and would therefore like to have it omitted. It seems to him, moreover, that the word “unfriendly” at the end of a Convention of this kind is not calculated to produce a good impression.

His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow points out that the draft Convention now under consideration is a body of provisions that are brand new. Those who sign this Convention will be very anxious to be protected from any claim. It is to the common interest of the great majority of States here represented that an article to this effect be included in the Convention. With a view to removing all opposition to the word "unfriendly," the delegation of Russia states that it intends to propose a final article ending with the words "contracting Powers."

Rear Admiral Siegel remarks that if a Power does not sign all the articles of the Convention, it is evidently bound only by those which it has signed. The benefit of the provision in Article 27 therefore applies only to the articles signed.

His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki supports the opinion expressed by his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW and points out the fact that a provision like that contained in Article 27 goes without saying. It seems to him that its insertion

in the Convention runs directly counter to the purpose intended, and he therefore expresses the opinion that it would be better to leave this article out.

The President, on his side, expresses the opinion that this article does not appear to be absolutely indispensable; there would consequently be no objection to omitting it. He asks whether the committee should proceed to a vote.

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow repeats the arguments that he has already urged against Article 27 and adds that if this article is put to vote, he will propose an amendment thereto, which he reads:

The exercise by a neutral State of the rights laid down in each of these articles can under no circumstances be considered by one or other belligerent as an unfriendly act.

His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow states that he concurs entirely in this amendment.

It is agreed that the final drafting of this amendment will be left to the reporter.

His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow takes the floor and proposes an Article 28. He points out the fact that the Convention which the committee has just finished examining refers to a certain number of laws and ordinances, some of which are already in existence, while others have still to be enacted.

The Convention implies that these divers laws must be known to all the interested States. Would it not be well therefore to insert in the Con[641] vention an article that would facilitate communication to one another by the various States of the laws in question? To this end the delegation of Russia would propose the following article:

The high contracting parties shall communicate to each other in due course all laws, proclamations, and other enactments regulating, in their respective countries, the status of belligerent ships in their ports and waters, by means of a communication in writing addressed to the Netherland Government and forwarded immediately by that Government to the other contracting Powers.

The President supports this proposal, which he considers an important and necessary addition to the Convention which the committee has just elaborated. There being no opposition to the final article proposed by the delegation of Russia, it is declared adopted.

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow asks what the result of the vote on Article 23 was.

The President informs him that the article was adopted.

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow states that the British delegation cannot accept it.

His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow feels called upon at the close of the discussion to present the following considerations to the committee:

Thanks to the spirit of conciliation which has not ceased to prevail among us, we have been able to reach and to state an agreement upon the majority of the questions which we have had under discussion. One question only remains unsettled, and it is of capital importance: the question of the vessel's stay in port.

When the vote was cast on this question, we heard two great Powers raise the same objections to the proposed reading and state that they could not and

must not accept the 24-hour rule. We have already said, and we repeat, that there can be no question in this Conference of forcing the will of the majority upon the minority. On the contrary, we must try to find a ground of conciliation. with respect to every question. It is in this spirit that the delegation of Russia would like to suggest, in case the proposal concerning the theater of war should not be favorably received, a new wording which appears to it calculated to satisfy the interests of all.

We have discussed the quantity of coal; but whatever that quantity may be, we must allow those concerned time enough to load it. Otherwise this provision would be a snare and a source of misunderstandings. We have all recog nized that a ship has the right to preserve its existence at sea and that it is not one of the functions of a neutral State to reduce a belligerent ship to the condition of a derelict.

Article 12 might therefore be worded as follows:

In the absence of contrary provisions of the neutral State, belligerent war-ships are not permitted to remain in the ports, roadsteads or territorial waters of the said State longer than the time necessary to complete the supplies indicated in Article 19 of the present Convention.

We do not, however, propose that this formula be discussed; we merely submit it for the committee of examination to think over. It goes without saying. that, if this article is accepted, the words "within twenty-four hours or within the time prescribed by local regulations" in Article 13 would be replaced by the following: "within the time provided by Article 12."

The President, after stating that the committee will be called later on to hear the report, declares the meeting adjourned.

[642]

MEETING OF COMMITTEE OF EXAMINATION OF THE SECOND SUBCOMMISSION OF THE

THIRD COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 28, 1907

His Excellency Count Tornielli presiding.

The meeting opens at 10 o'clock.

The President addresses the committee as follows:

As you know, our eminent reporter, moved by personal scruples which his great authority and experience do not seem to me to justify, desired that the report which he has drawn up on the work of our committee, to be submitted first to our full Commission and then to the whole Conference, be laid before you.

I have therefore departed from the procedure which has usually been followed in our Commission and, instead of calling at once a meeting of the Commission to begin the discussion of the text which the report accompanies, I have requested you to meet once more as a committee of examination and drafting committee.

At our meetings of September 11 and 12 we took up the second reading of our draft Convention. Minutes were kept of these meetings. You received copies of these minutes several days ago. I would ask you therefore whether you have any comments to make on them.

There being no comments, I consider these minutes adopted.

Our order of business comprises the reading and approval of the report,1 which has been prepared in the name of the committee by Mr. LOUIS RENault. In the draft Convention to which the report refers the final changes that were introduced in the course of the second reading have been taken into account. The majority of these modifications concern the form merely, but some of them affect the substance of provisions which do not appear to have received as yet the stamp of completeness and finality.

[643] It is hardly necessary for me to say that it is still permissible for any of us to make further proposals and to submit amendments which may improve the text or facilitate its unanimous adoption by the States represented at the Conference.

We are therefore about to take up a final reading, so to speak, with the aid of the explanations and elucidations furnished by the report.

The well-ordered arrangement of this document counsels us not to deviate therefrom in this final examination.

See report to the Commission, annexed to the minutes of the eighth meeting of the Third Commission, ante, p. 489 [486]; see also report to the Conference, vol. i, p. 288 [295].