Mr. Louis Renault replies that in liberating the neutral crew under certain conditions, the captor State secures guarantees only against its enemy and not against itself. Mr. Guido Fusinato states that he agrees with Mr. LOUIS Renault. Mr. Heinrich Lammasch thinks that the condition of a solemn promise or plighted word of honor in such circumstances might encounter obstacles to its application in certain nations. In Austria-Hungary, for example, naval officers must not give their word of honor; as regards officers of the merchant marine, Mr. HEINRICH LAMMASCH does not know whether the same rule exists. In any event, a pledge, a formal promise, or an oath may be very difficult to obtain. The oath in particular does not exist as far as the subjects of nations that have not the Christian conception thereof are concerned. Would it not be better under these circumstances for the State to agree not to take knowingly into its service members of a crew which the captor shall have set free? Mr. Kriege is of Mr. HEINRICH LAMMASCH'S opinion. The laws of certain countries do not allow officers to give such pledges. The officers of the merchant marine may be reserve officers and subject to the same rules. As regards ordinary seamen, formal pledges would perhaps have little value, given the needs of daily life. It would seem that it should suffice to stipulate the obligation on the part of the enemy State not to engage members of the crew for any service whatever. The Government of the captor State might, to this end, cause to be transmitted to its enemy a list of the members of the liberated crew. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow remarks that the last paragraph forbids a belligerent State knowingly to employ an individual in violation of his pledge. If the State has no knowledge of the pledge, it can incur no liability. Again, why make a distinction between an officer of the active army and a reserve officer? It constantly happens in the active service that prisoners are released on parole because the officers know the value of the word of honor. This is not so as regards seamen and that is why the British proposal makes their liberation conditional upon an oath or pledge in writing. The President states that Article 10 of the 1899 Regulations recognizes the right of officers to be set free on parole, unless their national law forbids it.1 Mr. Kriege thinks that the word "knowingly" does not give sufficient guarantee to the captor State when the enemy has no knowledge of the names of the seamen composing the liberated crew, and he cannot have such knowledge unless the composition of the crew is notified to him. That is the best guarantee that can be found. [961] His Excellency Mr. Hammarskjöld states that he prefers the wording of the original British proposal. The new reading forbids neutral members of the crew to serve on board an enemy merchant ship or war-ship. It would be better for us not to concern ourselves with neutral seamen, whose liberation can do no great harm to the captor. Mr. Louis Renault points out that the captor Government can very well make known to its enemy the members of the crew which it has set free. The Geneva Convention contemplates such communications, both as regards the dead, and the sick and wounded. There is nothing to prevent a similar course as regards prisoners released on parole. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow fears that the captor State may neglect. to communicate this information and thereby leave its enemy entire freedom of action. Mr. Guido Fusinato is not in favor of a pledge on the part of the State because it is not susceptible of any sanction, while a personal pledge admits of the sanction established by Article 12 of the 1899 Convention. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow personally is not in favor of bringing before the council of war those who have violated their pledges. He prefers to hold to Article 10 of the 1899 Convention, which stipulates that prisoners shall not be released if the laws of their country do not allow them to give a pledge that they will no longer serve. Mr. Kriege thinks that the assimilation of the crew of a merchant ship to soldiers is not exact. It is here a question of young men who, not having performed their military service, are not imbued with principles of military discipline. Moreover, if a State finds itself forced by virtue of its laws to leave its subjects prisoners of war, it will be in a situation inferior to that of the State whose laws are not the same in this respect. The President asks the committee to come to a decision on the question which would merely be of an academic character. It might pass upon the question whether or not the crew of the captured vessel are prisoners of war. Mr. Louis Renault remarks that the crew are considered prisoners of war, but they may be released under certain conditions. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow concurs in this view. The President then proposes that the committee decide whether an oath or a pledge should be required or whether, as Mr. KRIEGE proposes, notice must be given the enemy of the members of the liberated crew. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow states that Mr. KRIEGE's observations constitute two amendments to the British proposal,1 the first consisting in the omission of any pledge on the part of the crew; the second requiring the captor to transmit to his enemy a list of the seamen composing the crew that has been captured and set free. The British delegation states that it cannot accept the latter amendment. As regards the inequality, of which Mr. KRIEGE speaks, it cannot influence the committee, since it is created by the States themselves. Mr. Fromageot (reporter) explains that enemy seamen will not be able to enter the military service of their country, while neutrals will not be able to serve on any enemy war-ship or merchant ship. The putting of this [962] latter prohibition into effect will be very difficult for certain States, which have no control over the engaging of the crews of their ships. Mr. Kriege replies that in most countries seamen are subject to the control of the State. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow says that seamen thus set free may serve on a merchant ship belonging to the enemy State without the authorities of that State being aware of the fact. Mr. Kriege explains what will take place in practice. The captor State A sends to its enemy B the list of the seamen whom it has set free; the State B will communicate this list to all its authorities and its consuls, who will take note thereof. If a liberated neutral seaman wishes to take service on a vessel of the State B, he must necessarily sign his agreement before the competent authority or consul of that State. 1 Annex 45. Mr. Fromageot states that there are States that exercise no control over the agreements entered into by seamen on vessels of their nationality. Mr. Louis Renault thinks that the differences in the laws of the various European countries will prevent the States from strictly fulfilling their obligations with regard to the service of liberated seamen. There are countries that permit only a certain proportion of foreigners in the crews of their vessels. France, for example, does not allow them to constitute more than one-fourth of the crew. It is quite certain that these countries will exercise a much more rigorous control over sailors and their nationality than countries which have not the same requirements. The President states that the committee is in agreement upon the point that the crew are in principle prisoners of war, but that they may be released under certain conditions, such as an oath, a written promise, or the communication of the list of the crew. Why, then, not admit both conditions? Sir Ernest Satow concurs in this suggestion. Mr. Kriege states that he cannot accept it, as it is at variance with his proposal. He says that if his proposal is accepted, the seamen will not be prisoners of war and consequently must be released. The Government to which they are subject would be responsible as regards their acts in case it has knowledge of their liberation and of their identity. Mr. Heinrich Lammasch proposes that a distinction be drawn between seamen of enemy nationality and those of neutral nationality. From the former an oath or pledge would be required, as provided by Article 20 of the 1899 Convention. As for officers and seamen of neutral nationality, the system proposed by the British delegation1 should be returned to; while for seamen of enemy nationality the system which has just been proposed by this same delegation might perhaps be accepted. His Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW having accepted the principle of this distinction, the President requests Mr. HEINRICH LAMMASCH to make it the subject of a written proposal to be voted on at the next meeting. Mr. Kriege thinks that the application of Mr. HEINRICH LAMMASCH's proposal will give rise to the difficulties pointed out by Mr. Louis Renault, [963] but when the British delegation admits the principle of communication to the enemy as regards neutral seamen, it ought, in his opinion, to admit it a fortiori as regards enemy sailors. Again, the project speaks of a merchant ship of the enemy sailing on a purely commercial commission. Are we to conclude that the crew of vessels, which in one of the British proposals are included in the designation “auxiliary vessels," are exempt from the application of the rule? His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow replies in the affirmative. The President requests the committee not to pass upon Mr. HEINRICH LAMMASCH's proposal until the next meeting. 2 As the program calls for the discussion on blockade, the PRESIDENT recalls that the committee has before it an Italian proposal, a Brazilian proposal, and two amendments, one from the delegation of Great Britain, the other from the 1 Annex 45. 2 Annex 34. 8 Annex 36. • Annex 37. United States of America. The Italian proposal, being the basis of these different proposals, can be used as the starting point of the committee's discussions. The PRESIDENT thinks that he should point out, in this connection, that the Conference has not received instructions to change the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which is a limitation placed upon its discussions. Mr. Guido Fusinato asks for information as to the import of this observation. The President replies that the Conference may develop the Declaration of Paris, that it may define its consequences, but that it may not modify it. Mr. Guido Fusinato points out that the Italian proposal is a development of the Declaration of Paris, but that other proposals may be inspired by a different idea. The committee holds its powers from the Commission, which, in turn, holds its powers from the Conference. No preliminary observation was made on the subject of setting a limit to the discussions on blockade. The President states that the Declaration of Paris is the basis of the Italian and Brazilian proposals, which do not change the real character of blockade. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki inquires whether all the signatories. to the Hague Convention have adhered to the Declaration of Paris. Mr. Guido Fusinato replies that all the signatories to the Declaration of Paris are signatories to the Hague Convention. The President considers that this does not change the nature of the Declaration of Paris. The PRESIDENT reads Article 1 of the Italian proposal worded as follows: ARTICLE 1 In order to be binding, a blockade must be effective, declared, and notified. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow remarks that the provision in Article 1 is merely a commentary on the Declaration of Paris. [964] His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki asks whether the Conference would not have modified, if it had been necessary, the Declaration of Paris in the matter of the treatment of private property at sea. Mr. Kriege remarks that the States which adopt Article 1 of the Italian proposal will thereby have adhered to one of the essential principles of the Declaration of Paris. ARTICLE 2 A blockade is effective when it is maintained by naval forces that are really sufficient to prevent passage, and so stationed as to render it clearly dangerous for vessels to attempt to run the blockade. A blockade is not considered as lifted if bad weather forces the blockading vessels to leave their stations temporarily. With regard to Article 2, the President recalls that the British delegation has requested that the word "clearly" be changed to "really." His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow considers the latter word more in conformity with the Declaration of Paris. Mr. Guido Fusinato remarks that the reality of the danger follows from the first sentence of the definition of an effective blockade contained in Article 2. 1 Annex 35. * Annex 34. The word "clearly" adds something to define the spirit of the Declaration of 1856. Mr. Louis Renault says that as a matter of fact the word "clearly" has a broader meaning than the word "really." His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow would like information upon the meaning of the word "stationed." Is this word to be taken literally as meaning that the vessels must be anchored and must not maneuver? He recalls, in this connection, that Chief Justice COCKBURN declared that from the point of view of law a blockade is effective if the vessels are of such number and so disposed that violation of the blockade becomes dangerous, although certain vessels may succeed in running it. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki states that he concurs in the ideas set forth by his Excellency SIR ERNEST SATOW. Mr. Louis Renault proposes that the word "manifestly" be used. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow says that his amendment reproduces the wording of the Declaration of Paris. Captain Behr prefers the word "really." He thinks that the preservation of the word "clearly" would create a contradiction between the two paragraphs of Article 2. The danger might not be evident and yet real. Mr. Guido Fusinato, replying to his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW. states that the word "stationed" does not imply anchored, but he believes, on the other hand, that it excludes blockade by cruisers. With regard to the word “clearly," Mr. GUIDO FUSINATO would consent to its being replaced by the word "manifestly." Furthermore, the words "clearly" and "manifestly" have the advantage of excluding blockade by mines, in conformity with a proposal which has already been made by the British delegation. [965] His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow says that the Declaration of Paris refers only to vessels and excludes mines. He still prefers the word really" " and proposes that the word "maneuvering" be substituted for "stationed." Mr. Guido Fusinato considers that these various changes modify the substance of his proposal and tend to recognize blockade by cruisers. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow states that he accepts the principle of Article 2, if the word "stationed" does not mean "anchored." His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki proposes that the words "disposed in such a way as to be substituted. Mr. Guido Fusinato does not object to taking this formula into consideration. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki concurs in Captain BEHR's observations concerning the word "really." His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow accepts the word "stationed." statement: In view of the well-known difference between the two practices, which might be designated as the "continental system" and the "Anglo-American system," we do not believe it possible for the time being to reach a compromise. As his Excellency the President of the Fourth Commission has been good enough to point out, the question of blockade is not specifically |