its last port of departure as a merchant ship; the conversion would be an act of sovereignty, which could be performed only in places where that sovereignty had jurisdiction.1 2 The delegation of the Netherlands, declaring that it supported the British proposition, added that the comparison with militia seemed inaccurate, because converted ships would not in reality be intended for fighting, and showed the danger of abuses which conversion on the high seas would be likely to cause. The delegation of Brazil was of the same mind,3 and called attention to the necessity of avoiding the possibility of allowing privateering to be resumed [1093] in an indirect form by permitting an arbitrary conversion of merchant ships into war-ships. While supporting the Austro-Hungarian proposition as to the permanence of conversion, the delegation of Germany, as well as the delegations of Russia " and France, maintained, on the contrary, that they could not impose any prohibition against conversion on the high seas. In their opinion, it was one of the most firmly established principles of maritime law that a State has full authority and sovereignty on the high seas over all vessels sailing under its flag. Consequently, if it be true, as the authors of the contrary propositions recognize, that conversion is an act of sovereignty upon a vessel, it is natural to conclude that this act can, like others, be performed on the high seas. As to abuses-the surprise of neutrals, the danger of a return to privateering,-nothing is easier than to provide against them by adopting publicity measures and all other conditions which are proper for the bona fide conversion of the vessel. Finally, the delegation of Italy showed how its proposition, which was less rigorous than the British proposition, aimed to keep better account of the actual status of vessels at the beginning of war. It would seem, the Italian delegation said, that vessels which had left their waters before the outbreak of hostilities might effect their conversion on the high seas, while nothing prevents those which leave their national waters later from making their military change before leaving. Furthermore, it was added, it is difficult to admit that a merchant ship leaving a neutral port, where it enjoyed the privileges of a merchant ship, might take advantage of this privilege to convert itself later into a war-ship. At this stage and without taking a vote, the question was referred to the committee of examination." Before the committee of examination the same question concerning the prohibition of conversion on the high seas was resumed and discussed. The arguments already presented before the Commission were again developed.10 The question was put to a vote; but before the vote was taken it was clearly understood that the committee had no intention of declaring itself upon the Speech of his Excellency Lord REAY, fifth meeting of the Fourth Commission ante, Observations of his Excellency General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL, fifth meeting of the Fourth Commission, July 12, 1907. July 12, 1907. Speech of his Excellency Mr. BARBOSA, ibid. Declaration of Mr. Louis RENAULT, ibid. Observation of his Excellency Count TORNIELLI, fifth meeting of the Fourth Commission, July 12, 1907. * Observation of Mr. FUSINATO, ibid. See fifth meeting of the Fourth Commission, July 17, 1907. 10 See ante, Fourth Commission, first meeting of the committee of examination, August 3, 1907. existence or non-existence of the right of conversion on the high seas, but only upon the necessity for laying down rules stipulating how belligerents may effect conversion on the high seas. The ballot resulted in an indecisive vote: seven yeas to nine nays.1 Upon the proposal of various delegations-notably Italy, the Netherlands,2 Sweden, and Belgium -the committee, after some hesitation, decided [1094] to pass to the next point, and, laying aside the question of the place of conversion, to discuss the other conditions aiming to give neutrals guaranties in conformity with the principles sanctioned by the Declaration of Paris. Upon the question concerning the permanence of conversion during the entire war, there were likewise divergent views, especially by reason of its connection with the question of the place of conversion. The committee decided,* therefore, to leave this question in statu quo and, as proposed by the delegations of the Netherlands and Sweden, to sanction the rules upon which there was agreement, by which the military character of the converted vessel might be readily determined. Such were the conditions under which the draft herewith was drawn up, the preamble of which indicates its aim and scope." Considering: That several of the high contracting parties desire, in time of war, to incorporate vessels of their merchant marine in their naval fleets; That, consequently, it is desirable to define the conditions under which such conversion may be effected, in so far as the rules in this regard are generally accepted; That, whereas the high contracting parties have been unable to come to an agreement on the question whether the conversion of a merchant ship into a war-ship may take place upon the high seas, it is understood that the question of the place where such conversion is effected remains outside the scope of this agreement and is in no way affected by the following rules: ARTICLE 1 A merchant ship converted into a war-ship cannot have the rights and duties accruing to such vessels unless it is placed under the direct authority, immediate control, and responsibility of the State whose flag it flies. The first article lays down the principle which is, so to speak, a corollary of the Declaration of Paris. Its object is to give every guarantee against a return, more or less disguised, to privateering. Every vessel claiming to be belligerent in character must be placed under the authority, direct control and responsibility of the State whose flag it flies. 1 Ante, Fourth Commission, first meeting of the committee of examination. Voting for prohibition of conversion on the high seas, the nine following States: United States of America Belgium, Brazil, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden:-voting against: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Argentine Republic, Chile, France, Russia, Serbia. Observation of Jonkheer VAN KARNEBEEK, ninth meeting of the committee of examination. August 28, 1907. 3 Observations of his Excellency Mr. HAMMARSKJÖLD and of his Excellency Mr. Van DEN HEVEL, tenth meeting of the committee of examination, August 30. 1907. See tenth meeting of the committee of examination, August 30, 1907. "Observations of Jonkheer VAN KARNEBEEK, ninth meeting of the committee of examination, August 28, 1907; and of his Excellency Mr. HAMMARSKJÖLD, tenth meeting of the committee of examination, August 30, 1907. Abstaining: United States of America (as not having adhered to the Declaration of Paris, 1856), Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Turkey. See ante, thirteenth meeting of the Fourth Commission, September 18, 1907. ARTICLE 2 Merchant ships converted into war-ships must bear the external marks which distinguish the war-ships of their nationality. Article 2 requires that converted vessels bear the external marks which distinguish war-ships, that is to say, the naval flag, if that flag is different from the commercial flag, and the naval pennant. This is a sort of first publicity measure and guarantee given to the neutrals, showing at once the military character of the vessel. The commander must be in the service of the State and duly commissioned by the competent authorities. His name must figure on the list of officers of the fighting fleet. The object of Article 3 is to assure a bona fide conversion and connection with the State. There had been a question of requiring the commander to have his commander's commission with him and to have on board documents proving the regular conversion of his vessel. It seemed to be more in conformity with practical necessities, and just as satisfactory, to indicate only the requirement that the commander be in the service of the State and regularly commissioned by the competent authorities, that is to say, regularly appointed to his rank and command. ARTICLE 4 The crew is subject to military discipline. ARTICLE 5 Every merchant ship converted into a war-ship must observe in its operations the laws and customs of war. The object of Articles 4 and 5 is likewise to establish firmly the military character of the vessel and its crew. It is clear that, when the converted vessel becomes a real war-ship, it is subject to the obligations of this class of vessel, which counterbalance its rights as a belligerent. Nevertheless the delegation of the United States of America 2 declared that it made reservations on Article 5, as that article did not seem necessary, and constituted, in its opinion, a distinction which would be annoying in the case of certain merchant vessels bought and regularly commissioned in time of peace as a part of the United States navy. ARTICLE 6 A belligerent who converts a merchant ship into a war-ship must, as soon as possible, announce such conversion in the list of war-ships. The aim of Article 6 is to assure publicity in regard to the conversion. As has been seen above, the condition of permanent conversion during the entire war could not be expressly sanctioned, as the delegation of Austria'See ante, Fourth Commission, tenth meeting of the committee of examination, August 30, 1907. 2 See twelfth meeting of the committee of examination, September 6, 1907, declaration of Rear Admiral SPERRY. Hungary had demanded. This question appeared to be closely connected with that of the place of conversion. But it was understood 1 that in abstaining from adopting any rule in this respect, the committee by no means intended to countenance the abuses caused by successive conversions, which are contrary to the spirit of good faith, with which the draft regulation is before all other things inspired. See ante, Fourth Commission, tenth meeting of the committee of examination, August 30, 1907. [1096] SIXTEENTH MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1907 His Excellency Mr. Martens presiding. The minutes of the fourteenth meeting are adopted. Mr. Fromageot (reporter) reads his report on the destruction of neutral prizes in case of force majeure (see report to the committee of examination annexed to these minutes; see also report to the Conference, vol. i, p. 257 [262]). His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow requests that the words "in case of force majeure" in the heading of the report be omitted. The various proposals that have been submitted on this point are entitled "Proposals concerning the destruction of neutral prizes or neutral vessels "; the words "in case of force majeure" would seem to prejudge the solution of the question. The Reporter remarks that he followed with a slight modification the formula used in the Questionnaire. The words "in case of force majeure" seem to cover the situation better than "by reason of force majeure" (pour force majeure). His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow thinks that there is no condition of force majeure, if the destruction of neutral prizes is absolutely prohibited. The President replies that since no one upholds the right to destroy neutral prizes, if no force majeure exists, the title of the report seems to correspond with what has actually been the subject of the committee's discussions. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow does not see any objection to mentioning in the text of the report the condition of the existence of force majeure; but he considers it inadvisable to have it appear in the title of the report. The President asks the opinion of the committee on the omission of the words "in case of force majeure" in the title of the report. This omission is adopted. [1097] The PRESIDENT informs the committee that he intends to call a plenary meeting of the Fourth Commission for the day after to-morrow. The committee's work would be completed but for the question of contraband of war which remains to be settled. It would therefore be possible to finish this week, unless the small committee on contraband has not yet completed its work and still hopes to reach an agreement. Mr. Kriege states that on Saturday last the committee on contraband held a meeting at which the projects of the German delegation on postal correspondence and on the transportation of troops were approved. The committee intends to prepare a short Convention on these two projects, which it will submit to the approval of the committee of examination of the Fourth Commission. The committee on contraband has still a few questions to examine at its next meeting, the date of which it is difficult to determine in advance. It will see |