LAYING OF AUTOMATIC CONTACT MINES BY NEUTRALS.

Neutral Powers which lay automatic contact mines off their coasts must observe the same rules and take the same precautions as are imposed on belligerents.

The neutral Power must inform ship-owners, by a notice issued in advance, where automatic contact mines have been laid. This notice must be communicated at once to the Governments through the diplomatic channel.-Hague Convention VIII, 1907, Article 4.

A neutral State may lay mines in its territorial waters for the defense of its neutrality. It should, in this case, observe the same rules and take the same precautions as are imposed on belligerents.

The neutral State should inform ship-owners, by a notice issued in advance, where automatic contact mines will be laid. This notice must be communicated at once to the Governments through the diplomatic channel.

The question of the laying of mines in straits is reserved, both as concerns neutrals and belligerents.

At the close of the war the belligerent and neutral States shall do their utmost to remove the mines which they have laid, each Power removing its own mines.

The belligerent and neutral States whose duty it is to remove the mines after the war must make known the date at which the removal of the mines is complete.

A violation of one of the preceding rules entails responsibility therefor on the part of the State at fault.

The State which has laid the mine is presumed to be at fault unless the contrary is proved.

An action may be brought against the guilty State, even by individuals, before the competent international tribunal.

Institute, 1911, pp. 167, 168.

It is highly desirable that neutrals should be forbidden to block with mines the straits under their control which are passages between open seas. But should the prohibition apply to all neutral waters? The Convention of 1907 [Hague VIII] answers the question in the negative, stipulating only for the precautions imposed on belligerents and for previous notice to mariners of the places where the mines have been laid. It would be much simpler to declare them illegal in every case. The smaller states regard them as a cheap defence against possible aggression from a strong and unscrupulous bellig

erent. But their safety and independence really rest on moral considerations, and not on force. Against casual violations of their neutrality by subordinate commanders, torpedoes and submarines would be a more efficient protection than mines, and not vastly more expensive when the cost of possible compensations comes to be reckoned. Neutrals would lose little or nothing in the way of material security if they were denied the right to use mechanical mines in their ports and waters, while the cause of humanity, which is a direct interest of all states, would gain much.

Lawrence, p. 538.

In order to defend themselves against possible violations of their neutral territory, neutrals may lay automatic contact mines off their coasts. ***

Convention VIII. is quite as unsatisfactory in its rules concerning mines laid by neutrals as in its rules concerning mines laid by belligerents, and the danger to neutral shipping created by mines laid by neutrals is very great, all the more as the laying of mines by neutrals. is not restricted to their maritime belt. For article 4 of Convention VIII. speaks of the laying of contact mines on the part of neutral Powers off their coasts, without limiting the laying within the threemile wide maritime belt as was proposed at the Second Peace Conference, and as article 6 of the Règlementation internationale de Usage des Mines sous-marines et torpilles of the Institute of International Law likewise proposes.

Oppenheim, vol. 2, p. 445.

Article 4, Hague Convention VIII, 1907, is substantially identical with section 68, Austro-Hungarian Manual, 1913.

CARE OF BELLIGERENTS' SICK AND WOUNDED ON NEUTRAL VESSELS-RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF SUCH VESSELS.

Belligerents may appeal to the charity of the commanders of neutral merchant-ships, yachts, or boats to take on board and tend the sick and wounded.

Vessels responding to this appeal, and also vessels which have of their own accord rescued sick, wounded, or shipwrecked men, shall enjoy special protection and certain immunities. In no case can they be captured for having such persons on board, but, apart from special undertakings that have been made to them, they remain liable to capture for any violations of neutrality they may have committed.Hague Convention X, 1907, Article 9.

Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels, having, or taking on board, sick, wounded, or ship-wrecked of the belligerents, can not be captured for so doing, but they are liable to capture for any violation of neutrality they may have committed.

Hague Convention III, 1899, Article 6.

Merchant vessels, yachts, or neutral vessels that happen to be in the vicinity of active maritime hostilities, may gather up the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked of the belligerents. Such vessels, after this service has been performed, shall report to the belligerent commander controlling the waters thereabouts, for future directions, and while accompanying a belligerent will be, in all cases, under his orders; and if a neutral, be designated by the national flag of that belligerent carried at the foremasthead, with the red cross flag flying immediately under it.

These vessels are subject to capture for any violation of neutrality that they may commit. Any attempt to carry off such wounded, sick, and shipwrecked, without permission, is a violation of neutrality. They are also subject, in general, to the provisions of article 23.

U. S. Naval War Code, 1900, Article 25.

Article 9, Hague Convention X, 1907, is substantially identical with section 111, Austro-Hungarian Manual, 1913.

(144)

DEMAND OF BELLIGERENT WAR VESSEL FOR DELIVERY OF SICK AND WOUNDED CARED FOR ON HOSPITAL YACHTS OR PRIVATE VESSELS.

Any war-ship belonging to a belligerent may demand that sick, wounded, or shipwrecked men on board military hospital-ships, hospital-ships belonging to relief societies or to private individuals, merchant-ships, yachts, or boats, whatever the nationality of these vessels, should be handed over.-Hague Convention X, 1907, Article 12.

Article 83, Institute, 1913 (p. 194), is identical with Article 12, Hague Convention X, 1907.

Neutral merchantmen can either of their own accord have rescued wounded, sick, or shipwrecked men, or they can have taken them on board on appeal by belligerent men-of-war. The surrender of these men may, according to article 12 of Convention X., be demanded at any time by any belligerent man-of-war. But if such demand be not made and the men be brought into a neutral port, they need not be detained by the neutral concerned.

Oppenheim, vol. 2, p. 425.

Article 12, Hague Convention X, 1907, is substantially identical with section 114, Austro-Hungarian Manual, 1913.

On July 15, 1864, referring to the action of the British steam yacht Deerhound, in picking up Captain Semmes and other survivors of the Alabama and taking them to England, where they were set at liberty, Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, wrote Mr. Adams, Minister to England, as follows: "I' freely admit that it is no part of a neutral's duty to assist in making captures for a belligerent, but I maintain it to be equally clear that, so far from being neutrality, it is direct hostility for a stranger to intervene and rescue men who had been cast into the ocean in battle, and then carry them away from under the conqueror's guns."

Moore's Digest, vol. vii, p. 949; Dip. Cor. 1864, II, 218, 219.

INTERNMENT OF SICK, WOUNDED, AND SHIPWRECKED BELLIGERENTS TAKEN ON BOARD NEUTRAL WARSHIP.

If sick, wounded, or shipwrecked persons are taken on board a neutral war-ship, every possible precaution must be taken that they do not again take part in the operations of the war.-Ilague Convention X, 1907, Article 13.

One can hardly admit into this class of neutral obligation i. e., of abstention] a duty not to rescue drowning crews of a belligerent warship. The question was raised with reference to the action of the British yacht Deerhound, when the Alabama was sunk by the Kearsarge off Cherbourg; and was again discussed with reference to the help rendered to the crew of the Variag, when that vessel was destroyed last year in the harbour of Chemulpo. It must doubtless be the duty of the government to which the rescuers belong to see that their charitable interference does not set free the persons benifited by it for continued service in the war.

Neutral Duties in a Maritime War, Holland, Proceedings of the British Academy, II, 3.

At the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, on February 9, 1904, after the Russian cruisers Variag and Korietz had accepted the challenge of a Japanese fleet, fought a battle outside the harbour of Chemulpo, and returned, crowded with wounded, to Chemulpo, the British cruiser Talbot, the French Pascal, and the Italian Elba received large numbers of the crews of the disabled Russian cruisers. The Japanese demanded that the neutral ships should give up the rescued men as prisoners of war, but the neutral commanders demurred, and an arrangement was made according to which the rescued men were handed over to the Russians under the condition that they should not take part in hostilities during the war.

Oppenheim, Vol. 2, p. 424.

Article 13, Hague Convention X, 1907, is substantially identical with section 115, Austro-Hungarian Manual, 1913.

(146)