II2

THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES

as to prevent their being used for military purposes, it was agreed that the "military," or government, hospital ships shall be distinguished by being painted white outside, with a horizontal band of green about one and a half meters wide; that the private or semiprivate hospital ships belonging to the belligerents or to neutrals shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of red about one and a half meters wide; and that all hospital ships shall make themselves known by hoisting, together with their national flag, the white flag with a red cross provided by the Geneva Convention.

The discussion of these three questions the meaning of "hospital ships," the restrictions imposed upon them, and their distinguishing signs was an animated and interesting one. On the first point, Captain Schéine, of Russia, argued that by placing all hospital ships under the control of the admiral of one or the other of the belligerent fleets, the field of battle would not be invaded by ships of a private character. But, on the motion of M. Renault, of France, it was decided that private or semiprivate ships should be permitted, provided they were kept under the control of one or other of the belligerents. This was a very important decision, as it enables the hospital ships of the Red Cross Society and of other societies and individuals to participate in the work of rescue. The French delegates also prevented this participation from being restricted by a Russian proposal that all hospital ships should be constructed on such a model that they could not be used as ships of war; the French argument prevailed that the previous notice and other restrictions required of them would be sufficient to prevent fraud. It was also argued, by Captain Mahan, of the United

States, among others, that neutral hospital ships and merchantmen had been conceded a status and immunities hitherto unknown and not now justifiable; and Captain Mahan went so far as to say: "Upon reflection I am satisfied that no necessity exists for the authorization of hospital vessels under a neutral flag upon the scene of naval war, and that the adhesion of our government to such a scheme may be withheld without injury to any one." But this restricted policy was rejected in the interests of humanity.

On the other hand, no delegate proposed that a merchantman belonging to one of the belligerent powers, and having on board sick or wounded, should also be respected and exempt from capture; the committee reporting the resolutions commented on this fact as follows: "The consequence of this silence is that such ships remain under the rule of the common law, and hence are exposed to capture; this rigorous consequence appears to us only logical and in conformity with principles."

As to conditions imposed on hospital ships, it was suggested that notification of their character should be made "before the opening of hostilities"; but this was rejected in favor of the phrase "before they are employed." This decision was made for the reason that it would be cruel to prohibit belligerents from developing their hospital service after war has commenced and in accordance with its exigencies. It was also argued that since "military," or government, hospital ships were to be exempt, by Article I, from the rules applying to men-of-war during their stay in neutral harbors, a notification of their names and use should be made to neutral states as well as to the belligerents themselves. But the reply was made that the dis

114

THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES

tinguishing marks of a hospital ship would be sufficient notice of its character when entering a neutral port; although it was admitted that it would be desirable for such notices to be inserted in the official journals of the belligerents, so that all the world might be informed.

In order to insure to the belligerents the efficient control of the private or semiprivate hospital ships fitted out by neutrals, it was urged (by Captain Mahan, among others) that such vessels, "being engaged in service identical with that of belligerent hospital vessels to which it was proposed to extend the utmost possible immunity, should frankly enter the belligerent service by hoisting the flag of the belligerent to which it offered its services. This being permitted by general consent, and for purposes purely humanitarian, would constitute no breach of neutrality, while the control of either belligerent, when in presence, could be exercised without raising those vexed questions of neutral rights which the experience of maritime warfare shows to be among the most difficult and delicate problems that belligerents have to encounter." This proposition was opposed vigorously by Captain Siegel, of Germany, who argued that "to compel such vessels to hoist a foreign flag would be an act incompatible with the sovereignty of the state to which they belong, an act which could be deemed but little friendly by the power not favored, and which would even constitute, perhaps, a violation of strict neutrality to the advantage of one of the belligerents." This view of the question prevailed, and all hospital ships were permitted to carry the flag of their own country.

When the question as to the distinctive flag for hospital ships arose in the subcommission, the representative of

Turkey said that in all cases where Turkish hospital ships have to perform their mission, the emblem of the Red Cross would be replaced by the Red Crescent; he said in addition that, since Ottoman ships of war have always respected the Red Cross as the emblem of the Geneva Convention, he would express the desire that by way of reciprocity the Red Crescent should be assured the same respect. The representative of Siam said that his government places beside the Red Cross, on the flag of the Geneva Convention, an emblem sacred in the Buddhist religion, also in red and called "The Flame." And at a later meeting of the full commission the representative of Persia made the following declaration:

"In accordance with instructions which I have just received from Téhéran, I am directed to inform the commission that the Persian Government will claim, as a distinctive flag, a white flag with the Red Sun. The adoption of the Red Cross as the emblem of hospitals was an act of courtesy on the part of the governments signing the Geneva Convention towards the honorable government of Switzerland, whose national flag was adopted, with the colors reversed. We should be happy to extend the same mark of courtesy to the honorable government of Switzerland, if that were not impossible because of agitations which would result from it in the Mussulman army."

Captain Mahan, of the United States, remarked that the emblem of the Red Cross has a religious character which is addressed particularly to Christian states, and he thought that it would be better to adopt another one which would be recognized by all. But the president of the subcommission remarked that it was not competent to enter on the discussion of a proposition tending to revise a clause of the Geneva Convention. This view prevailed, and the conference adopted the Red Cross as the

emblem of hospital ships, but recorded the declarations of Turkey, Siam, and Persia regarding it; and these three governments signed it as adopted.

b. The Conference of 1907

The last item on the Russian programme for the second conference was "the additions to be made to the Convention of 1899 for the adaptation to maritime war of the principles of the Convention of Geneva of 1864, revised in 1906." This topic was assigned to the second subcommission of the III Commission, and was the first topic completed by the conference. When it came up for discussion, the delegations from Germany and France proposed modifications of detail in the former convention, while certain other delegations, notably that of the Netherlands, proposed modifications in its principles.

As to the kind of vessels to be used for hospital purposes, it was decided that, instead of permitting neutral merchantmen, yachts, and other non-military boats to take on board the sick, wounded, and shipwrecked, and then to hold them exempt from capture [as was done by Article VI of the former convention], belligerents should be given the right of requesting them to do so, and that only in case they acted upon such request, and not on their own initiative, were they to be given "special protection and certain immunities." This restriction of the charitable activity of neutral vessels was defended on the ground that such rescue work is not a right conceded to neutral ships by international law, or by logic or humanity; but that to request it should be a right conceded to belligerents.

1 For this revision, see later, page 193.