H

a. THE CONFERENCE OF 1899

For centuries it has been the belief of the civilized world that "if you wish for peace, you must prepare for war" (si vis pacem, para bellum); and for centuries it acted upon that belief. But it remained for Prince Bismarck, the “Iron Chancellor" of Germany, to develop this rather vague and often insincere belief into a genuine "barracks philosophy," which was applied by him most vigorously in his own country and was adopted with as much thoroughness as possible by the governments of other European states. Possessed not so much by a genuine love of peace as by a genuine fear of the consequences of war, Bismarck converted Prussia and Germany into a modern Sparta as nearly as the circumstances of the Nineteenth Century would permit; and the other statesmen of Europe, following his example, made of Europe an armed camp.

The creation and increase of armaments went on at - such a pace that "armed peace" became more burdensome than actual war had been a generation before; and, like the medieval knights who, settling disputes by appeals to the ordeal of battle, had so increased their armor that its weight kept them prone upon their backs if they chanced to fall, so the civilized states of Europe came to see that their appeal to the god of battles for the settlement of disputes involved such enormous expenditures in time of

52

peace that they were badly crippled when warfare actually began.

These considerations burned themselves in upon the minds of the peoples, upon whose backs the military burden necessarily rested, and when Bismarck fell from power in 1890 they hoped that his system of "blood and iron" would end. Less than a month after Bismarek's death (July 30, 1898), the Czar issued his rescript for the first Peace Conference, and the peoples at once made their wish the father of their thought and said that now disarmament would surely come.

But it was not disarmament that the Czar's rescript proposed. It did allude to "a possible reduction of the excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations" as an "ideal towards which the endeavors of all governments should be directed." It denounced the system of increasing armaments as "a blow at the public prosperity in its very source," as "paralyzing or checking the development of national culture, economic progress, and the production of wealth," as a prime cause of economic crises, and as an “inevitable cause of the very cataclysm it is designed to avert." And it contained these emphatic words: "To put an end to these incessant armaments and to seek the means of warding off the calamities which threaten the whole world-such is the supreme duty which is imposed to-day upon all states." But it was the increase of armaments that the Russian statesmen had in mind, and that the rescript was designed to emphasize and the conference to consider. When Count Mouravieff read the rescript to the foreign diplomatists he requested the British Ambassador, Sir Charles Scott, to observe ‘that this eloquent appeal, which he had drawn up at the dic

46

THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES

4. A prohibition of the use, in naval warfare, of submarine torpedo boats or plungers, or of other similar engines of destruction; and an agreement not to construct in the future war vessels with rams.

"5. The application to naval warfare of the stipulations of the Geneva Convention of 1864, on the basis of the additional articles of 1868.

"6. The neutralization of ships or boats employed in saving those overboard during or after naval battles.

“7. A revision of the Declaration concerning the laws and customs of war, elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels and remaining unratified to the present day.

"8. The acceptance, in principle, of the employment of good offices, of mediation and of facultative arbitration, in cases adaptable to them, with the object of preventing armed conflicts between nations; an understanding as to the method of their application, and the establishment of a uniform practice in their employment."

No amendments or reservations were made by the other governments in accepting this Russian programme, and it became the basis of the conference's discussions and, as we have seen, of the division of work between the first three commissions. The order of topics in the Russian programme was followed in assigning them to the three commissions, armaments coming first and arbitration last; but Baron de Staal, in his opening address, inverted this order, placing arbitration first and dwelling chiefly upon it, while armaments came last in his mention of topics and received least attention from him. It may be remarked that the conference itself emphasized this illustration of the old adage that "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first' for it devoted itself chiefly to the topic of arbitration and achieved its most noteworthy triumphs in connection with it. When the second conference was summoned, arbitra tion was made the first topic on the programme, and it was assigned to the I Commission.

After the enumeration of topics suggested for discussion, the Russian rescript of January 11, 1899, continued: "It is quite understood that all questions concerning the political relations of states, and the order of affairs established by treaties, as in general all questions which do not fall directly within the programme adopted by the cabinets, should be excluded absolutely from the deliberations of the conference." In Baron de Staal's opening address to the conference, he too emphasized this exclusiveness of the programme by saying, after its eight topics had been assigned to the first three commissions: “It is understood that, outside of the topics mentioned above, the conference does not consider itself competent to consider any other question. In case of doubt the conference shall have to decide whether any proposition, originating in the commissions, is or is not within the scope of the topics outlined."

This ruling of the president was adhered to, and in the few instances where new propositions were introduced in commissions or subcommissions, the conference declined their discussion on the ground of "no jurisdiction."

b. THE CONFERENCE OF 1907

When the Russian government issued its call for the second conference, April 6, 1906 (Russian style, March 24, 1906), it published a programme of topics for discussion, and as introduction to it said: “In taking the initiative in convoking a second Conference of the Peace, the Imperial Government has had in view the necessity of giving a new development to the humanitarian principles which served as the basis of work for the great international assembly of 1899." After stating the reasons for this necessity

in regard to arbitration and warfare upon land and sea, the Russian circular continues:

"Believing, then, that there is reason at present for proceeding with the examination of only those questions which are especially prominent, inasmuch as they have arisen from the experience of recent years, and without raising those which concern the restriction of military or naval forces, the Imperial Government proposes as the programme of the projected meeting the following principal points:

"1. Improvements in those provisions of the convention relative to the settlement of international disputes which have to do with the Court of Arbitration and the International Commissions of Inquiry.

"2. Additions to the provisions of the convention relative to the laws and customs of warfare on land: among others, those concerning the opening of hostilities, the rights of neutrals on land, etc.; and, one of the declarations of 1899 having lapsed, the question of its renewal.

"3. The elaboration of a convention relative to the laws and customs of maritime warfare, concerning:

special operations of maritime warfare, such as the bombardment by a naval force of cities, towns and villages, the placing of torpedoes, etc.;

the transformation of merchant vessels into war ships;

the treatment of the private property of belligerents on the sea; "the interval of grace accorded to merchant vessels for leaving neutral ports or the ports of the enemy after the opening of hostilities; the rights and duties of neutrals on the sea: among others, questions of contraband, the treatment of belligerent ships in neutral ports, the destruction by superior force of neutral merchant vessels captured as prizes.

In this convention, also, should be introduced provisions relative to warfare on land which might be equally applicable to warfare on the sea.

"4. Additions to the convention of 1899 for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864."

The above programme was subjected to the following condition: "As was the case with the Conference of