Page images
PDF
EPUB

122

THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES

opposed. The opposition argued that the laws of war on land permitted the neutral nation to send sick and wounded soldiers back to their own land; that the laws of war on the sea permitted belligerents to send their sick and wounded captives back to their own land; that it would be an infringement on the rights of neutrals to compel them to bear the burden of guarding belligerent guests during the whole course of the war; and, finally, that an epidemic of disease might break out in the port or town of their detention, in which case at least the neutral state should be free to send its guests home.

The supporters of the rule replied to these arguments that shipwrecked sailors were not so harmless as wounded soldiers, and neutral states receiving them should prevent their reëntry into the war; that there is a great difference between one of the belligerents restoring captives to their own country and a neutral state doing the same thing, since "the neutral is less competent to decide on their condition than is the belligerent"; that the burden of guarding sailors would be far less than that of guarding soldiers, since very few sailors would be landed in a neutral country in comparison wi h the large number of soldiers who would find their way to a neutral country after a land battle; and that the expenses incurred by a neutral state in caring for and guarding the belligerents it receives must be paid by the state to which they belong.1 A vote was taken on the rule, after this prolonged discussion, and resulted in its adoption by ten delegations against nine.

1 This last provision was made a part of the rule as adopted. 2 It is to be noted that three of the ten delegations voting "aye" signed the convention at the end of the conference only on the condition of complete liberty of action so far as this rule was concerned; the United States, which was one of the nine delegations voting "no," also signed it under the

same condition.

[ocr errors]

This vote in its favor was so indecisive that, at a subsequent meeting, it was decided to add the proviso that the rule would be operative on neutral countries only "in the absence of a contrary arrangement between the neutral state and the belligerents." This proviso was based on the supposition that belligerents would be so anxious to have their sick, wounded, and shipwrecked received by neutral states that they would make arrangements for their return to their own homes and thus relieve the neutral states of the burden of guarding them. This modification of the rule induced all but one of the nine delegations voting "no" to accept the rule and sign the convention. The other one, the United States, signed the convention, but excluded this rule; and Germany, Great Britain, and Turkey did the same.1

The United States naval representative, Captain Mahan, believed that the articles as adopted by the special committee, the subcommission, the commission, and the conference omitted an important topic, that, namely, of the rescue of belligerents by neutral vessels which chanced to be present on the arena of combat. This topic was suggested to Captain Mahan by the case of the rescue of the captain and men of the "Alabama" by the British yacht "Deerhound." In order to prevent a similar escape of a commander in chief and other important officers from the hands of a victorious belligerent through the intervention of a neutral boat, Captain Mahan proposed in the subcommission that men rescued by neutral vessels of any kind, hospital ships or others, shall not be considered

'It was arranged in 1900 that the convention could be signed by these four countries, and that where this rule (Article X) should appear, there should be inserted the word "Exclu," - excluded.

under a neutral flag, but shall be surrendered on demand to a ship of war of either belligerent; in case no such demand be made, the men thus rescued are not to serve for the rest of the war, unless duly exchanged, and the government of the neutral rescuer must prevent as far as possible such persons from serving until discharged. Captain Mahan supported his proposition before the special committee of experts,' in a two hours' session, but failed to secure its adoption, either by the committee or the commission. On being informed that a further attempt to secure its adoption would probably imperil the unanimity with which the other articles had been received, the United States delegation instructed Captain Mahan to withdraw his proposed additions; this he did by letter to the committee, and with a statement to the conference that the delegation's reason for doing so was "not because of any change of opinion as to the necessity of the proposed additions, but in order to facilitate the conclusion of the labors of the conference."

b. The Conference of 1907

The conference did not modify the rules of 1899 as far as the religious, medical and hospital staff of captured ships was concerned; but it did amplify the rules concerning the sick, wounded, or shipwrecked soldiers and sailors of such ships. It provided that any belligerent war ship may demand the surrender of the sick, wounded, or shipwrecked on board military hospital ships, the hospital ships of charitable societies or individuals, and merchant ships, yachts, etc., whatever may be the nationality of such vessels.

1 This committee was composed of one member each from Great Britain, Germany, Russia, and France.

When this rule was debated in the subcommission, it was admitted that a belligerent war ship, exercising its right of visit to such ships and finding disabled men on board, would often find it to its own advantage not to burden itself with them, but to leave them where they were found. But it was argued that, if it should appear that such disabled men, and especially those rescued from drowning, would still be able to render important services to their country, they should not be permitted to escape, but might be demanded by the belligerent war ship and must be surrendered to it. This belligerent right was conceded on the express ground that both the Conventions of 1899 and 1907 regard such men as prisoners of war, since, in spite of their physical condition, they are combatants of a belligerent nation and have fallen into the power of the enemy.

It was also urged that to compel a neutral ship to surrender the wounded, whom it had received out of charity, would be an act of inhumanity. But to this objection the reply was made that international law would permit not only the seizure of hostile combatants found on board a neutral ship, but the seizure and confiscation of the ship itself, for having rendered a non-neutral service; and, further, that if men rescued from drowning, for example, could escape capture solely because they had found refuge on board a neutral ship, the belligerent powers would eliminate the charitable activity of neutrals from the moment that such activity might result in an irreparable injury to themselves, and that thus humanity would be an even greater loser in the absence of the rule.

It should be noted that the rule as applied to neutral merchant ships gives to belligerent cruisers only the right

118

THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES

"they have no need of other cannon than those which are requisite for the making of signals."

The use of radiography on board hospital ships was permitted in the interest of efficiency; and the argument that it might be used to send dispatches injurious to the belligerent was met by the statement that the removal of radiographic apparatus, by order of the commander of a belligerent force, would be very easy, and that it would be possible also to receive messages by means of it and at the same time to prevent their being sent.

The Turks and the Persians reserved the right of replacing the Red Cross by the Red Crescent and the Red Lion (or the Red Sun), respectively; and their appeal for reciprocity in this regard was accepted, not by the conference as a whole, but by several separate delegations. Great Britain accepted their appeal in a plenary session of the conference, and Russia, in accepting it in a reunion of the commission, recalled the fact that "during the war of 1877-1878 the Red Cross and the Red Crescent acted together in protecting the humanitarian interests of which they are the symbols.”

2. THE PERSONNEL OF CAPTURED SHIPS

a. The Conference of 1899

The articles of the Geneva Convention have to do with two classes of persons on board captured ships; namely, the religious, medical, and hospital staff, and the sick wounded, or shipwrecked soldiers and sailors.

The conference decided that the religious, medical, and hospital staff of any captured ship should be inviolable and that its members must not be made prisoners of war;

that

M

« PreviousContinue »