FIRST DECLARATION

The contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the only object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases.

SECOND DECLARATION

The contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

THIRD DECLARATION

The contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature.

On the motion of the President, the Conference adopts all of these provisions.

Count de Grelle Rogier makes the following declaration:

At the moment of closing the work of the Conference, I ask the oppor[156] tunity of stating precisely the conditions under which the Belgian Government undertakes to give its full and entire adhesion to the various provisions of the draft Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes. Belgium is happy to join in all measures that are of a nature to facilitate the development of the idea of peace, the bringing of peoples towards the noble and elevated end whose path has been outlined for us by an august initiative. Like all the Powers here represented, she is on the eve of contracting obligations defined notably by Articles 2 and 3 of the draft Convention relative to mediation and arbitration.

It seems to me necessary to formulate, on this occasion, certain reservations of a character otherwise general, based on the special position that my country occupies in European public law by reason of its status of perpetual neutrality.

It will suffice for me to recall that the treaty of April 19, 1839, created rights and duties between Belgium and the Powers guaranteeing her neutrality.

These rights, and the obligations which are derived from them, must remain intact and the engagements that Belgium is ready to sign to-day, having in view the settlement of international disputes, cannot at any time affect them.

I beg the Conference kindly to record this declaration, the meaning of which,

I have no doubt, will be easily understood and accepted.

Record is made of the declaration of Count DE GRELLE ROGIER.

His Excellency Mr. Eyschen remarks that on several occasions it has been stated that the Convention to be concluded at The Hague could not modify prior organic treaties of states. The Treaty of London of May 11, 1867, imposes on Luxemburg the mandate of a permanent neutrality which enjoys the collective guaranty of the Powers. The new stipulations merely augment and cannot diminish the advantages derived from the old treaties.

In so far as is necessary, Luxemburg makes the same reservations as Belgium.

Record is made of the declaration of his Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN.

Mr. Delyanni makes the following declaration:

On the occasion of the declaration concerning the prohibition of the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope, of which the envelope does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions, I believe it my duty to declare, in the name of my Government, that I will sign this declaration with the express reservation that the bullets of the Gras rifle still in use in the Greek army is not included in this category, and that we cannot make any promise concerning the prohibition of their use in case of war.

I ask the Conference to record my declaration which will be written in the minutes of the current meeting.

Record is made of the declaration of Mr. DELYANNI.

Lou Tseng-tsiang makes the following declaration in the name of the first delegate of China:

At the moment when the work of the Conference is about to be crowned by the signature of the Final Act, the first delegate of China has the honor to state to the Conference his position as the first delegate of China.

Through the intermediary of his colleagues, he has followed with attention and interest the deliberations of the different commissions of which he has had the honor to be a member.

In the purely humanitarian questions on the subject of war with which the commissions have been charged, he has given without hesitation his adhesion to the proposals of the delegates of the Powers invited to this high assembly.

Sometimes, he has believed that the acceptance of one or another proposal would not be to the advantage of China; he has, conformably to his general instructions, given his vote against the form in which it was advanced, but, when the desired form was obtained, he rallied to his colleagues in order to assure unanimity.

Now, at the moment when the Convention is about to take its final form in the Final Act, he can only confine himself, according to his instructions, to having a careful translation made of it, to be sent, with the original text of the Convention, to the Imperial Government with the recommendation to accept it.

In spite of the delays caused by long distance, he hopes that he will receive in good time the necessary instructions to enable him to sign this Convention. (Applause.)

Record is made of the declaration of the first delegate of China.

His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote recalls that certain provisions adopted by the Conference will have to be submitted to parliamentary approval. It is therefore well understood that in signing them, the delegation of Great Britain intends to reserve entirely such approval.

[157] Mr. Renault says that he took occasion in his statement to point out this fact of which there can arise no doubt.

His Excellency Count Nigra says that Italy is in the same situation as England and he thinks that he must make a declaration identical with that of His Excellency Sir JULIAN PAuncefote.

Mr. Léon Bourgeois says that this reservation seemed so evident to him that he had believed it unnecessary to formulate it. The delegates of Great Britain and Italy having considered that they should make it the subject of a

declaration, he can only join them in stating that such is the general condition of parliamentary States.

Count de Macedo declares, in the name of the Portuguese plenipotentiaries, that in view of the limitations of their full powers, in the case where these plenipotentiaries intend to sign one or more of the Conventions and Declarations annexed to the Final Act, their signatures affixed after the respective instruments must only be considered as ad referendum.

The declaration of Count DE MACEDO is recorded.
The meeting adjourns.

NINTH MEETING

JULY 28, 1899

His Excellency Mr. Staal presiding.

The meeting opens at 3 o'clock.

The President states that the minutes of the meetings of July 25 and 27 have been distributed in proof-sheets and he begs the delegates kindly to return. their copies to the secretariat as soon as possible with the necessary corrections.

Mr. Renault presents, in the name of the Drafting Committee of the Final Act, an oral report on the preamble and the final provisions of the "Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes."

He says that the preamble merely repeats in a way the headings of the chapters of the Convention. The text is the work of the eminent reporter of the Third Commission. Therefore, it is unnecessary to speak of it at any length. The final clauses are contained in Articles 58 to 61.

Article 58, which concerns ratification, and Article 61, which contemplates denunciation, are merely repetitions of provisions of the same kind inserted in the Conventions relating to the "laws and customs of war on land" and " adaptation to naval warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864." They are indentical and concordant provisions. It is only necessary to refer back to the explanations previously given.

Articles 59 and 60 govern the matter of adhesion. They differ from the final clauses of the other Conventions, which are absolutely open except for the slight difference which has already been indicated with respect to the Convention relating to the Red Cross.

The present Convention contemplates two different conditions: a distinction has been made between Powers represented at the Conference and those which are not. Articles 59 and 60 provide for these two conditions.

The Powers represented at The Hague have two methods of becoming contracting parties: they may sign immediately, or before December 31, 1899. After that date, they will have to adhere to the Convention; but they have the right so to do. Their adhesion is subject to the same rules as those which govern the other two Conventions. This is the object of Article 59.

Article 60 provides for the case of Powers not represented at the Conference. Such Powers may adhere to the Convention, but the conditions of their adhesion are reserved for a future agreement between the contracting Powers. They, therefore, have not the same right as is recognized with respect to the Powers [158] represented.

This very simple solution was not reached in a very simple way. It gave rise to lively and lengthy discussions, which changed the modest character of the Drafting Committee and caused it to take up questions which were diplomatic

and political rather than questions of style and wording. The reporter believes that he cannot better state the different systems which were upheld in the committee than by repeating to the Conference the following address, delivered at the last session of the committee by Mr. ASSER, its president, which summarizes most completely the origin of Article 60.

GENTLEMEN: The discussions of international gatherings like our Conference assume at times the character of parliamentary debates, at others that of diplomatic negotiations.

In the matter with which the Drafting Committee has had to deal these last few days, our debates have assumed the latter character.

The result is that, on the one hand, the individual opinions of the members of our committee and of the delegates who have been good enough to lend us their aid are subject-still more than in discussions of a different nature to the sanction of the Governments; and, on the other hand, to reach a practical result unanimity is indispensable.

If, from this double point of view, we consider the impression which the discussions of these last few days are bound to make, I believe I may state that all of us (delegates and Governments) desire that it may be possible to bring about adhesion to the Convention relating to the pacific settlement of international disputes by Powers who have not taken part in the Peace Conference; but that, at the same time, there exists a great difference of opinion as to whether the right to adhere should be granted absolutely or should be dependent upon certain conditions; and, in the latter case, what these conditions should be.

On the one hand, it was warmly argued that the Convention with which we are dealing should be completely assimilated to the other Conventions, the text of which has been decided upon by the Conference-which assimilation was, indeed, voted by the committee of examination of the Third Commission. This implied the absolute right of all Powers to adhere to the Convention by means of a simple declaration.

On the other hand, it was maintained that this right should depend either on the express consent of all the contracting States, or on their tacit consent, which they would be considered to have given if, within a fixed time, no Power opposed the adhesion; or, lastly, on the consent of a majority, in the sense that the adhesion should, in case of opposition, be sanctioned by a vote of the Permanent Council, composed of all the diplomatic representatives of the Powers accredited to The Hague, a proposition which I had the honor of submitting to you, in the name of my Government, in order that no one Power might be given the right of veto in this matter.

Lastly, it was proposed that in case of opposition to the request for permission to adhere, the adhesion would affect only the Powers that had given their consent.

I cannot now repeat the arguments which were developed in favor of each of these systems.

I shall confine myself to stating that we have been unable to find a common ground for a unanimous agreement and that it is materially impossible, in the short time we still have, to reach such an agreement, especially since several delegates have not received specific instructions upon this point. There is nothing left for us to do, therefore, but to choose between the two following systems:

Either to omit purely and simply the clause concerning the adhesion of Powers not represented;

Or, admitting the principle of their right to adhere, to leave it for a