the vote of the Conference and accompanies them with this report, which is designed to explain the reasons for the articles proposed.

To the Second Commission (first subcommission) was assigned the duty of examining points 5 and 6 of Count MOURAVIEFF's circular. It has been assumed that it is desirable to adapt the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864 to maritime wars, and also that it is proper to take the additional articles of 1868 as a basis. The latter articles gave rise to criticism very soon after their signature, and have been for thirty years the subject of a great deal of study. It now becomes necessary to take those criticisms into account, to profit by the discussions, and to decide on some project which will reconcile the interests involved and will also satisfy the hope that has been expressed for so long a time by individuals and societies of the highest eminence that maritime warfare should no longer be deprived of the humanitarian and charitable element which the Geneva Convention has added to war on land. We think that the preparatory work on this project, so earnestly desired by public opinion, is now sufficiently done and that it is now time to obtain results. We hope that our work will permit the Conference to do this and, with a complete knowledge of the matter, to take action by adopting a text which may be easily transformed into an international convention.

We have been guided by the following general ideas. In the first place, we confined ourselves to general principles only, and did not enter into details of organization and regulation which are for each State to settle according to its own interests or customs. We determine what the legal status of hospital ships should be in international law; but we do not determine what shall constitute such ships, nor do we distinguish Government vessels from vessels of relief societies, nor do we say whether boats belonging to private individuals may be attached to the hospital service during a war. These are questions that must be handled by the several Governments, because circumstances are so different that a uniform solution cannot be applied. The assistance rendered by private charity will be greater or less, according to the country. Then again, we must not be so preoccupied with the demands of humanity that we are oblivious of the necessities of warfare; we must avoid laying down rules which, even though inspired by sentiments of humanity, are likely to be disregarded often by the combatants as unduly impeding their freedom of action. Humanity gains little by the adoption of a rule that remains a dead letter; and the feeling of respect for engagements is but weakened. It is accordingly indispensable to impose only such obligations as can be fulfilled in all circumstances and to leave to the combatants all the latitude they require. This, it is to be hoped, will not be so used as needlessly to hinder relief work. The provisions to be decided on fall into three classes: we have to make rules regarding the status, first, of the vessels engaged in relief work (Articles 1 to 6); secondly, of the persons so engaged (Article 7); and thirdly, of the wounded, sick or shipwrecked (Articles 8 and 9).

VESSELS

There may be, as a matter of fact, vessels of very different kinds engaged in either permanent or casual hospital service.

MILITARY HOSPITAL SHIPS

At the Geneva Conference of 1868, a variety of opinions existed as to the status that such ships should be given. After allowing them the benefit of neu

trality under certain conditions, the ninth additional article was finally adopted, as follows:

The military hospital ships remain under martial law in all that con[23] cerns their stores; they become the property of the captor, but the latter must not divert them from their special appropriation during the continuance of the war.

In 1869 the French Government asked that the following provision be added to Article 9:

The vessels not equipped for fighting, which, during peace, the Government shall have officially declared to be intended to serve as floating hospital ships, shall, however, enjoy during the war complete neutrality, both as regards stores, and also as regards their staff, provided their equipment is exclusively appropriated to the special service on which they are employed.

That the British Government supported this view may be seen in the note addressed to Prince DE LA TOUR d'Auvergne by Count CLARENDON, January 21, 1869.

The Commission has expressed itself as in favor of the plan proposed in 1869, although it is of the opinion that a single general rule can be formulated to take the place of Article 9 with the additional provision just quoted. It has seemed indispensable to remove the ships under consideration from exposure to the vicissitudes of warfare, and at the same time to take precaution against the commission of abuses.

The Commission accordingly proposes to exempt from capture ships constructed or assigned by States specially and solely with a view to assist the wounded, sick and shipwrecked. Each State will construct or assign as it sees fit the ships intended for hospital service; no particular type of vessel should be required of it. The essential point is that the ships shall have no other character than that of hospital ships, and consequently cannot carry anything that is not intended for the sick or wounded and those caring for them, and that might be used for acts of hostility.

As each belligerent ought to know what ships of his adversary are accorded particular immunities, the names of these must be communicated officially. When should this communication be made? Naturally at the very beginning of hostilities. But it would be too stringent a rule to accept only notifications made at that time. A belligerent may have been taken unawares by war and not have hospital ships already constructed or assigned; or the war might take on such great proportions that the existing hospital ships would be deemed insufficient... Would it not be cruel to refuse belligerents the privilege of augmenting their hospital service to meet the needs of the war, and consequently of fitting up new ships? This is admitted. Notification may then be made even during the course of hostilities, but it is to precede the employment of the ship in its new service.

This notification of the names of military hospital ships interests primarily the belligerents; it may also be of interest to neutrals since, as will be explained, a special status is enjoyed by such ships in neutral ports. It is accordingly desirable that the belligerents acquaint neutral States with the names of these vessels, even if only by publication in their official journals.

The assignment of a vessel to hospital service cannot of course, after such

notification to the adversary, be changed while the war lasts. Otherwise, abuses would be possible; as, for instance, a hospital ship might thus be enabled to reach a given destination and then might be transformed into a vessel designated to take part in hostilities.

In defining the immunity granted military hospital ships, we have avoided the words "neutrals " and "neutrality," which are in themselves inexact and have long given rise to just criticism, as was seen in the subcommission. We propose saying simply that these vessels " shall be respected and cannot be captured." In this way we state concretely and precisely the two principal consequences understood to flow from the abstract idea of neutrality. These ships must not be attacked. Their character as hospital ships is to protect them from being made the object of measures employed against ships of war, just as ambulances and military hospitals are respected by belligerents under Article 1 of the Convention of 1864. The respect thus assured hospital ships does not preclude, as we shall show later in speaking of Article 4, such precautionary measures as may be

necessary.

Again, military hospital ships are not to be subjected to the law of prize that naturally applies to all ships of the enemy. Here we have in the higher interests of humanity common to the belligerents a renunciation of an incontestable right.

What has been said has to do only with the relations between belligerents. In such relations a special status is created for military hospital ships, and they are not treated as hostile ships of war. But it has seemed necessary to extend the same principle to the relations between these vessels and neutral ports, for

otherwise the authorities of those parts might class the hospital ships [24] with the naval vessels of the belligerent to which they belong, and so place their stay, revictualing, and departure under the same strict rules as are imposed upon men-of-war. This would not be reasonable. We must have a precise rule both to avoid any difficulty between hospital ships and neutral port authorities as well as any complaint on the part of belligerents. Apart from this, these military hospital ships will naturally be treated like men-of-war, notably with respect to the advantage of exterritoriality. The status of military hospital ships might therefore be regulated as follows:

ARTICLE 1

Military hospital ships, that is to say, ships constructed or assigned by States specially and solely with a view to assist the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, the names of which have been communicated to the belligerent Powers at the commencement or during the course of hostilities, and in any case before they are employed, shall be respected and cannot be captured while hostilities last.

These ships, moreover, are not on the same footing as men-of-war as regards their stay in a neutral port.

HOSPITAL SHIPS OF BELLIGERENTS, OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT VESSELS

The thirteenth additional article of 1868 deals with hospital ships that are equipped at the expense of relief societies. We preserve the provision as regards them with a few modifications. The societies meant are those officially recognized by each belligerent; the expression used in Article 13 is too vague and at the same time ambiguous. The word "neutral," used therein to define the status of

these vessels, is avoided for the reasons given in connection with the preceding article.

Finally, the same notification from belligerent to belligerent is prescribed as for military hospital ships, and for the same reason.

The provision of Article 13 has been supplemented in a useful way by granting to boats which individuals may wish to devote to the hospital service the same immunity from the moment they present the same guaranties. This may be a valuable resource, for in several countries owners of pleasure yachts have expressed their intention of devoting them to the hospital service in time of war.

ARTICLE 2

Hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part at the expense of private individuals or officially recognized relief societies, shall likewise be respected and exempt from capture, if the belligerent Power to which they belong has given them an official commission and has notified their names to the hostile Power at the commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case before they are employed.

These ships shall be provided with a certificate from the competent authorities, declaring that they had been under their control while fitting out and on final departure.

NEUTRAL HOSPITAL SHIPS

The future will tell whether neutral relief work will take place in naval wars and if so to what extent. We confine ourselves to saying that it is proper under conditions that appear to carry satisfactory guaranties. Such relief vessels must be granted upon knowledge of the exclusively hospital character of the vessels, be furnished by their Government with an official commission which shall only and their names must be made known to the belligerent Powers.

There was some thought of requiring neutral hospital ships to place themselves under the direct authority of one or other of the belligerents, but careful study has convinced us that this would lead to serious difficulties. What flag would these ships fly? Would it not be somewhat inconsistent with the concept of neutrality for a ship with an official commission to be incorporated in the navy of one of the belligerents? It seemed to us sufficient to have these vessels, which are primarily under the control of the Government from which they have received their commissions, subjected to the authority of the belligerents to the extent provided in Article 4 below.

ARTICLE 3

Hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part at the expense of private individuals or officially recognized societies of neutral countries, shall be respected and exempt from capture, if the neutral Power to which they belong has given them an official commission and has notified their names to the belligerent Powers at the commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case before they are employed.

RULES COMMON TO HOSPITAL SHIPS

The immunity granted to the ships just spoken of is not based on their own interests but on the interests of the victims of war to whom they purpose carrying relief; and these interests, however worthy of respect, must not cause us to lose

sight of the purpose of warfare. This twofold idea explains two series of provisions.

In the first place the humanitarian purpose must not be entirely selfish. The ships in question should offer their assistance to the victims of war [25] without distinction as to nationality. This does not apply alone to neutral ships which, for example, give charitable aid to both parties; it applies with equal force to the vessels of the belligerents. In this way the immunity which is granted them finds its justification. Each belligerent yields up the right of capturing vessels of this description belonging to its adversary, and this renunciation is prompted both by a charitable motive and by a well-understood self-interest, since when an opportunity arises these vessels will render service to their own sailors as well as to those of the enemy.

It must be perfectly understood that these vessels are not to serve any other purpose, that they cannot under any pretext be directly or indirctly employed to further any military operation: as gathering information, carrying dispatches, or transporting troops, arms, or munitions. The contracting Governments in signing the proposed convention engage their honor in this sense. It would be perfidy to disregard it.

While holding scrupulously to their charitable rôle, hospital ships must in no way hamper the movements of the belligerents. The latter can demand, accept, or refuse their help. They may order them to move off and in so doing they may determine in what direction they shall go. In the latter case it may sometimes seem necessary to put a commissioner on board to ensure complete execution of the orders given. Finally, in particularly serious circumstances the rights of the belligerents may go to the length of detaining hospital ships; as for instance when necessary to preserve absolute secrecy of operations.

In order to obviate disputes respecting the existence or the meaning of an order it is desirable that the belligerents should record the order on the log of the hospital ship. This, however, may not always be possible; the condition of the sea or extreme urgency may preclude this formality; and so its performance ought not to be absolutely requisite. The hospital ship would not be permitted to invoke the absence of such a record from its log in order to justify it in disregarding the orders received, if these orders could be proved in another way.

It has sometimes been proposed to fix upon special signals for ships asking for relief and for hospital ships offering it. The Commission believes that no special provision is necessary on this point, that the "international signal code ' as adopted by all navies is sufficient for the end in view.

Finally, it goes without saying that the belligerents should have the right to control and search all hospital ships without exception. They must be able to convince themselves that no abuse is committed and that these ships are in no way diverted from their charitable commission. The right of search is here the necessary counterpart of their immunity and it should not be surprising to see it applied even to Government vessels. These vessels would be searched and captured if left under the régime of the common law; search therefore does not injure their situation; it is merely a condition of the more favorable status granted them.

It is proper to observe that searching hospital ships is important not only to see that these vessels do not depart from their rôle, but also to ascertain the condition of the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked who may be on board, as will be hereafter explained in connection with Article 9.