THIRD MEETING JUNE 20, 1899 Mr. Martens presiding. The minutes of the meeting of May 25 are read and adopted. The President says that the order of the day calls for an examination of the report of the first subcommission and of the articles proposed with a view to adapting the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime war. As these documents are before the eyes of the Commission, the PRESIDENT deems it needless to read the report, and thinks that it will be sufficient to read the articles. No observation having been made regarding the propositions of the subcommission as a whole, the articles are now read. Military hospital ships, that is to say, ships constructed or assigned by States specially and solely with the 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. This article is adopted. 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 have been under their control while fitting out and on final departure. This article is adopted. 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. This article is adopted. ARTICLE 4 The ships mentioned in Articles 1, 2 and 3 shall afford relief and assistance to the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked of the belligerents without distinction of nationality. The Governments undertake not to use these ships for any military purpose. The belligerents will have the right to control and search them; they can refuse to help them, order them off, make them take a certain course, and put a commissioner on board; they can even detain them, if important circumstances require it. As far as possible the belligerents shall enter in the log of the hospital ships the orders which they give them. This article is adopted. ARTICLE 5 Military hospital ships shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of green about a meter and a half in breadth. The ships mentioned in Articles 2 and 3 shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of red about a meter and a half in breadth. The boats of the ships above mentioned, as also small craft which may be used for hospital work, shall be distinguished by similar painting. All hospital ships shall make themselves known by hoisting, with their national flag, the flag with a red cross provided by the Geneva Convention. Mirza Riza Khan makes the following declaration regarding Article 5: In regard to the last paragraph of Article 5, and in accordance with instructions which I have just received from Teheran, I am directed to inform the Commission that the Persian Government will ask as a distinctive flag the white flag with a red sun. The adoption of the red cross as the distinctive flag of hospitals was an act of courtesy on the part of the Governments signing the Geneva Convention, toward the Swiss Federal Government, whose flag was adopted, the colors having been reversed in order to distinguish it from the Swiss national flag. We should be happy to extend the same courtesy to the honorable Swiss Government if this were not impossible owing to the inquietude it would excite in the Mussulman army. I beg of the Commission to kindly take note of this declaration by inserting it in the record of the meeting. The President records this declaration of the Persian delegate. Article 5 is adopted. ARTICLE 6 Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels, having, or taking on board, sick, wounded, or [5] shipwrecked of the belligerents, cannot be captured for so doing, but they are liable to capture for any violation of neutrality they may have committed. This article is adopted. ARTICLE 7 The religious, medical, and hospital staff of any captured ship is inviolable, and its members cannot be made prisoners of war. On leaving the ship they take with them the objects and surgical instruments which are their own private property. This staff shall continue to discharge its duties while necessary, and can afterwards leave when the commander in chief considers it possible. The belligerents must guarantee to the said staff when it has fallen into their hands the enjoyment of their salaries intact. This article is adopted. ARTICLE 8 Sailors and soldiers on board when sick or wounded, to whatever nation they belong, shall be protected and tended by the captors. This article is adopted. ARTICLE 9 The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of the belligerents who fall into the power of the other, are prisoners of war. The captor must decide, according to circumstances, whether to keep them, send them to a port of his own country, to a neutral port, or even to an enemy port. In this last case, prisoners thus repatriated cannot serve again while the war lasts. This article is adopted. ARTICLE 10 The shipwrecked, wounded or sick who are landed at a neutral port, with the consent of the local authorities, must be guarded by the latter so as to prevent their again taking part in the operations of the war. The expenses of tending them in hospital and interning them shall be borne by the State to which the shipwrecked, sick or wounded belong. Mr. Asser says that, as president of the first subcommission, he wishes to give some explanations in regard to the debate on Article 10. Several objections have been presented against the text proposed. It has been said that Article 10 seems to impose too heavy a burden on neutrals. It has been alleged on the other hand that these provisions were not in harmony with the principles adopted for land warfare. These observations were embodied in two amendments, one presented by the delegate from Belgium and the other by the delegate from Switzerland. Before putting these amendments to a vote, the President thought he ought first to consult the subcommission as to whether it accepted the text of Article 10 unamended. This procedure, although not entirely in conformity with parliamentary usages, appeared to him to place the question in the most impartial light. Following this vote, Article 10 unamended was adopted by a majority of one vote. Now among those who were opposed, some would be willing to revise their vote if the text would provide for the case of a contrary understanding being reached between the neutral and belligerent States. It would seem that this modification ought to satisfy everybody. Article 10 leaves to the neutral State full freedom to receive the sick and wounded landed in its ports. In fact, we may believe that a neutral State will never shirk this humane duty, but it is nevertheless well to give it the privilege of explaining itself on this subject with the belligerents at the beginning of the war. If this view is approved, it would therefore be sufficient to amend the text as follows in order to bring everybody into accord: ARTICLE 10 The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick, who are landed at a neutral port, with the consent of the local authorities, must, unless an arrangement is made to the contrary between the neutral State and the belligerent States, be guarded by the neutral State so as to prevent their again taking part in the operations of the war. The expenses of tending them in hospital and interning them shall be borne by the State to which the shipwrecked, sick, or wounded belong. Chevalier Descamps asks whether it would not be sufficient to say: "unless there is a contrary declaration." Mr. Asser answers that the use of this expression would imperil the very principles accepted by the majority. It has been said that the neutral States [6] might without fear accept the principle laid down by Article 10, because of the freedom left them of receiving or rejecting the wounded. If we are content with a simple declaration, necessarily one-sided, we shall see the anxieties of the neutrals aroused to the detriment of the cause of the sick and wounded whom we wish to relieve. On the contrary, a two-sided arrangement would safeguard all interests and it was in this spirit that the amendment was framed. Count de Grelle Rogier says that he had formulated in regard to Article 10 some observations which seemed to him to be based on logic and equity. Mr. ASSER has just proposed a compromise, and, in a spirit of conciliation, the delegate from Belgium declares himself ready to accept it. Mr. Odier says that he had presented an amendment which had no other object than to facilitate the adoption of the proposition of Mr. de Grelle Rogier. This latter proposition being withdrawn, Mr. ODIER does not insist on his own suggestion. He wishes, however, to explain the reasons why the proposition of Mr. ASSER did not entirely satisfy him. It would seem that if the obligations assumed by a neutral State are to involve too lengthy obligations and too heavy burdens, and if the wounded who have become valueless as far as the war is concerned are kept an indefinite length of time away from their country, this would be somewhat contrary to the idea of humanity. Mr. ODIER adds, however, that in order not to prevent the text of Article 10 from being unanimously approved, he will withdraw his amendment. Mr. Corragioni d'Orelli declares that he indorses the proposition of Mr. ASSER. No further observation being offered, the President says that Article 10 is adopted in its new form. (Applause.) Mr. Odier says that he wishes to comment upon the declaration made at the beginning of the meeting by the delegate from Persia. As regards the modifications in the insignia of this convention suggested to the subcommission by Turkey, Siam, and the United States of America and to the plenary Commission by Persia, it does not seem as if the assembly were competent to deal with this question, and it will be when the Geneva Convention is submitted for revision that the question of maintaining or changing its emblem may be properly examined. Mirza Riza Khan answers that as he did not attend the meetings of the first subcommission, he was unable to make his declaration regarding Article 5 at the same time as the representatives of Turkey, Siam, and the United States. He therefore thought that he ought to make it known when Article 5 came up for discussion before the plenary Commission. He agrees that the matter of changing the insignia can only be examined by a subsequent conference charged with revising the Geneva Convention, but he nevertheless wishes to have his declaration inserted in the minutes as evidence of the intentions of the Persian Government in regard to the form of the insignia. The President states that everybody agrees as to the incompetency of the Commission to discuss these questions and that they can only be mentioned in the minutes. Mr. Rolin recalls a declaration which he made in the subcommission tend-. ing to insure to the Siamese Government the privilege of adding to the flag of the Geneva Convention a sacred sign of the Buddhist religion calculated to enhance the protective authority of this flag. The President says that this declaration will be likewise mentioned in the minutes. The PRESIDENT states that Articles 1 to 10 proposed by the first subcommission are therefore adopted. Count de Macedo, first delegate of Portugal, declares, while requesting the Second Commission to record this declaration and to consider it as a general reservation to the ten articles just read and discussed, that the instructions of his Government being naturally limited to the question of adhesion to the general principles contained in the MOURAVIEFF circular, and to the acceptance under an equally general form of the application of these principles, his favorable though silent vote on the doctrine of the aforesaid articles has no final character even within the limits that his powers permit him to vote (that is, ad referendum); and that this character cannot be obtained until he receives from the Government of His Most Faithful Majesty instructions given with a full knowledge of the text just voted upon. The President takes note of this declaration of Count DE MACEDO. [7] Mr. Mahan reads the following propositions: It is known to the members of the first subcommission, by whom these articles were accepted, that I have heretofore stated that there was an important omission, which I desired to rectify in an additional article or articles. The omission was to provide against the case of a neutral vessel, such as is mentioned in Article 6, picking up shipwrecked on the scene of a naval battle, and carrying them away, either accidentally or intentionally. What, I asked, is the status of such shipwrecked combatants? My attention had been absorbed by the case of vessels under Article 6. I have since noticed that there was equally an omission to provide for the status. of shipwrecked combatants picked up by hospital ships. In order that nonprofessional men, men not naval officers, may certainly comprehend this point, allow me to develop it. On a field of naval battle the ships are constantly in movement; not merely the movement of a land battle, but a movement of progress, of transfer from place to place more or less rapid. tant. The scene is here one moment; a half-hour later it may be five miles dis |