the final paragraph of the convention to be concluded, especially as regards the accession clause, the length of time permitted for ratification, etc. Mr. Renault says that as regards the preamble, he does not deem it well to adopt the form suggested by Mr. MOTONO, which might perhaps lend itself to too broad construction. As regards the observation of Baron BILDT, he proposes to intrust to the drafting committee the task of preparing, in conjunction with the PRESIDENT, a complete diplomatic text and he asks Baron BILDT to kindly lend them his assistance. Baron Bildt says that he will willingly place himself at the disposal of the drafting committee. Upon an observation by Admiral FISHER, the President remarks that the report of the drafting committee will have an interpretative force with respect to the convention similar to that attributed to an explanatory statement in the case of a proposed law. Mr. Corragioni d'Orelli calls attention to the desirability of having the Governments of very remote countries enabled to examine and accept the convention with a full knowledge of what they are doing, and he asks whether it would not be well to take this necessity into account, either by leaving the signature protocol open or by some other means. Noury Bey suggests that the instrument be permitted to be signed "ad referendum," which would leave to the interested Governments full latitude to accept or refuse the convention. Baron Bildt, seconded by Mr. CORRAGIONI D'ORELLI, points out the practical objections to the signature of an act "ad referendum." He is of opinion that the convention ought only to be signed by the plenipotentiaries who are authorized to sign it without reservations. The other States will have a right to adhere thereto subsequently, and all must pledge themselves to ratify it within the shortest possible time. This latter condition appears to Baron BILDT indispensable in order to avoid difficulties and delays in the ratification. The President recalls the fact that at the beginning of the labors of the Second Commission a debate arose as to whether it was competent to revise the Geneva Convention. The Commission answered in the negative. It would nevertheless be desirable to express the desire that the Geneva Convention might be revised at an early date. The PRESIDENT reads the text of a vau which he proposes to submit to the Conference on this subject: The Hague Conference, taking into consideration the preliminary steps taken by the Swiss Federal Government for the revision of the Geneva Convention, utters the vau that steps may be shortly taken for the assembly of a special conference having for its object the revision of that Convention. [68] Mr. Scheine asks that it be understood that this revision shall be made without affecting the work now accomplished. The President is of opinion that it would be very useful to incorporate this work in the new convention and to combine in a single code the whole set of provisions adopted on the subject. However, in case (which God forbid!) a maritime war should break out before the revision of the Geneva Convention, it would be very desirable to have a special treaty signed without waiting until such revision had taken place. Mr. Renault insists, for the sake of the work accomplished at The Hague, that its special and distinct character be preserved. Care should, according to him, be taken not to connect it at present with the revision of the Geneva Convention, for by so doing the risk would be run of indefinitely postponing the putting into practice of the resolutions just adopted. Mr. Odier is of opinion that the subcommission is perfectly competent to express the vau proposed by the PRESIDENT, without it being necessary to connect the two questions, that is, the convention which will contain the work of this subcommission and the vau to be expressed in regard to the revision of the Geneva Convention. General Thaulow joins in the views expressed by Mr. ODIER. The subcommission is competent to propose the revision within the shortest possible time. The President, resuming the discussion, states that he has received instructions from the subcommission to insist on having the text of the articles voted for by the subcommission embodied into positive law and to try to have a convention signed to this effect. Following this exchange of observations, the PRESIDENT states that the subcommission will disperse after terminating its labors. The results which it has accomplished constitute an important reform in the interest of humanity. Ever since 1868 the wish has been repeatedly expressed that the additional provisions of the Geneva Convention might be adapted to maritime war. Thanks to the good-will and the spirit of conciliation shown by all in this subcommission, this wish will soon be realized, and we ought to congratulate ourselves on having succeeded in establishing an understanding on matters of so high a humane interest. Mr. ASSER adds that he deems it a duty and a pleasure to express thanks to the secretaries of the subcommission, who have shown remarkable zeal and devotion in their often difficult task. (Applause.) Admiral Fisher says that the subcommission no doubt wishes to offer an expression of its gratitude to its eminent PRESIDENT, who has guided its labors in his highly competent manner and in a benevolent and impartial spirit to which the assembly is happy to do homage. (Applause.) Admiral FISHER adds that he fully joins in the thanks which the PRESIDENT chose to express to the secretaries on behalf of the subcommission. The President says that he is deeply touched by the sentiments just expressed in his regard. His task has been rendered easy and pleasant by the benevolence of all his colleagues, and he is glad to avail himself of this opportunity to thank them sincerely. He declares the meeting adjourned. [69] SECOND SUBCOMMISSION FIRST MEETING MAY 25, 1899 Mr. Martens presiding. The President states that it appears useful and desirable to him, in the interest of the labors of the subcommission, not to commence the examination of the draft Declaration of Brussels of 1874 concerning the laws and customs of war at Article 1 but first to take into consideration the provisions containing the most generally recognized principles. Accordingly he proposes that the articles relating to prisoners of war be first studied. Following observations by General Mounier and his Excellency Mr. Eyschen, who point out the utility of knowing in advance the order in which the various articles are to be discussed, the subcommission decides, in accordance with the propositions of Mr. MARTENS, to distribute the work in the following manner and to examine the provisions of the said draft in the order indicated below: 1. Prisoners of war (Articles 23 to 34). 2. Capitulations (Article 46) and Armistices (Articles 47 to 52). 3. Parlementaires (Articles 43 and 44). 4. Military authority with respect to private parties and Contributions and requisitions (Articles 36 to 42). 5. The sick and wounded (Articles 35 and 56), the examination of which provisions, as observed by Messrs. Rolin and Chevalier Descamps, can be made more usefully when the results of the deliberations of the first subcommission. are known as far as they relate to this subject. 6. Spies (Articles 19 to 22). 7. Means of injuring the enemy (Articles 12 to 14) and Sieges and bombardments (Articles 15 to 18). 8. On the internment of belligerents and the care of the wounded in neutral countries (Articles 53 to 55). 9. On military authority over the territory of a hostile State (Articles 1 to 8). 10. Who should be recognized as a belligerent party; combatants and noncombatants (Articles 9 to 11). Messrs. General MOUNIER, LAMMASCH and several other members desiring a delay in order to prepare themselves more fully for the discussion, the meeting adjourns. [70] SECOND MEETING MAY 27, 1899 Mr. Martens presiding. The minutes of the first meeting are adopted. The President announces that Mr. ROLIN has kindly accepted the duties of reporter of the subcommission. Before discussing the articles on the program, Mr. MARTENS deems it necessary to make a declaration. In 1874 the Russian Government submitted a draft to the Conference of Brussels. The views of the Imperial Government remain the same. It is not a question, in its opinion, of establishing an international scientific code, but of reaching an understanding as to a common basis for all the instructions which the Governments are to give to their armies and which shall be binding in time of war. In this way there will be evolved a universal or at least a European law of war. Each Government will have to assume only one pledge, viz., that it will give its armies identical instructions on this basis. His Excellency Mr. Beernaert observes that this would be an indirect way of establishing an international convention. The President remarks that it will be sufficient to have a single article inserted at the beginning of the declaration in order to show the pledge assumed as indicated above, that is, a pledge to give uniform instructions to their armies on an identical basis. This basis will consist of the Brussels Declaration, revised and modified after a free and detailed discussion in the present Conference. The form of the aforementioned pledge might be determined later on. The order of the day is an examination of the chapter: "Prisoners of war." The PRESIDENT, before opening the discussion, says that all the articles will of course be given a second reading. His Excellency Mr. Beernaert calls attention to a pamphlet which will be distributed among the members and which bears the title "Draft of international regulations regarding prisoners of war." He thinks that certain ideas. contained in this pamphlet may be utilized in the discussion and he will present, on behalf of the Belgian delegation, some amendments based on these ideas. Article 23 of the Brussels draft is now read: Prisoners of war are lawful and disarmed enemies. They are in the power of the hostile Government, but not in that of the individuals or corps who captured them. They must be humanely treated. Any act of insubordination justifies the adoption of such measures of severity as may be necessary. All their personal belongings except arms shall remain their property. On the motion of his Excellency Mr. Beernaert, paragraph 4 of Article 23 is carried to Article 28, of which it will form the second paragraph. After an exchange of views between his Excellency Mr. Beernaert, Mr. Renault, and Mr. Lammasch, the latter moves to add to the word " arms in paragraph 5 “and everything that directly serves the purpose of the war." On the motion of General Zuccari, paragraph 4 will read as follows: "All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property." His Excellency Mr. Beernaert proposes to stipulate by means of an express clause that commanders in chief may authorize officers to keep their swords. Mr. Renault thinks that it is not proper to mention here what a belligerent may do. It is a question of determining only what he must do. Mr. Lammasch deems that it would be useful to omit the definition of prisoners of war as contained in the first paragraph. If the word “disarmed” disappears from the article, it would not be necessary to make an express reservation as to the swords of the officers. [71] At the proposal of the President the following wording is adopted: Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not in that of the individuals or corps who captured them. They must be humanely treated. All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property. Article 24 is adopted as worded in the Brussels draft: Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or other place, under obligation not to go beyond certain fixed limits; but they can only be placed in confinement as an indispensable measure of safety. Articles 25 and 26 are now read: ARTICLE 25 Prisoners of war may be employed on certain public works which have no direct connection with the operations in the theater of war and which are not excessive or humiliating to their military rank, if they belong to the army, or to their official or social position, if they do not belong to it. They may also, subject to such regulations as may be drawn up by the military authorities, undertake private work. Their wages shall go towards improving their position or shall be paid to them on their release. In this case the cost of maintenance may be deducted from said wages. ARTICLE 26 Prisoners of war cannot be compelled in any way to take any part whatever in carrying on the operations of the war. These articles are adopted tentatively. However, his Excellency Mr. Beernaert will suggest a new wording at the next meeting. Article 27 is now read: The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen charges itself with their maintenance. |