Page images
PDF
EPUB

Captain Crozier, who is joined by Mr. BELDI MAN, expresses a desire to have a place assigned in the deliberations of the Conference to this important subject.

The President considers that the plenary Commission should examine whether it is proper to propose that the Conference take up this subject.

It is decided that the declaration of Captain CROZIER shall be inserted in the minutes.

As regards letter g, his Excellency Mr. Beernaert asks that the word "necessity" be put in the plural according to the customary form "the necessities of war."

Letter g is adopted.

The meeting adjourns.

FIFTH MEETING

JUNE 3, 1899

Mr. Martens presiding.

The minutes of the fourth meeting are read.

Captain Crozier remarks that at the preceding session he did not mean that the question of respect for private property at sea was not within the competency of this subcommission. He wished simply to say that within the program thus far observed by the subcommission this question had not formed. part of its labors.

The minutes are adopted.

[ocr errors]

The President opens the discussion on the chapter: Sieges and bombardments."

Article 15 is read:

Fortified places are alone liable to be besieged. Open towns, agglomerations of dwellings, or villages which are not defended can neither be attacked nor bombarded.

General den Beer Poortugael, recalling the fact that Captain CROZIER expressed a desire at the previous meeting to have the Conference take up the question of respect for private property at sea, a principle whose adoption has been warmly supported by the Netherlands delegation, declares that he desires on his part to express a similar wish, which he asks to have recorded in the minutes.

This desire is to have the prohibition against bombardment in Article 15 applied to both sea and land forces. Now, neither this subcommission nor the second subcommission of the First Commission appear competent to deal with this question. He therefore asks in what Commission it can be considered.

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert is of opinion that the distinction established by General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL between bombardment on land and that by naval forces is not well founded. It seems to him absolutely contrary to the spirit of the article that ships should be permitted to bombard places not liable to bombardment in land warfare. In order to settle the question, he proposes to add the word "ports" to the words "towns, etc."

General den Beer Poortugael indorses the proposition of his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT provided mention is made in the minutes of the principle on which it is based.

Mr. Bihourd observes that, at the previous meeting, it was agreed that the Brussels Declaration related solely to land warfare; there would be a contradiction if the scope of Article 15 were extended to maritime warfare. It appears to him that there is a marked difference between maritime and land warfare as regards bombardments.

The President states that, as a matter of fact, the decision reached by the subcommission contemplates the scope indicated by Mr. BIHOURD.

General Zuccari observes that outside of land and naval wars there is also coast warfare. In which category shall the latter be placed? He indorses the observations of his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT.

The President remarks that the two different questions presented should be [83] well defined. General DEN Beer PoortugaEl has moved to utter a vau in the minutes, whereas his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT would like to add the word "ports" to the article.

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert considers that the bombardment of a port by a fleet relates rather to land warfare. At the most it is a mixed question. He asks how it could be laid down as a principle that the same town could be bombarded by a fleet and not by an army.

Chevalier Descamps says that as the question is certainly connected with the one before the subcommission, there seems to him to be no doubt about the competency of the latter. However, there is another standpoint. It is a question here of the territorial sea, and the question therefore does not embrace naval warfare proper.

General den Beer Poortugael desires to say that he no longer entertains any doubt as to the question of competency. He supports the proposal of his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT and Chevalier Descamps.

General Zuccari adds that in this question, while the means are maritime the object almost always has to do with the land.

The President asks whether it would not therefore be proper to simply state in the minutes that the subcommission interprets Article 15 as meaning that ports may not be bombarded any more than open towns.

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert asks Mr. BIHOURD whether he would not consent to having the question settled in the sense indicated by the PRESIDENT; he remarks that in case of debarkation naval forces may become land forces by virtue of that fact alone.

Colonel Gilinsky proposes that the decision of this question be referred to the plenary session of the Commission with all the members present, including sailors.

This proposition is adopted.

Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff moves to strike out the first sentence of Article 15. It is useless to say that fortified places are liable to be besieged, which, moreover, is not complete, since the existence of field fortifications may make it necessary to besiege a place which is not fortified. The second sentence, in which the places which may neither be attacked nor bombarded are designated, is sufficient.

Messrs, Rolin and General den Beer Poortugael indorse this opinion, and the motion of Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF is adopted.

Mr. Lammasch suggests an amendment relating to both Article 15 and Article 16. He is of opinion that bombardment should be expressly prohibited both of an isolated dwelling and of an uninhabited building, for instance a large mansion or a church.

General den Beer Poortugael observes that such a definition is contrary to the rules of military terminology. Isolated buildings are never "bombarded." After an exchange of views on this point, the following wording is adopted:

66

towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are not defended can neither be attacked nor bombarded."

Article 16 is read:

But if a town or fortress, agglomeration of dwellings or village, is defended, the officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert points out that the right to bombard should not be recognized, and he thinks that Article 16 should be modified.

After a thorough exchange of views, in which his Excellency Mr. Beernaert, Messrs. Rolin, Gilinsky, Lammasch, and Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff took part, the following wording is unanimously adopted, except one vote (Great Britain):

The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Article 17 is read:

In such cases all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to art, science, or charitable purposes, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings by distinctive and visible signs to be communicated to the enemy beforehand.

The first paragraph of this Article 17 is adopted as follows:

In sieges and bombardments, all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as [84] far as it is possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

The second paragraph is adopted without modification.

Article 18 is read:

A town taken by assault ought not to be given over to pillage by the victorious troops.

Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff remarks that the article is superfluous in addition to Article 39.

On motion of Mr. DESCAMPS, this provisions is worded as follows: "It is forbidden to give over to pillage a town taken by storm.”

The chapter "On belligerents and wounded cared for in neutral countries " is now taken up for examination.

His Excellency Mr. Eyschen thinks he ought to embrace this opportunity to submit to the Conference the question whether it would not be well to define more accurately the international situation arising from neutrality, as the articles now to be taken up deal with neutrals.

At present it is very difficult to know precisely what their rights and duties. are. Now, it is important to determine these rights and duties as far as possible in time of peace while it is possible to deliberate without the influence of passion and to judge in accordance with general views.

This would obviously be in the interest of the belligerent, who, being uncertain as to the line of conduct that will be adopted by neutrals, will often be very much hindered in his movements.

It would be quite as important for neutrals to know their obligations. In case of war this would spare them much uncertainty and painful hesitancy, unforeseen recriminations, and endless complications, while at the same time facilitating the duty incumbent on them of bringing, by calm and impartial conduct, an element of pacification into international relations. From this standpoint, this question is intimately connected with the task of the Conference.

While it is impossible not to realize the great difficulty of the question presented, we must not lose sight of the important advantage of being definite right now in order to take, while there is still time, the legislative and other measures necessary in order to insure in time of war the observation of the duties in question.

The proclamation of such an international statute would facilitate the task of Governments, Parliaments, the press, and all well-intentioned people whose cooperation is necessary.

And even if success in formulating precise rules were not always attained, it would be useful at all events to have it stated by the Conference that there is a controversy on certain points. In these cases pretensions would be less and conduct more restrained.

Finally, it would perhaps be easy to reach an understanding on the mode of procedure, in case of a dispute, with regard to an alleged violation of neutrality, which would be of importance to weak States.

By dealing with all these questions the Conference would get a positive result, calculated to satisfy not only the States that are sometimes belligerents and sometimes neutrals, but also all the more essentially pacific peoples.

The President thanks his Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN for his interesting statement. He wonders, however, whether the subcommission is in a position to make an examination of this very complicated question, its instructions being solely to examine the articles of the Brussels Declaration.

Chevalier Descamps is of opinion that this is a question closely connected with the purpose of the Conference; however, it would evidently be too extensive a task for it to prepare a code of neutrality. It might confine itself to elucidating some questions connected more directly with the articles of the Brussels Declaration. By acting thus the Commission would not be exceeding its instructions. According to him, the best way to proceed would be to have a committee of several members agree to examine whether and how it would be possible to reach a result on certain points coming within the scope indicated.

His Excellency Mr. Eyschen did not wish to ask the Conference to prepare at once a complete code of neutrality. He wished principally to point out the gap existing so as to see whether it could be filled at least partially. Al[85] most all disputes regarding observation of neutrality arise from a diversity of opinion as to the rights and duties of neutrals. This uncertainty is of the greatest danger for both.

The President expresses doubts as to the possibility of realizing within a few weeks this end which the most eminent jurists, such as those of the Institute of International Law, have not been able to attain in twenty-five years.

« PreviousContinue »