Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff declares that he cannot indorse the amendment of General Sir JOHN ARDAGH. At first sight the proposition appears harmless, almost anodyne, as it speaks only of lawful means. But what are lawful means? According to him, they are only those which conform to the conditions prescribed in Articles 9 and 10. But if the proposition did not contemplate anything else it would be absolutely superfluous. However, the insistence with which this additional article is defended, and especially the eloquent words which Colonel KÜNZLI has devoted to it, have demonstrated in the opinion of Mr. GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF that something else is seen therein and that it is desired to amplify the sense of Articles 9 and 10. This address having opened up a discussion on the very substance of the two articles, the delegate from Germany wishes to specify his views of the matter. The subcommission has almost reached the end of its first task. The many decisions which it has adopted have been drawn up in a spirit of humanity and for the purpose of mitigating the evils of invasion for the inhabitants. A tacit condition exists common to all the provisions: that is that the population shall remain peaceful; if this condition is not fulfilled, most of the guaranties provided in behalf of the inhabitants lose their reason for existence. Does this mean that it is desired to limit patriotism or to prohibit brave people from taking part in the defense of their native soil? By no means. The delegate from Germany would be the last to disregard these sacred rights. But nothing prevents patriots from entering the ranks of the army, or, if the organization prepared in time of peace is too restricted, from organizing among themselves, independently of the army proper. Article 9 recognizes their rights as belligerents if they fulfill certain conditions, which surely have nothing excessive about them. Is it then so difficult to find a man who will lead the movement, a mayor, an official, a former soldier? Some kind of a command will always be established. Crowds can accomplish nothing unless commanded. Is it so difficult, moreover, to hoist some distinctive sign? A mere arm badge will suffice. Is it too much to demand that they bear arms openly and that they observe the laws of war, a thing which they expect and of which they are assured on the part of their adversaries? Article 9 ought therefore to amply suffice, for it does not trammel patriotism in any manner. However, a step further was taken in voting for Article 10 which accords the rights of belligerents to the population of an unoccupied territory on the sole condition that it respect the laws of war. It would be preferable from every standpoint to require here also a distinctive sign and the open bearing of arms. Otherwise the regular troops will find themselves in an unfavorable situation, being unable to tell whether they have before them peaceful peasants [124] or enemies ready for combat; the long range of modern weapons renders this point still more important. The German delegate frankly admits that he has grave objections to make to this article; but, in a spirit of conciliation and in order not to raise insurmountable difficulties, he thought he might remain silent and refrained from - proposing its abolition. However, now that it is desired to broaden the principles involved therein, he finds himself obliged to say that the concessions should stop here. And since we are speaking of humanity, it is time to remember that soldiers also are men, and have a right to be treated with humanity. Soldiers who, exhausted by fatigue after a long march or a battle, come to rest in a village have a right to be sure that the peaceful inhabitants shall not change suddenly into furious enemies. However, leaving aside these considerations, let us regard the matter from a practical standpoint and endeavor to come to an understanding. To this end Mr. GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF reads a passage from the proceedings of the Brussels Conference of 1874 in which the federal Colonel HAMMER recognizes that the interests of large armies imperiously demand security for their communications and for their radius of occupation, and that a conciliation of these interests and those of the invaded peoples is impossible. The delegate from Germany asks nothing more than the eminent compatriot of the Swiss delegates asked in 1874, namely, that those questions in regard to which an understanding is impossible be passed over in silence.1 Colonel Gilinsky says that he endorses the opinion expressed by Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF, that the necessities of war must be reckoned with. The inhabitants who fight openly in an unoccupied territory are recognized as belligerents. Article 10 affords full power to the whole nation to fight, under the conditions prescribed, against the invader of its country. However, this right cannot be granted to the inhabitants of an occupied territory who attack the lines of communication, for without lines of communication an army cannot subsist. Mr. Rahusen indorses the view of the German delegate. While doing homage to the sentiment which inspired the proposition of Sir JOHN ARDAGH, he does not think that his amendment can be inserted as an article in the convention. No one will deny the right of a people to rise against an invading army, but the direct consequence is that it becomes a belligerent. It is optional with the population as to whether or not it conforms to the conditions which constitute the status of a belligerent, but it will have to bear the consequences of not doing so. The President states that Article E of the Swiss delegation is withdrawn, Colonel KÜNZLI having recommended the adoption of the proposition of Sir JOHN ARDAGH. General Sir John Ardagh insists that his proposition be inserted as a separate article and that it be submitted to a vote. Colonel Künzli answers the remarks of Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF. The latter cited Colonel HAMMER, but subsequently at the Brussels Conference the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. WELTI, gave his opinion on the subject and raised grave objections to Articles 9 and 10. Mr. Léon Bourgeois desires to define the situation. He finds that the subcommission is in agreement with Sir JOHN ARDAGH as to the main issue, while Messrs. KÜNZLI and GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF have one and the same idea. Nothing should lessen the guaranties which the law of nations gives to populations when they resist the invader. How may the discussion then be summed up? It is a question of determining whether it is better to insert this idea in the text in the form of an article, or be content with the declaration of the 1 See Actes de la Conférence de Bruxelles 1874, p. 163. PRESIDENT, which would be inserted in the final protocol. This latter mode of procedure would afford him adequate satisfaction. But in case it should not be adopted, the vote on the proposition of Sir JOHN ARDAGH would appear to him necessary. However, the wording of the article, as well as the place to be assigned to it, would give rise to many difficulties. It seems expedient to him to have the commission declare that it proposes to insert the declaration of the PRESIDENT in the final protocol. His Excellency Mr. Beernaert states with satisfaction that the delegate [125] from France supports his view. He had as a matter of fact asked that the declaration of Mr. MARTENS be entered not only in the minutes of the meeting but also either in the final protocol or in the international act which is to crown the work of the Conference. The President says it is understood that his declaration will remain as an official act of the Conference. Jonkheer van Karnebeek declares that he will not be satisfied with the declaration of Mr. MARTENS unless the commission expressly declares itself in favor of adopting it. Mr. Beldiman wishes to add that if they continue to insist that the proposition of Sir JOHN ARDAGH be inserted as an article, the whole work of the subcommission will be imperiled. This article does not appear to him of sufficient importance to risk causing the work to fail. The President consults the subcommission as to the action which should be taken on his declaration. It is the same in meaning as the proposition of Sir JOHN ARDAGH, but with the difference that it implies the impossibility of providing for all cases. The declaration of the PRESIDENT is adopted as an official act of the subcommission, and it will figure as such in the records of the Conference. On an observation by Mr. Miyatovitch, the President says that the adoption of his declaration will not affect the decision to be reached in regard to the proposition of Sir JOHN ARDAGH. His Excellency Mr. Beernaert says that the proposition of the British delegate meets with general approval, and especially his own, but as it is agreed that the declaration which has just been officially and unanimously admitted has the same sense, it seems to him that Sir JOHN ARDAGH might give it up. Mr. Bille remarks that it will be a mistake to vote on the proposition of Sir JOHN ARDAGH, for as the subcommission has really accepted the proposition of the PRESIDENT as sufficient to confirm its opinion on the subject, it does not need to pass a second time on the same idea presented in the form of the ARDAGH amendment. Colonel Künzli expresses a positive wish that the commission take a vote on the amendment of General ARDAGH. Baron Bildt explains why the Swedish and Norwegian delegation will refrain from voting. It approves the sense of the article but deems it inopportune to insert it. General den Beer Poortugael indorses this view. Mr. Beldiman declares that in voting against the insertion of the article, it is understood that the Roumanian delegation does not disapprove the substance thereof. It is afraid that by insisting too much on a question of form the agreement already established may be jeopardized. His Excellency Count Nigra requests the PRESIDENT to ask Sir JOHN ARDAGH whether the latter would not be satisfied to have his article appear in the final protocol beside and as a confirmation of the declaration of the President. The President asks the English delegate if he will accept the proposition. of his Excellency Count NIGRA or if he insists on the adoption of his article. General Sir John Ardagh, after having ascertained that only the Swiss delegate and himself would vote to the latter effect, thinks it his duty to withdraw his article out of a spirit of conciliation, inasmuch as the principle involved has met unanimous approval. Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff thinks he ought to repeat that it is by no means, in his opinion, a question merely of form, but a question of principle. The insistence placed upon the insertion of the proposition of Sir JOHN ARDAGH in the text itself or in the protocol proves as a matter of fact that there is some hidden purpose in view and that it is desired to enlarge the facilities of defense given to the inhabitants by Articles 9 and 10. The President concludes that Sir JOHN ARDAGH's article will be inserted in the record, as well as all observations and restrictions which have been made on this subject. This suggestion is unanimously approved by the subcommission. Captain Crozier calls the attention of the assembly to a discrepancy existing between Article 55 as voted for by the subcommission and Article 10 adopted by the first subcommission. He would like to know the opinion of his colleagues regarding the interpretation of Article 55. His Excellency Mr. Beernaert having remarked that the subcommission cannot reverse a vote already taken, it is decided, on the proposition of Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF, that this question shall be submitted to the drafting committee. [126] The President states that the first reading of the articles of the draft of the Brussels Declaration having been completed, the subcommission will proceed as soon as possible to the second reading.1 The meeting adjourns. 1 See in annex D the text of the draft of 1874 and the text adopted on first reading by the subcommission. 1 TWELFTH MEETING JULY 1, 1899 Mr. Martens presiding. The minutes of the eleventh meeting are read and adopted. The President gives an account of the mission which has been intrusted to the drafting committee. This committee has revised the articles voted on at the first reading and has remodeled the text of some of them. The PRESIDENT states with satisfaction that a unanimous agreement has been reached as to the wording of the articles, except as regards Article 59 concerning which General ZUCCARI has made some reservations. The report of Mr. ROLIN1 having been distributed in the form of proof sheets to the members of the subcommission, the PRESIDENT requests the delegates to indicate to the reporter as soon as possible the changes which they may desire to have introduced in his report, which will then be submitted to the Commission in plenary session. This mode of procedure is adopted. His Excellency Mr. Beernaert congratulates Mr. ROLIN on his remarkable work. He observes, however, that certain passages are not in harmony with Mr. MARTENS' important declaration which the commission has adopted as its own. Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff likewise asks that some modifications be made in the report, the substance of which he will make known to the reporter. Mr. Rolin will take account of these observations, especially the passage of his report referred to by Mr. BEERNAERT and relating to the old Articles 9 and 10. The President says that the committee will be intrusted with drafting, with a view to the conclusion of a convention, a statement of the obligation which will be contracted by the States with respect to the adoption of uniform rules regarding the laws and customs of war. The preamble to be prepared by the committee will be submitted to the approval of the Commission. The second reading of the articles is now taken up, the text unanimously proposed by the drafting committee serving as a basis.2 Mr. Rolin, reporter, reads this text, pointing out the changes made by this committee in the text adopted at the first reading, and the reasons for these changes. Article 1 is adopted with the intercalation, proposed by Sir John Ardagh, of the words "and volunteer corps" after "after"militia" in the last paragraph. 1 See ante, p. 415. 2 See ante, p. 434. |