Mr. Lammasch makes a compromise motion: "unless exceptional circumstances render this method manifestly impossible," in order to show that mediation should be the rule and recourse to arms the exception.

Chevalier Descamps insists and develops in support of his opinion arguments drawn from the modern character of war and the common interests which bind civilized States together.

Dr. Zorn is of the opinion that the Russian text should be retained in order to leave Powers entirely free in the exercise of their judgment. The new draft does not seem acceptable to him.

[5] Mr. Asser insists upon his motion, but in second place would give preference to the draft of Mr. LAMMASCH over the provision of the Russian draft. His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote and Mr. Odier support the arguments of Chevalier DESCAMPS.

The President sums up the proposals in question: no one asking for the preservation of the old text, the committee must pronounce itself between:

1. The proposal of Mr. LAMMASCH.

2. The simple elimination of the reservation (.....) proposal of Mr. ASSER. For the simple elimination: PAUNCEFOTE, NIGRA, DESCAMPS, ASSER, ODIER (5 votes).

For the draft of Mr. LAMMASCH: BOURGEOIS, HOLLS, ZORN, LAMMASCH (4 votes).

Abstention: MARTENS.

Baron D'ESTOURNELLES did not take part in the vote, each Power having but

one vote.

The omission of the words "so far as circumstances admit" is agreed to, but with the reservation that the matter may be discussed again later.1

Article 2 is therefore adopted except for the modifications above indicated and the substitution of the word "agree" for the words "have agreed."

ARTICLE 3

Chevalier Descamps reads this article:

In the case of mediation accepted spontaneously by the litigant States the object of the Government acting as mediator is to reconcile the opposing claims and appease the feelings of resentment which may have arisen between these States.

Chevalier DESCAMPS proposes that these words at the beginning of the article be stricken out: "In the case of mediation accepted spontaneously by the litigant States."

Then he proposes to substitute for the words "the object of the Government acting as mediator" these "the part of the mediator," and to phrase the close of the article thus: "between dissident States."

The complete text of Article 3 would therefore be worded as follows: "The part of the mediator is to reconcile the opposing claims and appease the feelings of resentment which may have arisen between the dissident States." This draft of Article 3 is adopted.

1 It is understood once for all that the committee of examination does not decide finally upon any text; it limits itself to the preparation of texts which will be submitted by it to the Third Commission and which may be revised until the end, even if it be only to make them agree with others. This remark was made at most of the meetings.

ARTICLE 4

Chevalier Descamps proposes to throw Article 4 to the end of the title as a matter of orderly arrangement.

Agreed to.

As for the phraseology of this article Mr. Asser observes that the words when the settlement proposed by it or the bases of a friendly settlement which it may have suggested are not accepted," lack precision.

Chevalier Descamps supports this statement and after a general discussion the following draft suggested by the PRESIDENT is adopted: "The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute, or by the mediator himself, that the settlement or the bases of a friendly settlement proposed by him are not accepted."

Consequently the above draft of Article 4, which will be placed at the end of the title, is adopted.

ARTICLE 5

The Powers consider it useful in case of serious disagreement or conflict between [6] civilized States concerning questions of a political nature, independently of the recourse which these Powers might have to the good offices and mediation of Powers not involved in the dispute, for the latter, on their own initiative, and so far as circumstances will allow, to offer their good offices or their mediation in order to smooth away the difficulty which has arisen, by proposing a friendly settlement, which without affecting the interest of other States, might be of such a nature as to reconcile in the best way possible the interests of the litigant parties.

After a general exchange of views, the text of Article 5 is redrafted as shown below (Article 3) and the following arrangement is adopted:

New Arrangement

ARTICLE 1. With the purpose of obviating, as far as possible, recourse to force in international relations, the signatory Powers have agreed to use their best efforts to bring about by pacific means the settlement of differences which may arise between them.

ARTICLE 2. Consequently, the signatory Powers decide that, in case of serious disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, they will have recourse to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers. (Text to be discussed again.)

ARTICLE 3 (originally Article 5). The signatory Powers consider it useful in case of serious disagreement or conflict between civilized States (omit words:" concerning questions of a political nature") independently of the recourse which these Powers may have to the good offices and mediation of Powers not involved in the dispute, for the latter, on their own initiative and so far as circumstances allow, to offer their good offices or their mediation to the dissident States.

The text of this article will be again modified later by an amendment offered by Count NIGRA.1

ARTICLE 4 (originally Article 3). The part of the mediator consists in the reconciliation of the opposing claims and in appeasing the feelings of resentment which may have arisen between the dissident States.

1 Annex 4; see infra, Sections 1 and 2 of Article 3.

ARTICLE 5 (originally Article 4). The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute or by the mediator himself, that the settlement or the bases of a friendly settlement proposed by him are not accepted.

ARTICLE 6. Good offices or mediation undertaken either at the request of the litigant parties or on the initiative of Powers strangers to the dispute have exclusively the character of friendly advice.

This arrangement having been adopted, His Excellency Count Nigra sets forth the scope of Article 3 of the amendment which he presented at the last meeting.

A general discussion takes place upon this subject after which the committee adopts in principle the amendment of his Excellency Count NIGRA, and adopts the following phraseology of Article 3:

Section 1. Independently of this recourse, the signatory Powers deem it expedient that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative, and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States in dispute.

Section 2. Powers strangers to the dispute have the right to offer good offices or mediation, even during the course of hostilities. The exercise of this right can never be regarded as an unfriendly act.1

Mr. Holls asks permission to speak for the purpose of presenting a proposition for special mediation.2

After an exchange of views, the committee decides that this proposition shall be printed and distributed.3

The President consults the committee with regard to its order of business and proposes to hold the third meeting on Wednesday, May 31, at 2 o'clock, to examine the draft of Mr. HOLLS and to continue the examination of the proposition of Mr. MARTENS.

The meeting adjourns.

1 See annex 8.

2 See annex 6.

3 Annex 6.

[7]

THIRD MEETING

MAY 31, 1899 1

Mr. Léon Bourgeois presiding.

The minutes of the last meeting give rise to the following discussion: Before taking up the regular order of business, Dr. Zorn announces that he will propose at the next plenary session to restore the words, stricken out upon the motion of Mr. ASSER, in Article 2: "so far as circumstances admit" or at least to adopt the text proposed by Mr. LAMMASCH, this reservation seeming absolutely necessary to him, and the discussion upon that point having been left open.

Mr. Martens asks that it be stated that if he abstained from voting when the vote was taken at the last meeting (Article 2), with regard to the suppression of the clause in question,- while still naturally favoring the text of the Russian delegation - it was only for the purpose of assisting in reaching an agreement.

His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote observes that of course the deliberations and work of the committee are for the purpose of simplifying those of the Third Commission, but without in any way prejudicing the decisions of that Commission, and furthermore without binding the interested Governments.

The committee unanimously favors this point of view; it considers that its mission is simply to prepare the work for the Commission, and to give it advice, but without having the power itself to reach any decision.

His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote asks if the recourse provided for in Article 2 should be considered as obligatory.

The President remarks that this amounts to asking for the correction of the vote taken at the last meeting upon Article 2. Is this the view of the committee? Mr. Martens asks that a new vote be taken.

Chevalier Descamps believes that if necessary the three texts could be submitted to the Commission, leaving it to make the choice.

Mr. Odier thinks that the Commission expects from the committee not decisions, but at least clear advice and propositions in definite form: consequently, he asks that the committee vote again, stating its view.

Chevalier Descamps seconds this request.

The President then puts the proposition to vote in the following terms: "In view of the preceding remarks, all the members of the committee are agreed that as a compromise measure we might adopt the terms of the amendment of Mr. LAMMASCH 'unless exceptional circumstances are opposed to it,' although the

1 Hall of the Truce. Present: Their Excellencies Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, Count NIGRA, honorary presidents of the Third Commission; Chevalier DESCAMPS, president and reporter; Messrs. ASSER, Baron D'ESTOURNELLES DE CONSTANT, HOLLS, LAMMASCH, MARTENS, ODIER, Doctor ZORN, members of the committee of examination.

omission of the words 'so far as circumtsances admit' was decided upon at the last meeting up to the time of making a new arrangement."

This reservation was unanimously adopted except so far as future modifications might be made in the work of editing the text.

A general discussion then occurs concerning Article 5 of the amendment of his Excellency Count NIGRA.1 This amendment is adopted in principle. It will bear the number 7 after the six articles of the Russian draft already adopted. As for the text it will be as follows:

[8]

The acceptance of mediation cannot, unless there be an agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting, delaying, or hindering mobilization or other measures of preparation; if it takes place after the commencement of hostilities, the military operations in progress are not interrupted, unless there be an agreement to the contrary.

Discussion of the American Draft for "Special Mediation " 2

The committee passes to the examination of the proposal of Mr. HOLLS concerning a special mediation.

Mr. Holls reads the following note:

Permit me to explain briefly the fundamental idea upon which the proposition now submitted to you is based. It was and is, first and foremost, the undeniable fact, that there are and always will be differences between nations and between Governments which neither arbitration nor mediation, according to the usual acceptance of the term, is calculated to prevent. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to say that every such controversy must necessarily end in hostilities, and although in a case where neither arbitration nor mediation seems to be a possible remedy the chances of avoiding a conflict may be characterized as minimal, it is none the less true that in the interests of peace and in the light of experience the attempt should be made, especially if the means proposed are of a nature to be useful even in case peace should after all be broken.

I beg most respectfully to observe that the project which is submitted to you affords this means.

It is an obvious truth which has found expression in private life by the institution of seconds or witnesses, in affairs of honor, that at the eve of what may be a fatal encounter, it is best to leave the discussion of the points in controversy to third parties rather than to the principals themselves. The second enjoys the entire confidence of his friend, whose interests he agrees to do his best in defending, until the entire affair may be settled; yet nevertheless, not being directly interested in the controversy, he preserves at all times the liberty of a mutual friend, or an arbitrator.

In the second place, I would respectfully submit that every institution or custom which may receive the approval of an assembly like this, having for its object the introduction of a new element of deliberation into the relations between States when the latter have become strained, certainly marks so much progress, and may conceivably be of vital importance at a critical moment.

As a matter of fact, and even with the new guaranties of peace which may be

1 See annex 4.

2 See annex 6.