Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

3. A convention relative to the opening of hostilities.

4. A revised convention regarding the laws and customs of land warfare.

5. A convention relating to the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land.

6. A convention regarding the status of enemy merchant ships at the outbreak of hostilities.

7. A convention in regard to the conversion of merchant ships into war-ships.

8. A convention as to the laying of submarine mines.

9. A convention regarding the bombardments by naval forces in time of war.

10. A convention for the adaptation to maritime war of the principles of the Geneva convention.

11. A convention relative to certain restrictions with regard to the exercise of the right of capture in naval war.

12. A convention relative to the creation of an international prize-court.

13. A convention concerning the rights and duties of neutral powers in naval war.

Besides these conventions there was a renewal of the declaration prohibiting the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons. In addition, the principle of compulsory arbitration was admitted, and the resolution of the first Hague conference in regard to the limitation of military expenditures was confirmed. The wishes adopted were in favor of the advisability of formulating a convention for a judicial arbitral court, and also one to safeguard the pacific relations, more especially those of a commercial and industrial nature between inhabitants of the belligerent states and neutral countries. The conference also expressed the wish that the powers should regulate by special treaties the position, as regards military charges, of foreigners within their territories, also that the preparation and codifications of regulations relative to the laws and customs of naval warfare, or in any case

applying as far as possible the principles of the laws and customs of war on land to such warfare, should be taken up by the next Hague conference, and also that the meeting of this conference should take place at a date fixed by common agree

ment.

So far as the revision of the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes is concerned in the first eight articles, the only changes were to substitute the word "contracting" for " signatory" powers, and in Article 3 to add the words "and desirable" so that it now reads: "Independently of this recourse (to war) the contracting powers deem it expedient and desirable 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 at variance," etc.

The subject of international commissions of inquiry was dealt with in six articles in the convention of 1899, but that of 1907 contains twenty-eight articles upon the subject. This institution had proved its value in the North Sea commission of 1905. The only other important change was made in the addition to present Article 48-formerly Article 27-which provides that in case of dispute between two powers one of them may always address to the international bureau a note containing a declaration that it would be ready to submit the disputes to arbitration.

"The bureau must at once inform the other power of the declaration."

This convention was adopted by the United States and confirmed by the Senate on April 2, 1908, with the following declaration: "Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions of policy or internal administration of any foreign state, nor shall anything contained in the said convention be construed to

imply a relinquishment by the United States of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.

"Resolved, further, as a part of this act of ratification, that the United States approves this convention with the understanding that recourse to the permanent court for the settlement of differences can be had only by agreement thereto through general or special treaties of arbitration heretofore or hereafter concluded between the parties in dispute; and the United States now exercises the option contained in Article 53 of said convention to exclude the formulation of the 'compromis' by the permanent court and hereby excludes from the competence of the permanent court the power to frame the 'compromis' required by general or special treaties of arbitration concluded or hereafter to be concluded by the United States and further expressly declares that the 'compromis' required by any treaty of arbitration to which the United States may be a party shall be settled only by agreement between the contracting parties, unless such treaty shall expressly provide otherwise." 1

The second Hague conference adjourned on the 18th of October, 1907, after a session of some months. Its results, where not discussed under the present heading, will be discussed later, when the subjects treated by the conference come up for separate treatment.

Of the conference as a whole there must be expressed the general feeling of disappointment accompanying the close of all conferences assembled under the name of peace conferences. Higgins, in his comment on this conference, says:

"Some of these causes of want of greater success are capable of remedy by a future conference, but the more fundamental and permanent cause was political. Each delegation had the primary duty to discharge of defending its state's national interests; the conference was not composed merely of lawyers intent on framing a scientific code of international law; it 1 See Scott's "Hague," etc.

was a battle-field of diplomatists. In questions where political considerations were supreme compromise was often impossible.

"Notwithstanding all these circumstances, the conference was not a failure; it was disappointing, but it is not discouraging. War will not be banished from the world by peace conferences; nevertheless such gatherings, by removing doubts in international rules and bringing into greater prominence the solidarity of the interests of mankind, may do much to encourage arbitration and to remove the causes of war." 1

35. The Declaration of London. The international prizecourt formulated at the second Hague convention, and which has been duly ratified by the United States, contains in the second part of Article 7 the following words:

"In the absence of such (treaty) provisions, the court shall apply the rules of international law. If no generally recognized rule exists, the court shall give judgment in accordance with the general principles of justice and equity."

As a strong feeling existed on the part of Great Britain and other maritime powers as to what rules of maritime international law might be considered to exist at the present day, it was considered wise by Great Britain to call a conference to determine what laws should govern the international prizecourt in the cases to be brought before it for trial. Accordingly, on the invitation of the British Government, delegates from Germany, the United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, Austria, Russia, Japan, Holland, and Spain met in London from December, 1908, to February, 1909, and formulated a convention popularly known as the declaration of London, settling many important matters in the relations of belligerents and neutrals in matters connected with prize laws that were liable to be within the jurisdiction of an international prizecourt and about which there had existed great differences.

1 Higgins, "Hague Conferences," pp. 525, 526.

This declaration is known officially as the "declaration concerning the laws of naval war," while the conference is known as the London naval conference of 1909. The preliminary provision of the declaration states that the signatory powers are agreed that the rules contained in the chapters that followed correspond in substance with the generally recognized principles of international law. The subjects treated were those of blockade in time of war, contraband of war, unneutral service, destruction of neutral prizes, transfer to a neutral flag, enemy character, convoy, resistance to search and compensation, finishing with a wish (cou) with regard to the international prize-court, which was adopted at the request of the United States in order to avoid what seemed to be a constitutional difficulty with respect to appeals to the prize-court from our Supreme Court. According to this wish, the delegates were to point out to their governments the advantage there will be in arriving at an agreement of a kind to dispel the difficulties of a constitutional nature which face some of them. It is a proposition for attaining the same end under another form; instead of annulling a decision appealed from, the prizecourt will award compensation. The result, however, remains the same; the individual affected will be able to obtain a new trial which will in the end do him justice. The method alone is different.

The declaration of London has been approved by the President of the United States and was ratified by the Senate April 24, 1912. Whether formally ratified or not by the signatory and other powers, it has the authoritative weight due to the unanimous vote of the representatives of the great maritime powers and to their declaration that it represents the actual principles of international law upon the subjects dealt with. It is highly satisfactory to know that so many questions of the conflicting schools of continental Europe and of England and America have been finally and formally agreed upon. The criticisms in regard to the conference and the declaration of

« ZurückWeiter »