ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS

Joint Note of the French Ambassador and the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, concerning the settlement of the questions arising out of the arrest of the French steamers "Carthage" and "Manouba."-Signed January 26, 1912.2

The Ambassador of France and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy, having investigated in the most friendly spirit the circumstances which preceded and followed the arrest and search by an Italian cruiser of two French steamers proceeding from Marseilles to Tunis, are happy to report, in thorough accord and before every other consideration, that in neither of the two countries has there arisen as a result of these incidents any feeling contrary to the sentiments of sincere and constant friendship which unite them.

This report has led the two Governments without difficulty to decide: 1. That the questions arising from the capture and temporary detention of the steamer Carthage shall be referred to the Court of Arbitration at The Hague for examination, under the Franco-Italian arbitration convention of December 23, 1903, renewed December 24, 1908.

2. That in the matter of the seizure of the Manouba and of the Ottoman passengers who were on board, as this action, according to the Italian Government, was taken by virtue of the rights which it declares it possesses according to the general principles of international law and Article 47 of the Declaration of London of 1909, the circumstances under which this action was taken and the consequences thereof shall likewise be submitted for examination to the high international Court established at The Hague; that, in order to restore the statu quo ante, in so far as concerns the Ottoman passengers who were seized, the latter shall be delivered to the French consul at Cagliari, who shall see that they are taken back to the place from which they sailed, upon the responsibility of the French Government, which Government shall take the necessary measures to prevent Ottoman passengers not belonging to the "Red Crescent" but to fighting forces, from sailing from a French port to Tunis or to the scene of military operations.

1For the Manouba Case, see post, p. 341.

2American Journal of International Law, vol. 7, Supplement, p. 176. For the original French text, see Appendix, p. 562.

Franco-Italian Agreement Signed at Paris, April 4, 19121

The Government of the French Republic and the Royal Italian Government, having in mind the two compromis negotiated March 6, 1912, by Messrs. Louis Renault and Fusinato, for the purpose of settling by arbitration of the Permanent Court at The Hague the incidents relative to the seizure of the Carthage and of the Manouba, declaring their approval of the terms, and considering themselves bound by their texts;

Have appointed by common accord the following members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to constitute the arbitral tribunal:

Mr. Guido Fusinato, Doctor of Law, former Minister of Public Instruction, former professor of international law at the University of Turin, Deputy, Councilor of State;

Mr. Knut Hjalmar Léonard Hammarskjöld, Doctor of Law, former Minister of Justice, former Minister of Public Worship and Instruction, former Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Copenhagen, former President of the Court of Appeals of Jönköping, former professor in the Faculty of Law of Upsala, Governor of the province of Upsala;

Mr. Kriege, Doctor of Law, Confidential Counselor of Legation, Director of the Department of Foreign Affairs;

Mr. Louis Renault, Minister Plenipotentiary, professor in the Faculty of Law of Paris, Counselor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs;

Baron Taube, permanent member of the Council of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, professor of international law in the Imperial University of St. Petersburg, Councilor of State;

Mr. Hammarskjöld shall perform the duties of umpire or president of the tribunal.

The two Governments agree to fix at 3,000 Netherland florins the sum to be deposited by each of them, conformably to Article 4 of each. compromis, it being understood that the said sum is to serve as provision for all business with which the above-mentioned arbitral tribunal is charged.

The two Governments reserve the right to modify by mutual agreement Article 5 of each of the compromis with respect to the date of the meeting of the arbitral tribunal.

Done at Paris, April 4, 1912.

(L. S.) Signed: R. POINCARÉ (L. S.) Signed: M. RUSPOLI

1Translation. For the original French text, see Appendix, p. 563. 2Ante, p. 336; post, p. 351.

THE MANOUBA CASE

between

FRANCE and ITALY

Decided May 6, 1913

Syllabus

On January 5, 1912, during the war between Turkey and Italy over Tripoli and Cyrenaica, the Ottoman Government requested the French Government to provide facilities for a Turkish Red Crescent Mission to reach the seat of the war via Tunis, which the French Government agreed to do. The Italian Ambassador in Paris protested against the proposed action, but the French Government assured him that the Turks in question were members of the Red Crescent Mission and also sent instructions that the Tunis authorities should confirm this fact before allowing the Turks to proceed. This information and proceeding satisfied the Ambassador and he communicated with his Government. Before his message arrived, however, the Manouba, a French vessel, upon which the Turks were being transported, was captured on January 18, 1912, by an Italian war vessel, and taken to Cagliari, at which port it arrived on the same day. The Italians, claiming that the Turks were carrying arms and money for the use of the Ottoman forces in Tripoli, demanded their surrender, and, on the refusal of the captain of the Manouba to comply, seized the vessel. The French Embassy was advised of what had occurred, and, in view of assurances of the Italians that the Turks were belligerents, directed the vice-consul at Cagliari to order their removal from the Manouba. This was done in the afternoon of January 19, 1912, and the vessel proceeded on her voyage. Notwithstanding the action of the French Embassy, vigorous representations were immediately made to the Italian Government by the French Government, which demanded the release of the Turks, reparation for the offense to the French flag, the violation of the conventional engagements between the two countries, particularly Article 2 of the Hague Convention of 1907 relative to certain restrictions on the right of capture in maritime warfare, and Article 9 of the Geneva Convention of July 6, 1906, for the amelioration of the condition of the sick and wounded in the field, and the verbal agreement between the two Governments relative to the passengers on the Manouba. Indemnities to the private individuals. interested in the steamer and its voyage were also demanded. The Italian Government agreed to deliver the Turkish subjects to the French consul at Cagliari to be returned upon the responsibility of France to the place from which they sailed. It took issue, however,

with the other French demands, and made a counter-claim for the violation of its belligerent right under international law to ascertain the character of individuals suspected of being soldiers of the enemy found on board neutral commercial vessels, and for reimbursement of expenses incurred on account of the seizure of the vessel.

The controversy was referred under a compromis dated March 6, 1912, to an arbitral tribunal selected from the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. The tribunal was composed of K. Hj. L. Hammarskjöld of Sweden; Louis Renault of France; Guido Fusinato of Italy; J. Kriege of Germany, and Baron Michel de Taube of Russia. Its sessions began March 31, 1913, and ended May 6, 1913. In an award rendered on the latter date, the tribunal held that there was a misunderstanding between the two Governments as to the exemption of the vessel which carried these passengers from the right of search, and that, in the absence of a special understanding, the Italian naval authorities were justified in acting according to the common international law; that they had sufficient reasons to believe that some of the passengers were enemy soldiers and had a right to demand and compel their surrender, but that they had no right to capture the vessel and force it to leave its course unless for the purpose of arresting the captain for failure to comply with such demand; that no such demand having been made, the capture and conveyance of the ship to Cagliari were illegal. The tribunal further held, however, that the illegality of the capture did not affect the right of the Italian authorities at Cagliari to demand and compel the surrender of the Turkish passengers and to arrest them, and upon refusal of the demand by the captain to detain the vessel until it was complied with. The detention of the vessel at Cagliari and the arrest of the passengers were therefore held to be legal. The national claims of both Governments were disallowed, but a small indemnity was awarded to France for the losses sustained by the private individuals interested in the vessel and its voyage by reason of its illegal capture and convoy to Cagliari, from which indemnity the tribunal deducted the amount of expenses incurred by the Italian Government in guarding the vessel during its sequestration at Cagliari to compel the surrender of the passengers.

AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL

Award of the arbitral tribunal in the case of the French mail steamer "Manouba."-The Hague, May 6, 1913.2

Considering that by an agreement dated January 26, 1912, and

1Post, p. 351.

2 American Journal of International Law, vol 7, p. 629. For the original French text, see Appendix, p. 565.

Ante, p. 339.

by a compromis dated the 6th of March following,1 the Government of the French Republic and the Royal Italian Government have agreed to submit to an arbitral tribunal composed of five members the decision of the following questions:

1. Were the Italian naval authorities, in general and in the special circumstances under which the act was committed, within their rights in proceeding, as they did, to the capture and the temporary detention of the French mail steamer Manouba, as well as to the arrest of the twenty-nine Ottoman passengers who were on board? 2. What should be the pecuniary or other consequences following the decision of the preceding question?

Considering that, in accordance with this compromis the two Governments have chosen, by common consent, the following members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to constitute the arbitral tribunal:

His Excellency Guido Fusinato, Doctor of Law, Minister of State, formerly Minister of Public Instruction, honorary professor of international law in the University of Turin, Deputy, Councilor of State;

Mr. Knut Hjalmar Leonard Hammarskjöld, Doctor of Law, formerly Minister of Justice, formerly Minister of Public Worship and Instruction, formerly Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Copenhagen, formerly President of the Court of Ap peals of Jönköping, formerly professor in the Faculty of Law of Upsala, Governor of the Province of Upsala;

Mr. Kriege, Doctor of Law, at present Confidential Counsel of Legation and Director in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Plenipotentiary in the German Federal Council;

Mr. Louis Renault, Minister Plenipotentiary, member of the Institute, professor in the Faculty of Law of the University of Paris and of the Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques, Jurisconsult of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

His Excellency Baron Michel de Taube, Doctor of Law, Assistant to the Minister of Public Instruction of Russia, Councilor of State;

That the two Governments have, at the same time, designated Mr. Hammarskjöld to perform the duties of president.

1Post, p. 351.