among peoples and in accordance with the dictates of experience. Its most important creation, the International Court of Arbitration, is an institution which has already been put to the test, and has brought together in an Areopagus for the benefit of humanity, jurists who enjoy universal respect. It is also evident how beneficent International Commissions of Inquiry have been in the solution of difficulties between States. "None the less, there is still a need of improvement in the Convention concerning the Pacific Regulation of International Disputes. As a result of recent arbitrations, the jurists sitting as an International Court have raised certain questions of detail which must be decided so as to give the said Convention its necessary development. It has seemed especially desirable that fixed principles should be laid down regarding the languages1 to be used in the procedure of the Court, in view of the difficulties which might arise in the future, as the number of applications to the Court of Arbitration increased. There is also need of certain improvements in the working of the International Commissions of Inquiry. 66 'Touching the regulation of the Laws and Practices of Land Warfare, the arrangements made by the first Conference need no less to be completed and defined in such a way as to prevent any misunderstanding. "As regards Naval Warfare, of which the laws and usages differ in certain points in different countries, it is necessary to establish fixed regulations in harmony with the requirements of the rights of belligerents and the interests of neutrals. "An agreement touching these matters should be drawn up, and would form one of the most notable parts of the work of the coming Confer ence. "The Imperial Government, believing that it is necessary only to examine questions which press with particular urgency inasmuch as they arise from the experience of recent years, and without touching on those which belong to the limitation of Military and Naval Forces, proposes therefore as programme for the Conference the following principal points: "I. Improvements to be made in the regulations of the Convention touching the pacific settlement of international disputes regarding both the Court of Arbitration and the International Commissions of Inquiry. "2. Additions to be made in the regulations of the Convention of 1899 touching the Laws and Practices of Land Warfare, among others the opening of hostilities, the rights of neutrals on land, etc. Declarations of 1899, one among them being renewable-the question of its renewal. "3. Elaboration of a Convention touching the Laws and Practices of Naval Warfare concerning— “The special operations of naval warfare, such as the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force, the laying of mines, etc. "The transformation of commercial vessels into warships. "The private property of belligerents at sea. "The delay to be accorded to commercial vessels in leaving neutral ports or those of the enemy after the outbreak of hostilities. "The rights and duties of neutrals at sea, among other questions that of contraband, the treatment to which the ships of belligerents should be subjected in neutral ports, destruction by force majeure of neutral ships of commerce as prizes. "In the said Convention should be introduced arrangements relative to land warfare, which should be equally applicable to naval warfare. "Additions to be made in the Convention of 1899 for the adaptation to naval warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864. "As at the Conference of 1899, it should be understood that the deliberations of the proposed Conference shall deal neither with the political relations among States, nor with the order of things established by treaties, nor with any general interests which were not directly included in the programme adopted by the Cabinets. "The Imperial Government desires to emphasise that the issue of this programme, and its eventual acceptance by the various States, must not be held to prejudice any opinion which might be formulated in the Conference regarding the solutions to be given to the questions submitted for discussion. Equally, it should belong to the projected Conference to determine the order of questions for discussions and the form to be given to its decisions, according 1 See pp. 21, 27-28. as it may be considered preferable to include certain of them in new conventions, or to add them as supplements to existing conventions. "In formulating the above programme the Imperial Government has taken into account, as far as possible, the desires expressed by the first Peace Conference, notably in regard to the rights and duties of neutrals, private property of belligerents at sea, the bombardment of ports, towns, etc. It expresses the hope that the Government will see in the points proposed, taken as a whole, an expression of the desire to approach that lofty ideal of International Justice which is the constant goal of the entire civilised world.”1 The chief cause of adjournment of the Conference was the meeting of the Pan-American Congress at Rio de Janeiro fixed already for the month of July,-a Congress with which most of the North and South American experts available for The Hague Conference would be occupied. It was decided at this Congress that to the questions for discussion at The Hague Conference be added that of the enforcing by arms of commercial and financial obligations. The question of the reduction of military and naval budgets and armaments was not placed in the van of the subjects for discussion, as it was at the Conference of 1899, though the British Government steadfastly asserted the necessity of keeping this subject in the front. A serious controversy on the advisability of including it in the programme in fact threatened to disturb the harmony of the Governments at the outset, and caused the British Prime Minister, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, to publish a remarkable statement on the subject in the Nation of March 2, 1907, protesting vigorously against the suggestion that the discussion of the subject "would be fraught with danger." 2 The Conference of 1907, which sat from June 15 to October 8, was attended by representatives of the following forty-four states: Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Switzerland, Montenegro, Roumania, Bulgaria, Servia, Luxemburg, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Ecaudor, Columbia, Cuba, Haiti, St. Domingo, Japan, China, Persia, and Siam. Though, in spite of the resolution and Vau on armaments handed down from the Conference of 1899, this subject made no progress, Conventions of far-reaching importance were adopted on other matters. These were as follows: I. Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes; 3 II. Convention respecting the limitation of the employment of force for the recovery of contract debts; III. Convention relative to the commencement of hostilities; IV. Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land; 4 1 The following is, according to the Vienna Neue Freie Presse, the text of the circular dispatch addressed on April 3, 1907, by M. Isvolsky, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Russian representatives abroad: "Before the summoning of the second Peace Conference, the Imperial Government considers it its duty to lay the present situation before the Powers who have accepted its invitation. All the Powers to whom the Imperial Government, in April 1906, communicated its outline of the programme for the labours of the new Conference have assented to it. The following observations, however, have been made with reference to this programme: "The Government of the United States has reserved the right to submit to the second Conference two supplementary questions, one relating to the reduction or limitation of armies, and the other relating to the securing of an obligation to observe certain limitations in the employment of force for the collection of ordinary public debts arising out of treaties. "The Spanish Government has expressed the wish to discuss the question of the limitation of armaments, and has reserved to itself the right to treat this question at the next Hague meeting. "The British Government has communicated the fact that it attaches great importance to the discussion at the Conference of the question of expenditure upon armaments, and it has reserved the right to raise this question. It has also reserved the right to abstain from participating in the discussion of any articles in the Russian programme which, in its opinion, would not lead to useful results. "Japan is of the opinion that certain questions, not specially enumerated in the programme, might advantageously be taken up among the matters which are to be examined, and has reserved the right to abstain or to withdraw from any discussion which may take a direction or show a tendency which, in its judgment, would not conduce to a useful result. "The Governments of Bolivia, Denmark, Greece, and the Netherlands have likewise in general reserved the right to submit to the judgment of the Conference other matters which exhibit an analogy with those expressly adduced in the Russian programme. "The Imperial Government deems it its duty to declare that Russia, on its part, adheres to the programme of April 1906 as the basis for the deliberations of the Conference, and in turn reserves the right to abstain from any discussion which does not appear to it to tend to a practical result. "Observations analogous to these last have been made by the Governments of Germany and Austria-Hungary, which likewise have reserved the right to abstain from the discussion of any question which does not appear to them to tend to practical results. "The Imperial Government, while bringing these reservations to the knowledge of the Powers, and expressing the hope that the labours of the second Peace Conference will result in fresh securities for a good understanding among the nations of the civilised world, has at the same time addressed a request to the Government of the Netherlands to summon the Conference for the early part of June."-Translation given in Herald of Peace, May 1907. 2 See text of Sir H. Campbell-Bannermann's statement in Barclay, Problems, p. 8. 3 This is an amended edition of that of 1899. 4 This is an amended edition of that of 1899. V. Convention respecting the rights and duties of neutral Powers and persons in war on land; VI. Convention relative to the status of enemy merchant ships at the outbreak of hostilities; VII. Convention relative to the conversion of merchant ships into warships; VIII. Convention relative to the laying of automatic submarine contact mines ; IX. Convention respecting bombardment by naval forces in time of war; X. Convention for the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime war; 1 XI. Convention relative to certain restrictions on the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war; XII. Convention relative to the establishment of an International Prize Court; XIII. Convention respecting the rights and duties of neutral Powers in maritime war; XIV. Declaration prohibiting discharge of projectiles, etc., from balloons. A draft Convention relative to the creation of a Court of Arbitral Justice was also drawn up in connection with the first of four following Vœux: 66 1. The Conference calls the attention of the Signatory Powers to the advisability of adopting the annexed draft Convention for the creation of a Court of Arbitral Justice, and of bringing it into force as soon as an agreement has been reached respecting the selection of the Judges and the constitution of the Court; "2. The Conference expresses the opinion that, in case of war, the responsible authorities, civil as well as military, should make it their special duty to ensure and safeguard the maintenance of pacific relations, more especially of the commercial and industrial relations between the inhabitants of the belligerent States and neutral countries; "3. The Conference expresses the opinion that the Powers should regulate, by special treaties, the position, as regards military charges, of foreigners residing within their territories; "4. The Conference expresses the opinion that the preparation of regulations relative to the Laws and Customs of Naval War should figure in the programme of the next Conference, and that in any case the Powers apply, as far as possible, to war by sea the principles of the Convention relative to the Laws and Customs of War on Land"; 2 Finally, the Conference recommended to the Powers "the assembling of a third Peace Conference, which might be held within a period corresponding to that which had elapsed since 1 This is an amended edition of that of 2 See the Projet on this subject of the I the preceding Conference, at a date to be fixed by common agreement among the Powers; and it called their attention to the necessity of preparing the programme of this third Conference a sufficient time in advance to ensure its deliberations being conducted with the necessary authority and expedition." In order to attain this object the Conference considered that it "would be very desirable that, some two years before the probable date of the meeting, a preparatory Committee should be charged by the Governments with the task of collecting the various proposals to be submitted to the Conference, of ascertaining what subjects are ripe for embodiment in an International Regulation, and of preparing a programme which the Governments should decide upon in sufficient time to enable it to be carefully examined by the countries interested," and that this Committee should further be entrusted with the task of proposing a system of organisation and procedure for the Conference itself. A comparison of the two Conferences shows that they differed essentially as regards their immediate object. That of 1899 was essentially a Peace Conference, called for the express purpose of arresting the growth of armaments and war budgets. From the second one all discussion on this subject was deliberately excluded, though a resolution was unanimously adopted in favour of its future consideration, to which I shall revert below. Of the three Conventions adopted in 1899 one was a code of rules for the observance of armies in the field, which only gave effect, with a few modifications, to the unratified rules drawn up at the Conference called by the Czar Alexander II. and held at Brussels in 1874, rules which were afterwards carefully overhauled by the Institution of International Law, and are known to students of International Law as the Oxford Rules of 1880, so called because adopted at the meeting of the Institute held that year at Oxford. The second merely adapted the already existing rules of the Geneva Convention to maritime warfare. The third, viz., that on arbitration, alone dealt with new matter. The work of the second Conference was of a very different kind, as has been seen from the list given above of the Conventions, etc., adopted. It not only embraced a thorough revision of these three Conventions, but covered no small proportion of different other branches of International Law. Without taking into account the modifications introduced by the Conventions into existing practice, the bare fact of turning the rules of International Law, hitherto sneered at as a body of theorists' notions, into a written code, accepted by all civilised mankind, is in itself a great achievement, greater than the public seems yet to have realised. The late Lord Salisbury, who was no petty authority on questions of international practice, speaking, in 1887, on International Arbitration, observed: "International Law has not any existence in the sense in which the term 'law' is usually understood. It depends generally upon the prejudice of writers of text-books." Still more recently, the late Lord Chief Justice Russell of Killowen, in his address at the meeting of the Bar Association at Saratoga Springs in 1896, vindicating the propriety of calling International Law "law," described the same feeling : "It is said by some that there is no International Law, that there is only a bundle, more or less confused, of rules to which nations more or less conform, but that International Law there is none." This is no longer true of the matter with which The Hague Conferences have dealt. They have brought order, precision, and civilised methods into matters in which, until recently, the very idea of codification was too remote to be seriously considered.1 In 1899 the Declaration of Paris 2 was still the only case of any rules of law which had been adopted by an international enactment as "law" in the sense of the late Lord Salisbury. To understand the immensity of the work of 1907 we need only compare with this short declaration the vast groundwork of international legislation laid down by the second Conference. Events have proved that there was no justification for the fear frequently expressed before the meeting of the Conference that it would prove a failure and discourage public opinion. The real danger was that, in undertaking too much, it would turn out carelessly drafted work, and this, probably, practice will ultimately show to have been the case as regards a good deal of it. If it be so, it will have been due to the fact that the work of the Conference was ill-prepared. There was undoubtedly a great waste of time on preparatory work, which would certainly have been better carried out, had it been done, without pressure of time, before the Conference came together. The fact that the bulk of the work had to be drafted in small special committees, while over two-thirds of the delegates only came together from time to time to discuss the work handed in by these special committees, marks the way in which better preparation for such Conferences may be effected. This experience led the Conference of 1907 to express a wish that a restricted International Committee should prepare the preliminary drafts for submission to the third Conference in advance. 1 It is curious to see the distrust of a man of even such advanced views as the late Lord Russell of Killowen of the codification of International Law. In the above-quoted address in 1896 he said: "It (International Law) is in a state of growth and transition. To codify it would be to crystallise it uncodified, it is more flexible and more easily assimilates new rules. While agreeing, therefore, indeterminate points should be determined, and that we should aim at raising the ethical standard, I do not think we have yet reached the point at which codification is practicable or, if practicable, would be a public good." 2 See the text of the Declaration, p. 259. |