« PreviousContinue »
to the present Conference. Within these recent weeks, Japan, by accepting the 5-5-3 ratio, has given evidence which only the weakminded will in future dispute; and at the same time this ratio is also assurance that
have no intention of assaulting us. We have never aspired or intended to challenge the security of America or her farranging possessions; we have sought only security for ourselves.
In conclusion Mr. Moore said:
The Conference of Washington, as Senator Underwood said, has given to China a magna charta. The nations have renewed their pledges to respect her sovereignty, and it will be very difficult for any of them to go seriously behind their agreements, even if any should want to do so. That coöperation of the Powers in China, as provided by the Conference treaties, will greatly benefit China, and next to China, Japan; and for that reason those Japanese leaders who understand, welcome the work of the Washington Conference. Understanding and coöperating mean peace among the Powers in the Far East, and must aid the prosperity of both China and Japan.
It is now for the Chinese to unify their country, create a condition of security for life and property within it, and establish their responsibility to others. When they have done that, as the Japanese did with conspicuously fewer resources and advantages, they will find equal facility in getting rid of the humiliation of extraterritoriality and the presence of foreign troops at their capital and elsewhere.
The Committee for the Advancement of International Law met on Friday morning at 10 o'clock under the chairmanship of Mr. Root, who urged upon the Committee the necessity of private initiative in restating the rules of international law affected by the war, formulating amendments thereto, reconciling divergent views, and considering the subjects not now adequately regulated by international law, for the eventual use of official international conferences when the governments are ready to act upon these subjects. He thought that unquestionably the time has come when such preparation ought to be going on.
Suppose (he said) that five years hence the world is in a sufficiently chastened and sober mood to sit down and think about such a thing as law, if they got together without material they would not be able to do anything. The Hague Conferences would not have been able to do anything if the work had not been done beforehand. They had wellmatured and thought out plans to consider and say yes or no to them, and to make suggestions and criticisms about them. That process ought to be going on now. If everybody waits, they will wait until too late. Somebody ought to begin, get the thing going, get people to think about it, get people to make and formulate propositions. That is the only way to avoid a very disastrous result, when the political bodies ruling the states are ready to act.
The Committee then divided into four subcommittees dealing respectively with
(1) To restate the established rules of international law, especially, and in the first instance, in the fields affected by the events of the recent
(2) To formulate and agree upon the amendments and additions, if any, to the rules of international law shown to be necessary or useful by the events of the war and the changes in the conditions of international life and intercourse which have followed the war.
(3) To endeavor to reconcile divergent views and secure general agreement upon the rules which have been in dispute heretofore.
(4) To consider the subjects not now adequately regulated by international law, but as to which the interests of international justice require that rule of law shall be declared and accepted.
The subcommittees conferred and discussed during the remainder of Friday morning and afternoon and submitted their reports Friday evening, April 28.
The evening session of April 28 was opened with an interesting paper by Baron S. A. Korff, Professor of Political Science in the School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University, Washington, D. C., on the subject of “The Equality of States”. He strongly defended the principle of equality against the opposing principle of the domination of the great Powers, and reinforced his argument by comparing the number and influence of the socalled great Powers at the time of the Second Hague Conference, with the number and influence of the same Powers at the present time as the result of the World War.
Upon the conclusion of Baron Korff's interesting paper, Dr. David Jayne Hill presented an exhaustive and valuable report of Subcommittee No. 1 on the subject of "Visit, Search and Capture", in which it was stated that the subcommittee “having regard only to what is essentially uniform and constant in the instructions and prize codes of maritime nations, and reserving variations for subsequent discussion,
considers that the 'common law' regarding visit, search and capture, as accepted in substance by all maritime nations, may be codified in the following propositions:
I. Belligerent war vessels have the right to ascertain the nationality and character of all vessels met on the high seas or in belligerent waters.
II. The war vessels of neutral Powers met by belligerent war vessels are exempt from visit and search, but it is the duty of a neutral promptly to signify his nationality.
III. Enemy vessels, except cartel and hospital ships, and a few others, are liable to capture outside of neutral jurisdiction.
IV. Neutral vessels under enemy convoy are liable to capture; neutral vessels under neutral convoy are exempt from search under the guarantee of the convoy commander.
V. Neutral private vessels met on the high seas are liable to visit; and, if their innocence is doubtful, to further examination and search.
VI. Neutral private vessels are liable to capture (a) if they attempt to avoid examination by flight or resistance; (b) if they carry contraband of war, except under special treaty exemptions; (c) if they attempt to evade an effective blockade; (d) if they are guilty of unneutral service; (e) if they are under fraudulent convoy.
VII. Vessels liable to visit and search are entitled to summons to stop and lie to by a public belligerent vessel displaying its national flag, the summons being given by firing a blank charge or by other intelligible signal.
VIII. Visit consists of the appearance on board the merchant ship of one or more officers of the warship, bearing side arms, and accompanied by a few unarmed men who usually remain in the small boat while the officers examine the ship's papers. If these papers, showing the nationality, ownership, destination, and cargo of the ship, furnish satisfactory evidence of innocence, the vessel is to be released; if there is reasonable doubt, the ship may be searched; and, if evidence of guilt under Proposition VI, as above, is found, the vessel may be seized.
IX. The act of capture is signified by hoisting the flag of the captor on the vessel seized.
X. The captured vessel should then, if possible, be sent in under command or control of the captor for adjudication in a prize court of the captor's country.
XI. If the circumstances of the case after visit endanger the safety of the captor or involve the probable loss of the captured ship by recapture or unseaworthiness, the ship may be destroyed; but only on condition that the personnel, even of the enemy, be first removed from the ship to a place of safety and the ship's papers be saved for subsequent examination.
XII. No ship, not a vessel of war, is liable to attack and destruction, without previous visit and search, unless visit is evaded or resisted after summons; but the vessel is liable to the exercise of sufficient force
to cause her to submit if she resists or attempts to escape. On behalf of Subcommittee No. 2, Dr. Harry Pratt Judson, its chairman, presented a report on the subject of “The status of government vessels”, which recommended the following formulation of rules:
1. Government vessels are those which are owned or requisitioned by or chartered to a government. If a vessel is controlled and directed by a government and employed for public purposes, it is immaterial whether the interest of the government is that of ownership, or is based upon charter or requisition.
2. A government vessel operated by the government for public purposes is immune from foreign judicial process.
3. A government vessel operated by private persons for commercial purposes is not immune from foreign judicial process.
4. A government vessel operated by the government for commercial purposes is immune from foreign judicial process, but injuries committed by such vessel should render the government liable in its own courts.
5. Muncipal law determines the liabilities of government vessels in domestic courts.
6. Every government should accord, both by executive action and judicial decision, at least as favorable treatment to the vessels owned or controlled by a friendly foreign government as it accords to those owned or controlled by it.
7. Some convenient method of proof of the governmental character of foreign vessels should be adopted by international agreement.
Professor George Grafton Wilson, chairman of Subcommittee No. 3, presented a report on certain problems of maritime warfare, in which the subcommittee recommended the abolition of the distinction between absolute and conditional contraband of war and that “the doctrine of continuous voyage should not be extended beyond the principle: 'That the ultimate destination of a neutral vessel or cargo determines the liability of either to condemnation, but cargo otherwise innocent may become liable to condemnation if destined to aid the belligerent'".
Acting on behalf of Subcommittee No. 4, the chairman of which was unavoidably absent, Professor Jesse S. Reeves made an oral report on the subject of “Offenses which may be characterized as international crimes and procedure for their prevention", in which he outlined the difficulty as to the conception of an international crime, drawing a distinction between offenses recognized by international usage as "international” largely because of their universality, such as the slave trade, which are punished as crimes in accordance with municipal legislation, and international crimes in the strict sense involving the acts of persons in international law. He said that the subcommittee after full discussion came to the conclusion that not until the adoption of the Declaration of Washington relating to the acts of submarines had there been strictly speaking an international crime, having due regard to the word "international" and to the concept of crime. The provisions of this treaty, he said, introduced a new conception which points the way for an altogether different method of handling offenses which are international in the strict sense of the word. Other phases of the subject, such as other types of offenses which might be similarly designated with penalties, the international criminal liability of nationals of non-signatory Powers, and the nature of the court having jurisdiction over such offenses, the subcommittee, he reported, did not have time to consider.
Action upon the reports of the subcommittees was taken at the session on Saturday morning, April 29. After considerable discussion of the desirability of acting upon the recommendations, it was finally decided, in view of the limited time which the subcommittees had available for the preparation of the reports and which was available for discussion by the Society, to refer all of the reports with the recommendations to the Committee on Organization of Work for coördination, printing and distribution with a view to action at the next meeting on the Society.
In connection with the action upon these reports, there was a spirited debate as to whether the Society should confine its present work to consideration of the laws of war, as the result of which the following resolution was adopted:
Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting that the Committee for the Advancement of International Law consider whether it is not within the purview of their plans to present to this Society at some forthcoming meeting the consideration of the feasibility of some international organization as a means of conducting the international relations of states.
After the adoption of the above resolution, it was further moved that all the members of the Society should be invited to present the topics which they consider fall within the purview of the work of the Committee for the Advancement of International Law and of the Society. Any members having such suggestions may send them to the Secretary, who will be glad to see that they are sent to the proper committee.
At the business session of the Society, which immediately followed, the amendment to the first two paragraphs of Article IV of the Constitution of the Society, printed in the last number of the Journal (April, 1922, p. 275), to provide an interval between the successive periods of service of members elected to the Executive Council, was adopted in the following form:
(Omit words in brackets and insert words in italics) The officers of the Society shall consist of a President, an Honorary President, nine or more Vice-Presidents, the number to be fixed from time to time by the Executive Council, a Recording Secretary, a Corresponding Secretary, and a Treasurer, who shall be elected annually, and of an Executive Council composed of the [President, the VicePresidents) foregoing officers, ex officio, and twenty-four elected members, whose terms of office shall be three years, except that of those elected at the first election, eight shall serve for the period of one year only and eight for the period of two years, and that any one elected to fill a vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired term of the member in whose place he is chosen. No elected member of the Executive Council shall be eligible for reelection until the next annual meeting after that at which his term of office expires.
The Recording Secretary, the Corresponding Secretary and the Treasurer shall be elected by the Executive Council (from among its members). The other officers of the Society shall be elected by the Society, except as hereinafter provided for the filling of vacancies
occurring between elections. The election of officers then ensued and the following were duly elected:
President of the United States.
HON. JOHN BASSETT MOORE
HON. WILLIAM W. MORROW HON. JACOB M. DICKINSON
HON. OSCAR S. STRAUS Hon. GEORGE GRAY
HON. GEORGE SUTHERLAND MR. CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY Hon. WILLIAM H. TAFT HON. DAVID JAYNE HILL
MR. EVERETT P. WHEELER HON. CHARLES E. HUGHES
PROF. GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON Hon. ROBERT LANSING