Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 5, 1899

international conference at the hague—report of the commission of the united states of america.

The Hague, July 31, 1899.

The Hon. John Hay,
Secretary of State.

Sir: On May 17, 1899, the American commission to the Peace Conference of the Hague met for the first time at the house of the American minister, the Hon. Stanford Newel, the members, in the order named in the instructions from the State Department, being Andrew D. White, Seth Low, Stanford Newel, Capt. Alfred T. Mahan of the United States Navy, Capt. William Crozier of the United States Army, and Frederick W. Holls, secretary. Mr. White was elected president, and the instructions from the Department of State were read.

On the following day the conference was opened at the palace known as “The House in the Wood,” and delegates from the following countries, twenty-six in number, were found to be present: Germany, the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, China, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain and Ireland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and Bulgaria.

The opening meeting was occupied mainly by proceedings of a ceremonial nature, including a telegram to the Emperor of Russia, and a message of thanks to the Queen of the Netherlands, with speeches by Mr. De Beaufort, the Netherlands minister of foreign affairs, and Mr. De Staal, representing Russia.

At the second meeting a permanent organization of the conference was effected, Mr. De Staal being chosen president, Mr. De Beaufort honorary president, and Mr. van Karnebeek, a former Netherlands minister of foreign affairs, vice-president. A sufficient number of secretaries were also named.

The work of the conference was next laid out with reference to the points stated in the Mouravieff circular of December 30, 1898, and divided between three great committees as follows:

The first of these committees was upon the limitation of armaments and war budgets, the interdiction or discouragement of sundry arms and explosives which had been or might be hereafter invented, and the limitation of the use of sundry explosives, projectiles, and methods of destruction, both on land and sea, as contained in articles 1 to 4 of the Mouravieff circular.

The second great committee had reference to the extension of the Geneva Red Cross rules of 1864 and 1868 to maritime warfare, and the revision of the Brussels declaration of 1874 concerning the laws and customs of war, as contained in articles 5 to 7 of the same circular.

The third committee had as its subjects mediation, arbitration, and other methods of preventing armed conflicts between nations, as referred to in article 8 of the Mouravieff circular.

The American members of these three committees were as follows: Of the first committee, Messrs. White, Mahan, Crozier; of the second committee, Messrs. White, Newel, Mahan, Crozier; of the third committee, Messrs. White, Low, and Holls.

In aid of these three main committees subcommittees were appointed as follows:

The first committee referred questions of a military nature to the first subcommittee, of which Captain Crozier was a member, and questions of a naval nature to the second subcommittee, of which Captain Mahan was a member.

The second committee referred articles 5 and 6, having reference to the extension of the Geneva rules to maritime warfare, to a subcommittee of which Captain Mahan was a member, and article 7, concerning the revision of the laws and customs of war, to a subcommittee of which Captain Crozier was a member.

The third committee appointed a single subcommittee of “examination,” whose purpose was to scrutinize plans, projects, and suggestions of arbitration, and of this committee Mr. Holls was a member.

The main steps in the progress of the work wrought by these agencies, and the part taken in it by our commission are detailed in the accompanying reports, made to the American commission by the American members of the three committees of the conference. It will be seen from these that some of the most important features finally adopted were the result of American proposals or suggestions.

As to that portion of the work of the first committee of the conference which concerned the nonaugmentation of armies, navies, and war budgets for a fixed term, and the study of the means for eventually diminishing armies and war budgets, namely article 1, the circumstances of the United States being so different from those which obtain in other parts of the world, and especially in Europe, we thought it best, under our instructions, to abstain from taking any active part. In this connection the following declaration was made:

The delegation of the United States of America have concurred in the conclusions upon the first clause of the Russian letter of December 30, 1898, presented to the conference by the first commission, namely, that the proposals of the Russian representatives, for fixing the amounts of effective forces and of budgets, military and naval, for periods of five and three years, can not now be accepted, and that a more profound study upon the part of each State concerned is to be desired. But, while thus supporting what seemed to be the only practicable solution of a question submitted to the conference by the Russian letter, the delegation wishes to place upon the record that the United States, in so doing, does not express any opinion as to the course to be taken by the States of Europe.

This declaration is not meant to indicate mere indifference to a difficult problem, because it does not affect the United States immediately, but expresses a determination to refrain from enunciating opinions upon matters into which, as concerning Europe alone, the United States has no claim to enter. The words drawn up by M. Bourgeois, and adopted by the first commission, received also the hearty concurrence of this delegation, because in so doing it expresses the cordial interest and sympathy with which the United States, while carefully abstaining from anything that might resemble interference, regards all movements that are thought to tend to the welfare of Europe. The military and naval armaments of the United States are at present so small, relatively to the extent of territory and to the number of the population, as well as in comparison with those of other nations, that their size can entail no additional burden of expense upon the latter, nor can even form a subject for profitable mutual discussion.

As to that portion of the work of the first committee which concerned the limitations of invention and the interdiction of sundry arms, explosives, mechanical agencies, and methods heretofore in use or which might possibly be hereafter adopted, as regards warfare by land and sea, namely, articles 2, 3, and 4, the whole matter having been divided between Captains Mahan and Crozier so far as technical discussion was concerned, the reports made by them from time to time to the American commission formed the basis of its final action on these subjects in the first committee and in the conference at large.

The American commission approached the subject of the limitation of invention with much doubt. They had been justly reminded in their instructions of the fact that by the progress of invention, as applied to the agencies of war, the frequency, and, indeed, the exhausting character of war had been, as a rule, diminished rather than increased. As to details regarding missiles and methods, technical and other difficulties arose which obliged us eventually, as will be seen, to put ourselves on record in opposition to the large majority of our colleagues from other nations on sundry points. While agreeing with them most earnestly as to the end to be attained, the difference in regard to some details was irreconcilable. We feared falling into evils worse than those from which we sought to escape. The annexed reports of Captains Mahan and Crozier will exhibit very fully these difficulties and the decisions thence arising.

As to the work of the second great committee of the conference, the matters concerned in articles 5 and 6, which related to the extension to maritime warfare of the Red-Cross rules regarding care for the wounded, adopted in the Geneva Convention of 1864 and 1868, were, as already stated, referred, as regards the discussion of technical questions in the committee and subcommittee, to Captain Mahan, and the matters concerned in article 7, on the revision of the laws and customs of war, were referred to Captain Crozier. On these technical questions Captains Mahan and Crozier reported from time to time to the American commission, and these reports, having been discussed both in regard to their general and special bearings, became the basis of the final action of the entire American commission both in the second committee and in the conference at large.

As to the first of these subjects, the extension of the Geneva Red Cross rules to maritime warfare, while the general purpose of the articles adopted elicited the especial sympathy of the American commission, a neglect of what seemed to us a question of almost vital importance, namely, the determination of the status of men picked up by the hospital ships of neutral States or by other neutral vessels, has led us to refrain from signing the convention prepared by the conference touching this subject and to submit the matter with full explanations to the Department of State for decision.

As to the second of these subjects, the revision of the laws and customs of war, though the code adopted and embodied in the third convention commends our approval, it is of such extent and importance as to appear to need detailed consideration in connection with similar laws and customs already in force in the Army of the United States, and it was thought best therefore to withhold our signature from this convention also and to refer it to the State Department with a recommendation that it be there submitted to the proper authorities for special examination and signed, unless such examination shall disclose imperfections not apparent to the commission.

As to the third great committee of the conference, that which had in charge the matters concerned in article 8 of the Russian circular with reference to good offices, meditation, and arbitration, the proceedings of the subcommittee above referred to became especially important.

While much interest was shown in the discussions of the first great committee of the conference, and still more in those of the second, the main interest of the whole body centered more and more in the third. It was felt that a thorough provision for arbitration and its cognate subjects is the logical precursor of the limitation of standing armies and budgets, and that the true logical order is first arbitration and then disarmament.

As to subsidiary agencies to arbitration, while our commission contributed much to the general work regarding good offices and mediation it contributed entirely, through Mr. Holls, the “Plan for special mediation” which was adopted unanimously, first by the committee and finally by the conference.

As to the “Plan for international commissions of inquiry,” which emanated from the Russian delegation, our commission acknowledged its probable value and aided in elaborating it, but added to the safeguards against any possible abuse of it, as concerns the United States, by our declaration of July 25, to be mentioned hereafter.

The functions of such commission are strictly limited to the ascertainment of facts, and it is hoped that both by giving time for passions to subside and by substituting truth for rumor they may prove useful at times in settling international disputes. The commission of inquiry may also form a useful auxiliary both in the exercise of good offices and arbitration.

As to the next main subject, the most important of all under consideration by the third committee—the plan of a permanent court or tribunal—we were also able, in accordance with our instructions, to make contributions which we believe will aid in giving such a court dignity and efficiency.

On the assembling of the conference the feeling regarding the establishment of an actual permanent tribunal was evidently chaotic, with little or no apparent tendency to crystallize into any satisfactory institution. The very elaborate and in the main excellent proposals relating to procedure before special and temporary tribunals, which were presented by the Russian delegation, did not at first contemplate the establishment of any such permanent institution. The American plan contained a carefully devised project for such a tribunal, which differed from that adopted mainly in contemplating a tribunal capable of meeting in full bench and permanent in the exercise of its functions, like the Supreme Court of the United States, instead of a court like the supreme court of the State of New York, which never sits as a whole, but whose members sit from time to time singly or in groups, as the occasion may demand. The court of arbitration provided for resembles in many features the supreme court of the State of New York and courts of unlimited original jurisdiction in various other States.

In order to make this system effective a council was established, composed of the diplomatic representatives of the various powers at The Hague, and presided over by the Netherlands minister of foreign affairs, which should have charge of the central office of the proposed court, of all administrative details, and of the means and machinery for speedily calling a proper bench of judges together and for setting the court in action. The reasons for our cooperation in making this plan will be found in the accompanying report. This compromise, involving the creation of a council and the selection of judges not to be in session save when actually required for international litigation, was proposed by Great Britain, and the feature of it which provided for the admission of the Netherlands, with its minister of foreign affairs as president of the council, was proposed by the American commission. The nations generally joined in perfecting other details. It may truthfully be called, therefore, the plan of the conference.

As to the revision of the decisions by the tribunal in case of the discovery of new facts, a subject on which our instructions were explicit, we were able, in the face of determined and prolonged opposition, to secure recognition in the code of procedure for the American view.

As regards the procedure to be adopted in the international court thus provided, the main features having been proposed by the Russian delegation, various modifications were made by other delegations, including our own. Our commission was careful to see that in this code there should be nothing which could put those conversant more especially with British and American common law and equity at a disadvantage. To sundry important features proposed by other powers our own commission gave hearty support. This was the case especially with article 27 proposed by France. It provides a means, through the agency of the powers generally, for calling the attention of any nations apparently drifting into war to the fact that the tribunal is ready to hear their contention. In this provision, broadly interpreted, we acquiesced, but endeavored to secure a clause limiting to suitable circumstances the “duty” imposed by the article. Great opposition being shown to such an amendment as unduly weakening the article, we decided to present a declaration that nothing contained in the convention should make it the duty of the United States to intrude in or become entangled with European political questions or matters of internal administration or to relinquish the traditional attitude of our nation toward purely American questions. This declaration was received without objection by the conference in full and open session.

As to the results thus obtained, as a whole, regarding arbitration, in view of all the circumstances and considerations revealed during the session of the conference, it is our opinion that the “Plan for the pacific settlement of international disputes,” which was adopted by the conference, is better than that presented by any one nation. We believe that, though it will doubtless be found imperfect and will require modification as time goes on, it will form a thoroughly practical beginning, it will produce valuable results from the outset, and it will be the germ out of which a better and better system will be gradually evolved.

As to the question between compulsory and voluntary arbitration it was clearly seen before we had been long in session that general compulsory arbitration of questions really likely to produce war could not be obtained; in fact that not one of the nations represented at the conference was willing to embark in it, so far as the more serious questions were concerned. Even as to the questions of less moment, it was found to be impossible to secure agreement, except upon a voluntary basis. We ourselves felt obliged to insist upon the omission from the Russian list of proposed subjects for compulsory arbitration international conventions relating to rivers, to interoceanic canals, and to monetary matters. Even as so amended, the plan was not acceptable to all. As a consequence the convention prepared by the conference provides for voluntary arbitration only. It remains for public opinion to make this system effective. As questions arise threatening resort to arms it may well be hoped that public opinion in the nations concerned, seeing in this great international court a means of escape from the increasing horrors of war, will insist more and more that the questions at issue be referred to it. As time goes on such reference will probably more and more seem to the world at large natural and normal, and we may hope that recourse to the tribunal will finally, in the great majority of serious differences between nations, become a regular means of avoiding the resort to arms. There will also be another effect worthy of consideration. This is the building up of a body of international law growing out of the decisions handed down by the judges. The procedure of the tribunal requires that reasons for such decisions shall be given, and these decisions and reasons can hardly fail to form additions of especial value to international jurisprudence.

It now remains to report the proceedings of the conference, as well as our own action, regarding the question of immunity of private property not contraband from seizure on the seas in time of war. From the very beginning of our sessions it was constantly insisted by leading representatives from nearly all the great powers that the action of the conference should be strictly limited to the matters specified in the Russian circular of December 30, 1898, and referred to in the invitation emanating from the Netherlands ministry of foreign affairs.

Many reasons for such a limitation were obvious. The members of the conference were from the beginning deluged with books, pamphlets, circulars, newspapers, broadsides, and private letters on a multitude of burning questions in various parts of the world. Considerable numbers of men and women devoted to urging these questions came to The Hague or gave notice of their coming.

It was very generally believed in the conference that the admission of any question not strictly within the limits proposed by the two circulars above mentioned would open the door to all these proposals above referred to, and that this might lead to endless confusion, to heated debate, perhaps even to the wreck of the conference, and consequently to a long postponement of the objects which both those who summoned it and those who entered it had directly in view.

It was at first held by very many members of the conference that under the proper application of the above rule the proposal (?) made by the American commission could not be received. It required much and earnest argument on our part to change this view, but finally the memorial from our commission, which stated fully the historical and actual relation of the United States to the whole subject, was received, referred to the appropriate committee, and finally brought by it before the conference.

In that body it was listened to with close attention, and the speech of the chairman of the committee, who is the eminent president of the Venezuelan arbitration tribunal now in session at Paris, paid a hearty tribute to the historical adhesion of the United States to the great principle concerned. He then moved that the subject be referred to a future conference. This motion we accepted and seconded, taking occasion in doing so to restate the American doctrine on the subject, with its claims on all the nations represented at the conference. The commission was thus, as we believe, faithful to one of the oldest of American traditions, and was able at least to keep the subject before the world. The way is paved also for a future careful consideration of the subject in all its bearings and under more propitious circumstances.

The conclusions of the peace conference at The Hague took complete and definite shape in the final act laid before the delegates on July 29 for their signatures. This act embodied three conventions, three declarations, and seven resolutions, as follows:

First. A convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes. This was signed by sixteen delegations, as follows: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, United States of America, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, and Bulgaria. There were adjoined to the signatures of the United States delegation a reference to our declaration above referred to, made in open conference on July 25 and recorded in the proceedings of that day.

Second. A convention concerning the laws and customs of war on land. This was signed by fifteen delegations, as follows: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, and Bulgaria.

The United States delegation refers the matter to the Government at Washington, with the recommendation that it be there signed.

Third. A convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva conference of 1864. This was signed by fifteen delegations, as follows: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, and Bulgaria.

The United States representatives refer it, without recommendation, to the Government at Washington.

The three declarations were as follows:

First. A declaration prohibiting the throwing of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new analogous means, such prohibition to be effective during five years. This was signed by seventeen delegations, as follows: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the United States of America, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Turkey, and Bulgaria.

Second. A declaration prohibiting the use of projectiles having as their sole object the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases. This, for reasons given in the accompanying documents, the American delegation did not sign. It was signed by sixteen delegations, as follows: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Turkey, and Bulgaria.

Third. A declaration prohibiting the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, as illustrated by certain given details of construction. This, for technical reasons also fully stated in the report, the American delegation did not sign. It was signed by fifteen delegations, as follows: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Turkey, and Bulgaria.

The seven resolutions were as follows:

First. A resolution that the limitation of the military charges which at present so oppress the world is greatly to be desired, for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind.

This ended the action of the conference in relation to matters considered by it upon their merits. In addition the conference passed the following resolutions, for all of which the United States delegation voted, referring various matters to the consideration of the powers or to future conference. Upon the last five resolutions a few powers abstained from voting.

The second resolution was as follows: The conference, taking into consideration the preliminary steps taken by the Federal Government of Switzerland for the revision of the convention of Geneva, expresses the wish that there should be in a short time a meeting of a special conference having for its object the revision of that convention.

This resolution was voted unanimously.

Third. The conference expresses the wish that the question of the rights and duties of neutrals should be considered at another conference.

Fourth. The conference expresses the wish that questions relative to muskets and marine artillery, such as have been examined by it, should be made the subject of study on the part of the governments with a view of arriving at an agreement concerning the adoption of new types and calibers.

Fifth. The conference expresses the wish that the governments, taking into account all the propositions made at this conference, should study the possibility of an agreement concerning the limitation of armed forces on land and sea and of war budgets.

Sixth. The conference expresses the wish that a proposition having for its object the declaration of immunity of private property in war on the high seas should be referred for examination to another conference.

Seventh. The conference expresses the wish that the proposition of regulating the question of bombardment of ports, cities, or villages by a naval force should be referred for examination to another conference.

It will be observed that the conditions upon which powers not represented at the conference can adhere to the convention for the peaceful regulation of international conflicts is to “form the subject of a later agreement between the contracting powers.” This provision reflects the outcome of a three days’ debate in the drafting committee as to whether this convention should be absolutely open or open only with the consent of the contracting powers. England and Italy strenuously supported the latter view. It soon became apparent that under the guise of general propositions the committee was discussing political questions of great importance at least to certain powers. Under these circumstances the representatives of the United States took no part in the discussion, but supported by their vote the view that the convention, in its nature, involved reciprocal obligations; and also the conclusion that political questions had no place in the conference, and must be left to be decided by the competent authorities of the powers represented there.

It is to be regretted that this action excludes from immediate adherence to this convention our sister Republics of Central and South America, with whom the United States is already in similar relations by the Pan-American treaty. It is hoped that an arrangement will soon be made which will enable these States, if they so desire, to enter into the same relations as ourselves with the powers represented at the conference.

This report should not be closed without an acknowledgment of the great and constant courtesy of the Government of the Netherlands and all its representatives to the American commission as well as to all the members of the conference. In every way they have sought to aid us in our work and to make our stay agreeable to us. The accommodations they have provided for the conference have enhanced its dignity and increased its efficiency.

It may also be well to put on record that from the entire conference, without exception, we have constantly received marks of kindness, and although so many nations with different interests were represented, there has not been in any session, whether of the conference or of any of the committees or subcommittees anything other than calm and courteous debate.

The text of the final act and of the various conventions and declarations referred to therein is appended to this report.

All of which is most respectfully submitted.

• Andrew D. White, President
• Seth Low.
• Stanford Newel.
• A. T. Mahan.
• William Crozier.
• Frederick W. Holls, Secretary.

[Translation.]

Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes.

His Majesty the King of the Belgians; His Majesty the King of Denmark; His Majesty the King of Spain, and in his name Her Majesty the Queen-Regent of the Kingdom; the President of the United States of America; the President of the United States of Mexico; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; His Highness the Prince Montenegro; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; His Majesty the King of Siam: His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway; and His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria animated by a strong desire to concert for the maintenance of the general peace;

Resolved to second by their best efforts the friendly settlement of international disputes;

Recognizing the solidarity which unites the members of the society of civilized nations;

Desirous of extending the empire of law, and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice;

Convinced that the permanent institution of a Court of Arbitration, accessible to all, in the midst of the independent Powers, will contribute effectively to this result;

Having regard to the advantages attending the general and regular organization of arbitral procedure;

Sharing the opinion of the august Initiator of the International Peace Conference that it is expedient to record in an international Agreement the principles of equity and right on which are based the security of States and the welfare of peoples;

Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, to-wit:—

• His Majesty the King of the Belgians, M. Auguste Beernaert, His Minister of State, President of the Chamber of Representatives; the Count de Grelle Rogier, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; and the Chevalier Descamps, Senator;
• His Majesty the King of Denmark, the Chamberlain Fr. E. de Bille, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Her Britannic Majesty;
• His Majesty the King of Spain, and in his name Her Majesty the Queen-Regent of the Kingdom, the Duke de Tetuan, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs; M. W. Ramirez de Villa Urrutia, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the King of the Belgians; M. Arturo de Baguer, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands;
• The President of the United States of America, Andrew D. White, Ambassador at the Court of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany; the Honourable Seth Low, President of the Columbia University at New York; Stanford Newel, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; Captain Alfred T. Mahan; and William Crozier, Captain of Artillery;
• The President of the United States of Mexico, M. de Mier, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the French Republic; and M. J. Zenil, Minister Resident at the Court of His Majesty the King of the Belgians;
• The President of the French Republic, M. Léon Bourgeois ex-President of the Council, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Member of the Chamber of Deputies; M. Georges Bihourd, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; and the Baron d’Estournelles de Constant, Minister Plenipotentiary, Member of the Chamber of Deputies;
• His Majesty the King of the Hellenes, M. N. Delvanni, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the French Republic, ex-President of the Council, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs;
• His Highness the Prince of Montenegro, M. de Staal, Privy Councillor, Russian Ambassador at the Court of Her Britannic Majesty;
• Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, the Jonkheer A. P. C. van Karnebeek, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs. Member of the Second Chamber of the States-General; General J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael, ex-Minister for War, Member of the Council of State; M. T. M. C. Asser, Member of the Council of State; and M. E. N. Rahusen, Member of the First Chamber of the States-General;
• His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia, Aide-de-Camp, General Mirza Riza Khan (Arfa-ud-Dowleh), his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Courts of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway;
• His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, the Count de Macedo, ex-Minister for the Marine and Colonies, Peer of the Kingdom, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Most Catholic Majesty; M. d’Ornellas Vasconcellos, Peer of the Kingdom, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; and the Count de Sélir, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands;
• His Majesty the King of Roumania, M. Alexandre Beldiman, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany; and M. Jean N. Papiniu, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands;
• His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, M. de Staal, Privy Councillor, his Ambassador at the Court of Her Britannic Majesty; m. de Martens, Privy Councillor; M. de Basily, Councillor of State, Chamberlain to his Majesty the Emperor;
• His Majesty the King of Siam, M. Phya Suriya Nuvatr, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the French Republic; and M. Phya Visuddha, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Courts of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, and of Her Britannic Majesty;
• His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, Baron de Bildt, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the King of Italy;
• His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria, Dr. Dimitri I. Stancioff, his Diplomatic Agent to the Imperial Russian Government; and Major Christo Hessaptchieff, of the Bulgarian Staff, Military Attaché in Servia;

Who, after communication of their full powers, found in good and due form have agreed on the following provisions:—

Title I.—On the Maintenance of the General Peace.

Article I.

With a view to obviating, as far as possible, recourse to force in the relations between States, the Signatory Powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of international differences.

Title II.—On Good Offices and Mediation.

Article II.

In case of serious disagreement or conflict, before an appeal to arms, the Signatory Powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.

Article III.

Independently of this recourse, the Signatory Powers recommend 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.

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 by one or the other of the parties in conflict as an unfriendly act.

Article IV.

The part of the mediator consists in reconciling the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment which may have arisen between the States at variance.

Article V.

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 means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted.

Article VI.

Good offices and mediation, either at the request of the parties at variance, or on the initiative of Powers strangers to the dispute, have exclusively the character of advice and never have binding force.

Article VII.

The acceptance of mediation can not, unless there be an agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting, delaying, or hindering mobilization or other measures of preparation for war.

If mediation occurs after the commencement of hostilities it causes no interruption to the military operations in progress, unless there be an agreement to the contrary.

Article VIII.

The Signatory Powers are agreed in recommending the application, when circumstances allow, of special mediation in the following form:—

In case of a serious difference endangering the peace, the States at variance choose respectively a Power, to whom they intrust the mission of entering into direct communication with the Power chosen on the other side, with the object of preventing the rupture of pacific relations.

For the period of this mandate, the term of which, unless otherwise stipulated, can not exceed thirty days, the States in conflict cease from all direct communication on the subject of the dispute, which is regarded as referred exclusively to the mediating Powers, who must use their best efforts to settle it.

In case of a definite rupture of pacific relations, these powers are charged with the joint task of taking advantage of any opportunity to restore peace.

Title III.—On International Commissions of Inquiry.

Article IX.

In differences of an international nature involving neither honour nor vital interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the Signatory Powers recommend that the parties, who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should as far as circumstances allow, institute an International Commission of Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these differences by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation.

Article X.

The International Commissions of Inquiry are constituted by special agreement between the parties in conflict.

The Convention for an inquiry defines the facts to be examined and the extent of the Commissioners’ powers.

It settles the procedure.

On the inquiry both sides must be heard.

The form and the periods to be observed, if not stated in the inquiry Convention, are decided by the Commission itself.

Article XI.

The International Commissions of Inquiry are formed, unless otherwise stipulated, in the manner fixed by Article XXXII of the present convention.

Article XII.

The powers in dispute engage to supply the International Commission of Inquiry, as fully as they may think possible, with all means and facilities necessary to enable it to be completely acquainted with and to accurately understand the facts in question.

Article XIII.

The International Commission of Inquiry communicates its Report to the conflicting Powers, signed by all the members of the Commission.

Article XIV.

The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry is limited to a statement of facts, and has in no way the character of an Arbitral Award. It leaves the conflicting Powers entire freedom as to the effect to be given to this statement.

Title IV.—On International Arbitration.

Chapter I.—On the System of Arbitration.

Article XV.

International arbitration has for its object the settlement of differences between States by judges of their own choice, and on the basis of respect for law.

Article XVI.

In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Signatory Powers as the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.

Article XVII.

The Arbitration Convention is concluded for questions already existing or for questions which may arise eventually.

It may embrace any dispute or only disputes of a certain category.

Article XVIII.

The Arbitration Convention implies the engagement to submit loyally to the Award.

Article XIX.

Independently of general or private Treaties expressly stipulating recourse to arbitration as obligatory on the Signatory Powers, these Powers reserve to themselves the right of concluding, either before the ratification of the present Act or later, new Agreements, general or private, with a view to extending obligatory arbitration to all cases which they may consider it possible to submit to it.

Chapter II.—On the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Article XX.

With the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences, which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the Signatory Powers undertake to organize a permanent Court of Arbitration, accessible at all times and operating, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure inserted in the present Convention.

Article XXI.

The Permanent Court shall be competent for all arbitration cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special Tribunal.

Article XXII.

An International Bureau, established at the Hague, serves as record office for the Court.

This Bureau is the channel for communications relative to the meetings of the Court.

It has the custody of the archives and conducts all the administrative business.

The Signatory Powers undertake to communicate to the International Bureau at the Hague a duly certified copy of any conditions of arbitration arrived at between them, and of any award concerning them delivered by special Tribunals.

They undertake also to communicate to the Bureau the Laws, Regulations, and documents eventually showing the execution of the awards given by the Court.

Article XXIII.

Within the three months following its ratification of the present Act, each Signatory Power shall select four persons at the most, of known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of Arbitrators.

The persons thus selected shall be inscribed, as members of the Court, in a list which shall be notified by the Bureau to all the Signatory Powers.

Any alteration in the list of Arbitrators is brought by the Bureau to the knowledge of the Signatory Powers.

Two or more Powers may agree on the selection in common of one or more Members.

The same person can be selected by different Powers

The Members of the Court are appointed for a term of six years. Their appointments can be renewed.

In case of the death or retirement of a member of the Court, his place shall be filled in accordance with the method of his appointment.

Article XXIV.

When the Signatory Powers desire to have recourse to the Permanent Court for the settlement of a difference that has arisen between them, the Arbitrators called upon to form the competent Tribunal to decide this difference, must be chosen from the general list of members of the Court.

Failing the direct agreement of the parties on the composition of the Arbitration Tribunal, the following course shall be pursued:—

Each party appoints two Arbitrators, and these together choose an Umpire.

If the votes are equal, the choice of the Umpire is intrusted to a third Power, selected by the parties by common accord.

If an agreement is not arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made in concert by the Powers thus selected.

The Tribunal being thus composed, the parties notify to the Bureau their determination to have recourse to the Court and the names of the Arbitrators.

The Tribunal of Arbitration assembles on the date fixed by the parties.

The Members of the Court, in the discharge of their duties and out of their own country, enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

Article XXV.

The Tribunal of Arbitration has its ordinary seat at the Hague.

Except in cases of necessity, the place of session can only be altered by the Tribunal with the assent of the parties.

Article XXVI.

The International Bureau at the Hague is authorized to place its premises and its staff at the disposal of the Signatory Powers for the operations of any special Board of Arbitration.

The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, may, within the conditions laid down in the Regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Signatory Powers, or between Signatory Powers and non-Signatory Powers, if the parties are agreed on recourse to this Tribunal.

Article XXVII.

The Signatory Powers consider it their duty, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between two or more of them, to remind these latter that the Permanent Court is open to them.

Consequently, they declare that the fact of reminding the conflicting parties of the provisions of the present Convention, and the advice given to them, in the highest interests of peace, to have recourse to the Permanent Court, can only be regarded as friendly actions.

Article XXVIII.

A Permanent Administrative Council, composed of the Diplomatic Representatives of the Signatory Powers accredited to the Hague and of the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will act as President, shall be instituted in this town as soon as possible after the ratification of the present Act by at least nine Powers.

This Council will be charged with the establishment and organization of the International Bureau, which will be under its direction and control.

It will notify to the Powers the constitution of the Court and will provide for its installation.

It will settle its Rules of Procedure and all other necessary Regulations.

It will decide all questions of administration which may arise with regard to the operations of the Court.

It will have entire control over the appointment, suspension or dismissal of the officials and employés of the Bureau.

It will fix the payments and salaries, and control the general expenditure.

At meetings duly summoned the presence of five members is sufficient to render valid the discussions of the Council. The decisions are taken by a majority of votes.

The Council communicates to the Signatory Powers without delay the Regulations adopted by it. It furnishes them with an annual Report on the labours of the Court, the working of the administration, and the expenses.

Article XXIX.

The expenses of the Bureau shall be borne by the Signatory Powers in the proportion fixed for the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.

Chapter III.—On Arbitral Procedure.

Article XXX.

With a view to encourage the development of arbitration, the Signatory Powers have agreed on the following Rules which shall be applicable to arbitral procedure, unless other Rules have been agreed on by the parties.

Article XXXI.

The Powers who have recourse to arbitration sign a special Act (“Compromis”), in which the subject of the difference is clearly defined, as well as the extent of the Arbitrators’ powers. This Act implies the undertaking of the parties to submit loyally to the award.

Article XXXII.

The duties of Arbitrator may be conferred on one Arbitrator alone or on several Arbitrators selected by the parties as they please, or chosen by them from the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration established by the present Act.

Failing the constitution of the Tribunal by direct agreement between the parties, the following course shall be pursued:

Each party appoints two arbitrators, and these latter together choose an Umpire.

In case of equal voting, the choice of the Umpire is intrusted to a third Power, selected by the parties by common accord.

If no agreement is arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made in concert by the Powers thus selected.

Article XXXIII.

When a Sovereign or the Chief of a State is chosen as Arbitrator, the arbitral procedure is settled by him.

Article XXXIV.

The Umpire is by right President of the Tribunal.

When the Tribunal does not include an Umpire, it appoints its own President.

Article XXXV.

In case of the death, retirement, or disability from any cause of one of the Arbitrators, his place shall be filled in accordance with the method of his appointment.

Article XXXVI.

The Tribunal’s place of session is selected by the parties. Failing this selection the Tribunal sits at the Hague.

The place thus fixed cannot, except in case of necessity, be changed by the Tribunal without the assent of the parties.

Article XXXVII.

The parties have the right to appoint delegates or special agents to attend the Tribunal, for the purpose of serving as intermediaries between them and the Tribunal.

They are further authorized to retain, for the defense of their rights and interests before the Tribunal, counsel or advocates appointed by them for this purpose.

Article XXXVIII.

The Tribunal decides on the choice of languages to be used by itself, and to be authorized for use before it.

Article XXXIX.

As a general rule the arbitral procedure comprises two distinct phases; preliminary examination and discussion.

Preliminary examination consists in the communication by the respective agents to the members of the Tribunal and to the opposite party of all printed or written Acts and of all documents containing the arguments invoked in the case. This communication shall be made in the form and within the periods fixed by the Tribunal in accordance with Article XLIX.

Discussion consists in the oral development before the Tribunal of the arguments of the parties.

Article XL.

Every document produced by one party must be communicated to the other party.

Article XLI.

The discussions are under the direction of the President.

They are only public if it be so decided by the Tribunal, with the assent of the parties.

They are recorded in the procès-verbaux drawn up by the Secretaries appointed by the President. These procès-verbaux alone have an authentic character.

Article XLII.

When the preliminary examination is concluded, the Tribunal has the right to refuse discussion of all fresh Acts or documents which one party may desire to submit to it without the consent of the other party.

Article XLIII.

The Tribunal is free to take into consideration fresh Acts or documents to which its attention may be drawn by the agents or counsel of the parties.

In this case, the Tribunal has the right to require the production of these Acts or documents, but is obliged to make them known to the opposite party.

Article XLIV.

The Tribunal can, besides, require from the agents of the parties the production of all Acts, and can demand all necessary explanations. In case of refusal, the Tribunal takes note of it.

Article XLV.

The agents and counsel of the parties are authorized to present orally to the Tribunal all the arguments they may think expedient in defence of their case.

Article XLVI.

They have the right to raise objections and points.

The decisions of the Tribunal on those points are final, and cannot form the subject of any subsequent discussion.

Article XLVII.

The members of the Tribunal have the right to put questions to the agents and counsel of the parties, and to demand explanations from them on doubtful points.

Neither the questions put nor the remarks made by members of the Tribunal during the discussions can be regarded as an expression of opinion by the Tribunal in general, or by its members in particular.

Article XLVIII.

The Tribunal is authorized to declare its competence in interpreting the “Compromis” as well as the other Treaties which may be invoked in the case, and in applying the principles of international law.

Article XLIX.

The Tribunal has the right to issue Rules of Procedure for the conduct of the case, to decide the forms and periods within which each party must conclude its arguments, and to arrange all the formalities required for dealing with the evidence.

Article L.

When the agents and counsel of the parties have submitted all explanations and evidence in support of their case, the President pronounces the discussion closed.

Article LI.

The deliberations of the Tribunal take place in private.

Every decision is taken by a majority of members of the Tribunal.

The refusal of a member to vote must be recorded in the procès-verbal

Article LII.

The award, given by a majority of votes, is accompanied by a statement of reasons. It is drawn up in writing and signed by each member of the Tribunal.

Those members who are in the minority may record their dissent when signing.

Article LIII.

The award is read out at a public meeting of the Tribunal, the agents and counsel of the parties being present, or duly summoned to attend.

Article LIV.

The award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of the parties at variance, puts an end to the dispute definitely and without appeal.

Article LV.

The parties can reserve in the “Compris” the right to demand the revision of the award.

In this case, and unless there be an agreement to the contrary, the demand must be addressed to the Tribunal which pronounced the award. It can only be made on the ground of the discovery of some new fact calculated to exercise a decisive influence on the award, and which, at the time the discussion was closed, was unknown to the Tribunal and to the party demanding the revision.

Proceedings for revision can only be instituted by a decision of the Tribunal expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing in it the character described in the foregoing paragraph, and declaring the demand admissible on this ground.

The “Compromis” fixes the period within which the demand for revision must be made.

Article LVI.

The award is only binding on the parties who concluded the “Compromis.”

When there is a question of interpreting a Convention to which Powers other than those concerned in the dispute are parties, the latter notify to the former the “Compromis” they have concluded. Each of these Powers has the right to intervene in the case. If one or more of them avail themselves of this right, the interpretation contained in the award is equally binding on them.

Article LVII.

Each party pays its own expenses and an equal share of those of the Tribunal.

general provisions.

Article LVIII.

The present Convention shall be ratified as speedily as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at the Hague.

A procès-verbal shall be drawn up recording the receipt of each ratification, and a copy duly certified shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to all the Powers who were represented at the International Peace Conference at the Hague.

Article LIX.

The non-Signatory Powers who were represented at the International Peace Conference can adhere to the present Convention. For this purpose they must make known their adhesion to the Contracting Powers by a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

Article LX.

The conditions on which the Powers who were not represented at the International Peace Conference can adhere to the present Convention shall form the subject of a subsequent Agreement among the Contracting Powers.

Article LXI.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Convention, this denunciation would not take effect until a year after its notification made in writing to the Netherland Government, and by it communicated at once to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and affixed their seals to it.

Done at the Hague, the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall remain in the archives of the Netherland Government, and copies of it, duly certified, be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.

• For Belgium:
  (Signed)
  • A. Beernaert.
  • Comte de Grelle Rogier.
  • Chr. Deschamps.
• For Denmark:
  (Signed)
  • F. Bille.
• For Spain:
  (Signed)
  • El Duque de Tetuan.
  • W. R. De Villa Urrutia.
  • Arturo de Baguer.
• For the United States of America:
  (Signed)
  • Andrew D. White.
  • Seth Low.
  • Stanford Newel.
  • A. T. Mahan.
  • William Crozier.

Under reserve of the declaration made at the plenary sitting of the Conference on the 25th July, 1899.

• For the United States of Mexico:
  (Signed)
  • A. de Mier.
  • J. Zenil.
• For the French Republic:
  (Signed)
  • Léon Bourgeois.
  • G. Bihourd.
  • D’Estournelles de Constant.
• For Greece:
  (Signed)
  • N. Delyanni.
• For Montenegro:
  (Signed)
  • Staal.
• For the Netherlands:
  (Signed)
  • Van Karnebeek.
  • Den Beer Poortugael.
  • T. M. C. Asser.
  • E. N. Rahusen.
• For Persia:
  (Signed)
  • Mirza Riza Khan, Arfa-ud-Dowleh.
• For Portugal:
  (Signed)
  • Conde de Macedo.
  • Agostinho D’Ornellas de Vasconcellos.
  • Conde de Sélir.
• For Roumania:
  (Signed)
  • A. Beldiman.
  • J. N. Papiniu.
• For Russia:
  (Signed)
  • Staal.
  • —— ——.
  • A. Basily.
• For Siam:
  (Signed)
  • Phya Suriya Nuvatr.
  • Visuddha.
• For the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway:
  (Signed)
  • Bildt.
• For Bulgaria:
  (Signed)
  • Stancioff.
  • Major Hessaptchieff.

[Translation.]

declaration.

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at the Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburgh of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare that:

The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of similar nature.

The present Declaration is only binding on the Contracting Powers in case of war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at the Hague.

A procès verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, of which a copy, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherland Government, and by it forthwith communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and affixed their seals thereto.

Done at the Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.

• For Belgium:
  (Signed)
  • A. Beernaert.
  • Comte de Grelle Rogier.
  • Chr. Descamps.
• For Denmark:
  (Signed)
  • F. Bille.
• For Spain:
  (Signed)
  • El Duque de Tetuan.
  • W. R. de Villa Urrutia.
  • Arturo de Baguer.
• For the United States of America:
  (Signed)
  • Andrew D. White.
  • Seth Low.
  • Stanford Newel.
  • A. T. Mahan.
  • William Crozier.
• For the United States of Mexico:
  (Signed)
  • A. de Mier.
  • J. Zenil.
• For the French Republic:
  (Signed)
  • Léon Bourgeois.
  • G. Bihourd.
  • D’Estournelles de Constant.
• For Greece:
  (Signed)
  • N. Delyanni.
• For Montenegro:
  (Signed)
  • Staal.
• For the Netherlands:
  (Signed)
  • Van Karnebeek.
  • Den Beer Poortugael.
  • T. M. C. Asser.
  • E. N. Rahusen.
• For Persia:
  (Signed)
  • Mirza Riza Khan, Arfa-ud-Dowleh.
• For Portugal:
  (Signed)
  • Conde de Macedo.
  • Agostinho D’Ornellos de Vasconcellos.
  • Conde de Sélir.
• For Roumania:
  (Signed)
  • A. Beldiman.
  • J. N. Papiniu.
• For Russia:
  (Signed)
  • Staal.
  • —— ——.
  • A. Basily.
• For Siam:
  (Signed)
  • Phya Suriya Nuvatr.
  • Visuddha.
• For the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway:
  (Signed)
  • Bildt.
• For Turkey:
  (Signed)
  • Turkhan.
  • M. Noury.
  • Abdullah.
  • R. Mehemed.
• For Bulgaria:
  (Signed)
  • D. Stancioff.
  • Major Hessaptchieff.

[Translation.]

Convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864.

His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; His Majesty the Emperor of China; His Majesty the King of Denmark; His Majesty the King of Spain and in his Name Her Majesty the Queen Regent of the Kingdom: the President of the United States of America; the President of the United Mexican States; the President of the French Republic; Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau; His Highness the Prince of Montenegro; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Portugal and of the Algarves, etc.; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias; His Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway; the Swiss Federal Council; His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans and His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria.

Alike animated by the desire to diminish, as far as depends on them the evils inseparable from warfare, and wishing with this object to adapt to maritime warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, have decided to conclude a convention to this effect:

They have, in consequence, appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, to wit:

• His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia, His Excellency Count Munster, Prince of Derneburg, His Ambassador at Paris.
• His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia etc. and Apostolic King of Hungary: His Excellency Count R. de Welsersheimb, His Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary; Mr. Alexander Okolicsanyi d’Okolicsna, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague.
• His Majesty the King of the Belgians: His Excellency Mr. Auguste Beernaert, His Minister of State, President of the Chamber of Deputies; Count de Grelle Rogier, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague; the Chevalier Descamps, Senator.
• His Majesty the Emperor of China: Mr. Yang Yu, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg.
• His Majesty the King of Denmark: His Chamberlain Fr. E. de Bille, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at London.
• His Majesty the King of Spain and in His Name, Her Majesty the Queen Regent of the Kingdom: His Excellency the Duke of Tetuan, formerly Minister for Foreign Affairs; M. W. Ramirez de Villa Urrutia, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Brussels; M. Arthur de Baguer, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague.
• The President of the United States of America: Mr. Stanford Newel, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague.
• The President of the United Mexican States: Mr. de Mier, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris; Mr. Zenil, Minister Resident at Brussels.
• The President of the French Republic: M. Léon Bourgeois formerly President of the Council, ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Member of the Chamber of Deputies; M. Georges Bihourd. Envoy Extraordinary and Minister plenipotentiary at the Hague; Baron d’Estournelles de Constant, Minister Plenipotentiary, Member of the Chamber of Deputies.
• Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India: Sir Henry Howard, Her Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague.
• His Majesty the King of the Hellenes: Mr. N. Delyanni, former President of the Council, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris.
• His Majesty the King of Italy: His Excellency Count Nigra, His Ambassador at Vienna, Senator of the Kingdom; Count A. Zannini, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague; Commander Guido Pompilj, Deputy in the Italian Parliament.
• His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: Mr. I. Motono, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Brussels.
• His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau: His Excellency Mr. Eyschen, His Minister of State, President of the Grand Ducal Government.
• His Highness the Prince of Montenegro: His Excellency Mr. de Stall, Privy Councillor, Ambassador of Russia, London.
• Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands: Jonkheer A. P. C. van Karnebeek, formerly Minister for Foreign Affairs, Member of the Second Chamber of the States General; General J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael, formerly Minister of War, Member of the Council of State; Mr. T. M. C. Asser, Member of the Council of State; Mr. E. N. Rahusen, Member of the First Chamber of the States General.
• His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia: His Aid-de-camp General Mirza Riza Khan, Arfa-ud-Dovleh, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg and Stockholm.
• His Majesty the King of Portugal and of the Algarves, etc.: Count Macedo, Peer of the Kingdom, formerly Minister of the Navy and of the Colonies, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Madrid; Mr. d’Ornellas and Vasconcellos, Peer of the Kingdom, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg; Count de Selir, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague.
• His Majesty the King of Roumania: Mr. Alexander Beldiman, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berlin; Mr. Jean N. Papiniu, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at The Hague.
• His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias: His Excellency Mr. de Staal, Privy Councillor, His Ambassador at London; Mr. de Martens, Permanent Member of the Council of the Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, His Privy Councillor; Mr. de Basily, His Councillor of State, Chamberlain, Director of the First Department of the Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
• His Majesty the King of Servia: Mr. Miyatovitch, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at London and at The Hague.
• His Majesty the King of Siam: M. Phya Suriya Nuvatr, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg and at Paris; M. Phya Visuddha Suriyasakti, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague and at London.
• His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway: Baron de Bildt, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Rome.
• The Swiss Federal Council: Dr. Arnold Roth, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berlin.
• His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans: His Excellency Turkhan Pasha, formerly Minister for Foreign Affairs, Member of His Council of State; Noury Bey, Secretary-General in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
• His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria: Dr. Dimitri Stancioff, Diplomatic Agent at St. Petersburg; Major Christo Hessaptchieff, Military Attaché at Belgrade;

Who, after communication of their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions:

Article I.

Military hospital ships, that is to say, ships constructed or assigned by States specially and solely for the purpose of assisting the wounded, sick or shipwrecked, and the names of which shall have been communicated to the belligerent Powers at the beginning or during the course of hostilities, and in any case before they are employed, shall be respected and cannot be captured while hostilities last.

These ships, moreover, are not on the same footing as men-of-war as regards their stay in a neutral port.

Article II.

Hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part at the cost of private individuals or officially recognized relief Societies, shall likewise be respected and exempt from capture, provided the belligerent Power to whom they belong has given them an official commission and has notified their names to the hostile Power at the commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case before they are employed.

These ships should be furnished with a certificate from the competent authorities, declaring that they had been under their control while fitting out and on final departure.

Article III.

Hospital-ships, equipped wholly or in part at the cost of private individuals or officially recognized Societies of neutral countries, shall be respected and exempt from capture, if the neutral Power to whom they belong has given them an official commission and notified their names to the belligerent powers at the commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case before they are employed.

Article IV.

The ships mentioned in Articles I, II, and III shall afford relief and assistance to the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked of the belligerents independently of their nationality.

The Governments engage not to use these ships for any military purpose.

These ships must not in any way hamper the movements of the combatants.

During and after an engagement they will act at their own risk and peril.

The belligerents will have the right to control and visit them; they can refuse to help them, order them off, make them take a certain course, and put a Commissioner on board; they can even detain them, if important circumstances require it.

As far as possible the belligerents shall inscribe in the sailing papers of the hospital-ships the orders they give them.

Article V.

The military hospital-ships shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of green about a metre and a half in breadth.

The ships mentioned in Articles II and III shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of red about a metre and a half in breadth.

The boats of the ships above mentioned, as also small craft which may be used for hospital work, shall be distinguished by similar painting.

All hospital ships shall make themselves known by hoisting, together with their national flag, the white flag with a red cross provided by the Geneva Convention.

Article VI.

Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels, having, or taking on board, sick, wounded, or shipwrecked of the belligerents, cannot be captured for so doing, but they are liable to capture for any violation of neutrality they may have committed.

Article VII.

The religious, medical, or hospital staff of any captured ship is inviolable, and its members cannot be made prisoners of war. On leaving the ship they take with them the objects and surgical instruments which are their own private property.

This staff shall continue to discharge its duties while necessary, and can afterwards leave when the Commander-in-Chief considers it possible.

The belligerents must guarantee to the staff that has fallen into their hands the enjoyment of their salaries intact.

Article VIII.

Sailors and soldiers who are taken on board when sick or wounded, to whatever nation they belong, shall be protected and looked after by the captors.

Article IX.

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of the belligerents who fall into the hands of the other, are prisoners of war. The captor must decide, according to circumstances, if it is best to keep them or send them to a port of his own country, to a neutral port, or even to a hostile port. In the last case, prisoners thus repatriated cannot serve as long as the war lasts.

Article X.

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick, who are landed at a neutral port with the consent of the local authorities, must, failing a contrary agreement between the neutral State and the belligerents, be guarded by the neutral State, so that they cannot again take part in the military operations.

The expenses of entertainment and interment shall be borne by the State to which the shipwrecked, wounded, or sick belong.

Article XI.

The rules contained in the above Articles are binding only on the Contracting Powers, in case of War between two or more of them.

The said rules shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

Article XII.

The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at the Hague.

On the receipt of each ratification a procès-verbal shall be drawn up, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

Article XIII.

The non-Signatory Powers who accepted the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, are allowed to adhere to the present Convention.

For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

Article XIV.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Convention, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherland Government; and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In testimony whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Government of the Netherlands, and copies of which duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.

• For Germany:
  (Signed)
  • Munster Derneburg.
• (Under reserve of Article X.)
• For Austria-Hungary:
  (Signed)
  • Welsersheimb.
  • Okolicsanyi.
• For Belgium:
  (Signed)
  • A. Beernaert.
  • Cte. de Grelle Rogier.
  • Chr. Descamps.
• For China:
  (Signed)
  • Yang Yu.
• For Denmark:
  (Signed)
  • F. Bille.
• For Spain:
  (Signed)
  • El Duque de Tetuan.
  • W. R. de Villa Urrutia.
  • Arturo de Baguer.
• For the United States of America:
  (Signed)
  • Stanford Newel.
• (Under reserve of Article X.)
• For the United Mexican States:
  (Signed)
  • A. de Mier.
  • J. Zenil.
• For France:
  (Signed)
  • Leon Bourgeois.
  • G. Bihourd.
  • d’Estournelles de Constant.
• For Great Britain and Ireland:
  (Signed)
  • Henry Howard.
• (Under reserve of Article X.)
• For Greece:
  (Signed)
  • N. Delyanni.
• For Italy:
  (Signed)
  • Nigra.
  • A. Zannini.
  • G. Pompilj.
• For Japan:
  (Signed)
  • I. Motono.
• For Luxemburg:
  (Signed)
  • Eyschen.
• For Montenegro:
  (Signed)
  • Staal.
• For the Netherlands:
  (Signed)
  • v. Karnebeek.
  • den Beer Poortugael.
  • T. M. C. Asser.
  • E. N. Rahusen.
• For Persia:
  (Signed)
  • Mirza Riza Khan, Arf-ud-Dovleh.
• For Portugal:
  (Signed)
  • Conde de Macedo.
  • Agostinho d’Ornellas de Vasconcellos.
  • Conde de Selir.
• For Roumania:
  (Signed)
  • A. Beldiman.
  • J. N. Papiniu.
• For Russia:
  (Signed)
  • Staal.
  • Martens.
  • A. Basily.
• For Servia:
  (Signed)
  • Chedo Miyatovitch.
• For Siam:
  (Signed)
  • Phya Suriya Nuvatr.
  • Visuddha.
• For the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway:
  (Signed)
  • Bildt.
• For Switzerland:
  (Signed)
  • Roth.
• For Turkey:
  (Signed)
  • Turkhan.
  • Mehemed Noury.
• (Under reserve of Article X.)
• For Bulgaria:
  (Signed)
  • D. Stancioff.
  • Major Hessaptchieff.

[Translation.]

Convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land.

His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; His Majesty the King of Denmark; His Majesty the King of Spain and in His Name Her Majesty the Queen Regent of the Kingdom; the President of the United States of America; the President of the United Mexican States; the President of the French Republic; Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau; His Highness the Prince of Montenegro; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Portugal and of the Algarves etc.; His Majesty the King of Roumania: His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias; His Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway; His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans and His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria.

Considering that, while seeking means to preserve peace and prevent armed conflicts among nations, it is likewise necessary to have regard to cases where an appeal to arms may be caused by event which their solicitude could not avert;

Animated by the desire to serve, even in this extreme hypothesis, the interests of humanity and the ever increasing requirements of civilization;

Thinking it important, with this object, to revise the laws and general customs of war, either with the view of defining them more precisely, or of laying down certain limits for the purpose of modifying their severity as far as possible:

Inspired by these views which are enjoined at the present day, as they were twenty-five years ago at the time of the Brussels Conference in 1874, by a wise and generous foresight;

Have, in this spirit, adopted a great number of provisions, the object of which is to define and govern the usages of war on land.

In view of the High Contracting Parties, these provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war so far as military necessities permit, are destined to serve as general rules of conduct for belligerents in their relations with each other and with populations.

It has not, however, been possible to agree forthwith on provisions embracing all the circumstances which occur in practice.

On the other hand, it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written provision, be left to the arbitrary judgment of the military Commanders.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience;

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles I and II of the Regulations adopted must be understood;

The High Contracting Parties, desiring to conclude a Convention to this effect, have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, to-wit:—

• His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia: His Excellency Count de Munster, Prince of Derneburg, His Ambassador at Paris.
• His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary: His Excellency Count R. de Welsersheimb, His Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary; Mr. Alexander Okolicsanyi d’Okolicsna, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague.
• His Majesty the King of the Belgians: His Excellency Mr. Auguste Beernaert, His Minister of State, President of the Chamber of Representatives; Count de Grelle Rogier, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague; the Chevalier Descamps, Senator.
• His Majesty the King of Denmark: His Chamberlain Fr. E. de Bille, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at London.
• His Majesty the King of Spain and in His Name, Her Majesty the Queen Regent of the Kingdom: His Excellency the Duke of Tetuan, former Minister for Foreign Affairs; Mr. W. Ramirez de Villa Urrntia, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Brussels; Mr. Arthur de Baguer, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague.
• The President of the United States of America: Mr. Stanford Newel, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague.
• The President of the United Mexican States: Mr. de Mier, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris; Mr. Zenil, Minister Resident at Brussels.
• The President of the French Republic: Mr. Léon Bourgeois, former President of the Council, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Member of the Chamber of Deputies; Mr. George Bihourd, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague; the Baron d’Estournelles de Constant, Minister Plenipotentiary, Member of the Chamber of Deputies.
• Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India: His Excellency the Right Honorable Baron Pauncefote of Preston, Member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council, Her Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Washington; Sir Henry Howard, Her Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague.
• His Majesty the King of the Hellenes: Mr. N. Delyanni, former President of the Council, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris.
• His Majesty the King of Italy: His Excellency Count Nigra, His Ambassador at Vienna, Senator of the Kingdom; Count A. Zannini, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague; Commander Guido Pompilj, Deputy in the Italian Parliament.
• His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: Mr. I. Motono, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Brussels.
• His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau: His Excellency Mr. Eyschen, His Minister of State, President of the Grand Ducal Government.
• His Highness the Prince of Montenegro: His Excellency Mr. de Staal, Privy Counsellor, Ambassador of Russia at London.
• Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands: the Jonkheer A. P. C. van Karnebeek, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Member of the Second Chamber of the States General; General J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael, former Minister of War, Member of the Council of State; Mr. T. M. C. Asser, Member of the Council of State; Mr. E. N. Rahusen, Member of the First Chamber of the States General.
• His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia: His Aid-de Camp General Mirza Riza Khan, Arfa-ud-Dovleh, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg and at Stockholm.
• His Majesty the King of Portugal and of the Algarves, etc.: Count de Macedo, Peer of the Kingdom, former Minister of Marine and of the Colonies, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Madrid; Mr. d’Ornellas et Vasconcellos, Peer of the Kingdom, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg; Count de Selir, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague.
• His Majesty the King of Roumania: Mr. Alexander Beldiman, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berlin; Mr. Jean N. Papiniu, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague.
• His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias: His Excellency Mr. de Staal, Privy Councillor, His Ambassador at London; Mr. de Martens, Permanent Member of the Council of the Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, His Privy Councillor; Mr. de Basily, His Councillor of State, Chamberlain, Director of the First Department of the Imperial Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
• His Majesty the King of Servia: Mr. Miyatovitch, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at London and at the Hague.
• His Majesty the King of Siam: M. Phya Suriya Nuvatr, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg and at Paris; M. Phya Visuddha Suriyasakti, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague and at London.
• His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway: the Baron de Bildt, His Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Rome.
• His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans: His Excellency Turkhan Pasha, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Member of His Council of State; Noury Bey, Secretary General in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
• His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria: Dr. Dimitri Stancioff, Diplomatic Agent at St. Petersburg; Major Christo Hessaptchieff, Military Attaché at Belgrade.

Who, after communication of their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following:—

Article I.

The High Contracting Parties shall issue instructions to their armed land forces, which shall be in conformity with the “Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land,” annexed to the present Convention.

Article II.

The provisions contained in the Regulations mentioned in Article I are only binding on the Contracting Powers, in case of war between two or more of them.

These provisions shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between Contracting Powers, a non-Contracting Power joins one of the belligerents.

Article III.

The present Convention shall be ratified as speedily as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at the Hague.

A procès-verbal shall be drawn up recording the receipt of each ratification, and a copy, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel, to all the Contracting Powers.

Article IV.

Non-Signatory Powers are allowed to adhere to the present Convention.

For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherland Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

Article V.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Convention, such denunciation would not take effect until a year after the written notification made to the Netherland Government, and by it at once communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall affect only the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and affixed their seals thereto.

Done at the Hague the 29th July 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherland Government, and copies of which, duly certified, shall be delivered to the Contracting Powers through the diplomatic channel.

• For Germany:
  (Signed)
  • Munster Derneburg.
• For Austria-Hungary:
  (Signed)
  • Welsersheimb.
  • Okolicsanyi.
• For Belgium:
  (Signed)
  • A. Beernaert.
  • Cte de Grelle Rogier.
  • Chr Descamps.
• For Denmark:
  (Signed)
  • F. Bille.
• For Spain:
  (Signed)
  • El Duque de Tetuan.
  • W. R. de Villa Urrutia.
  • Arturo de Baguer.
• For the United States of America:
  (Signed)
  • Stanford Newel.
• For the United Mexican States:
  (Signed)
  • M. de Mier.
  • J. Zenil.
• For France:
  (Signed)
  • Leon Bourgeois.
  • G. Bihourd.
  • D’Estournelles de Constant.
• For Great Britain and Ireland:
  (Signed)
  • Pauncefote.
  • Henry Howard.
• For Greece:
  (Signed)
  • N. Delyanni.
• For Italy:
  (Signed)
  • Nigra.
  • A. Zannini.
  • G. Pompilj.
• For Japan:
  (Signed)
  • I. Motono.
• For Luxemburg:
  (Signed)
  • Eyschen.
• For Montenegro:
  (Signed)
  • Staal.
• For the Netherlands:
  (Signed)
  • v. Karnebeek.
  • den Beer Poortugael.
  • T. M. C. Asser.
  • E. N. Rahusen.
• For Persia:
  (Signed)
  • Mirza Riza Khan, Arfa-ud-Dovleh.
• For Portugal:
  (Signed)
  • Conde de Macedo.
  • Agostinho d’Ornellas de Vasconcellos.
  • Conde de Selir.
• For Roumania:
  (Signed)
  • A. Beldiman.
  • J. N. Papiniu.
• For Russia:
  (Signed)
  • Staal.
  • Martens.
  • A. Basily.
• For Servia:
  (Signed)
  • Chedo Miyatovitch.
• For Siam:
  (Signed)
  • Phya Stjria Ntjvatr.
  • Visuddha.
• For the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway:
  (Signed)
  • Bildt.
• For Turkey:
  (Signed)
  • Turkhan.
  • Mehemed Noury.
• For Bulgaria:
  (Signed)
  • D. Stancioff.
  • Major Hessaptchieff.

[Translation.]

annex to the convention.

REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND.

Section I.—On Belligerents.

Chapter I.—On the Qualifications of Belligerents.

Article I.

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

3. To carry arms openly; and

4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination “army.”

Article II.

The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy’s approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article I, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Article III.

The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and noncombatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.

Chapter II.—On Prisoners of War.

Article IV.

Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not in that of the individuals or corps who captured them.

They must be humanely treated.

All their personal belongings, except arms, horses and military papers remain their property.

Article V.

Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or any other locality, and bound not to go beyond certain fixed lines; but they can only be confined as an indispensable measure of safety.

Article VI.

The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude. Their tasks shall not be excessive, and shall have nothing to do with military operations.

Prisoners may be authorized to work for the Public Service, for private persons, or on their own account.

Work done for the State shall be paid for according to the tariffs in force for soldiers of the national army employed on similar tasks.

When the work is for other branches of the Public Service or for private persons, the conditions shall be settled in agreement with the military authorities.

The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.

Article VII.

The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is bound to maintain them.

Failing a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards food, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the Government which has captured them.

Article VIII.

Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State into whose hands they have fallen.

Any act of insubordination warrants the adoption, as regards them, of such measures of severity as may be necessary.

Escaped prisoners, recaptured before they have succeeded in rejoining their army or before quitting the territory occupied by the army that captured them, are liable to disciplinary punishment.

Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any punishment for the previous flight.

Article IX.

Every prisoner of war, if questioned, is bound to declare his true name and rank, and if he disregards this rule, he is liable to a curtailment of the advantages accorded to the prisoners of war of his class.

Article X.

Prisoners of war may be set at liberty on parole if the laws of their country authorize it, and, in such a case, they are bound, on their personal honour, scrupulously to fulfill, both as regards their own Government and the Government by whom they were made prisoners, the engagements they have contracted.

In such cases, their own Government shall not require of nor accept from them any service incompatible with the parole given.

Article XI.

A prisoner of war can not be forced to accept his liberty on parole; similarly the hostile Government is not obliged to assent to the prisoner’s request to be set at liberty on parole.

Article XII.

Any prisoner of war, who is liberated on parole and recaptured, bearing arms against the Government to whom he had pledged his honor, or against the allies of that Government, forfeits his right to be treated as a prisoner of war, and can be brought before the Courts.

Article XIII.

Individuals who follow an army without directly belonging to it, such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers, contractors, who fall into the enemy’s hands, and whom the latter think fit to detain, have a right to be treated as prisoners of war, provided they can produce a certificate from the military authorities of the army they were accompanying.

Article XIV.

A Bureau for information relative to prisoners of war is instituted, on the commencement of hostilities, in each of the belligerent States, and when necessary, in the neutral countries on whose territory belligerents have been received. This Bureau is intended to answer all inquiries about prisoners of war, and is furnished by the various services concerned with all the necessary information to enable it to keep an individual return for each prisoner of war. It is kept informed of interments and changes, as well as of admissions into hospital and deaths.

It is also the duty of the Information Bureau to receive and collect all objects of personal use, valuables, letters, &c., found on the battlefields or left by prisoners who have died in hospital or ambulance, and to transmit them to those interested.

Article XV.

Relief Societies for prisoners of war, which are regularly constituted in accordance with the law of the country with the object of serving as the intermediary for charity, shall receive from the belligerents for themselves and their duly accredited agents every facility, within the bounds of military requirements and Administrative Regulations, for the effective accomplishment of their humane task. Delegates of these Societies may be admitted to the places of interment for the distribution of relief, as also to the halting places of repatriated prisoners, if furnished with a personal permit by the military authorities, and on giving an engagement in writing to comply with all their Regulations for order and police.

Article XVI.

The Information Bureau shall have the privilege of free postage. Letters, money orders and valuables, as well as postal parcels destined for the prisoners of war or dispatched by them, shall be free of all postal duties both in the countries of origin and destination, as well as in those they pass through.

Gifts and relief in kind for prisoners of war shall be admitted fre of all duties of entry and others, as well as of payments for carriage by the Government railways.

Article XVII.

Officers taken prisoners may receive, if necessary, the full pay allowed them in this position by their country’s regulations, the amount to be repaid by their Government.

Article XVIII.

Prisoner of war shall enjoy every latitude in the exercise of their religion, including attendance at their own church services, provided only they comply with the regulations for order and police issued by the military authorities.

Article XIX.

The wills of prisoners of war are received or drawn up on the same conditions as for soldiers of the National Army.

The same rules shall be observed regarding death certificates, as well as for the burial of prisoners of war, due regard being paid to their grade and rank.

Article XX.

After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall take place as speedily as possible.

Chapter III.—On the Sick and Wounded.

Article XXI.

The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864, subject to any modifications which may be introduced into it.

Section II.—On Hostilities.

Chapter I.—On means of injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and Bombardments.

Article XXII.

The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Article XXIII.

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:—

(a.) To employ poison or poisoned arms;

(b.) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(c.) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(d.) To declare that no quarter will be given;

(e.) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

(f.) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy’s uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

(g.) To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.

Article XXIV.

Ruses of war and the employment of methods necessary to obtain information about the enemy and the country, are considered allowable.

Article XXV.

The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.

Article XXVI.

The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.

Article XXVII.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

Article XXVIII.

The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.

Chapter II.—On Spies.

Article XXIX.

An individual can only be considered a spy if, acting clandestinely, or on false pretences, he obtains, or seeks to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

Thus, soldiers not in disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of a hostile army to obtain information are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers or civillians, carrying out their mission openly, charged with the delivery of despatches destined either for their own army or for that of the enemy. To this class belong likewise individuals sent in baloons to deliver despatches, and generally to maintain communication between the various parts of an army or a territory.

Article XXX.

A spy taken in the act cannot be punished without previous trial.

Article XXXI.

A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage.

Chapter III.—On Flags of Truce.

Article XXXII.

An individual is considered as bearing a flag of truce who is authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who carries a white flag. He has a right to inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler, or drummer, the flag-bearer, and the interpreter who may accompany him.

Article XXXIII.

The Chief to whom a flag of truce is sent is not obliged to receive it in all circumstances.

He can take all steps necessary to prevent the envoy taking advantage of his mission to obtain information.

In case of abuse, he has the right to detain the envoy temporarily.

Article XXXIV.

The envoy loses his rights of inviolability if it is proved beyond doubt that he has taken advantage of his privileged position to provoke or commit an act of treachery.

Chapter IV.—On Capitulations.

Article XXXV.

Capitulations agreed on between the Contracting Parties must be in accordance with the rules of military honour.

When once settled, they must be scrupulously observed by both the parties.

Chapter V.—On Armistices.

Article XXXVI.

An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not fixed, the belligerent parties can resume operations at any time, provided always the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice.

Article XXXVII.

An armistice may be general or local. The first suspends all military operations of the belligerent States; the second, only those between certain fractions of the belligerent armies and in a fixed radius.

Article XXXVIII.

An armistice must be notified officially, and in good time, to the competent authorities and the troops. Hostilities are suspended immediately after the notification, or at a fixed date.

Article XXXIX.

It is for the Contracting Parties to settle, in the terms of the armistice, what communications may be held, on the theatre of war, with the population and with each other.

Article XL.

Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right to denounce it, and even, in case of urgency, to recommence hostilities at once.

Article XLI.

A violation of the terms of the armistice by private individuals acting on their own initiative, only confers the right of demanding the punishment of the offenders, and, if necessary, indemnity for the losses sustained.

Section III.—On Military Authority over Hostile Territory.

Article XLII.

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself.

Article XLIII.

The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article XLIV.

Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country is prohibited.

Article XLV.

Any pressure on the population of occupied territory to take the oath to the hostile Power is prohibited.

Article XLVI.

Family honours and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be respected.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Article XLVII.

Pillage is formally prohibited.

Article XLVIII.

If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do it, as far as possible, in accordance with the rules in existence and the assessment in force, and will in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory on the same scale as that by which the legitimate Government was bound.

Article XLIX.

If, besides the taxes mentioned in the preceding Article, the occupant levies other money taxes in the occupied territory, this can only be for military necessities or the administration of such territory.

Article L.

No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.

Article LI.

No tax shall be collected except under a written order and on the responsibility of a Commander-in-Chief.

This collection shall only take place, as far as possible, in accordance with the rules in existence and the assessment of taxes in force.

For every payment a receipt shall be given to the taxpayer.

Article LII.

Neither requisition in kind nor services can be demanded from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their country.

These requisitions and services shall only be demandel on the authority of the Commander in the locality occupied.

The contributions in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged.

Article LIII.

An army of occupation can only take possession of the cash, funds, and property liable to requisition belonging strictly to the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property of the State which may be used for military operations.

Railway plant, land telegraphs, telephones, steamers, and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritime law, as well as depôts of arms and, generally, all kinds of war material, even though belonging to Companies or to private persons, are likewise material which may serve for military operations, but they must be restored at the conclusion of peace, and indemnities paid for them.

Article LIV.

The plant of railways coming from neutral States, whether the property of those States, or of Companies, or of private persons, shall be sent back to them as soon as possible.

Article LV.

The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct.

Article LVI.

The property of the communes, that of religions, charitable, and educational institutions, and those of arts and science, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, and destruction, or intentional damage done to such institutions, to historical monuments, works of art or science, is prohibited, and should be made the subject of proceedings.

Section IV.—On the Internment of Belligerents and the Care of the Wounded in Neutral Countries.

Article LVII.

A neutral State which receives in its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war.

It can keep them in camps, and even confine them in fortresses or locations assigned for this purpose.

It shall decide whether officers may be left at liberty on giving their parole that they will not leave the neutral territory without authorization.

Article LVIII.

Failing a special Convention, the neutral State shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief required by humanity.

At the conclusion of peace, the expenses caused by the internment shall be made good.

Article LIX.

A neutral State may authorize the passage through its territory of wounded or sick belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry neither combatants nor war material. In such a case, the neutral State is bound to adopt such measures of safety and control as may be necessary for the purpose.

Wounded and sick brought under these conditions into neutral territory by one of the belligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, must be guarded by the neutral State, so as to insure their not taking part again in the military operations. The same duty shall devolve on the neutral State with regard to wounded or sick of the other army who may be committed to its care.

Article LX.

The Geneva Convention applies to sick and wounded interned in neutral territory.