Chapter LXIII: Section 88 (12)

"3. To restrict the use in military warfare of the formidable
explosives already existing, and to prohibit the throwing of
projectiles or explosives of any kind from balloons or by any
similar means.

"4. To prohibit the use in naval warfare of submarine
torpedo-boats or plungers, or other similar engines of
destruction; to give an undertaking not to construct vessels
with rams in the future.

"5. To apply to naval warfare the stipulations of the Geneva
Convention of 1864, on the basis of the Additional Articles of
1868.

"6. To neutralize ships and boats employed in saving those
overboard during or after an engagement.

"7. To revise the Declaration concerning the laws and customs
of war elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels, which
has remained unratified to the present day.

"8. To accept in principle the employment of good offices, of
mediation and facultative arbitration in cases lending
themselves thereto, with the object of preventing armed
conflicts between nations; to come to an understanding with
respect to the mode of applying these good offices, and to
establish a uniform practice in using them.

"It is well understood that all questions concerning the
political relations of States and the order of things
established by Treaties, as generally all questions which do
not directly fall within the programme adopted by the
Cabinets, must be absolutely excluded from the deliberations
of the Conference. In requesting you, Sir, to be good enough
to apply to your Government for instructions on the subject of
my present communication, I beg you at the same time to inform
it that, in the interest of the great cause which my august
master has so much at heart, His Imperial Majesty considers it
advisable that the Conference should not sit in the capital of
one of the Great Powers, where so many political interests are
centred which might, perhaps, impede the progress of a work in
which all the countries of the universe are equally
interested."

General assent being given to the suggestions here offered,
the next step toward realization of the grand project was
taken, by an arrangement with the government of the Kingdom of
the Netherlands, in accordance with which an invitation was
addressed from The Hague, in April, to many governments, both
the greater and the less of the political world, in the
following terms:

"For political reasons the Imperial Russian Government
considered that it would not be desirable that the meeting of
the Conference should take place in the capital of one of the
Great Powers, and after securing the assent of the Governments
interested, it addressed the Cabinet of The Hague with a view of
obtaining its consent to the choice of that capital as the
seat of the Conference in question. The Minister for Foreign
Affairs at once took the orders of Her Majesty the Queen in
regard to this request, and I am happy to be able to inform
you that Her Majesty, my august Sovereign, has been pleased to
authorize him to reply that it will be particularly agreeable
to her to see the proposed Conference meet at The Hague.
Consequently, my Government, in accord with the Imperial
Russian Government, charges me to invite [the Government
named] to be good enough to be represented at the
above-mentioned Conference, in order to discuss the questions
indicated in the second Russian Circular of the 30th December,
1898 (11th January, 1899), as well as all other questions
connected with the ideas set forth in the Circular of the 12th
(24th) August, 1898, excluding, however, from the
deliberations everything which refers to the political
relations of States or the order of things established by
Treaties. My Government trusts, that [the Government named]
will associate itself with the great humanitarian work to be
entered upon under the auspices of His Majesty the Emperor of
All the Russias, and that it will be disposed to accept this
invitation, and to take the necessary steps for the presence
of its Representatives at The Hague on the 18th May next for
the opening of the Conference, at which each Power, whatever
may be the number of its Delegates, will only have one vote."

_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command: Miscellaneous,
Number 1, 1899, pages 3-4 and 8)._

In response to this definite invitation, the governments of
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Denmark, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Mexico, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal,
Roumania, Russia, Servia, Siam, Spain, Sweden and Norway,
Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States of America,
appointed representatives who met at The Hague, on the 18th of
May, 1899, and organized the Conference by electing M. de
Staal, Russian Ambassador, to preside. The United States was
represented by the Honorable Andrew D. White, Ambassador to
Berlin, the Honorable Seth Low, President of Columbia
University, the Honorable Stanford Newel, Envoy Extraordinary,
&c., to The Hague, Captain Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N., Captain.
William Crozier, U. S. A., and the Honorable Frederick W.
Holls, of New York. The representatives of Great Britain were
Sir Julian Pauncefote, Ambassador to the United States, Sir
Henry Howard, Envoy Extraordinary, &c., to The Hague,
Vice-Admiral Sir John A. Fisher, Major-General Sir J. C.
Ardagh, and Lieutenant-Colonel C. à Court.

{354}

"The Conference at The Hague was a Parliament of Man
representing, however imperfectly, the whole human race. The
only independent ones not represented at the Huis ten Bosch
were the South American republics, the Emperor of Morocco, the
King of Abyssinia, and the Grand Lama of Tibet. That the South
American republics were not represented is not the fault of
the Russian Emperor. Mexico received and accepted an
invitation. Brazil received, but rejected, the invitation to
be present, and so did one other South American republic. The
original Russian idea was to assemble representatives from
every independent government in the world; nor did they even
confine themselves to the secular governments. They were very
anxious that the Pope should also be directly represented in
this supreme assembly. Even with the Pope and South America
left out, the Congress represented more of the world and its
inhabitants than any similar assembly that has ever been
gathered together for the work of international legislation.
That circumstance in itself is sufficient to give distinction
to the Conference at The Hague, which, it is expected, will be
the forerunner of a series of conferences, each of which will
aim at being more and more universally representative. On the
eve of the twentieth century the human race has begun to
federate itself. That is the supreme significance of the
assembly which has just spent two months in the capital of
Holland."

_W. T. Stead,
The Conference at The Hague
(Forum, September, 1899)._

To systematize and facilitate the discussions of the
Conference, three Commissions or Committees were appointed,
between which the several subjects suggested in the Russian
circular of January 11 (as given above), and agreed to by the
several governments, were distributed. The 1st, 2d, 3d and 4th
propositions of the programme were referred to the First
Commission, the 5th, 6th and 7th to the Second, the 8th
(concerning mediation and arbitration) to the Third. This was
done on the 23d of May, after which the general Conference was
held only at intervals, to receive and consider reports from
the several Commissions, of agreements reached or
disagreements ascertained. This went on until the 29th of
July, when the several Conventions, Declarations, and
Recommendations agreed upon for submission to the governments
represented were summarized in the following "Final Act,"
signed by all:

"In a series of meetings, between the 18th May and the 29th
July, 1899, in which the constant desire of the Delegates
above mentioned has been to realize, in the fullest manner
possible, the generous views of the august Initiator of the
Conference and the intentions of their Governments, the
Conference has agreed, for submission for signature by the
Plenipotentiaries, on the text of the Conventions and
Declarations enumerated below and annexed to the present Act:

"I. Convention for the pacific settlement of international
conflicts.

"II. Convention regarding the laws and customs of war by land.

"III. Convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the
principles of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864.

"IV. Three Declarations:

1. To prohibit the launching of projectiles and explosives
from balloons or by other similar new methods,

2. To prohibit the use of projectiles, the only object of
which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious
gases.

3. To prohibit the use of bullets which expand or flatten
easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard
envelope, of which the envelope does not entirely cover the
core, or is pierced with incisions.

"These Conventions and Declarations shall form so many
separate Acts. These Acts shall be dated this day, and may be
signed up to the 31st December, 1899, by the Plenipotentiaries
of the Powers represented at the International Peace
Conference at The Hague.

"Guided by the same sentiments, the Conference has adopted
unanimously the following Resolution:—'The Conference is of
opinion that the restriction of military budgets, which are at
present a heavy burden on the world, is extremely desirable
for the increase of the material and moral welfare of
mankind.'

"It has, besides, formulated the following wishes:

"1. The Conference, taking into consideration the preliminary
steps taken by the Swiss Federal Government for the revision
of the Geneva Convention, expresses the wish that steps may be
shortly taken for the assembly of a Special Conference having
for its object the revision of that Convention. This wish was
voted unanimously.

"2. The Conference expresses the wish that the questions of
the rights and duties of neutrals may be inserted in the
programme of a Conference in the near future.

"3. The Conference expresses the wish that the questions with
regard to rifles and naval guns, as considered by it, may be
studied by the Governments with the object of coming to an
agreement respecting the employment of new types and calibres.

"4. The Conference expresses the wish that the Governments,
taking into consideration the proposals made at the
Conference, may examine the possibility of an agreement as to
the limitation of armed forces by land and sea, and of war
budgets.

"5. The Conference expresses the wish that the proposal, which
contemplates the declaration of the inviolability of private
property in naval warfare, may be referred to a subsequent
Conference for consideration.

"6. The Conference expresses the wish that the proposal to
settle the question of the bombardment of ports, towns, and
villages by a naval force may be referred to a subsequent
Conference for consideration.

"The last five wishes were voted unanimously, saving some
abstentions.

"In faith of which, the Plenipotentiaries have signed the
present Act, and have affixed their seals thereto. Done at The
Hague, 29th July, 1899, in one copy only, which shall be
deposited in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and of which
copies, duly certified, shall be delivered to all the Powers
represented at the Conference."

_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command: Miscellaneous,
Number 1, 1899, pages 3-4, 8 and 288-9)._

{355}

The accompanying Conventions and Declarations were in no case
unanimously signed, several delegations, in each case,
claiming time for the governments they represented to consider
certain questions involved. The most important of the proposed
Conventions, namely, that "For the Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes," was signed at The Hague by the
delegates from Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the United States of
America, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands,
Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway,
and Bulgaria; but not by Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Servia, Turkey,
or China. Ultimately, however, the great Treaty of Arbitration
was signed by everyone of the Powers represented. The
signature of the delegates of the United States was given
under reserve of a declaration which will be found in the
following excerpt from the general report of the American
Commission. The full text of each of the Conventions is given
below.

"The entire plan for the tribunal and its use is voluntary, so
far as sovereign States are concerned. The only seeming
exceptions to this rule are contained in Article 1, which
provides that the Signatory Powers agree to employ their
efforts for securing the pacific regulation of international
differences; and Article 27, which says that the Signatory
Powers consider it to be a duty, in the case where an acute
conflict threatens to break out between two or more of them,
to remind those latter that the permanent court is open to
them. The obligation thus imposed is not legal or diplomatic
in its nature. These articles merely express a general moral
duty for the performance of which each State is accountable
only to itself. In order, however, to make assurance doubly
sure and to leave no doubt whatever of the meaning of the
Convention, as affecting the United States of America, the
Commission made the following declaration in the full session
of the Conference, held July 25:—

The Delegation of the United States of America, in signing the
Convention regulating the peaceful adjustment of international
differences, as proposed by the International Peace
Conference, make the following declaration:—Nothing contained
in this Convention shall be so construed as to require the
United States of America to depart from its traditional policy
of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself
in the political questions or policy or internal
administration of any foreign State; nor shall anything
contained in the said Convention be construed to imply a
relinquishment by the United States of America of its
traditional attitude toward purely American questions.' Under
the reserve of this declaration the United States delegates
signed the Arbitration Convention itself. Article 8 of the
Convention, providing for a special form of Mediation, was
proposed individually by Mr. Holls of the United States
Commission. … It is hoped that in particular crises, when the
other means provided by the Convention for keeping or
restoring peace have failed, it may prove to have real and
practical value. It is certain that, by the Continental States
of Europe, it has been exceedingly well received."

_General Report of the American Commission._

"Objection has been made to [the International Court of
Arbitration] on the ground that submission to it is purely
voluntary and that no executive authority has been provided to
carry out its decrees. The answer to all such objections is
simply that the power of enlightened public opinion is relied
upon to be amply sufficient for the purpose of insuring
obedience to every just mandate of this Court. In the case of
the United States of America the judgments of the Court,
according to the decisions now in force, will have a
peculiarly binding force. An agreement to submit a case to the
Court cannot be made by the United States, except by way of a
treaty, which, when ratified by the Senate, becomes the
supreme law of the land. In the case of La Ninfa, Whitelaw v.
The United States (75 Fed. Rep., 513), it was decided by the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals in California that by
virtue of the treaty the judgment of the Court of Arbitration
provided for by the terms of the treaty has all the force of a
federal statute, and it is itself the supreme law of the land,
binding upon every individual citizen of the United States,
including all federal and State authorities. For us, at least,
the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague will, if
this view prevails, in reality be the highest possible
tribunal, with an authority binding even on our own United
States Supreme Court.

"Article 27 aims, in a measure, to supply the deficiency of
the provision for obligatory arbitration, in that it declares
it to be the duty of all Signatory Powers to remind anyone or
more of themselves, in case of a threatened dispute, that the
permanent Court of Arbitration is open to them. What
particular effect this particular article will have must be
left to the future. Without modification or reservation the
article, when ratified by the United States, would have
constituted a complete abandonment of the time-honored Monroe
Doctrine. Accordingly the representatives of the United States
declined to sign the treaty, except under a reservation or
declaration, which was solemnly accepted by the Peace
Conference, thus materially modifying the jurisdiction of the
Court [see above]. … By this declaration the Monroe Doctrine
was not only self-guarded, but it was stated and vindicated
more emphatically than ever before in our history, and the
people of this country are, therefore, in a position to
cordially support the International Court of Arbitration,
without the fear that the Court itself, or the fact of its
establishment, may ever be used against this country, or to
the embarrassment of its diplomacy and traditional policy. …

"The effect of the establishment of the Court upon European
diplomacy is necessarily surrounded by great uncertainty. In
a recent review of the work of the Peace Conference I ventured
to use this language: 'It is most encouraging and of the
highest importance that upon the whole Continent the
governments are apparently in advance of public opinion upon
the entire subject of the Peace Conference. The reason is not
far to seek. No man who is fit for the position can to-day
hold a place involving the direction of his country's
international policy without feeling an almost intolerable
pressure of responsibility. To him every remote chance of a
lightening of his burden comes as a promise of blessed relief.
It is a historical fact that none of the obstacles to success
which the Peace Conference had to overcome originated in the
mind of any sovereign or of any high minister of State. In
every case they were raised by underlings without
responsibility and anxious to show superior wisdom by finding
fault. So long as this favorable governmental attitude
continues there is every reason for encouragement.'

{356}

'Continental public opinion, especially in questions of
foreign policy, seems more pliable than ever before, and is as
clay in the hands of a potter, so far as alliances and
sympathies are concerned, when following a popular monarch or
foreign minister.' I have since been assured by the highest
officials of at least two great European Powers, that this
statement meets with their unqualified approval. The sneers of
irresponsible journals and politicians cannot and will not
affect the deliberate purposes of a high-minded and serious
minister of State."

_F. W. Holls,
The International Court of Arbitration at The Hague;
a paper read before the New York State Bar Association,
January 15, 1901._

PEACE CONFERENCE:
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes.

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, for 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, cannot 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.