BOARD OF EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, State University of Iowa. ROBERT LANSING, Watertown, N. Y. JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Columbia University. LEO S. ROWE, University of Pennsylvania. DAVID J. HILL, The Hague, European Editor. Managing Editor, JAMES BROWN SCOTT, George Washington University. EDITORIAL COMMENT THE JANUARY JOURNAL. Dr. James Brown Scott, the Managing Editor of the Journal, who as one of the delegates of the United States, took part in the deliberations of The Hague Conference, has cabled directing that the announcement be made in this issue that the January number of the Journal will be devoted to the work of the conference. Discussion of topics suggested by the conference and the publication of the conventions adopted are therefore postponed until the January issue. As a preliminary to the further discussion of the subject promised for the next number, a brief editorial comment will be found below, giving a short account of the proceedings and the work of the American delegation at the conference.1 1 AMERICAN DELEGATION TO THE SECOND HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1907. Joseph H. Choate, of New York, Commissioner Plenipotentiary with rank of Ambassador Extraordinary; Horace Porter, of New York, Commissioner Plenipotentiary with rank of Ambassador Extraordinary; Uriah M. Rose, of Arkansas, Commissioner Plenipotentiary with rank of Ambassador Extraordinary; David THE SECOND PEACE CONFERENCE OF THE HAGUE. In the April issue of this Journal editorial notice was made of the convocation of the second peace conference of the nations at The Hague, initiated by President Roosevelt and called by the Emperor of Russia. This conference assembled at The Hague on June 15th last with a representation present of the following nations: Germany, United States of America, Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Spain, France, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Netherlands, Peru, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Servia, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The arrangement of nations thus given follows the order of their titles in the French language, and was observed in the seating of the delegations, the calling of the roll, etc. The conference was opened by an address of welcome, in the name of the Queen of the Netherlands, by Jonkheer van Tets van Goudriaan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and upon his nomination M. Nelidoff, Russian Ambassador in Paris, was chosen president of the conference, who, on taking the chair, made an address reviewing the work of the first conference and expressing hope for further advance in the second. W. Doude van Troostwijk of the Netherlands was chosen secretary general. The course followed by the first conference for the consideration and dispatch of business was adopted and the conference was divided into four commissions. To the first commission were assigned the subjects of arbitration, commissions of inquiry, and all kindred questions. The second commission was given charge of the amelioration of the laws and Jayne Hill, of New York, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Netherlands, Commissioner Plenipotentiary; Brigadier-General George B. Davis, Judge Advocate General, United States Army, Commissioner Plenipotentiary with rank of Minister Plenipotentiary; Rear Admiral Charles S. Sperry, United States Navy, Commissioner Plenipotentiary with rank of Minister Plenipotentiary; William I. Buchanan, of New York, Commissioner Plenipotentiary with rank of Minister Plenipotentiary; James Brown Scott, of California, Solicitor for the Department of State, Technical Delegate and Expert in International Law; Charles Henry Butler, of New York, Reporter of the Supreme Court, Technical Delegate and Expert Attaché to the Commission; Chandler Hale, of Maine, Secretary of the Commission; William M. Malloy, Assistant Secretary and Disbursing Officer; Arthur Bailly-Blanchard, Second Secretary of Embassy, Paris, France, Assistant Secretary. customs of war on land, the opening of hostilities, the revision of the declarations made by the first conference, and the rights and duties of neutrals. The third commission had charge of questions connected with naval warfare, such as the bombardment of towns, the use of torpedoes, the regimen of belligerent vessels in neutral ports, and the adaptation of the Geneva Convention of 1864 to sea warfare. To the fourth commission was submitted all subjects in the programme not embraced by the first three commissions, among which were the transformation of merchant vessels into ships of war, private property on the sea, the delay of favor granted to vessels on the opening of hostilities, contraband of war, blockade, destruction of neutral prizes, and the application of the provisions relative to land warfare to maritime war. Each nation was to be represented upon all of the four commissions by such number of its delegates as it saw fit to name, and, in addition, any delegate was permitted to attend the sessions of all the commissions, and as no two of these were in session at the same time they were open to all the members of the conference. This arrangement, however, had the effect of reducing the number in attendance on the commissions, and enabled them to be assembled in a smaller hall where deliberation was more satisfactory than in the large and imposing Hall of the Knights, where the full conference had its sessions. The chairman named for the first commission was M. Léon Bourgeois, of France; for the second, M. Beernaert, of Belgium; for the third, Count Tornielli, of Italy; and for the fourth, M. de Martens, of Russia. The anticipation of this Journal that the Second Hague Conference would be in the widest and fullest sense of the word a world conference has been realized, as only two or three minor nations, for domestic reasons, were unrepresented. It was remarkable also in the fact that it was the first time all the nations of the world had come together in a spirit of amity to consider the general interests of mankind. While this condition was full of hope for the reign of peace and justice, it was anticipated that difficulties would be encountered in the deliberations of the conference and that on many questions there would be found conflicting, if not irremediable, differences of views and interests. In the April editorial comment it was said: There has been much discussion as to the programme to be submitted and discussed at The Hague, for while the conference is international in its nature, nations have from the nature of things national interests, and it is a matter of great difficulty to harmonize these interests and unite upon a programme with which all may agree. The purpose of the conference is eminently practical. It is not a parliamentary body in which motions are voted by majorities. The condition of progress is not that one nation or any few nations may take a step in advance, but that all nations may take the same step, and it is wiser to do a few things with the consent of all than to attempt many things which must necessarily meet opposition and fail of universal consent. It is not, therefore, surprising to learn that the conference has encountered much difficulty in reaching a unanimous conclusion on a number of important subjects and that its sessions have been greatly prolonged. While the first conference completed its labors in ten weeks the second conference has extended its sittings through nearly double that length of time. But while it has failed to agree upon some propositions regarded by the majority of the nations as of great importance, it would not be just to say that its labors have resulted in little good. It was of itself a great achievement to have brought together all the nations of the earth in friendly counsel over their mutual interests and to study the best means of securing the peace of the world. But when the finished work of the conference shall be examined it will be found to have reached some important results. Some of them may be briefly cited with satisfaction: 1. The conference has perfected the method of instituting commissions of inquiry, such as that which worked so satisfactorily in adjusting the dispute between Great Britain and Russia on account of the "Dogger Banks" incident during the late Russo-Japanese war. 2. While it was not possible to secure an agreement for a definite method of interposition by the mediation of friendly powers between two nations threatening hostilities, the conference did strengthen the expression of the nations as to the desirability of resorting to that step to prevent or delay war. 3. Important amendments have been made in the treaty of arbitration of 1899, so as to make a resort to The Hague Court more easy and to improve its methods of procedure. 4. An agreement was reached respecting an international prize court of appeal, so that neutral powers and individuals may appeal their cases from the court of the belligerent to an impartial tribunal. 5. The laws and customs of war on land have been still further ameliorated in extension of the action of the first conference; the duty of belligerents in opening hostilities has been more clearly defined, as well as the rights and duties of neutrals. 6. New rules have been framed governing naval warfare and the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1864 have been extended to it. 7. At the present writing it is not possible to state in detail the action reached on the subjects considered by the fourth commission; rules have been agreed upon regulating the transformation of merchant vessels into ships of war, some provision as to the favor to be granted to vessels in belligerent ports or on the high sea in the breaking out of hostilities, the exemption of fishing vessels from seizure, the restriction of the search. of mail vessels, and other favors to neutral commerce. 8. Probably the most important work of the conference, for the nations of America at least, will be the prohibition of the forcible collection by governments of contractual claims of their subjects against other governments, when the latter are willing to submit the justice and amount of the claims to arbitration. This subject was early brought before the conference by the delegation of the United States and met with little opposition on the part of the great powers of Europe. The Latin-American states, however, while favoring the general proposition, were unwilling to recognize even by inference the right of a foreign power to intervene in its domestic affairs and override the action of its courts of law. After considerable discussion a formula was agreed upon which, under reservation, was accepted by these states. This matter has been the occasion of many of the hostile operations of European nations against the governments of Latin America and was brought to the attention of the world by the warlike operations of the fleets of Great Britain, Germany, and Italy against Venezuela in 1902. It is anticipated that the adoption of the provision as to debts by the conference will remove much of the friction between certain of the European governments and those of Latin America. The measures adopted by the conference thus briefly reviewed have been embodied in a series of conventions, declarations, and voeux. The conventions are as follows: I. Convention for the pacific settlement of international conflicts. II. Convention relative to the recovery of contractual debts. III. Convention relative to the opening of hostilities. IV. Convention concerning the laws and customs of war on land. V. Convention concerning the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in land warfare. VI. Convention regarding the treatment of enemy's merchant vessels at the beginning of hostilities. VII. Convention regarding the transformation of merchantmen into warships. VIII. Convention in regard to the placing of submarine mines. |