comme unité de combat. Or un neutre ne peut, sans violer les principes de la neutralité, permettre à un navire belligérant d'augmenter sa valeur comme combattant dans les eaux territoriales neutres i s'ensuit qu'un État neutre ne peut permettre, sous peine d'encourir le même reproche, à un navire qui entrerait dans ses eaux territoriales comme non-combattant, de quitter ces eaux comme navire de guerre dûment autorisé par un État belligérant et aménagé en vue de prendre part aux hostilités.

Mais si le neutre est tenu de faire ainsi respecter la neutralité de ses eaux territoriales, le belligérant est également tenu de s'abstenir de la violer. Il est donc clair que, si le fait pour un État neutre de permettre à un navire belligérant de se transformer en navire de guerre dans ses eaux territoriales constitue une infraction à la neutralité, il est également du devoir du belligérant de ne pas commettre un acte de ce genre dans les eaux territoriales neutres, et que tout navire qui a été ainsi transformé, au mépris de la neutralité du neutre et des devoirs du belligérant, n'a pas acquis régulièrement le caractère d'un navire de guerre, et que sa qualité comme tel ne doit pas étre reconnue.

L'objection que nous pouvons élever à l'égard de la transformation en pleine mer est tout autre. Le droit international, tel qu'on le comprend à cette heure, permet à un navire belligérant régulièrement constitué navire de guerre, d'exercer les droits d'un belligérant non seulement contre l'ennemi mais aussi à l'égard des neutres. Or un neutre a le droit de savoir jusqu'à un certain point quels sont les navires qui pourront exercer ces droits. S'il était loisible à des navires ayant quitté des ports nationaux en qualité de navires de la marine merchande de se transformer en pleine mer et d'apparaître tout d'un coup comme navires de guerre, sans que les neutres aient pu prendre connaissance des changements, il est certain qu'un tel état des choses occasionnerait des incidents regrettables. Toutes les fois donc qu'un navire aurait été transformé en navire de guerre en pleine mer ou dans des eaux territoriales neutres, il pourrait s'en suivre des complications qui mèneraient à leur tour à des situations intolérables. Il n'est possible de parer aux éventualités que je viens de signaler qu'en reconnaissant franchement que le fait de transformer un navire en navire de guerre est un "acte de souveraineté" dans toute l'acceptation du terme, que cette transformation ne peut par conséquent avoir lieu que dans la jurisdiction nationale et qu'un navire de guerre ne sera reconnu comme tel que si cette condition a été observée. (Ibid., p. 822.)

M. Renault, a French delegate, shared Lord Reay's opinion that transformation in a neutral port would be contrary to neutrality, but did not regard the argument against transformation on the high sea as valid because

there the State was sovereign over the vessels flying its flag. (Ibid., p. 824.)

The Netherlands delegate supported the British position.

Count Tornielli explained the Italian proposition as follows:

Les navires de commerce qui ont quitté les eaux territoriales avant l'ouverture des hostilités doivent pouvoir opérer en la mer libre ou ailleurs la transformation qui pourra leur permettre de résister à une capture possible. Ces motifs ne sauraient militer en faveur des navires qui n'ont quitté les eaux territoriales qu'après les hostilités et par conséquent ont pu prendre d'avance les dispositions nécessaires. (Ibid., p. 824.)

M. Fusinato said, in support of the Italian propositionil y a un motif dont on n'a pas parlé; il serait fâcheux qu'un Davire marchand qui sort d'un port neutre où il a joui des privilèges de navire de commerce puisse mettre ce privilège à profit pour se transformer en navire de guerre. Il semble qu'il y aurait la un abus de son privilège, et que par suite il lui soit difficile de changer sa qualité même en mer libre. (Ibid., p. 824.)

In the comité d'examen, whose duty it was to consider the question of transformation, the German delegate supported the position of Russia favoring transformation on the high sea.

The Japanese delegate, on the other hand, would not only favor the prohibition of transformation on the high sea, but would prohibit transformation in ports of allies because such ports were not within the sovereignty of the belligerent.

The question of transformation on the high seas finally came before the comité d'examen in the following form:

Y a-t-il lieu de poser des règles d'après lesquelles le belligérant pourra faire en haute mer la transformation de navires de commerce en navires de guerre. (Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, Tome III, p. 933.

In the affirmative were the votes of Germany, AustriaHungary, Argentina, Chile, France, Russia, Servia, and in the negative, United States, Belgium, Brazil, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden. The prohibition of transformation on the high seas was

not determined upon, and in this respect there was no international agreement reached, and the preamble of the convention upon the subject of transformation distinctly states that the place of conversion "remains outside the scope of this agreement."

Hague convention relative to the conversion of merchant ships into war ships.-The convention finally agreed upon really relates to vessels which have already been converted into war vessels rather than to their conversion. The articles bearing on the subject are as follows:

ARTICLE 1.

A merchant ship converted into a war ship can not have the rights and duties accruing to such vessels unless it is placed under the direct authority, immediate control, and responsibility of the power whose flag it flies.

ARTICLE 2.

Merchant ships converted into war ships must bear the external marks which distinguish the war ships of their nationality..

ARTICLE 3.

The commander must be in the service of the state and duly commissioned by the competent authorities. His name must figure on the list of the officers of the fighting fleet.

ARTICLE 4.

The crew must be subject to military discipline.

ARTICLE 5.

Eevery merchant ship converted into a warship must observe in its operations the laws and customs of war.

ARTICLE 6.

A belligerent who converts a merchant ship into a warship must, as soon as possible, announce such conversion in the list of warships.

ARTICLE 7.

The provisions of the present convention do not apply except between contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the convention.

It is accepted as a general proposition that a belligerent under proper regulations will be allowed to use his resources upon the sea as well as upon the land. The fundamental objection to the use of converted merchant vessels has previously been the lack of government control and responsibility. Such control and responsibility is now secured.

These articles provide that war status will be conceded to merchant vessels only when under state authority, bearing the flag and distinguishing marks of belligerent nationality, subject to the command of a duly commissioned officer, with crew under military discipline, and observing the rules of war.

These articles take the converted merchant vessel out of the category of privateers and thus respect the first clause of the declaration of Paris of 1856 by which "privateering is and remains abolished." This convention. might properly have the title, "A Convention to Secure. the Observance of the Declaration of Paris in regard to Privateering." The converted merchant vessels become a part of the navy.

This had already been provided for in the Regulations for the Naval Auxiliary Service of the United States in effect April 1, 1907. In Chapter I, 2, of these regulations it is provided that "these vessels shall be governed by the laws of the United States, by the Navy regulations as far as they may be applicable, and by these regulations."

The preamble of the convention is as follows:

Whereas it is desirable, in view of the incorporation in time of war of merchant ships in the fighting fleet, to define the conditions subject to which this operation may be effected;

Whereas, however, the contracting powers have been unable to come to an agreement on the question whether the conversion of a merchant ship into a warship may take place upon the high seas, it is understood that the question of the place where such conversion is effected remains outside the scope of this agreement and is in no way affected by the following rules.

As the more important naval powers have agreements with the steamship companies under which in time of need

certain vessels may be taken into the public service, the place of conversion is a matter of utmost importance, and this subject by specific declaration remains outside the convention.

In general, a merchant vessel might be converted into a war vessel in a home port, on the high sea, or in a neutral port, and under exceptional circumstances within the jurisdiction of the other belligerent.

To conversion in a home port, followed by prompt notification as provided for in article 6 of the convention, little objection could be raised.

In the exceptional case of conversion within an enemy's jurisdiction there might arise a question of the exercise of good faith if a merchant vessel should forthwith be converted into a war vessel after it had been allowed to take on cargo or make repairs in an enemy's port during the days of grace allowed for departure of enemy vessels at the outbreak of war. It would seem that a regulation should be adopted by which vessels allowed such a privilege should retain their merchant character, at least until converted in a home port.

The main questions arise, however, in regard to conversion on the high seas, which the convention excludes because the powers can not reach an agreement, and conversion within neutral jurisdiction, which the convention does not mention.

The discussion during the Russo-Japanese War in regard to the conversion of the Smolensk and Peterburg of the Russian volunteer fleet after they had passed the Dardanelles, closed to war vessels, and were upon the open sea showed the necessity of some international understanding in order to avoid friction. There is no provision at present which prevents change of character. from time to time from merchant to war ship or vice versa, unless it be article 6 of the convention, which provides that "a belligerent who converts a merchant ship into a war ship must, as soon as possible, announce such conversion in the list of war ships." It would seem that to render this article 6 definite there should be an additional clause to the effect that a vessel thus placed in the