« PředchozíPokračovat »
the Congo. Corea:
The delegates from Japan also represent Corea. Denmark: Mr. Laub, Surgeon-General, Chief of the Army Medical
His Excellency Mr. Révoil, Ambassador to Berne;
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Professor at the "Faculté
de droit,” Paris. Colonel Olivier (Staff certificate), Reserve Artillery, Scien
tific Expert; Dr. Pauzat, Chief Surgeon of the Second Class, Scientific
Expert. Germany: His Excellency Mr. A. de Bülow, Chamberlain and Privy
Councilor, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo
tentiary to Berne; Brig. Gen. Baron de Manteuffel; Dr. Villaret, Medical Inspector, Surgeon-General (with rank
of Major-General); Dr. Zorn, Privy Councilor of Justice, Professor of Law at the
University of Bonn, and Syndic of the Crown.
Maj. Gen. Sir John Ardagh, K. C. M. G., K. C. I. E., C. B.;
tion. Greece: Mr. Michel Kebedgy, Professor of International Law at the
University of Berne. Guatemala:
Mr. Manuel Arroyo, Charge d'Affaires at Paris;
Mr. Henri Wiswald, Consul-General at Geneva.
Member of the State Council;
M. Oscar Hæpfi, Consul at Berne.
President of the Central Committee of the Italian Red
Majesty the King of Italy, Secretary of the Delegation.
and Minister Plenipotentiary to Brussels; Colonel of Infantry Motojiro Akashi; Dr. Eijiro Haga, Chief Surgeon of the First Class (with rank
the War Department. Luxemburg: The Belgian delegates also represent the Grand Duchy of
Maj. Gen. José Maria Pérez. Monienegro: The delegates from Switzerland also represent the Princi
pality of Montenegro. Nicaragua: The delegate from Honduras also represents the State of
Capt. Daae, of the Medical Corps of the Norwegian Army. Peru: Mr. Gustavo de la Fuente, First Secretary of the Peruvian
Legation at Paris. Persia: His Excellency Mr. Samad Khan Momtaz-os-Saltaneh,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to
Paris. Portugal: His Excellency Mr. Alberto d'Oliveira, Envoy Extraordinary
and Minister Plenipotentiary to Berne; Colonel of Infantry José Nicolau Raposo-Botelho, ex
Deputy, Superintendent of the Royal Military College
at Lisbon. Roumania: Mr. Nicolas Ghica, Minister Plenipotentiary, General Secre
tary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Dr. Sache Stephanesco, Colonel of Reserves.
ber of the Council of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
at the Naval Academy of St. Petersburg;
Mr. Nicolas de Martens, Secretary of the Delegation. San Salvador: Mr. Pedro J. Matheu, Chargé d'Affaires and Consul-General
in France; Mr. Santiago Pérez Triana, Chargé d'Affaires and Consul
General in Spain. Servia: Mr. Milan Markovitch, General Secretary of the Depart
ment of Justice; Dr. Sondermayer, Colonel, and Chief of the Medical Division
of the Ministry of War. Siam:
Prince Charoon, Chargé d'Affaires at Paris;
Mr. Corragioni d'Orelli, Counselor of the Legation at Paris.
of the War Department;
of the Army Medical Corps. Sweden: Mr. Sörensen (O. P.), Chief Surgeon of the Second Division
of the Army. Switzerland:
Mr. Odier, Minister to Russia;
Colonel Mürset, Chief Surgeon of the Federal Army.
Mr. William Cary Sanger, ex-Assistant Secretary of War;
Mr. Alexandre Herosa, Chargé d'Affaires at Paris.
M. Ernest Rothlisberger (Berne).
Mr. Paul des Gouttes (Geneva);
Mr. Nicolas de Martens (Russia).
Mr. Camille Odier (Geneva).
of a personal nature and those relating to the protocol:
Mr. Gustave Goegg (Geneva). It is interesting to observe that the membership of the conference comprised fifteen ambassadors and ministers, including chargés d'affaires; eighteen officers of the diplomatic or consular service; thirty-eight officers of the army, of whom twenty were members of the medical or sanitary departments of the states which they represented; two officers of the navy; eight professors and publicists, and four officers of volunteer Red Cross societies. Although but few of the delegates directly represented the volunteer associations which have been organized in nearly all states of the civilized world, many of the representatives have been officially associated with these socieities in various capacities, and most of the delegates were entirely familiar with the work which has been accomplished by them during the past forty years.
When the announcement of the names and designations of the delegates representing the signatory powers had been completed, a set of rules for the guidance of the conference and its committees was submitted by the president and unanimously accepted. The rules thus adopted conformed in substance to those usually followed by bodies composed of delegates representing sovereign states, and provided for the appointment of committees for the conduct of the business of the conference; they also provided for the preparation of a daily report of the proceedings of the conference and its committees, which was to be given to the public, through the secretariat, at the close of the conference.
As a basis for its deliberations the following questions were submitted to the powers, by the Government of the Swiss Confederation, some months in advance of the meeting of the conference:
1. The Geneva Convention lays down the principle that wounded or sick soldiers shall be received and attended to, whatever their nationality (art. 6, first section). Is it advisable to add that soldiers, when disabled, shall be protected against ill treatment and plunder?
Should it be further stipulated:
(a) That no burial or cremation of the dead shall take place without a previous careful examination of the bodies?
(6) That every soldier shall carry on his person a mark by which he can be identified?
(c) That the list of the dead, sick, and wounded taken in charge by the enemy shall be delivered by the latter as soon as possible to the authorities of their country or army?
2. Lay down the principle that the sick and wounded remain subject to the general laws of war, and that when they fall into the hands of the enemy they will be considered as prisoners of war. Rescind the provisions relative to the return of the sick and wounded (art. 6, secs. 2, 3, and 4)
3. Would it not be well to enumerate more fully the sanitary personnel protected by the convention (art. 2)? Is it desirable to mention the personnel of voluntary relief societies and to determine the conditions on which such personnel will be neutralized?
4. Under article 2 of the convention the sanitary and religious personnel participates in the benefit of neutrality only while on duty and as long as there remain wounded men to raise and to succor. Should it not be declared inviolable under all circumstances?
5. Stipulate that the sanitary personnel shall continue to discharge its duties, even after occupation by the enemy, under the orders of the latter's military authorities. As soon as its services shall no longer be required by the sick and wounded, the military authority shall, on its request, send it back and, if it be possible without detriment to military operations, furnish it with an escort to the outposts of its army over the shortest route. On so retiring, the said personnel shall carry away articles and surgical instruments of its private property.
6. Stipulate that the belligerents shall guarantee to the sanitary personnel that may fall into their hands full enjoyment of their whole salaries (see art. 7 of The Hague Convention for the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime warfare).
7. Provide that neutrality ceases for the sanitary personnel if it commits hostile acts otherwise than in self-defense, there being, however, no prohibition of the carrying of arms.
8. Rescind the provisions relative to inhabitants of the seat of war (art. 5).
9. Article 1 of the convention stipulates that military ambulances and hospitals will be recognized as neutral and protected and respected as such by the belligerents so long as any sick and wounded are therein.
Would it not be opportune to modify this provision in the sense that ambulances—that is to say, according to the interpretation given by the conference of 1868—the field hospitals, and other temporary establishments that follow the troops on the field of battle for the relief of the sick and wounded are to be considered as neutrals under all circumstances, and that therefore if they should fall into the hands of the enemy they should be returned to their army by him as soon as they are no longer required for the care of the sick and wounded?
The same article declares that neutrality ceases if the ambulances or hospitals are under a military guard. It might be preferable to say that the neutrality of sanitary establishments ceases if they are used by the enemy for warlike purposes, and to add that the fact of their being protected by a picket or by sentries does not deprive them of that prerogative. The picket or sentries, if captured, will be considered as prisoners of war.