Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

16. The German proposition, divided into three chapters, and intended by its numbering to continue the old declaration concerning war on land, is as follows:

SECTION V.

CHAPTER I.

Definition of a neutral person.

ARTICLE 61. The nationals of a state which is not taking part in a war are considered as neutrals.

ARTICLE 62. A violation of neutrality involves loss of character as a neutral person with respect to all the belligerents. There is a violation of neutrality

(a) If the neutral person commits hostile acts against a belligerent; (b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed forces of one of the parties; ARTICLE 63. The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favor of one belligerent in the sense of article 62, paragraph (b):

(a) Supplies furnished or loans made to one of the belligerents, provided that they do not come from enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy.

(b) Services rendered in matters of police or civil administration.

CHAPTER II.

Services rendered by neutral persons.

ARTICLE 64. Belligerents shall not solicit neutral persons to render their service, although they [the interested persons] may consent to it. The following shall be considered as services of war:

Any assistance by a neutral person in the armed forces of the belligerents, in the character of combatant or adviser, and, if he shall have submitted to the laws, regulations or orders in force by the said army, of other classes also, for example, secretary, servant, or cook. Services under guise of an ecclesiast and health officer are excepted.

ARTICLE 65. Neutral powers engage to prohibit their nationals from enlisting in the military service of the army of either of the belligerents. ARTICLE 66. Neutral persons shall not be obliged, against their will, to lend services, not considered services of war, to the armed force of either belligerents.

It shall be permitted, nevertheless, to demand sanitary or police services, outside of the field of the struggle.

Such services shall be compensated, provided it is possible to do so. If not paid in cash, the necessary formal receipts shall be given.

CHAPTER III.

Concerning property of neutral persons.

ARTICLE 67. No war tax shall be demanded from neutral persons. A war tax is deemed to be any requisition demanded expressly for the purposes of the war. The enforcement of laws and existing tolls, or of contributions especially decreed by one of the belligerents, in the enemy territory which it may occupy, for the necessities of the administration of that territory, are not deemed to be contributions of war.

ARTICLE 68. The property of a neutral shall not be destroyed, misused, or injured unless required by the exigencies of war. In such event, the belligerent is not obliged to indemnify in its own country or in the enemy country, except when the nationals of another neutral country or of his own may enjoy equal indemnification and reciprocity may be guaranteed.

ARTICLE 69. The belligerent shall make compensation for the use of neutral real property, in the enemy country, the same as in its own country, provided that reciprocity is guaranteed in the neutral state. In no case shall this indemnity be greater than that provided by the legislation of the enemy country in case of war.

ARTICLE 70. Belligerents may expropriate and use for military purposes, and without immediate reimbursement and cash payment, all the neutral goods found in its country. They may do the same in enemy country, within the limits and under the conditions specified in article 52.

ARTICLE 71. Neutral vessels and their cargoes shall not be expropriated by a belligerent, except when they are used for river navigation within its territory or within the enemy territory. The indemnity shall equal, in the event of expropriation, the actual valuation of the vessel and of the cargo and ten per cent more. In the event of the employment of the vessel, the compensation shall be ten per cent more than the customary price. These payments shall be made immediately and in cash.

ARTICLE 72. Indemnity for the destruction or injury of neutral goods, due only in their use for military purposes, shall be regulated in conformity with the principles established in articles 70 and 71.

17. This project called forth immediately, and during the debates which it aroused in the subcommission, in the comité d'examen, and in the commission itself, various amendments. They may be classified into three divisions. The first, those amending the original draft by new suggestions or by a modification of some detail included or inferred in the project; some of these we shall examine as we touch upon and consider the problems to which they relate.

The second refers to the regulation of questions omitted entirely from the German proposition. These were principally the propositions of Luxemburg and Servia concerning neutral railroads.

But the third, the most important, is an amendment proposed by the French delegation when the discussion was well advanced, and which represents an opinion entirely opposed to that expressed by Germany, with regard to neutral property. Its principal article provided that neutral property shall be treated by the belligerent: First, in its own territory, the same as the private property of its nationals;

Second, in enemy territory, the same as the private property of nationals of the enemy state.

18. The German proposition was necessarily the basis of all the discussions, and it is proper therefore that, in examining it, we shall consider the different questions to which it gave rise. In brief, it comprised three classes of questions the definition of a neutral person and the conditions by which that condition is lost; the personal services which may be required of a neutral in time of war; and the status of his property in belligerent territory or in territory occupied by the belligerent.

With regard to the meaning of the expression "neutral persons," Mr. Beernaert moved and obtained in the committee the suppression of the word "persons," using only the word "neutrals " as a more adequate expression in French. Also, upon motion of Mr. Beernaert, and by reason of certain suggestions and doubts expressed by Mr. Hagerup, for the phrase "natives," in French "ressortissants," in the original draft, was substituted the more specific and concrete word "nationals."

Upon motion of the Swiss delegate, accepted by Baron Marschall, the idea of a person losing his neutral character was changed so as to provide that the neutral shall not be allowed "to avail of his neutrality" under certain circumstances. Otherwise the German draft of article 62 was preserved, but, further, upon the suggestion of the Swiss delegate, a paragraph was added — inspired by the view that neutral persons do not commit any particular crime when they violate neutrality. This additional paragraph provides

that a neutral shall not be more severely treated by the belligerent, as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality, than a national of the other belligerent state could be for the same act.

A motion of Mr. Houdicourt, delegate of Haiti, expressly stipu lated that expressions of sympathy through the medium of the press are not deemed hostile acts against the belligerents. International law ordinarily affirms this, and it should fairly be understood from article 62, above cited. Spoken or written expressions of opinion can not be included in the legal category of "acts."

To article 63, above cited, was added the prohibition against furnishing supplies or loans when the person who furnishes the supplies or makes the loans lives in enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy. Therefore, the following acts shall not be considered as committed in favor of one belligerent by reason of which the neutral can not avail himself of his neutrality:

Supplies furnished or loans made to one of the belligerents, provided that the person who furnishes the supplies or who makes the loans lives neither in the territory of the other party nor in the territory occupied by him, and that the supplies do not come from these territories. In the new form the restriction concerning sums loaned proceeding from enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy disappeared in the alteration.

With these comparatively simple alterations, the first chapter of the German proposition was accepted without difficulty.

19. It was not, however, so with the second chapter. The fundamental thought was the prohibiting of neutral persons from lending their services to belligerents, and therefore belligerents were prohibited from accepting such services even though the interested parties might consent, and neutral powers were directed to restrain their subjects or citizens.

The French delegation, through Messrs. Bourgeois and Renault, immediately objected to this proposition. It was justly argued that it was not clear that the belligerent ought to abstain from availing of the services of neutral persons so beneficial in certain famous instances or that the neutral state ought to bind itself to restrain them, thus exceeding the duties which impartiality imposes upon it

in war and converting the passive condition of nonintervention, which is its mission, into that of an active obligation. And, this point of view being warmly seconded by the English and Swiss delegations, among others, the German delegation finally abandoned the innovation, accepting, in this regard, the usual practice.

But what is the usual practice [in regard to services]? The distinguished redacteur of the project, Colonel Borel, who made every effort to obtain a satisfactory result, proposed to the comité de redaction, with the assent of its members, the following formula:

Belligerents shall not demand of neutral persons services which relate directly to the war. Service of sanitation or of public health are excepted. Such services shall be compensated for in cash whenever possible. In default thereof, the proper receipt shall be given and payment made as soon as possible.

By this formula, the distinction drawn between war and other service disappears, being unnecessary after the withdrawal by the German delegates of the main prohibition in the first clause. Religious or ecclesiastic services, mentioned in the German proposition, and services relating to civil administration, to which the AustroHungarian amendment referred, were excepted, it being recognized that their general character did not permit their being included among the services having direct relation to war. And it was claimed that circumstances urgently demanded the exception of sanitary services and services for public health. The above quoted formula was so reasonable, and in such complete harmony with the general practice of nations, that of itself it could not cause any difficulty or complication.

Nevertheless, it was thought necessary to establish definite limitations restricting its application. Among other things, the desirability of making special provision for the case of a voluntary engagement on the part of a neutral was suggested. This immediately brought up the case of resident foreigners who enter military service by reason of special provisions of the Norwegian legislature, or on account of peculiar conditions in the Dutch and British colonies. The Belgian delegates also thought that the formula should not be applicable to strangers without a country (apelites), without any

« PředchozíPokračovat »