Convention of 1899. Prisoners of war escape and take refuge on neutral territory; belligerent troops that have taken refuge on neutral territory have with them prisoners of war; what is the duty of the neutral state? In the first case, it has long been a rule of international law that a prisoner of war escaping and taking refuge in a neutral state is free, but it was not settled whether the neutral state could restrain him from rejoining his army if he subsequently wished to do so1. The first paragraph of Article 13 leaves the neutral state liberty of action. It may receive escaped prisoners, and allow them to remain in its territory, and may assign them a place of residence. If the prisoner will not conform to neutral regulations is he at liberty to leave? The second paragraph was objected to by the Russian military delegate as being contrary to Article 59 of the Regulations for land warfare of 1899 and Article 15 of the Convention adapting to maritime warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1906, which require that sick and wounded belonging to belligerent armies and navies committed to the care of neutrals must be guarded by the latter and not allowed to take part again in the war. The case dealt with by this paragraph is quite different. A body of belligerent troops with prisoners of war enter a neutral territory with the object of avoiding surrender to the enemy2; if such troops surrender to the enemy their prisoners are freed; the same rule now applies where they enter neutral territory and are interned. Their prisoners are dealt with in the same way as escaped prisoners of war.

Articles 16, 17 and 18 are all that remain of a German draft of 12 Articles originally intended to form Chapter v. of the ReguChapter iii. Neutral lations for the laws of war on land. The failure of the German persons. delegate to obtain acceptance for his proposals has already been referred to in discussing the Second and Third Voeux3. The draft Articles proposed to establish a régime highly favourable both to the persons and property of neutrals in belligerent states. Great Britain, having large colonies with populations drawn from many states, would have been considerably handicapped if she had never been able to avail herself of the services of immigrants freely offered, who, not having resided long enough to acquire British nationality, still remained technically subjects of a neutral Power. The British delegate strongly objected to the German proposals

1 See L. Oppenheim, Int. Law, Vol. 11. § 337.

2 The most striking example of internment occurred in 1871 during the Franco-Prussian war when over 80,000 French troops under General Clinchant entered Swiss territory and were interned for the remainder of the war; France at the conclusion of the war paid to Switzerland some 11 million francs for their maintenance.

3 See supra, p. 85.

and he was supported by the delegates of France, Russia and Japan, who also declined to accept the favoured position created for subjects of neutral Powers in belligerent states. The three Articles which found acceptance and which constituted the 1st Chapter of the German draft have not been accepted by Great Britain.

Chapter iv.
Railway
Material.

Article 19 replaces Article 54 of the Regulations of 1899 and is a compromise between contradictory views. Luxemburg and Belgium denied the right of belligerents to requisition and make use of neutral railway material within their territory. Germany and Austria desired to have the right to use it admitted, on the understanding that an indemnity was paid for its use after the close of the war. France and Luxemburg as an alternative claimed both an indemnity and the right, in case of need, to retain and make use of a corresponding quantity of railway material coming from the territory of a belligerent state. The Conference took the middle course, allowing belligerents to requisition and use neutral railway material only when absolutely necessary, on condition that it be returned as soon as possible, the neutral being given a corresponding right over belligerent material within its territory, compensation to be paid by one party to the other in proportion to the material used and the period of use. The terms used in this Article leave the neutral very much at the mercy of the belligerent as regards the requisition and use of railway material. Who is to be the judge of the necessity, and what is the meaning of "as soon as possible"? M. Eyschen (Luxemburg) proposed that within a certain time after the outbreak of war all neutral railway material should be returned to the country of its origin. General von Gündell (Germany) objected that this would entirely disorganise the transport and mobilisation of troops in the belligerent country on the outbreak of war; the latter view prevailed.

This Convention affords within modest limits a starting-point for future Conferences, and a basis on which may be built further rules safeguarding neutral interests. It contains on the whole well accepted principles which were ready for codification.

All the Powers except China and Nicaragua have signed this ConSignatory vention, but Great Britain has made reservations in regard to Articles 16, 17 and 18, and the Argentine Republic in regard to Article 18.

Powers.

VI. ENEMY MERCHANT-SHIPS AT THE OUTBREAK

OF HOSTILITIES.

1 List of States as in the Final Act, 1907.