CONVENTION No. 8. RELATIVE TO THE LAYING OF AUTOMATIC Submarine mines. The Russo-Japanese War drew the attention of the world to the deadly results produced by floating mines. Though not expressly mentioned in Count Benckendorff's Circular, the laying of torpedoes, etc. (pose de torpilles, etc.) was included among the subjects for consideration2. Automobile torpedoes were practically excluded from the discussions: they are referred to only in the 1st Article of this Convention; the lengthy debates in the Committees were all concerned with submarine mines3. Mines are of three different kinds: (1) Observation mines which are anchored along the coast and connected therewith by wires by which they can be exploded electrically. These are not dealt with in the Convention. They are innocuous to peaceful shipping. (2) Anchored automatic contact mines which are attached to heavy weights, and which can be placed at any required depth below the surface; these mines are exploded automatically by contact with heavy bodies such as ships. (3) Unanchored automatic contact mines which also explode by contact. Mines were employed in the Russo-Japanese War by both belligerents, Danger of mines to neutrals. and hundreds either broke adrift from their moorings or, not being anchored at all, floated into the high seas and caused serious loss of life to neutrals long after the conclusion 1 Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), pp. 51, 227; La Deux. Confér. T. 1. pp. 277, 287; T. 1. pp. 292, 364-459, 517-537, 660-680; Livre Jaune, p. 83; Weissbuch, p. 10; Sir T. Barclay, Problems, etc. pp. 57, 158; A. S. Hershey, International Law and Diplomacy, etc. pp. 124-135; T. J. Lawrence, War and Neutrality, etc. pp. 94–101; Idem, International Problems, pp. 121, 162, 190, 199; E. Lémonon, La seconde Conférence, pp. 472-502; C. H. Stockton, Submarine mines and torpedoes in war, Am. Journ. of Int. Law, Vol. 11. p. 276; J. Westlake, War, p. 322; Halleck's International Law (4th edition), Vol. 1. p. 620; Bonfils-Fauchille, Droit international (5th ed.), f. 12731; L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. I. p. 189; L. A. Atherley-Jones, Commerce in War; M. Sueter, The evolution of the submarine boat, mine and torpedo; Schücking, Die Verwendung von Minen im Seekrieg, Ztscht. für int. Priv. u. Strafrecht, xvI. (1906), p. 121; v. Martitz, Minen im Seekrieg, 23rd Report Int. Law Association (1906), p. 47. 2 The word "torpille" until recently appears to have meant any sort of receptacle containing an explosive intended to operate against the hull of a ship by contact either on or below the water-line. Thus there were torpilles fixes, torpilles mouillées, torpilles mobiles and finally torpilles automobiles. It would appear that latterly the word has come to mean only "automobile torpedo," e.g. in the Convention now under consideration the word "mine" is used when an automobile torpedo is not implied. 3 Fuller accounts are given of the proposals and discussions in connection with this Convention than in the case of the others by reason of the great importance of the subject to neutrals. of the war. In the course of the discussion of the British proposals in Committee the Chinese delegate made the following declaration which brings out strongly the dangers to which neutral shipping is exposed by their employment: "At the same time the Delegation [of China] desires to bring to the knowledge of the delegates certain facts which it ventures to hope will suggest the examination of this important proposition in a widely humanitarian sense. "The Chinese Government is even to-day obliged to furnish vessels engaged in coastal navigation with special apparatus to raise and destroy floating mines which are found not only on the open sea but even in its territorial waters. In spite of the precautions which have been taken a very considerable number of coasting vessels, fishing boats, junks and sampans have been lost with all hands without the details of these disasters being known to the western world. It is calculated from five to six hundred of our countrymen engaged in their peaceful occupations have there met a cruel death in consequence of these dangerous engines of war1." The subject of mines was entrusted to the Third Committee presided Mines and the Hague Conference. over by Count Tornielli. This Committee also dealt with naval bombardments, the adaptation to naval warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention and the right and duty of neutrals in naval warfare. The Committee was divided into two Sub-Committees, the first of which, presided over by M. Hagerup (Norway) with M. Streit (Greece) as Reporter, dealt with submarine mines and naval bombardments. The British Delegation in accordance with their instructions pre Various proposals: (a) British. sented the following draft consisting of six Articles which was the most complete and at the same time the most restrictive of any laid before the Committee: 1. The employment of unanchored automatic submarine contact mines is forbidden. 2. Automatic submarine contact mines which on breaking from their moorings do not become harmless are forbidden. 3. The employment of automatic submarine contact mines to establish or maintain a commercial blockade is forbidden. 4. Belligerents may only lay mines in their territorial waters or those of their enemies. Before fortified military ports (ports de guerre), however, this zone may be extended to a distance of 10 miles from shore batteries 1 La Deux. Confér. T. 1. p. 663. 2 See paragraph 15 of Instructions in Appendix. (canons à terre), provided that the belligerent laying such mines gives notice to neutrals and also takes such steps as circumstances allow to prevent, as far as possible, merchant-ships which have not had notice, being exposed to destruction. Only ports which possess at least one large graving-dock and are provided with the equipment necessary for the construction and repair of ships of war, and in which a staff of workmen paid by the state to construct and repair ships of war is maintained in time of peace, shall be considered as coming within the meaning of the term "ports de guerre." 5. Generally, the necessary precautions shall be taken to safeguard neutral ships engaged in lawful commerce; and it is desirable that automatic submarine contact mines shall be so constructed as to cease to be dangerous after a reasonable period. 6. At the conclusion of the war the belligerents will communicate to each other the necessary information as to the places where each has laid mines on the coasts of the other, and each belligerent must take steps as soon as possible to remove mines in his territorial waters1. The Italian Delegation handed in a preliminary motion2: (1) that unanchored mines should be provided with apparatus whereby (b) Italian. they became harmless within an hour after they were laid; (2) that as regards anchored mines they should be so constructed as to become harmless on breaking adrift from their moorings. The latter part of the Italian proposal was already covered by the British draft, but the first part allowed the use of unanchored floating mines which were forbidden by the British proposal, if they became harmless within an hour. In support of the British draft Captain Ottley stated that no objection could be raised to the use of mines controlled by electric wires from the shore, but that the interests of humanity demanded that the lives and interests of neutrals and non-combatants should be protected as far as was consistent with belligerent rights as regards the use of automatic contact mines. Referring to the loss of life occasioned in the China Seas which were frequented by a comparatively small number of ships, he said that had the number been anything like that frequenting the entrance to the Baltic, the Dardanelles, the Straits of Gibraltar or Dover a series of catastrophes would have occurred which would have attracted the attention of the whole civilised world. 1 La Deux. Confér. T. 1. p. 660. 2 Ibid. p. 661. 3 In this connection it was suggested that mines, like torpedoes, might be made to sink by infiltration after the lapse of a given time (Ibid. p. 519). La Deux. Confér. T. 1. pp. 519-520. The Italian naval delegate (Captain Castiglia) in support of his "motion préalable" pointed out that mines provided a cheap form of defence for states with a weak navy, and that those possessing a large navy and a long coast line also found them a valuable assistance to their coastal defences. The danger to neutrals was however so great that it was natural that a limit should be imposed on the unrestricted use of such terrible instruments of destruction, and he asked for the acceptance of his preliminary amendment to the British proposals as neutrals were safeguarded while a belligerent could still use a weapon which might as a last resort, especially where a weaker vessel was being pursued by a stronger, prove its salvation'. The Japanese Delegation proposed an amendment in the same sense as the Italian, and this was accepted by the British Delegation2. (c) Japanese. The Dutch Delegation proposed amendments to Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the British draft allowing neutrals to place mines in their (d) Dutch. own waters to prevent access to their territory, but prohibiting the laying of mines in straits connecting two open seas. It was also proposed to add a seventh Article providing that in case of loss of either neutral persons or property, the state laying the mines should make compensation3. The Brazilian Delegation also proposed an amendment allowing neutrals to lay mines in their waters for self-defence1. (e) Brazilian. (ƒ) German. The German Delegation proposed an amendment to Article 4 of the British draft allowing mines to be laid in the theatre of war which was defined in the following terms: "l'espace de mer sur lequel se fait ou vient de se faire une opération de guerre ou sur lequel une pareille opération pourra avoir lieu par suite de la présence ou de l'approche des forces armées des deux belligérants5." The Spanish Delegation proposed an amendment to Article 2 of the British draft that until an international technical commission (g) Spanish. had discovered means of rendering automatic contact mines harmless on breaking from their moorings they should be forbidden; and an amendment to Article 4 allowing belligerents only to employ mines in their own territorial waters or in those of their enemy when they exercise effective power there". At the third Meeting of the First Sub-Committee on the 11th July General Porter (United States) presented the following draft: (h) United States. 1 La Deux. Confér. T. 1. p. 518. 4 Ibid. p. 662. 2 Ibid. p. 661. 3 Ibid. p. 661. 5 Ibid. p. 663. 6 lbid. p. 663. 1. Unanchored automatic contact mines are prohibited. 2. Anchored automatic contact mines, which do not become innocuous on getting adrift, are prohibited. 3. If anchored automatic contact mines are used within belligerent jurisdiction or within the area of immediate belligerent activities, due precautions shall be taken for the safety of neutrals1. At the same meeting a Russian amendment was presented which provided that (1) belligerents shall make use of anchored (i) Russian. automatic submarine contact mines constructed in such a way that, as far as it is possible, they shall become harmless when they have broken from their moorings; (2) their automatic floating mines shall be constructed in such a way that, as far as possible, they become harmless after the lapse of a certain time from their being launched; (3) torpedoes shall be constructed in such a way that, as far as possible, they become harmless when they have missed their mark; (4) a sufficient delay shall be accorded to governments to bring into use perfected mines2. Difficulties of the Examining Committee. It will be evident from the foregoing list that the proposals of several states, notably Holland, Germany and Russia, considerably widened the area of discussion. The various proposals were sent for consideration to an Examining Committee composed of one representative from each of the Delegations of the following states: Great Britain, China, France, Germany, The United States, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Japan, Holland and Russia. This Committee held ten long meetings and during the course of their deliberation numerous amendments and proposals were tabled3. To 1 La Deux. Confér. T. 1. p. 664. 2 Ibid. p. 664. The subject was considered by the Institut de Droit International at the meeting at Ghent in 1906 and by the International Law Association in the same year. The Institut adopted by 17 votes to 3 the following rules: 1. The placing of anchored or floating mines on the high seas is prohibited. 2. Belligerents may place mines in their own territorial waters or in those of the enemy, with the exception of floating or anchored mines liable on displacement to be a danger to navigation outside the waters of the belligerents. 3. (1) The above also applies to neutral states placing in their waters any means (engins) to prevent the violation of their neutrality. (2) Neutral states may not place such mines in the passage of straits leading into the open sea. 4. The obligation of notification is incumbent on the belligerent state as well as on the neutral state. 5. Violation of any of the above rules entails the responsibility of the state which commits such violation. Annuaire, Vol. xxi. pp. 88-99, 330–345. The official Report of the Conference does not contain reports of the meetings of the Examining Committee, but gives the various proposals brought before it. (La Deux. Confér. T. 111. pp. 668-680. The Report of M. Streit summarises the discussions (pp. 397-428).) |