Chapter IV immediately, and of which the text, as submitted to the Conference, is as follows:

Declaration of the subcommittee.

Withdrawal of M.

Beernaert's

objections.

"The Conference is unanimous in thinking that it is extremely desirable that the usages of war should be defined and regulated. In this spirit it has adopted a great number of provisions which have for their object the determination of the rights and of the duties of belligerents and of populations, and for their end the reduction and softening of the evils of war, so far as military necessities permit. It has not always been possible to come to an agreement that henceforth all these stipulations should apply to all practical cases. On the other hand, it could not possibly be the intention of the Conference that unforeseen cases should, in the absence of written stipulations, be left to the arbitrary decision of those who commanded the army. In awaiting the time when a complete code of the laws of war may be elaborated and proclaimed, the Conference considers it opportune to state that in cases not provided for in the Articles of this date, populations and belligerents remain under the safeguards and government of the principles of international law, resulting from the customs established between civilized nations, the laws of humanity, and the demands of public conscience. It is in this sense that especially Articles 2 and 3 adopted by the Conference should be clearly understood."

The first delegate from Belgium, M. Beernaert, who had previously objected to the adoption of Articles 2 and 3, immediately announced that he would with

draw his objections on account of this declaration, Chapter IV and unanimity was thereby established on an important and delicate question, relating to the fixing of the status of a belligerent, and giving the right to non-combatants forming part of the army to be considered belligerents, so that both combatants and non-combatants would have the right, in case of their capture by the enemy, to be treated as prisoners of war. Before the above declaration, adopted on the motion of M. de Martens, had been communicated to the sub-committee, General Sir John Ardagh of Great Britain proposed to add at the end of the first chapter the following provision:

proposed by

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as Amendments diminishing or denying the right belonging to the Sir John people of an invaded country to fulfil their duty of Ardagh opposing the invaders by the most energetic patriotic resistance, and by all permitted means."

The idea expressed in this proposition was warmly advocated by M. Beernaert, who claimed that too great a limitation of the term belligerent would practically mean the prohibition of patriotism. The first duty of every citizen was to defend his own country, and national uprisings against invaders form the grandest episodes of history. Colonel Kuenzli of Switzerland and Colonel supported this view, and proposed to add to the article Kuenzli. of Sir John Ardagh the further provision: "Reprisals are prohibited against any population which has openly taken arms to resist the invasion of its territory."

General Den Beer Poortugael of the Netherlands also supported this view, although he called atten

General von

and Colonel Gilinsky.

Chapter IV tion to the fact that operations on the part of an Opposition by undrilled population against an army had become Schwarzhoff more and more hopeless. On the other hand, General Gross von Schwarzhoff of Germany, who was warmly supported by Colonel Gilinsky of Russia, protested against the proposition, which in his opinion would wipe out the distinction between a popular uprising or levée en masse in a country which was in danger of invasion, and a similar uprising in a district which had already been invaded by a hostile. army. He claimed that he was the last to deny the rights and duties of patriotism; every one must be free to enter the army, and even civilians could organize independently. The most informal organization. would suffice, as well as the simplest distinctive emblem. He considered that Article 2 in its present form was not without its dangerous omissions, in that the open carrying of arms and the having of a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance should also be required. While he had resolved to vote for the Article in a spirit of conciliation, “at this point, however," said the German Delegate, most emphatically, my concessions must cease; it is absolutely impossible for me to go one step further, to follow those who speak of an absolute unlimited right of defence."

Humanity to soldiers.

Much was said on the subject of humanity, but in his opinion it was time to remember that soldiers too were human beings, and that tired and exhausted soldiers approaching their quarters after heavy combats and long marches had a right to feel sure

of the amend

that apparently peaceable inhabitants should not Chapter IV suddenly prove to be wild and merciless enemies. Finally, the propositions of Sir John Ardagh and Withdrawal Colonel Kuenzli were both withdrawn, and the ments. declaration proposed by M. de Martens was adopted unanimously, both as a compromise and as a substitute.

Chapter II. On Prisoners of War

property of

ARTICLE 4. Prisoners of war are in the power of Status of the the hostile Government, but not in that of the indi- persons and viduals or corps who captured them. They must be prisoners of humanely treated. All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property.

war.

ARTICLE 5. Prisoners of war may be detained in Their detena town, camp, or any other locality, and bound not tion. to go beyond certain fixed limits; but they can only be confined as an indispensable measure of safety.

ARTICLE 6. The State may utilize the labor of Their labor prisoners of war according to their rank and apti- for the State tude. Their tasks shall not be excessive, and shall individuals. have nothing to do with military operations.

Prisoners may be authorized to work for the Public Service, for private persons, or on their own

account.

Work done for the State shall be paid for according to the tariffs in force for soldiers of the national army employed on similar tasks.

When the work is for other branches of the Public Service or for private persons, the conditions shall be settled in agreement with the military authorities.

or private

The wages of the prisoners shall go towards wages. improving their position, and the balance shall be

Chapter IV paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.

Their treatment as

ARTICLE 7. The Government into whose hands regards food, prisoners of war have fallen is bound to maintain quarters, and them.

clothing.

Discipline.

Discussion on

attempts to escape.

Failing a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated, as regards food, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the Government which has captured them.

ARTICLE 8. Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State into whose hands they have fallen.

Any act of insubordination warrants the adoption, as regards them, of such measures of severity as may be necessary.

Escaped prisoners, recaptured before they have succeeded in rejoining the army, or before quitting the territory occupied by the army that captured them, are liable to disciplinary punishment.

Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping, are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any punishment for the previous flight.

Concerning Article 8 a long discussion took place in the Committee on the subject of the escape of prisoners of war. Finally it was admitted, as in the Brussels Convention of 1874, that an attempt at escape could not remain entirely unpunished, but that, the degree of punishment should be limited, so as to forestall the temptation to regard such an attempted escape as something similar to desertion before the enemy, and therefore punishable