of a facultative or optional, and not of a compulsory character. Thus the agreement of the Signatory Powers in Art. 2, in case of a serious quarrel between them to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices and mediation of a friendly Power, is vague in its terms and subjects the parties to no obligation. A Signatory Power engaged in a dispute is, it is true, by Art. 3, bound to receive an offer of good offices or mediation from a stranger to the dispute, and not to look on the tendering of it as an unfriendly act, but it is at full liberty to decline the proposal and the third party is not in any way bound to offer it. So, too, in respect of arbitration, though by Art. 16 the Signatory Powers recognise that in questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation of international conventions, arbitration is the most effective and equitable means of settling disputes when diplomacy has failed to do so, they do not in any way pledge themselves to adopt it. The most that they do in this direction is to recognise it as a duty, if a serious conflict threatens to break out between two or more of them, to remind the latter that the Permanent Court of Arbitration is open to them, which is not to be regarded as an unfriendly act (Art. 27). And, again, in respect of International Commissions of Inquiry to facilitate a solution of disputes by elucidating the facts on which they turn in cases involving neither honour nor vital interest, the Signatory Powers only say that it is expedient' (to which the new Convention of 1907 adds and desirable') that they should be instituted, as far as circumstances allow (Art. 9). Lastly, it will be seen that the Arbitral Procedure set up by the Convention is only to be applicable where the parties have not agreed on different regulations.

But though optional in character the Convention is well adapted for promoting the settlement of international differences. The value of the international commissions of inquiry which it instituted has been practically shown, but what it principally does is to establish a Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague (Art. 20) to which the Signatory

Powers may resort, and also non-signatory ones, under conditions prescribed by its rules (Art. 26). A permanent Administrative Council and an International Bureau subject to it are established at the Hague through which the permanent Court is set in motion and administered (Art. 22, 28).

As applied to the Court of Arbitration, however, the expression Permanent Court does not seem to be a very suitable one, since no Court is constituted by the Convention having regular sittings, like an ordinary Court of Justice. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in fact consists of a list of competent persons nominated by the Powers from which arbitrators may be selected as they happen to be required to form a court for the particular occasion under the Convention (Art. 23). In this respect the Permanent Court of Arbitration is to be contrasted with the Court of Arbitral Justice projected by the Hague Peace Conference of 1907 (see p. 220). The rules of procedure of this Convention have, it will be seen, been amplified by the new Convention of 1907, both in respect of the Commissions of Inquiry and of the Permanent Arbitration Court. The additions relating to the 'Compromis' or Agreement of Reference, subject to which the arbitrators exercise their jurisdiction, should be particularly noticed (H.C. 1907, Conv. 1, Art. 52-54). They give the Permanent Court the power of settling it with the agreement of the parties (Art. 53), and even without such agreement, under certain circumstances, where the parties have entered into a treaty of obligatory arbitration (Art. 54).

The Convention of 1907 also introduces a summary form of procedure which may be used in cases suitable for it (Art. 86-90).

Convention II. Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.-All the law-making conventions we have hitherto considered, except the last on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, have been intended in their different ways to regulate the conduct of war. But this is the first of the kind to do this in a comprehensive and systematic manner, See p. 35 and cf. Conv. IV. H. C. 1907, p. 124.

so as to constitute with the preceding conventions of Geneva and St. Petersburg which it incorporates (cf. Art. 23 and 60) a general statement of the rules of land warfare. Yet, though it is a general declaration of the law on the subject, it does not profess to be a complete one; hence as the preamble informs us, until a more perfect code is issued, 'populations and belligerents are to remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilised nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience in respect of cases not included within the regulations.' In so far as they are applicable, however, these regulations are binding on the contracting parties, when they are at war with one another; and as all civilised States have agreed to be subject to them, they form part of the universal law of nations. The Convention provides (Art. 5) that it may be put an end to by denunciation, but such denunciation is not to take effect till a year after it has been communicated to the Swiss Federal Council, so that considering the duration of modern wars, it would not be likely to affect the belligerents, unless issued some time before the outbreak of hostilities. The obligation which the parties to the Convention undertake is not only the general one of obeying its rules, but also the particular one that they will issue instructions to their armed forces which shall be in conformity with them. Hence the manuals of instruction issued by each Government to its troops have to bring these regulations, as well as others, to their notice; it is therefore highly desirable that they should be drawn up as far as possible so as to be consistent with one another. It would seem, according to the preamble, the wording of the regulations was inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war so far as military necessities permit, but the question whether it was intended that the regulations should cease to operate in the case of military necessity is a doubtful one. There is no general clause in the Convention to this effect, and it can hardly be supposed that the prohibition in Art. XX.

of the use of poison or of killing or wounding an enemy who has laid down his arms were not meant to be absolute; thus it would seem that a particular regulation is not so qualified unless there is something expressed or implied in it to make it so.

The Regulations prescribed by the Convention in its annex are founded on similar ones made at a Conference at Brussels in 1874, which were never ratified (see Declaration of Brussels, p. 52); but the Committee of the Hague Conference, which drafted these rules, has greatly improved on the Brussels Declaration, being assisted in doing so by the manuals of military instructions issued subsequently and by later juristic research.

This Convention has itself been amended in the revised form of it which the Hague Conference of 1907 has agreed to (for these amendments cf. H. C. 1907, Conv. iv. p. 124). On the subjects of Art. i. and ii. of these regulations there was much discussion at the Conference between the representatives of the great and small military Powers, the latter fearing that their means of defence would be lessened by the restrictions which were proposed. According to the express statement in the preamble these clauses are not to be read as excluding other rules on the subject founded on usage and other considerations; but Switzerland, though finally ratifying this Convention, entered a reserve at the second Peace Conference to the words 'to carry arms openly,' which were inserted in Art. II. at the instance of Germany.

In studying the regulations the student should carefully distinguish those which are applicable generally from those which follow on occupation of the enemy's country.

Convention III. For adapting to Maritime Warfare the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864.'-This is the first law-making treaty since the Declaration of Paris, 1856, which specially concerns maritime war, though the Additional Articles to the Geneva Convention of 1864 (see p. 6), which were agreed to in 1868 but not ratified, have the same object as those of this Convention. This is to apply to maritime war

1 See p. 62.

the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864, making allowance for the different circumstances of sea and land warfare. It will be seen that the articles of this Convention, which are partly based on those of the Additional Articles, are much fuller and more elaborate than the rules of the Geneva Convention, 1864, relating to land warfare. The complete revision of the latter Convention by the Geneva Convention of 1906 made it necessary to revise this one concerning maritime war also, which was accordingly done by the Hague Conference of 1907, in Convention x. (p. 173). The two Conventions should be carefully compared.

From what has been said it appears that for all the Conventions of the Hague Conference of 1899 new ones have been substituted by the Hague Conference of 1907, incorporating and amending the provisions of the old ones and extending the limits of their application.

Geneva Convention, 1906, for the Amelioration of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field.'-The Hague Convention of 1899 expressed a unanimous wish' that steps should be shortly taken for the assembly of a special conference having for its object the revision of the Geneva Convention of 1864. In 1906 such a Conference, consisting of representatives of thirtysix States, met at Geneva, and drew up a Convention which as it is ratified or acceded to will supersede that of 1864 in respect of the parties to it (Art. 31). These already consist of at least eighteen Powers, including fourteen ratifications and four accessions and in course of time it is likely to be generally adopted. As regards the right of acceding to this Convention, it is provided by Article 32 that Powers not represented at the Conference shall not be allowed to do so if any contracting Power within a year after they have made application for the purpose objects to their doing so, which seems to be unnecessarily restrictive.

The Convention of the Hague Conference, 1907, on the laws and usages of war declares (Art. 21, p. 134) that

1 See p. 72.