New-York tribune., 1914-11-30
The Hague Rules of Warfare an'
the European War.

In discussing the informal protest which
President Wilson is said TO have made to the
European belligerents against the sort Of bomb
throwing from arshps which serves no evident
military purpose, the point has been raised tnat
there are no international rules of war outlawlng
sucb barbarous activities. 1t is even contended
that because several of the belligerent powers
failed to ratify the Hague convention of 1907,
amending and enlarging the rules of war, no code
of any sort exists which binds commanders and
armies.
1t is true that the Hague convention of 1907
was not ratified by all the powers whose penipo-
tentiaries signed it. Germany, Austria-Hungary,
Great Britain and Russia did ratify it, but ap-
parently France did not, and the treaty itself
provides that the new code "shall not apply ex-
cept between contracting powers, and then only if
all the belligerents are parties to the conven-
ton" The code of 1907, therefore, plainly does
not offer basis for protest such as Mr.. Wilson
is said to have made.
1t must be remembered, however, that the codi-
fcation of 1907 was only an enlargement Of an
international agreement reached In 1899. The
latter was admittedly the best summary up to
that date of the restrictions which the spirit of
humanity had thrown about warfare. 1t embod-
led the rules which the more enlightened nations
had made for themselves and which the other
nations were glad to accept The convention u',,
= 40 -ftrrf Great
Britain, France, Russia, Belgium, Servia, Mon
tenegro and Japan-all the powers engaged in
the war at the time the mountaineering incidents
occurred which occasoned worldwide indigna-
ton.
The Hague International Peace Conference of
1907 evidently did not mean 10 sacrifice the ad-
vance made in the humane conduct of war by al
lowing the code constructed in 1899 to lapse, in
case the still more humanitarian code of 1907
should fail to secure general adherence. 1t pro-
vided that the new rules should be substituted as
between powers ratifying the treaty of 1907, but
added this saving clause: "The convention Of
1899 remains in force as between the powers
which signed it and which do not also ratify the
present convention"
AS is so often the case in important treaties,
the phrases chosen were not as clear as they
ought to have been. But taking into considera-
ton the obvious purpose of the conference to
keen in force the somewhat less advanced code
while the more advanced one was gradually being
ratified, it seems reasonable to assume that the
negotiators intended to have the 1899 code cover
all cases which the 1907 code could not cover.
Certainly the relations between the powers which
had ratified both codes and those which had rati-
fed the first, but not the second, could only be
adjusted by both observing the one set of rules
which they had approved in common.
The laws of war drawn up in 1897 forbid the
bombardment of undefended towns or buildings,
enjoin respect for the persons and property of
non-combatants, and especially require the spar
ing of edifces devoted to religion art science and
charity, as well as hospitals, when such buildings
are not being used for military purposes.
The actions of the two sets of belligerents show
that they regard the general code of 1899 as bind
ing between them, otherwise france "ouiu hot
have protested against the bombardment Of the
Rheims Cathedral and the German government
would not have announced that it had ordered
the gunners before Rheims to spare the
cathedral as far as was possible. There is some
disagreement as to whether Turkey ratified the
code Of 1899. But whatever may be Turkeys
status it is pretty clear that up to her entrance
into the war the belligerents considered them
selves subject TO the restrictions of the 1899 agree
ment 1t would be monstrous perversion of the
Hague treaties if they should be now construed
50 as to paiate disregard of the restraints
which they sincerely sought to put upon the bar
barities Of war.