1900 Hague Convention

[snip]

John Hay rises to speak.

"The United States of America has no major issues with Proposals One through Three. With regards to Proposals four and its sub-sections, we would like to see more discussion on such before possibly supporting them."

[OOC, I based this off what the US historically accepted.]

[Kaiser Kirk]

OOC: Sorry, everyone maybe was waiting on me to kick it off.

was kinda looking for that transition point between "we're coming" and "lets talk"

[Kaiser Kirk]

It is the concern of some of my peers that the Kingdom of Italy not enter any agreements underwhich she is bound, but others may not be.
As such, we would like to stipulate that matters under this treaty are only binding if all involved parties are signatories.

In regards to the proposed Articles.
Article 1, the Permanent Court of Arbitration.  Our Kingdom is opposed at this time. We feel enshrining a panel of judges for this purpose could lead to influence peddling, and we prefer the current system of seeking a mutually agreed on third party.

Article 2. We are in broad agreement with this proposal, and it reflects honorably on it's Russian sponsor and our host.
We would like to see the wording regarding poisons be rendered broader in scope. Ancient history is replete with deliberate use of diseased carcasses, poisoning of wells, use of flaming naphtha, salting of the earth and other such barbarous means of waging war, robbing warfare of it's glory and reducing it to a vicious brawl.  Reliance on these methods ruins both sides in the conflict, with little effect on the balance of power.

We would seek wording to ban deliberate use of poisons or infectious material in warfare, on air, land or water by whatever means. Further, a ban on use of incendiary material against human targets, though use against objects such as a ship may still occur.

Article III is regarding maritime warfare.  We would like it codified that a noncombatant vessel must be hailed, or be subject to warning shots, such that they have adequate time to surrender to overwhelming force, prior to being attacked in a manner which may lead to that vessels loss. Further, We would consider a Permanent International Prize court to allow captured merchants to be taken to any neutral port and valued by said court.

Regarding Article 4, item 3,  we would like to see this provision expanded such that no projectile under, say 21mm in diameter, may be designed to expand, flatten, explode, burn, poison, or otherwise cause unusually harmful wounds. That should eliminate such scientific deviltry from hand held fire arms and restore honor to the art of arms, allowing soldiers to kill each other as god intended, with simple bullets.

(I will presume we're just dealing with the 1899 proposals? Or was the inclusion of the 1907 deliberate?)

[Guinness]

OOC: The intention was 1899 only, but if any nation wants to bring up provisions from the 1907 convention, I see no problem with that.

[The Rock Doctor]

OOC:  Let's stick with 1899.  That lets us look forward to more debate in 1907.

IC:

"The Ottoman Empire can agree to Treaty Two and Treaty Three, and the three declarations.  We have certain reservations.

As to the first treaty, The Ottoman delegation, considering that the work of this Conference has been a work of high loyalty and humanity, destined solely to assure general peace by safeguarding the interests and the rights of each one, declares, in the name of its Government, that it adheres to the project just adopted, on the following conditions:

It is formally understood that recourse to good offices and mediation, to commissions of inquiry and arbitration is purely facultative and could not in any case assume an obligatory character or degenerate into intervention; The Imperial Government itself will be the judge of the cases where its interests would permit it to admit these methods without its abstention or refusal to have recourse to them being considered by the signatory States as an unfriendly act.

It goes without saying that in no case could the means in question be applied to questions concerning interior regulation."

OOC:  This is the historical Ottoman response, copy/pasted from the text.

[Darman]

"The representatives of her Britannic Majesty Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdoms of Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, agree that all the peoples of the world desire peace, and it is the noble goal of this Convention to agree upon some mutually satisfactory process by which peace may be attained, without infringing upon the rights and obligations that nations have towards their own peoples.  It is our government's position that encouraging the use of mediation to resolve diplomatic disputes between nations is a worthy object of aspiration of this Convention.  We do concur with the delegation from the Ottoman Empire in pointing out the futility of attempting to compel mediation, or the results of mediation forcibly upon any nation, and would declare ourselves unwilling to sign any declaration that exacts from us a portion of our own sovereignty, or opens any nation to intervention by a foreign power or powers to compel mediation upon them" 

[Guinness]

OOC Note: Events in Austria-Hungary probably inform conversation here. So let's pause until events in that crisis catch up to July 1900.

[miketr]

The German Diplomatic Team is withdrawn and heads off to Istanbul while the German Ambassador takes over for these talks.

Karl Max Fürst von Lichnowsky

[snip]

Did we want to continue this or just say that things we accepted as historical?

[Darman]

Did we want to continue this or just say that things we accepted as historical?

I think this might be best. 

[The Rock Doctor]

Did we want to continue this or just say that things we accepted as historical?

I think this might be best.

The historical Ottoman response suits me so this would be fine with me.

[Jefgte]

France sign & accepted as historical.

[Darman]

I'm fine with the UK's response

[miketr]

IC

The Imperial German Government agrees to articles I, II and III but as there is not universal agreement on article IV and its subsections Germany must at this time refuse to be bound by article IV.  The Imperial German Government is willing to state that it in the event of conflict it will keep to the terms of article IV as long as as the other parties do.  Also that if the nations that have refused to ratify Article IV do so then Germany will at that time ratify article IV.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Since we have not had any discussion on matters,
Italy's stance is the same as when we left off.
Basically - rejecting Article I, broad agreement with II,III, and IV - though with some tinkering to expand each, and an overall clause that the treaty only applies when both parties are members.

It is the concern of some of my peers that the Kingdom of Italy not enter any agreements underwhich she is bound, but others may not be.
As such, we would like to stipulate that matters under this treaty are only binding if all involved parties are signatories.

In regards to the proposed Articles.
Article 1, the Permanent Court of Arbitration.  Our Kingdom is opposed at this time. We feel enshrining a panel of judges for this purpose could lead to influence peddling, and we prefer the current system of seeking a mutually agreed on third party.

Article 2. We are in broad agreement with this proposal, and it reflects honorably on it's Russian sponsor and our host.
We would like to see the wording regarding poisons be rendered broader in scope. Ancient history is replete with deliberate use of diseased carcasses, poisoning of wells, use of flaming naphtha, salting of the earth and other such barbarous means of waging war, robbing warfare of it's glory and reducing it to a vicious brawl.  Reliance on these methods ruins both sides in the conflict, with little effect on the balance of power.

We would seek wording to ban deliberate use of poisons or infectious material in warfare, on air, land or water by whatever means. Further, a ban on use of incendiary material against human targets, though use against objects such as a ship may still occur.

Article III is regarding maritime warfare.  We would like it codified that a noncombatant vessel must be hailed, or be subject to warning shots, such that they have adequate time to surrender to overwhelming force, prior to being attacked in a manner which may lead to that vessels loss. Further, We would consider a Permanent International Prize court to allow captured merchants to be taken to any neutral port and valued by said court.

Regarding Article 4, item 3,  we would like to see this provision expanded such that no projectile under, say 21mm in diameter, may be designed to expand, flatten, explode, burn, poison, or otherwise cause unusually harmful wounds. That should eliminate such scientific deviltry from hand held fire arms and restore honor to the art of arms, allowing soldiers to kill each other as god intended, with simple bullets.

(I will presume we're just dealing with the 1899 proposals? Or was the inclusion of the 1907 deliberate?)