Mais, à notre sens, cela ne suffirait pas. Nous estimons que de tels moyens de nuire, et à l'égard desquels la surveillance et la répression serait si difficiles, ne pourraient être laissés à la disposition de particuliers, si sévère que pût être la réglementation à leur imposer. (Ibid. p. 129.)

In the course of consideration of the report of M. Beernaert much discussion was stirred up by the speech of Baron d'Estournelles de Constant, who was known as a strong friend of peace and a warm supporter of the development of aviation. The part of his speech to which special attention was directed was as follows:

Oui, il est odieux, il est révoltant de penser que la première action d'une admirable création comme celle de l'aviation permettant à l'homme de s'élever dans le ciel, serait de se servir de l'aéroplane pour tuer l'homme, pour verser le sang, pour commettre des meurtres. Et je suis d'accord avec vous. Ne croyez pas que je sois devenu à mon tour inhumain, pour penser que c'est une espèce de profanation de l'aviation que de la faire servir a la destruction humaine.

Nous sommes donc d'accord, c'est entendu. Mais jusqu'au jour où vous aurez appliqué une règle qui puisse s'étendre non pas seulement à l'aviation, mais à tous les autres moyens de destruction, où vous aurez organisé votre défense nationale dans tous les pays, de telle sorte que ce ne soit pas seulement l'aviation qui soit frappée, je maintiendrai mon opinion. Si vous voulez frapper comme création du génie humain l'aviation, si vous voulez frapper cette application que vous considérez comme funeste, je vous le demande, pourquoi est-ce que vous ne frappez pas aussi, pourquoi n'interdisez-vous pas également toutes les autres applications qui sont, après tout, aussi funestes, aussi détestables? Pourquoi est-ce que vous n'interdisez pas l'usage des explosifs, les applications de la science chimique? Pourquoi est-ce que vous n'interdisez pas les torpiles, les mines, les torpilleurs, les sousmarins, les submersibles? Pourquoi est-ce que vous n'interdisez pas même les automobiles car il y a chez nous, comme dans tous les grands Etats militaires, il y en a en Allemagne et dans d'autres Etats, les automobiles militaires cuirassés; il y a tout ce qu'on peut imaginer de plus néfaste dans cet ordre d'idées? Pourquoi donc ne les interdisez-vous pas aussi? Pourquoi n'interdisez-vous pas l'innocente bicyclette qui peut servir, après tout, au meurtre? Pourquoi n'interdisez-vous pas la télégraphie sans fil qui peut, bien plus criminellement encore qu'un aéroplane, par l'ordre d'un homme, par l'ordre d'un chef qui peut se tromper, qui

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRCRAFT

99

peut abuser de son pouvoir, déterminer au loin un massacre? Pourquoi donc? Où est la logique? Pourquoi n'interdisez-vous pas avec le télégraphie sans fil, les communications par ces ondes inconnaissables et qui se développent tous le jours et qui permettent de transmettre non pas seulement le son, non pas seulement la lumière, mais la force elle-même qui pourrait déterminer des explosions à distance, faire sauter un cuirassé, une forteresse. Tout cela vous les tolérez, sauf l'aviation. Je dis que vous commettez une grande faute. (Ibid. p. 261.)

The position of M. Beernaert was maintained by a very large vote, and the position of M. d'Estournelles de Constant received comparatively few votes.

A vote was also passed looking to the renewal of the convention prohibiting the discharge of projectiles from aircraft.

Development of aircraft.-While balloons were used in the eighteenth century, the development of aerial navigation has been particularly rapid since 1907. Not all states have developed along the same lines, though of course the progress in one state has not been overlooked by others. Germany paid special attention to the perfecting of balloons (dirigibles) which carry heavy burden and sustain a long flight. France emphasized flight by heavier-than-air machines.

As aircraft have developed, new uses have been devised. They have been found particularly useful in some states for locating mines and submarines. With the introduction of radio, the use of aircraft for observation purposes has been much extended. The increasing range of flight and speed has made it possible to report the movements of troops on land and of ships at sea even when at a great distance.

The actual firing upon ships and upon troops has become fairly common. Flights to bridges, depots of supplies, remote towns, etc., have shown the possibilities of the use of aircraft.

It is now clearly established, in spite of earlier opposition, that those using aircraft for the purpose of making observations are not to be treated as spies, but if captured

can only be treated as prisoners of war. This position is the proper one, as there is no deceit involved in this service, and the penalty in case of spying is based on the clandestine nature of the service.

The use of aircraft to disperse troops, as reported in the Turco-Italian War in 1911, was very successful. Upon troops at that time unaccustomed to such instruments of war the effect was terrifying before any projectiles were discharged. After explosives were dropped, many sought flight at once on the reappearance of aircraft.

Even States which had signed the declaration prohibiting till the close of the proposed 1915 Third Hague Conference the discharge of projectiles from aircraft were busy perfecting aircraft, usually under the supervision of military authorities. The World War, which demonstrated the great utility of aircraft, made prohibition improbable. On the other hand, since 1918 great progress has been made in the development of this arm of the military service in many countries.

Internment in World War.-During the World War for the first time the question of aircraft in relation to neutral jurisdiction became one of great practical importance. While practice was not, at first, in every instance uniform, gradually it came to be recognized that belligerent aircraft had no right to enter neutral jurisdiction. Some of the neutral states for a time questioned the necessity of denying entry to aircraft, and considered permitting entry on terms analagous to those applied to maritime vessels of war. Switzerland and the Netherlands, from their geographical position as neutral islands surrounded by belligerents, had to face the problem in more varied manifestations. Both states maintained the right to use necessary force to prevent entrance of belligerent aircraft or even to intern aircraft entering under force majeure. Disabled belligerent aircraft, aircraft trying to escape from the enemy, aircraft lost in fog or

ITALIAN DECREE, 1914

101

storm, were with their personnel forced to land and interned by neutral states. Early in the war there was some uncertainty in regard to hydroplanes in Norway, and later Denmark permitted some German deserters to remain after entering Danish jurisdiction in a stolen aircraft. The Netherlands interned American aircraft alighting within Dutch jurisdiction after a battle over the high sea with Germans. The Swiss authorities similarly interned American fliers when returning from an observation flight and forced by motor trouble to land within Swiss jurisdiction. There were many cases in which the crews were interned when the aircraft were destroyed either intentionally or by accident. When aircraft personnel was rescued on the high seas and brought within neutral jurisdiction, the practice was usually to release them.

Italian decree, 1914.-While Italy was still neutral a royal decree was issued September 3, 1914:

ARTICLE 1. It is forbidden for any apparatus or means of aerial locomotion, such as dirigibles, aeroplanes, hydroplanes, balloons, flying kites, or captive balloons, etc., to fly or ascend over any points of territory of the state or colonies or of the territorial seas. except for those established by military authorities and for other aeronautics that are authorized from time to time by the ministers of war and navy. No permission will be granted to any foreigners. ART. 2. The surveillance of the territory of the state and territorial seas is entrusted to military and naval authorities, to the royal revenue guards, to the coast guards, to the police, and to the political and municipal authorities. Appropriate directions and instructions will be issued from the proper departments. The surveillance over territories of the colonies and over the seas is entrusted to military and naval authorities designated by the governors.

ART. 3. No unauthorized device or means of aerial locomotion, for any reasons whatever, shall make flights over territories but shall descend immediately. Whenever they disregard signals, either over land or sea, to descend, any military officials or Government agents which have been designated by the Government. are authorized to fire upon them, or use any other means found necessary to enforce the above orders.

ART. 4. The military apparatus and those privately authorized to fly shall carry some distinctive mark, which shall be easily visible from the earth, such marks to be established by proper regulations.

ART. 5. The signals to be made to those aerial machines that do not carry such distinctive marks will be as follows: i. e., by waving flags either white or equally visible color-or by the firing of a gun or by the firing of rockets. Such signals will be repeated at frequent intervals.

Commission of jurists, 1923.-Under the treaty of the Conference on the Limitation of Armament providing for the commission of jurists to consider the rules of warfare, the powers later agreed to limit the work of the commission which assembled December 11, 1922, to rules relating to aerial warfare and the use of radio in time of war. The commission finished its work February 19, 1923, though it said if the "rules are approved and brought into force, it will be found expedient to make provision for their reexamination after a relatively brief term of years to see whether any revision is necessary." (1924 N. W. C. Int. Law Documents, p. 97.)

In the report of the commission of jurists it was said in regard to belligerent duties:

To avoid any suggestion that it is on the neutral government alone that the obligation is incumbent to secure respect for its neutrality, article 39 provides that belligerent aircraft are under obligation to respect the rights of neutral powers and to abstain from acts within neutral jurisdiction which it is the neutral's duty to prevent.

It wil be noticed that the article is not limited to military aircraft; in fact, the second phrase will apply only to belligerent aircraft of other categories, as it is they alone which may remain at liberty within neutral jurisdiction. All aircraft, however, including military, are bound to respect the rights of neutral powers.

ARTICLE 39

Belligerent aircraft are bound to respect the rights of neutral powers and to abstain within the jurisdiction of a neutral State from the commission of any act which it is the duty of that State to prevent. The principle that belligerent military aircraft should not be allowed to enter or circulate in neutral jurisdiction met with