SUBMARINE LIMITS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 5, 7 January 1922, Page 7

SUBMARINE LIMITS.

DEFINING THE LAW.

A UNANIMOUS DECISION. NO SINKING AT SIGHT. COMMERCE DESTRUCTION. fßj- Cible.—Press -isso.'i.itioii.—Cowrljbt.) WASHINGTON, January 6. The Limitation of Naval Armaments I Committee of the conference to-day ' adopted the first and second resolutions i prepared by Mr. Eliliu Root defining tho j use of submarines against merchant yes- : sols, incorporating with them the ' amendment proposed by Mr. A. J. I Balfour. The text r.i tho resolutions, as adopted, wa~ as follows: — First: Signatory Powers, elesiring to i make more effective rules to be adopted jby the civilised nations for the protec- : tion of the lives of neutrals and non- ■ combatants at sea in time of war. declare that among those rules the follow- . ing shall be deemed to be an established part of international law: — 1. A merchant vessel must be ordered to subject itself to visit and search to determine its character before it can be seized. A merchant vessel must not be attacked unless it refuses to submit to visit and search after warning, or to proceed as directed after seizure. A merchant vessel must not be destroyed unless the crew anil the passengers have been first placed in safety. 2. Belligerent submarines are not j under any circumstances exempt from j the universal rules above stated. If a : submarine cannot capture a merchant vessel in conformity with these rules, the existing law of nations requires it ito desist from attack and seizure and permit the merchant vMael to proceed , unmolested. j Second (originally the latter part of ; first): The signatory Powers invite all , other civilised Powers to express their assent to the foregoing statement as the established law, so that there be a clear public understanding throughout the world of tie standards of conduct by which the public opinion of the world is to pass judgment on future belligerents. Third (originally second): The signatory Powers recognise tlie practical impossibility of using submarines as commerce destroyers without violating, as were violated in the recent war, the requirements universally accepted by civilised nations for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants, and to that end and that the prohibition of the use of submarines as commerce destroyers shall be universally accepted as part cf the law of nations, they now accept that prohibition as henceforth being binding as between themselves, and invite all other nations to adhere thereto.—A. and N.Z. Special.) USE OF AIRCRAFT. WASHINGTON, January 0. Though the naval communique was purely confined to the announcement of the passing of tbe Root resolutions, it is known the discussion was highly controversial. The British delegates tried to bar the use of aircraft against merchantmen, which Mr. C. E. Hughes ruled out of order. The French that in view of fresh instructions from Paris they did not intend to press for a clearer definition of a merchant vessel, which, therefore, remains as always laid down in international law. The Italian delegates carried on the fight after the French withdrew their claims, but tbe British party insisted that they proposed arming merchantmen in time of war, even with the new submarine understanding. Eventually tbe resolution was passed leaving the question to be decided as in the past by each nation itself when faced with war conditions. The naval treaty will contain provision for future conferences to consider the need oL revision in case of political developments, such as the unexpected rise of a new naval Power or discoveries and inventions radically altering the present conduct of naval warfare. France and Italy would like the word "political" to include war. but tbe American idea lis for essentially peace time conferences. Britain does not regard the treaty as an offensive and defensive alliance, therefore, in ease of war, holds herself freed from al) restrictions over warship building. This view was shared by the Japanese. Tbe American spokesman, answering the usual crop of questions designed to extract an admission about European alliances, emphatically denied that the provision as drafted would have tiny implication beyonel what had been indicated. — (A. and N.Z. Special)