_The Geneva Convention_
As far back as the year 1870, the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals exerted itself to induce both sides in the
great war then commencing to make some special provision for
relieving, or terminating, the sufferings of horses wounded in
battle.
In 1899 it made the same suggestion to the British War Office,
but the reply of the Secretary of State was to the effect that
"he is informed that soldiers always shoot badly wounded horses
after, or during, a battle, whenever they are given time to do
so, _i.e._ whenever the operation does not involve risk to
human life. He fears that no more than this can be done unless
and until some international convention extends to those who
care for wounded animals the same protection for which the
Geneva Convention provides in the case of men; and he would
suggest that you should turn your efforts in that direction."
Thereupon, Mr. Lawrence Pike, on November 23, addressed to _The
Times_ the letter which called forth the letter which follows.
WOUNDED HORSES IN WAR
Sir,--Everyone must sympathise with the anxiety felt by Mr. L.W. Pike to
diminish the sufferings of horses upon the field of battle. How far any
systematic alleviation of such sufferings may be compatible with the
exigencies of warfare must be left to the decision of military experts.
In the meantime it may be as well to assure Mr. Pike that the Geneva
Convention of 1864 has nothing to do with the question, relating, as it
does, exclusively to the relief of human suffering. This is equally the
case with the second Geneva Convention, which Mr. Pike is right in
supposing never to have been ratified. He is also right in supposing
that "the terms of the convention are capable of amendment from time to
time," but wrong in supposing that they can be amended "by the setting
up of precedents." The convention can be amended only by a new
convention.
It is not the case that Art. 7 of the convention, which merely confides
to commanders-in-chief, under the instructions of their respective
Governments, "les détails d'exécution de la présente convention," gives
them any authority to extend its scope beyond what is expressly stated
to be its object--viz. "l'amélioration du sort des militaires blessés
dans les armées en campagne." While, however, the Geneva Convention,
does not contemplate the relief of animal suffering, it certainly cannot
be "set up as a bar" to the provision of such relief. Commanders who may
see their way to neutralising persons engaged in the succour or
slaughter of wounded horses would be quite within their powers in
entering into temporary agreements for that purpose.
I may add that the "Convention concerning the laws and customs of war on
land," prepared by the recent conference at The Hague, and signed on
behalf of most Governments, including our own, though not yet ratified,
contains a chapter "Des malades et des blessés," which merely states
that the obligations of belligerents on this point are governed by the
Convention of Geneva of 1864, with such modifications as may be made in
it. Among the aspirations (_voeux_) recorded in the "Acte final" of
the conference, is one to the effect that steps may be taken for the
assembling of a special conference, having for its object the revision
of the Geneva Convention. Should such a conference be assembled Mr. Pike
will have an opportunity of addressing it upon the painfully interesting
subject which he has brought forward in your columns.
Your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, November 27 (1899).
The "second Geneva Convention," above mentioned, was the
"Projet d'Articles additionnels," signed on October 20, 1868,
but never ratified.
Art. 21 of the _Règlement_ annexed to The Hague Convention of
1899 as to the "Laws and Customs of War on Land," stating that
"the obligations of belligerents, with reference to the care of
the sick and wounded, are governed by the Convention of Geneva
of August 22, 1864, subject to alterations which may be made in
it," is now represented by Art. 21 of The Hague _Règlement_ of
1907, which mentions "the Convention of Geneva," without
mention of any date, or of possible alterations. The Convention
intended in this later _Règlement_ is, of course, that of 1906,
for the numerous Powers which have already ratified it, since
for them it has superseded that of 1864. The British
ratification, of April 16, 1907, was subject to a reservation,
the necessity for which was intended to be removed by 1 & 2
Geo. 5, c. 20, as to which, see _supra_, p, 37. The later is
somewhat wider in scope than the earlier Convention, its
recital referring to "the sick," as well as to the wounded, and
its first article naming not only "les militaires," but also
"les autres personnes officiellement attachées aux armées."
With a view to the expected meeting of the Conference by which
the Convention was signed in 1906, Mr. Pike and his friends
again, in 1903, pressed upon the British Government their
desire that the new Convention should extend protection to
persons engaged in relieving the sufferings of wounded horses.
The British delegates to the Conference, however, who had
already been appointed, and were holding meetings in
preparation for it, were not prepared to advise the insertion
of provisions for this purpose in the revised Convention of
Geneva.
"The principles of the Geneva Convention" of 1864 were applied
to naval warfare by The Hague Convention No. iii. of 1899, and
those of the Geneva Convention of 1906 by The Hague Convention
No. x. of 1907 respectively. Both were ratified by Great
Britain. Cf. _supra_, Chapters ii. and iv.
* * * * *