Talk:Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907

Link updates?
The links to documents on the Yale Web site appear to be broken. I don't know enough about the subject to trust myself to update them, though. Cancilla (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request: signatories
A request! If there's anyone out there with some decent information on this, could they add the signatories to the treaty to this article. --Brianpie 14:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the few things I know is that unlike most of the current members of NATO, the United States did not sign, though if I recall correctly did send an observer. Alexander (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the U.S.A. did sign and some people(Teddy Roosevelt) suggested that since one of the stipulations of the Hague Conventions was that 'Treaties are inviolable' that the U.S. should have declared war on Germany upon it invading Belgium in 1914.

I am wondering why the Austrian Ultimatum of 1914 to Serbia was not taken to arbitration as the Hague Convention did have a clause for arbitration of disputes. Apparently Germany did not want to take it to arbitration just as it did not support disarmament at the Hague Conventions.75.84.227.196 (talk)edwardlovette75.84.227.196 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the request for signatures. This article is totally useless without them. 82.168.243.40 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1038 Spartan198 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bombing from the air?
The article mentions that "bombing from the air" is prohibited by the convention but the description of the particular sections of the treaty seems to imply that only bombing from balloons is prohibited, not any all air bombing. If all "bombing from the air" was indeed prohibited then this would make all the bombs dropped from planes during WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc. Illegal under international law. I have never heard that position argued. This needs to be cleared up. --Cab88 14:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not too sure about this one; perhaps someone has the text of the treaty or a good summary handy? There wasn't much in the way of planes in 1899, so that may not have been anticipated.  As for whether this would prohibit the aerial bombings in wars since then, that's a moot point, since the 1907 convention superseded the 1899 convention among countries who ratified it, and the 1907 one contained no section prohibiting aerial bombing of any sort, effectively repealing that section of the 1899 one. --Delirium 21:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The first airplane bombing was made by Italians in 1911 in Lybia, during the Italo-Turks war. In 1907 only bombing from baloons was performed. Bubu 2013-01-01 22:31 CET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.210.215 (talk)

The link for the countries that signed is http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/convention/convention_461.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.111.2 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for trying 206.170.111.2, but the link is to the Hague Convention on the Abduction of Children, a late 20th century convention. Would still be interested if anyone is able to provide information on the signatories. Brianpie 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The text and ratifying parties of the 1907 declaration against airbombing is here:. Forbidden is "the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature" but this "is only binding on the Contracting Powers in case of war between two or more of them." The only major contracting powers were China, the U.S. and the UK. AxelBoldt (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The treaty says it applies until Third Peace Conference, however this never occurred. Does this still apply? Would it be illegal for the USA to bomb China for instance, they both signed. This is assuming that there are no other parties in the war. Zginder 2013-10-10T00:57:14Z

The US did not sign this declaration https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesSign&xp_treatySelected=245

Comment
I think their ought to be a mention at least of the Korean emissary Yi Jun who was sent by King Kojong to the conference. Upon refusal of admittance to the conference, he committed suicide in the Hague. This led to King Kojong being forced to abdicate by the Japanese, since Korea was at that time a protectorate of Japan and had lost all diplomatic rights.

abandoned article
Would anyone merge Peace Conferences to this article? Redirecting as well. Thanks. - Brionies 13:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly an article
This isn't much more than a listing of the sections of the conventions and a couple of associated names and dates. There is no mention of what the sections state, which countries were involved, what the reactions were to the conventions and how the signatories kept to the conventions. 199.91.34.33 (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Who called meetings?
1st Hague Convention was called on Russian initiative russian wiki segment says. If it is true it must be remarked if not i would fix russian article. Also who proposed to call 2nd? --VetMax (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemical warfare in WWI did not violate Hague convention
The article states that the convention was violated in WWI with the use of chemical weapons; however, the convention prohibited "Projectiles with the Sole Object to Spread Asphyxiating Poisonous Gases". The first chemical weapons used in WWI were tear gases. These did not violate the convention. Second, Germany opened canisters of asphyxiating poisonous gases, but these were not in projectiles. Lastly, poisonous gases were put in projectiles, but by that time at least one country that was not a party had joined the war and the convention only applies when every combatant is a party to it. Zginder 2013-10-10T01:04:39Z

The first non-party to join the war was San Marino on June 3 1915. Zginder 2013-10-10T02:36:30Z


 * I am glad someone else did the research on this the cited source to support the inclusion of the sentence supports your interpretation not the current sentence:
 * I would support the removal of this sentence here and also also the entry in  list of war crimes -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support the removal of this sentence here and also also the entry in  list of war crimes -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Royal Navy blockade
The Royal Navy's blockade of Germany from 1914 to 1919 was clearly illegal under the Hague Convention of 1907. (109.158.178.212 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC))
 * What is your point? Are you suggesting that this be incorporated into this section of the article? If so, we need sources that suggest what you state. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Multiple books on the First World War have stated that the blockade was definitely illegal under international law. (109.158.178.212 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC))
 * ... and ...? How does this relate to changes or improvements to this article? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521095528/http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1038 to http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1038

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

June 2021
Removed leaning section on Korea/Japan treaty section. Had leaning/NPOV language and was shoehorned in with one, running all-bold paragraph from a newly created account. Account seems to only have been created to make this addition and went quiet. Aside from lack of neutrality, no citations/references were made to verify any of the claims made in said paragraph. Only path for reference were made via circular reference and not strongly.

If a more experienced editor feels this is in error, please feel free to undo my edit and let me know.

Cheers. OfficerManatee (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)