User:Il palazzo

Hello! I'm Italian and I edit in italian wikipedia.

User:Il palazzo/Sandbox

Sandbox
The dropping of bombs from balloons had been outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899, but Italy argued that this ban did not extend to airplanes.[1] (See Aerial bombardment and international law).

At that time of this first aerial bombing, the First Hague convention, 1899, declaration about "bombing" from balloons has been expired. In this Concention was signed a declaration to prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature.. This declaration was ratified by all the Great Powers, and also by Italy. In the Second Hague convention, 1907, was tried to extend this prohibition but, in pratically, it remained only a purpose. Only among the great Powers, only by United Kingdom, United States of America and Austria-Hungary. Also Austria-Hungary never ratified it. The only limitation was the target of towns, villages, dwellings, or undefended buildings, prohibited by article 25, "by whatever means".

Note
he Article 25, The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited, with the words "whatever means" includes also aerial bombing.

Hello! I've some doubts about this passage: The dropping of bombs from balloons had been outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899, but Italy argued that this ban did not extend to airplanes.[1]  Yes, this passage has a reference: Grant, R.G. (2004). Flight - 100 Years of Aviation. Dorling-Kindersley Limited. pp. p. 59. ISBN 1-4503-0575-4. But there are some facts that sentence inaccurate. Let me explain: I think that is better to clarify the situation of international law in that sentence. For the moment I wait for further suggestions/opinions. In italian books, I not found yet any evidence of this controversy. For someone is possible to check the original sentence in the Grant's book? Bye! --Il palazzo (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The First Hague convention had a declaration about prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature. See and also this declaration was ratified by all the Great Powers, see . This declaration was about balloons, but used also the words or by other new methods of a similar nature, probably to include airships and other "new methods". However in 1906 this moratorium was expired.
 * In the Second Hague convention, was tried to "extend" the old decalration, but, in pratically, it remained only a purpose. Only among the great Powers, only by United Kingdom, United States of America and Austria-Hungary . Also Austria-Hungary never ratified it. Only the Article 25, The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited., with the words "whatever means" was a limitation to aerial bombing. For example, when a zeppelin bombed Antwerp for the first time in August 1914, the Belgium's protest was referred about Article 25 "Declares Zeppelin Attack Violated Fourth Convention of The Hague, and not to the declaration XIV, ratified by Belgium, but not by German Empire.
 * So, it seems strange that in 1911, was made a sentence like: "The dropping of bombs from balloons had been outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899,
 * The prohibition of Hague Convention of 1899 was expired.
 * Only UK and USA that signed the extension can made a similar protest
 * But it's seemsstrange that "Italy argued that this ban did not extend to airplanes", due the old, expired, declaration referred also to "other new methods of a similar nature"; and the new declaration wasn't almost recongnized in Europe.

About: "but Italy argued that this ban did not extend to airplanes." Hello! I've some doubts about this passage: The dropping of bombs from balloons had been outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899, but Italy argued that this ban did not extend to airplanes.[1] Yes, this passage has a reference: Grant, R.G. (2004). Flight - 100 Years of Aviation. Dorling-Kindersley Limited. pp. p. 59. ISBN 1-4503-0575-4. But there are some facts that sentence inaccurate. Let me explain:

The First Hague convention had a declaration about prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature. See [1] and also this declaration was ratified by all the Great Powers, see [2]. This declaration was about balloons, but used also the words or by other new methods of a similar nature, probably to include airships and other "new methods". However in 1906 this moratorium was expired. In the Second Hague convention, was tried to "extend" the old decalration, but, in pratically, it remained only a purpose. Only among the great Powers, only by United Kingdom, United States of America and Austria-Hungary [3]. Also Austria-Hungary never ratified it. Only the Article 25, The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited., with the words "whatever means" was a limitation to aerial bombing. For example, when a zeppelin bombed Antwerp for the first time in August 1914, the Belgium's protest was referred about Article 25 "Zeppelin Attack Violated Fourth Convention of The Hague, and not to the declaration XIV, ratified by Belgium, but not by German Empire. So, it seems strange that in 1911, was made a sentence like: "The dropping of bombs from balloons had been outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899, The prohibition of Hague Convention of 1899 was expired. Only UK and USA that signed the extension can made a similar protest But it's seemsstrange that "Italy argued that this ban did not extend to airplanes", due the old, expired, declaration referred also to "other new methods of a similar nature"; and the new declaration wasn't almost recongnized in Europe. I think that is better to clarify the situation of international law in that sentence. For the moment I wait for further suggestions/opinions. In italian books, I not found yet any evidence of this controversy. For someone is possible to check the original sentence in the Grant's book? Bye! --Il palazzo (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)