SUBMARINE WAR.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 January 1922, Page 5

SUBMARINE WAR.

RULES FOR THE FUTURE. PROTECTING NEUTRALS, rowers' AGREEMENT. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Jan. 6, 8.45 p.m. Washington, Jan. 4. The committee of the Conference on the limitation of naval armaments agreed to the following resolution presented by Senator Root (America):— “The signatory Powers, desiring to make more effective the rules adopted by the civilised nations for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants at sea during time of war, declare that among these rules the following shall be deemed to be established as part of the international law: “(I) A merchant vessel must be ordered to stop for a visit of search to determine its character before it can be seized. A merchant vessel must not be attacked unless it refuses to submit ;to a visit for search after warning or proceed as directed after seizure. A merchant vessel must not be destroyed unless the crew and passengers have been first placed in safety. "(2) A belligerent submarine shall not under any circumstances be exempt from 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 to desist from attack or seizure, and permit the merchant vessel to proceed unmolested. “The signatory Powers invite al! other civilised Powers to express their assent to the foregoing, so there may be a clear understanding throughout the world of the standards of conduct by which the public opinion of the world is to pass judgment on future belligerents. The signatory Powers recognise the piMcdfioal impossibility of using submarines as commerce destroyers without violating, as were violated during the recent war, the requirements universally accepted by civilised nations for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants, and to end the prohibition of the use of submarines destroyers shall be universally accepted as part of the law of nations. They now accept that prohibition henceforth as binding between themselves and invite all other nations to adhere thereto.” At to-day’s Conference the first and second Root resolutions were unanimously adopted, incorporating Mr. A. J. Balfour’s amendment.

Though the naval communique is purely confined to the announcement of the passing of the Root resolutions it is known the discussion was highly controversial. The British tried to bar the use of aircraft against merchantmen, which Mr. Hughes ruled out of order. The French announced that fresh instructions had been received from Paris, but they did not intend to press for a clearer definition of a merchant vessel, which therefore remains as alwavs laid down by international law. The Italians carried on the fight after the French withdrew their claims, but the British insisted that they proposed arming merchantmen during war time, even with the new submarine understanding. Eventually the 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 for revision in case of political developments or discoveries and inventions radically altering the present conduct of naval warfare. Britain does not regard the treaty as an offensive or defensive alliance and therefore in ease of war holds herself free from all restrictions regarding warship building. This view is shared by the Japanese. The American spokesman, answering the usual crop of questions designed to extract an admission about European alliances, most emphatically denied that the provision would have any implication beyond what was indicated. Special to Aus. Press Assn.