FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1924
1924 - 0522.PDF
V Rodd states : " The difficulties presented by the ques tion of the use of aircraft for the exercise of the belligerent right of visit and search of merchant vessels have, however, remained without a final solution. The report indicates with sufficient pre cision the point of view of the various Delegations on this subject, and shows that further consideration must be given to this question before any unanimous agreement can be arrived at." To its general report the Commission adds the statement that " It believes that if these sets of rules are approved and brought into force, it will be found expedient to make provision for their re-examination after a relatively brief term of years to see whether any revision is necessary." Elsewhere in this issue of FLIGHT we have pub lished in full the articles themselves, but much more may really be gleaned from a perusal of the explana tory notes interspersed in the text of the Report. We have not the space here to do other than make brief reference to a few of the articles and the com mentary which accompanies them. In the case of Article 9, dealing with the conversion of non-military into military aircraft, it is pointed out that this was based upon a proposal first sub mitted by the Japanese Delegation, and " that the proposal received the support of a majority of the delegations only, the French Delegation being unable to accept it." To those who have followed the developments of French civil aviation during the last four or five years, although this will scarcely come as a surprise, it is very significant. With regard to Article 11, it is pointed out that this embodies the general principle that in the air space over the high seas, all aircraft have full freedom of passage, and that provisions embodied in other articles are to be regarded as exceptions to this general principle. Among the most important subjects dealt with is that of aerial bombardment, treated in articles 22 to 26 inclusive. Incidentally, it must also have been one of the most difficult to deal with in framing any code of rules for aerial warfare. On this question the commentary states " . . . . jt is equally clear that the aircraft is a potent engine of war, and no State which realises the possibility that it may itself be attacked, and the use to which its adversary may put his air forces, can take the risk of fettering its own liberty of action to an extent which would restrict it from attacking its enemy where that adversary may legitimately be attacked with effect. It is useless, therefore, to enact prohibitions unless AUGUST 21, 1924 there is an equally clear understanding of what constitutes legitimate objects of attack, and it is precisely in this respect that agreement was difficult to reach." On the subject of privileged buildings (article 25) the commentary points out that " By day, these privileged buildings must be marked in a way which will make them visible to aircraft ; the marks agreed on being those laid down in the Geneva Convention and in the Naval Bombardment Convention : the use of such marks is made obligatory so as to corre spond with the duty placed on the adversary of sparing such buildings. By night, however, the use of lights to make the special signs visible is optional because experience has shown that such lights may serve as guides to night-flying aircraft and may thereby be of service to the enemy." The greatest stumbling-block to unanimous agree ment was provided by the question of the belligerent rights to visit, search, capture, and the condemnation of enemy commerce. The articles dealing with this subject are contained in Chapter VII of the report, and it is stated that the Netherlands Delegation has not accepted the rules contained in this chapter. No article on the subject of the right of visit and search of merchant vessels by military aircraft has secured the votes of the majority of the delegations, and it is pointed out that " Although all the Delega tions concurred in the expression of a desire to adopt such rules as would assure the observance of the dictates of humanity as regards the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants, the Com mission, by reason of a divergence of views as to the method by which this result would best be attained, was unable to agree upon an article dealing with the exercise of belligerent rights by aircraft against merchant vessels. The code of rules proposed by the Commission, therefore, leaves the matter open for future regulation." In conclusion, and on the subject of violation of the rules, the report states : " No provision is made in the articles adopted as to the penalties to which persons violating the rules are to be subject. Some of the provisions in the drafts laid before the Commission stated that persons violating the article in question were to be punishable with death, or were to be treated as war criminals. No such stipulation figures in the Land Warfare Regulations, and it has seemed better to omit it. Its absence will not in any way prejudice the imposition of punishment on persons guilty of breaches of the laws of aerial warfare." <S> <$> <$> <•> Frontier Chiefs being taken up for "joy-rides " by officers of the R.A.F. At first reluctant, they all eventually enjoyed this novel experience. Reproduced by courtesy of the "I.P.M.," Delhi. 522
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
