The Third Hague Conference Guide to Deliberations MCGS MUN 2014 Agenda: European Crisis of 1914 as a result of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia Rohan Jain The First Hague Conference, 1899
Delegates Welcome to the simulation of the Third Hague Conference as a part of the Mayo College Girls School Model United Nations 2014. As we complete one hundred years since the First Great War, a question which universally arises is how things would have turned out differently had a body like the United Nations Organisation existed in the late 19 th or early 20 th century. Would we have been able to prevent the immense destruction of life and property in the tragedy of the First World War? Would we have been able to decolonise sooner? Would we be able to resolve international disputes as we do in this day and age in a pacific manner? I, on behalf of the Secretariat, invite you today to not only consider and ponder upon these questions, but to deliberate on them and possibly redefine world history. This conference provides you with a once in a lifetime opportunity, to step into the shoes of diplomats, who represented the peaks of European civilization, at a time which will easily fit into the category of the top ten diplomatic challenges of world history. The challenge assumes greater difficulty keeping in mind the extremely diverse foreign and domestic policy positions to the various plots of the Crisis. While reading this deliberation guide I would like you to keep in mind the following: 1. Please note that this deliberation guide is not a substantive replacement of research and is no manner an exhaustive guide. It is a guide to merely assist you in your research which should not only include the issues covered in this guide but other issues relevant to the topic. 2. Since the date of simulation of the 3 rd Hague Conference is 26 th July 1914 no events that have occurred after the date shall be taken into cognizance in the conference session. 3. Please also note that the geo-political scenario as it exists today is very different from as it existed in 1914. While researching and while presenting such research in the conference session please take such distinctions into careful consideration. 4. Keeping in mind the foreign policy positions of various delegations the Executive Board shall be open and shall in-fact appreciate any preliminary objections being raised by delegations with regards to, but not limited only to, their participation or the participation of other entities in the Conference. However all such preliminary objections must be raised only at the time of the conference session. 5. The executive board also requests all delegates to properly acquaint themselves of the following a. Timeline of facts; b. Substance of relevant treaties/conventions and agreements; and c. Foreign policy positions as they stood in 1914.
Committee Background: The Hague Conferences The First and the Second Hague Conferences, in 1899 and 1907 respectively represent the very first attempts of organisation of international peace conferences in modern history. Conferences organised prior to the Hague Conferences were more or less regional in nature such as the Four Pan-American Conferences organised in the period. While majority of the participants of the conferences were European Nations, it has often been argued, that such participation due to the colonial geo-political structure infact represented a significant majority of the Nations of the world as they existed then. It has consequently been argued that the Hague Conferences were a precursor to the formation of the League of Nations after the First World War and therefore are indirectly a precursor to the formation of the United Nations Organisation as it exists today. Before moving on to the dynamics of the Third Hague Conference as is being simulated by us it is important to understand the mandate, scope of work, achievements and failures of the first two conferences. The First Hague Conference, held in 1899, witnessed participation of 26 countries. Even though the main objective of the conference i.e. the limitation of the expansion of armed forces and a reduction in the deployment of new armaments, was not achieved, a significant contribution of the conference was the incorporation of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes which resulted in the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration which exists till date. Other major achievements included declarations and conventions with respect to the laws and customs of Land War and Maritime Warfare and the codification of the Laws of War with respect to use of certain types of weapons. The Second Hague Conference, held in 1907, witnessed participation of 44 countries. The Second Conference also failed to successfully address the issue of limitation of armaments however saw the incorporation of several conventions relating to matters such as employment of force for the recovery of contract debts, the status of enemy merchant ships and the establishment of the international prize court. Efforts were also taken to reaffirm and strengthen the existing mechanism of the pacific settlement of international disputes. Potential issues for deliberation: 1. What was your country s role in the First and the Second Hague Conferences? 2. Examine the applicability of the mechanism and structure of the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes created in the First Conference and then strengthened in the Second Conference to the existing crisis.
The Current Conference During the 2 nd Hague Conference, a 3 rd Hague Conference was scheduled to be held in 1914, which was postponed to 1915. However for the purposes of the conference it shall be assumed that the conference once postponed was recalled, viewing the impending European Crisis, to be held immediately after the presentation of Austria Hungary s ultimatum to Serbia. The events starting from the assassination and continuing up to Austria-Hungary s declaration of war against Serbia, including the delivery of the ultimatum and its partial acceptance by Serbia are together popularly referred to as the July Crisis. Before going into detailed factual analysis of the reasons behind the war a summary is being provided here to better understand the unfolding of events as they took place after the assassination so that it is clear to all delegations when exactly is the 3 rd Hague Conference being assumed to be held. The following timeline should be noted in this regard: Date Event in the July Crisis 28 th June,1914 Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria who was the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne and his wife Sophie the Duchess of Hohenberg, in Sarajevo. 23 rd July, 1914 Austria-Hungary presents an ultimatum to Serbia the demands of which must be unconditionally met by Serbia and the unconditional acceptance of which must be communicated to Austria-Hungary within 48 hours i.e. before 25 th July 1914. 25 th July, 1914 Serbia partially accepts the aforementioned ultimatum of Austria- Hungary. 26 th July, 1914 The 3 rd Hague Conference is held. The countries given in the country matrix have decided to take part in the conference (some of them on a conditional basis), and have consequently sent high power diplomatic and consular missions as representatives of heads of states. Potential issues for deliberation: 1. Assuming that the 3 rd Hague Conference was actually held as aforesaid, delegations must determine on the basis of their foreign policy as it evolved during July crisis, their level of participation i.e. whether their participation in 1914 would have been
conditional or not. In the event of conditional participation kindly determine the conditions as well 2. Delegations must also determine the extent of discretion and authority given to their High Power Diplomatic and Consular Missions sent to the 3 rd Hague Conference by the respective heads of states. 3. Kindly also consider other events in the July crisis that are relevant to the agenda of the Conference session. Europe before and after the First World War The July Crisis Since the 3 rd Hague Conference is being assumed to be held on the 26 th of July, 1914, it is critically important to understand the day by day events in the July Crisis i.e. from the date of assassination to 26 th of July, 1914. Detailed timeline of events is available at a number of sources across the printed and digital media platforms and is therefore not being repeated here. Upon a close factual evaluation as aforesaid all delegations must consider, at the bare minimum the following issues for deliberation:
1. Proof of Serbia s involvement (if any) and consequent culpability and responsibility for the assassination. 2. The involvement of Nationalist elements in the assassination and their motives and their association with existing Nation States including Serbia. 3. The direct or covert actions of other European powers in increasing or diffusing existing geo-political tensions. 4. Administrative reaction to the assassination in Austria-Hungary with special focus on the Bosnia-Herzegovina Regions. 5. The foreign policy position of various delegations to all events unfolding between 28 th June1914 and 26 th July 1914 6. Foreign policy positions of various countries in the event of future conflict. 7. The custody, trial, inquest, incarceration of the individuals involved in the assassination and the consequence of the aforementioned. 8. Attempts of mediation and peaceful reconciliation made prior to 26 th July, 1914. The Ultimatum and the Response On 23 rd July, 1914, the Austrian Ambassador to Serbia, Baron Vladimir Von Giesl, delivered an ultimatum to the Serbian government containing 10 demands that must be followed by the Serbian government unconditionally and the unconditional acceptance of which must be communicated to Austria-Hungary within 48 hours. It is alleged that the demands of the ultimatum were intentionally made unacceptable, intending to provoke a war with Serbia. The text of the ultimatum is as hereunder: On the 31st of March, 1909, the Serbian Minister in Vienna, on the instructions of the Serbian Government, made the following declaration to the Imperial and Royal Government (Austrian-Hungarian Government): Serbia recognizes that the fait accompli regarding Bosnia has not affected her rights and consequently she will conform to the decisions that the Powers may take in conformity with Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin. In deference to the advice of the Great Powers, Serbia undertakes to renounce from now onwards the attitude of protest and opposition which she has adopted with regard to the annexation since last autumn. She undertakes, moreover, to modify the direction of her policy with regard to Austria-Hungary and to live in future on good neighbourly terms with the latter. The history of recent years, and in particular the painful events of the 28th of June last, have shown the existence of a subversive movement with the object of detaching a part of the territories of Austria-Hungary from the Monarchy. The movement, which had its birth under the eye of the Serbian Government, has gone so far as to make itself manifest on both sides of the Serbian frontier in the shape of acts of terrorism and a series of outrages and murders. Far from carrying out the formal undertakings contained in the declaration of the 31st of March, 1909, the Royal Serbian Government has done nothing to repress these movements. It has permitted the criminal machinations of various societies and associations directed against the Monarchy, and has tolerated unrestrained language on the part of the press, the glorification of the perpetrators of outrages, and the participation of officers and functionaries in subversive agitation.
It has permitted an unwholesome propaganda in public instruction; in short, it has permitted all manifestations of a nature to incite the Serbian population to hatred of the Monarchy and contempt of its institutions. This culpable tolerance of the Royal Serbian Government had not ceased at the moment when the events of the 28th of June last proved its fatal consequences to the whole world. It results from the depositions and confessions of the criminal perpetrators of the outrage of the 28th of June that the Serajevo assassinations were planned in Belgrade; that the arms and explosives with which the murderers were provided had been given to them by Serbian officers and functionaries belonging to the Narodna Odbrana; and finally, that the passage into Bosnia of the criminals and their arms was organized and effected by the chiefs of the Serbian frontier service. The above-mentioned results of the magisterial investigation do not permit the Austro-Hungarian Government to pursue any longer the attitude of expectant forbearance which they have maintained for years in face of the machinations hatched in Belgrade, and thence propagated in the territories of the Monarchy. The results, on the contrary, impose on them the duty of putting an end to the intrigues which form a perpetual menace to the tranquillity of the Monarchy. To achieve this end the Imperial and Royal Government see themselves compelled to demand from the Royal Serbian Government a formal assurance that they condemn this dangerous propaganda against the Monarchy; in other words the whole series of tendencies, the ultimate aim of which is to detach from the Monarchy territories belonging to it and that they undertake to suppress by every means this criminal and terrorist propaganda. In order to give a formal character to this undertaking the Royal Serbian Government shall publish on the front page of their "Official Journal" of the 13-26 of July the following declaration: The Royal Government of Serbia condemn the propaganda directed against Austria-Hungary - i.e., the general tendency of which the final aim is to detach from the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy territories belonging to it, and they sincerely deplore the fatal consequences of these criminal proceedings. The Royal Government regret that Serbian officers and functionaries participated in the above-mentioned propaganda and thus compromised the good neighbourly relations to which the Royal Government were solemnly pledged by their declaration of the 31st of March, 1909. The Royal Government, who disapprove and repudiate all idea of interfering or attempting to interfere with the destinies of the inhabitants of any part whatsoever of Austria-Hungary, consider it their duty formally to warn officers and functionaries, and the whole population of the Kingdom, that henceforward they will proceed with the utmost rigor against persons who may be guilty of such machinations, which they will use all their efforts to anticipate and suppress. This declaration shall simultaneously be communicated to the Royal army as an order of the day by His Majesty the King and shall be published in the "Official Bulletin" of the army. The Royal Serbian Government shall further undertake: (1) To suppress any publication which incites to hatred and contempt of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the general tendency of which is directed against its territorial integrity; (2) To dissolve immediately the society styled "Narodna Odbrana," to confiscate all its means of propaganda, and to proceed in the same manner against other societies and their branches in Serbia which engage in propaganda against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Royal Government shall take the necessary measures to prevent the societies dissolved from continuing their activity under another name and form;
(3) To eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, both as regards the teaching body and also as regards the methods of instruction, everything that serves, or might serve, to foment the propaganda against Austria-Hungary; (4) To remove from the military service, and from the administration in general, all officers and functionaries guilty of propaganda against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy whose names and deeds the Austro- Hungarian Government reserve to themselves the right of communicating to the Royal Government; (5) To accept the collaboration in Serbia of representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government for the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the Monarchy; (6) To take judicial proceedings against accessories to the plot of the 28th of June who are on Serbian territory; delegates of the Austro-Hungarian Government will take part in the investigation relating thereto; (7) To proceed without delay to the arrest of Major Voija Tankositch and of the individual named Milan Ciganovitch, a Serbian State employee, who have been compromised by the results of the magisterial inquiry at Serajevo; (8) To prevent by effective measures the cooperation of the Serbian authorities in the illicit traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier, to dismiss and punish severely the officials of the frontier service at Shabatz Loznica guilty of having assisted the perpetrators of the Serajevo crime by facilitating their passage across the frontier; (9) To furnish the Imperial and Royal Government with explanations regarding the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian officials, both in Serbia and abroad, who, notwithstanding their official position, have not hesitated since the crime of the 28th of June to express themselves in interviews in terms of hostility to the Austro-Hungarian Government; and, finally, (10) To notify the Imperial and Royal Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised under the preceding heads. The Austro-Hungarian Government expect the reply of the Royal Government at the latest by 5 o'clock on Saturday evening the 25th of July. Serbia s response to the aforementioned ultimatum is as follows: (Preamble)...[Serbia] cannot be held responsible for manifestations of a private character, such as articles in the press and the peaceable work of societies... [The Serbian government] have been pained and surprised at the statements, according to which members of the Kingdom of Serbia are supposed to have participated in the preparations of the crime... [However, Serbia is] prepared to hand over for trial any Serbian subject..of whose complicity in the crime of Sarajevo proofs are forthcoming [as well as officially condemn all propaganda against Austria-Hungary]. 1. [Serbia will] introduce... a provision into the press law providing for the most severe punishment of incitement to hatred and contempt of the Austria-Hungary Monarchy... 2. The Serbian government possesses no proof... that the Narodna Odbrana and other similar societies have committed up to the present any criminal act of this nature... Nevertheless, [Serbia] will... dissolve the Narodna Obrana and every other society which... 3. [Serbia will] eliminate without delay from public instruction... everything that serves or might serve to foment the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, whenever Austria furnishes them with facts and proofs...
4. [Serbia] also agree to remove from the military service all such persons as the judicial inquiry may have proved to be guilty of acts directed against the integrity of the territory of Austria-Hungary, and they expect [Austria] to communicate... the names and acts of these officers for the purpose of the proceedings which are to be taken against them. 5. [The Serbian govt. does] not clearly grasp the meaning or the scope of the demand... that Serbia shall undertake to accept the collaboration of the representatives of Austria-Hungary, but they declare that they will admit such collaboration as agrees with the principle of international law, with criminal procedure, and with good neighbourly relations. 6....As regards the participation in this inquiry [which Serbia intends to hold] of Austro-Hungarian agents... [Serbia] cannot accept such an arrangement, as it would be a violation of the Constitution... 7. [States it has not yet been possible to arrest one of the persons named; request proofs of guilt from Austria] 8. [agrees to reinforce measures against illegal trafficking of arms and explosives across the frontier with Bosnia-Herzegovina] 9. [offers explanations of anti-austrian comments by Serb officials if Austria sends examples of their actually having been made] 10. [Serbia will duly notify the measures taken, but if Austria is not satisfied with the reply] the Serbian government.. are ready.. to accept a pacific understanding, either by referring this question to the decision of the International Tribunal of the Hague [i.e., the World Court], or to the Great Powers... All delegations participating in the 3 rd Hague Conference session are humbly requested to acquaint themselves with the facts of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum and Serbia s response to it and then consider the following issues for deliberation: 1. The nature of Austria-Hungary s demands and whether they were designed to provoke a negative response on Serbia s side? Delegations must also consider the question of validity of such an ultimatum. 2. Serbia s declaration dated 31 st March, 1909, and whether Serbia had violated the declaration? 3. Delegations must consider the substance of Serbia s response and decide whether such a response is an acceptance/partial acceptance to Austria s demands? 4. Whether Serbia s offer to accept pacific understanding, as contained in the 10 th paragraph of Serbia s response is a viable alternative? 5. Delegations must consider the foreign policy positions to the ultimatum and well as its response.
Relevant military and diplomatic alliances: A unique political characteristic of 19 th and 20 th century Europe was a web of military and diplomatic alliances entered into by almost all nations in order to serve mutual geopolitical interests. Military and diplomatic alliances were used by states in order to maintain the balance of power resulting in overlapping and often contradictory terms of alliances. Alliances, whether military or political though varied, generally exhibited some common features. Most alliances contained provisions of mutual military support in case of war or conflict. Some alliances also recognized mutual co-existence and an agreement of non-interference in each other s domestic and foreign policy affairs. Some such alliances, relevant to the agenda are as follows: Date of Name of Alliance Participating States Alliance 1839 Treaty of London Belgium; Great Britain 1873 Three Emperors League Germany; Austria-Hungary; Russia 1879 Dual Alliance Treaty Germany; Austria-Hungary 1892 Franco Russian Military France; Russia Convention 1982 Triple Alliance Germany; Austria-Hungary; Italy 1904 Entente Cordiale Great Britain; France 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention Great Britain; Russia 1907 Triple Entente Britain; France; Russia Issues for deliberations: 1. Are there any other military or diplomatic alliances that may potentially affect the current European crisis? 2. Is there any impending risk of escalation of the current crisis as a result of such military or diplomatic alliances? 3. Can the military and diplomatic alliances, in any way offer a resolution to the current crisis? 4. What is your country s foreign policy position to the alliances?
Map depicting European military and diplomatic alliances in 1914 The Balkan Background: Powder Keg Theory Historically, the Balkan region has always been a volatile and fractious region. This is generally owing to the fact that the Balkans are home to a varied set of people divided on ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural grounds. Even though this is a common feature in many regions of the world, what imparts the Balkans its volatility is that political boundaries of states in the Balkans have never been based on such ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural grounds. Therefore all nation states in the Balkan region have always seen a situation where a particular group assumes control of all economic and political resources and then starts to exploit and subdue other minorities. These minorities backed by nation states where such minorities are in majority are in a constant state of revolt with the ruling government. This general theme of the Balkan
conflict has seen varied expressions over the years which have more often than not resulted in violent friction. Delegations must examine as to whether in light of the existing crisis the current Balkan conflict can assume a pan-european tone? In order to simplify the understanding of the Balkan conflict as it existed in 1914 the following table has been formulated for the convenience of all delegations: Time Event in Balkan States Period 18 th Consolidated Balkan states under the Century Ottoman Empire. Early 19 th Nationalist movements inspired by European Century nationalism and the Italian and German unification result in the creation independent states of Serbia, Montenegro and Greece out of the Ottoman Empire. 1878 The treaty of San Stefano ending the Russo- Turkish war resulted in the creation of a large independent Bulgarian state and an enlarged Serbia and Montenegro. This large Bulgarian State included most of the territory in the Eastern Balkan Peninsula between the Danube River and the Aegean Sea. 1878 The Congress of Berlin, established in the place of the aforementioned large Bulgarian state: 1. an autonomous Bulgarian principality under Ottoman suzerainty; 2. a semi-autonomous Eastern Rumelia under the authority of the Ottoman Empire; and 3. Returned Macedonia to direct rule of the Ottoman Empire. Under Article 29 of the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, Austria-Hungary received special rights in the Ottoman Empire s provinces of Bosnia Herzegovina. Under this arrangement Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina even though the latter officially remained part of the Ottoman Empire. 1885 Bulgaria undertakes the unification with Eastern Rumelia and defends the same against Serbian Aggression. 1897 Following the unsuccessful Greek attack against the Ottoman Empire Crete receives autonomy. Independent Balkan States Ottoman Empire Bulgaria; Serbia; Montenegro; Greece; Ottoman Empire; Eastern Rumelia; Bulgaria; Bulgaria; Serbia; Montenegro; Greece; Ottoman Empire; Bulgaria; Serbia; Montenegro; Greece; Ottoman Empire;
September 1908 1909-1912 September 1912 May 1913 Austria-Hungary formally annexes Bosnia- Herzegovina which it had occupied since 1878 Treaty of Berlin. Formation and consolidation of the Balkan League comprising Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece who sought to divide Macedonia (currently under Ottoman Rule) amongst themselves. The first Balkan War is fought and the Balkan League emerge victorious with significant territorial and political gains in Macedonia. The Treaty of London results in the formation of an independent Albanian state carved out of Macedonia which was not contemplated by the Balkan League. This creation of an independent Albanian state meant that none of the objectives of the members of the Balkan League as to the division of Macedonia amongst themselves would be achieved. The rest of Macedonia is divided much to the dissatisfaction of the Balkan League members who had made significant political, economic and military commitments to the Balkan War but had not gained equivalent territorial or political benefits The other terms of the Treaty of London, 1913 were: 1. All territory falling to the west of the line between Enos and Midia was ceded to the Balkan League except Albania 2. Ottoman Empire ceded Crete and the Great Powers were to determine the status of the other islands in Aegean Sea. 3. All questions relating to the newly created independent state of Albania including its boundaries were to be settled by the great powers. The division of the territories ceded to the Balkan League was left undetermined in the treaty and Serbia owing to the creation of Austria Hungary(Bosnia- Herzegovina); Bulgaria; Austria Hungary(Bosnia- Herzegovina); Bulgaria; Austria Hungary(Bosnia- Herzegovina); Bulgaria; Albania; Austria Hungary(Bosnia- Herzegovina); Bulgaria;
June 1913 August 1913 Albania refused to carry out the division of such territories in accordance with its treaty with Bulgaria agreed in March 1912 2 nd Balkan War breaks out when Bulgaria dissatisfied with the treaty of London engages Serbia, Greece, and the Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria looses resulting in the Treaty of Bucharest The Treaty of Bucharest is signed. Macedonia is divided into 3 parts: 1. Serbia gets he largest part i.e. Vardar Macedonia; 2. Bulgaria gets the smallest part i.e. Pirin Macedonia 3. Greece gets the coastal part i.e. Aegean Macedonia Additionally Bulgaria ceded Southern Dobraju to and Montenegro gained Sanjak of Novi Pazar in a concession made by Serbia Albania; Austria Hungary(Bosnia- Herzegovina); Bulgaria; Albania; Austria Hungary(Bosnia- Herzegovina); Bulgaria; Delegations to the 3 rd Hague Conference must consider the following issues for deliberation in this regard: 1. The foreign policy position to each of the aforesaid developments and how such positions affect bilateral and multilateral political ties in Europe. 2. The potential effect of the aforesaid Balkan problem on the current crisis. 3. Whether a substantial solution to the Balkan crisis at the current stage can result in the diffusion of the immediate crisis. If yes, then what substantial solution(s) is proposed? 4. Whether in light of the existing crisis the current Balkan conflict can assume a pan- European tone? Other Issues for deliberation: 1. The status of European race for armaments, increased proliferation and stockpiling of weapons, heightened military preparedness and its prospective influence on the current crisis. 2. The current crisis and the Imperialistic tendencies of participating states. 3. Nationalism and other domestic political factors distressing the current crisis. 4. Possible solutions to the agenda.
Ottoman Empire and the Balkan Region in 1878 after the Congress of Berlin The Balkan region during the two Balkan Wars