A brief history of the Russian Maritime Law Society (1905-1917)

Key words: drafting of the maritime law conventions, Comite Maritime International, Friedrich (Fyodor) Martens, Mikhail Taube, declaration concerning the law of naval war.

The Russian Society of Maritime Law was founded at the beginning of the 20th century in Saint Petersburg. On 18 May 1905, the Charter of the society was signed by the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, Chief Superintendent of Merchant Shipping and Ports.¹ This date may well be regarded as the society’s birthday.

1. On the role of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich Romanov in establishing the Russian Society of Maritime Law

There was no clear regulation of the procedure for creating and types of organisational forms of legal entities in the Russian Empire². At the level of legislation there was not even a general term “legal entity”. However, there were separate rules for the establishment of palace administrations, nobility, urban and rural societies, zemstvo institutions, hospitals, etc. The common place, however, was that all these institutions, which had legal personality, had to have a charter approved by a government authority. Sometimes charters were approved by members of the imperial family³.

The Charter of the Russian Society of Maritime Law was approved by Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, apparently as a statesman with the most lively and detailed interest in maritime affairs in all its aspects, from studying innovations in shipbuilding and naval combat strategy to exploring natural resources and building port systems. Under the Grand Duke’s will and direct supervision, a book was compiled “The Essential Information on the Law of the Sea International Law”. This publication presents the entire system of maritime international law, including the law of peace, land war and war at sea, the legal regulation of traffic and activities in the internal, territorial and coastal waters of states, the etiquette of official visits, etc.⁴

Alexander Mikhailovich (a great-uncle of Emperor Nicholas II, with whom he was on rather close, friendly relationship) was a sailor, having risen in the Navy from midshipman (1885) to admiral (1915), made many sea voyages (including around the world), and served in the Baltic and Black Sea Fleets. During his travels abroad, the Grand Duke collected and compiled materials relating to military technology, in which he was so well versed that he developed draft designs for battleships himself. From the 1880s he published guides relating to the navies of various countries. Alexander Mikhailovich could tell by the way a country was equipping its navy, with whom it was preparing for war: this knowledge helped him predict the Russo-Japanese War and the year when it would start ten years before Japan attacked Russia. In 1895 he persuaded Emperor Nicholas II to prepare for military action and provided a programme for strengthening the fleet in the Pacific Ocean. However, he was criticised by Finance Minister Sergei Witte and the Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and Naval Department.⁵

Having failed to gain understanding from the state, in 1904, Alexander Mikhailovich headed the Special Committee for Strengthening the Navy on voluntary donations (23 ships were built on the collected funds). The Committee not only collected money; it operated scientific, technical and design departments, a statistical department, organized supervision over the construction and delivery of ships to the treasury, etc.

Between November 1902 and October 1905, the Grand Duke was in charge of the General Directorate of Merchant Shipping and Ports. This department did a lot of work to improve coastal towns, build lighthouses and canals, repair ships, and developed projects to establish the Danube Shipping Company, finance the port of Sukhumi, etc. The duke initiated a regulation on the management of commercial seaports, according to which the issues of trade and ports’ operation were concentrated in the Ministry of Finance, and not in the competence of several ministries, as before.⁶ This was typical of Alexander Mikhailovich: to simplify bureaucratic procedures and also to merge disparate structures. It must be assumed that the purpose of establishing the Russian Society of Maritime Law was close and clear to him – to promote the unification of maritime law, and that is probably why he was entrusted with approving the Society’s Charter.

The charter of the organisation, which he signed in his own hand, stated: “The Russian Society of Maritime Law is set up to develop theoretical and practical issues on the maritime law, to disseminate information on this subject and to unite the norms of maritime legislation of different states”.⁷

It is difficult to say definitively on whose initiative the Russian Society of Maritime Law established. The ideologists may have been Russian maritime lawyers who had contacts with their European colleagues who established the International Maritime Committee. However, it is unlikely that the Society would have emerged without the Grand Duke’s support.

2. Objectives of the establishment of the Russian Society of Maritime Law and the International Maritime Committee

In the second half of the 19th century, there was the gradual emergence of a tendency for the unification of legal regulation. This is the era of the first international conventions. It was the period when the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) has been adopted. Merchant shipping was not left out either.

Lawyers from different countries, interested in the maritime law, sought to establish some kind of international transnational association of lawyers which would draw up international conventions in the field of the law of the sea.

In 1885, during the World’s Fair in Antwerp, an International Congress was organised to bring together shipowners, lawyers, insurers and other specialists. The aim of the discussion was to create an international maritime code which would uniformly regulate all important issues, from the legal status of merchant ships and the liability of shipowners to the rules on maritime liens and salvage at sea. However, the idea did not move beyond discussion.

The next session on the unification of maritime rules and regulations, held in Brussels in 1888, was also unsuccessful. However, both events prompted the idea of establishing an international maritime law association, which could formulate legal rules for the maritime industry and draft international conventions through comprehensive discussions with representatives of different countries.⁸ In turn, national associations might be created at the level of each state, whose representatives would participate in the work of the international one. National associations would bring together shipowners, forwarders, lawyers, insurers, diplomats and other experts in the field of merchant shipping and maritime law.

The idea was supported by the International Law Association, and in 1896 the world’s first Association for the Unification of the Maritime Law was established in Belgium. Its founders were Auguste Beernaert (former Belgian Prime Minister and President of the Bar Association; in 1894, he was granted an honorary title of Minister of State by the King; later, in 1909, Beernart received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Permanent Court of Arbitration); Charles Lejeune, Vice President of the Association, insurance broker, and Louis Frank, General Secretary of the Association, attorney-at-law.

In 1897, the Association for the Unification of the Maritime Law was established in France. At the same time, various countries (including Germany, England, the Netherlands and the United States) expressed an intention to establish similar associations in their countries and the Comite Maritime International (CMI) was formally established on 6

June 1897 in Brussels. Its statutory goals were to contribute through conferences, publications and other work to the unification of the maritime law, to encourage the establishment of national associations for the unification of the maritime law, and to maintain regular relations and concerted action between these associations.

A permanent bureau of the Committee (11 people) was formed. Also at the first conference, 33 experts from different countries joined the CMI: England, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Russia, and the United States. From Russia, Friedrich (Fedor) Martens, a diplomat and lawyer, professor at Saint Petersburg University, author of the concept of peaceful settlement of international disputes adopted at the Hague Conference, joined the CMI. Apparently, he was one of the ideologists behind the creation of the Russian Society of Maritime Law.

It was decided that the CMI would consist of honorary members (maximum 9 from each country) and delegates of national associations (maximum 6 from each association), and until 1907, when the Russian Society of Maritime Law joined the CMI, only honorary members from Russia took part in the Comite conferences.⁹ Apart from Martens, these were Mikhail Alexandrovich von Taube, a diplomat, historian, professor, statesman (when Taube was at university, Martens was his academic supervisor) and Ivan Alexandrovich Ovchinnikov, the Lieutenant Colonel (later Major General) of the Russian Imperial Navy, lawyer, lecturer, author of works on prize and international law.

Full members of the International Maritime Committee paid an annual fee of twenty-five francs, and national associations were also invited to contribute to the Committee’s expenses.

Although independent delegates were able to participate in conferences and voice their opinions, the first conference in 1897 set out the following principle for the CMI: “The establishment of national associations for the unification of the maritime law shall be the focus of the Comite’s work. It is through them we plan to implement our programme. It is desirable that these associations shall be composed not only of lawyers, but also of representatives of the highest levels of commerce, the army, insurance, etc. In this way our propaganda will penetrate most easily into the circles of those directly concerned; it is for them the maritime regulations are being drafted and it will be easier for them to get them changed for their own interests than for the theorists in government”¹⁰.

In 1907, the CMI was joined by the Russian Society of Maritime Law. By then, there were already 15 national associations within the CMI.

3. Work of the CMI and representatives of national maritime law associations

From its first meeting, the CMI commence its work actively. From 1897 to the present day, more than 30 draft conventions have been elaborated with the CMI’s participation, 20 of which have been adopted at international conferences.¹¹

The first conference identified two major themes: 1) collision of vessels and 2) limiting the Shipowners’ liability. Subsequent conferences continued this work, resulting in the 1910 Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Collision of Ships and the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Assistance and Rescue at Sea.

At the Paris Conference in 1911 the CMI proudly reported: “Our members may have been pleased to hear that the Convention of 23 September 1910 on Collision and Salvage at Sea has been approved by the British Parliament, which at the same time made certain changes in the national legislation of that country; and also by Germany, Russia and Belgium, the latter having passed a law which is consistent in all points with the Conventions, and finally by Greece, Mexico and Romania. Other States, too, have taken the necessary steps to either submit the draft code to their legislatures or set up commissions to study the two international conventions”.¹²

Before convening its members and delegates from national associations to a conference, the CMI sent them a list of questions which it proposed to discuss in detail. Thus, in 1912, the Russian Society of Maritime Law (as well as other national associations) discussed issues at their meetings concerning:

a) the desirability of ratifying the London Declaration on the Laws of Naval Warfare; b) the validity of maritime insurance for enemy property; c) the navigation safety.¹³

The last point came to the fore in the wake of the sinking of the famous liner: “The incident with the Titanic has shown the inadequacy of regulations set out to ensure the life of seafarers and the protection of property exposed to the dangers of the sea. The profound impression caused by this discovery has led to a universal demand for state intervention. The issue is international in essence”, the CMI notified its members.¹⁴

The Declaration on the Laws of Naval War was proposed in 1909 at the London Naval Conference to remove discussable points regarding contraband, blockade, seizure of ships and prize law¹⁵. However, it was not supported by England. It was never subsequently concluded.

Speaking on the ratification of the London Declaration in 1912, the Russian Society of Maritime Law strongly endorsed it and expressed the hope that the declaration would establish uniform and precise rules in regard to matters of maritime warfare, the rigor of which should not be suppressed by the national legislation of any state: “when ratified, this Declaration should put an end to rigorous, divergent, unexpected and arbitrary measures, which at present are often taken by the belligerent countries”¹⁶.

Regarding the second question, the Russian Society of Maritime Law was of the firm opinion “that the insurance of enemy merchant vessels and of their cargoes, which are liable to confiscation or to destruction in case the belligerent State should judge these measures to be necessary, is absolutely similar to the insurance of contraband, and as according to the provisions of the Russian law, the naval officers are compelled under the burden of a heavy responsibility: “to use all possible means in order to inflict upon the enemy the greatest damage possible by the capture of men-of-war and of merchant vessels, and must also use all possible means in order to prevent trade”, it is evident that the subjects of the belligerent States may not be authorized to assist in the indemnification of the mentioned vessels and of their cargo, whatever may be the circumstances in which these vessels and these cargoes have been lost”¹⁷

In support of its position the Society made the following arguments: “At the first glance the destruction and the confiscation of all the enemy merchant vessels and of their cargoes during a naval war appears to be extremely rigorous measures, but it must be realized that these measures are all the same the sole effective means of fight against an enemy which possesses a war fleet, by far more considerable than that of his adversary. The possibility of these measures may even sometimes withhold from a declaration of war a country which otherwise on account its naval supremacy should consider itself as invulnerable on sea.”¹⁸

On the issue of navigation safety, the Company agreed that it would be desirable to harmonize with the international convention the provisions of legislation adopted or proposed in various countries to ensure the navigation safety, specifying only that the convention should relate exclusively to passenger ships. However, the Society considered that the convention should take into account of almost everything relating to the safety of the vessel: seaworthiness, engines and boilers, deck cargo and ballast, boats and lifejackets, navigation aids, wireless telegraph, number and physical condition of crew and passengers, medical services, sleeping and other accommodation for crew, passengers and emigrants, ship inspection and the legal and administrative action arising out of it.

In the period of its participation at the CMI, the Russian Society of Maritime Law has also been involved in discussions on conflict of laws issues in maritime shipping, limitations on shipowners’ liability (including property damage, loss of life and personal injury), mortgage and maritime lien issues, as well as the draft international chartering code.

After the 1917 Revolution, work at the CMI of the Russian Society of Maritime Law was discontinued, the society itself also terminated its activity.

4. The outcome of the work of the Russian Society of Maritime Law during its short existence. Personalities

For the period of its existence, the Russian Society of Maritime Law has brought together like-minded, eminent experts in the law of the sea.

The Society was headed by Sergei Vasilievich Rukhlov, a lawyer and member of the State Council, from the beginning. He began his career as an ordinary official in the Ministry of the Interior Affairs but was eventually promoted to Secretary of State of the State Council and then to a full Privy Counsellor. From 1903 to 1905 he served as assistant (or comrade, as it was then called) of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, Chief Superintendent of Merchant Shipping and Ports. From 1909, Rukhlov accepted the post of Minister of Railways and concentrated on the problems of Russia’s railways.

Since 1910 the Society’s president has been Georgy Georgievich (Egor Egorovich) Steblin-Kamensky, also a Privy Councillor, director of the Chancellery of the Maritime Ministry, senator in the Heraldry Department and the Judicial Department of the Governing Senate.

From the outset, the Society was joined by Joseph Ivanovich Karnitsky, a lawyer, senator, actual Privy Councillor, who had spent many years working on the drafting commission for the Civil Code and had also written reports for the Law Society of Saint Petersburg University.

Among the members of the Russian Society of Maritime Law, there was Mikhail Mikhailovich Benislavsky, director of the Russian East Asian Shipping Company. An ardent patriot, he rendered every assistance in transportation to the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the War Ministry during the rebellions and especially during the Russo-Japanese War, helped to develop trade relations with America and the Far East and eventually made both the Voluntary Fleet and foreign steamship companies taking into account the activity of the Russian Steamship Society.

Unfortunately, a complete list of members of the Russian Society of Maritime Law is not easy to recover. Neither is it easy to find the minutes of the meetings. In the historical archives of Saint Petersburg there are no files connected with the activities of this society. Some information on the Society of Maritime Law can be found in the Russian National Library, for example, there may be found its Charter published in 1911 by order of the Main Administration of Merchant Shipping and Ports (this when the Administration had not existed for six years already!). Unexpectedly, the minutes of the Society’s meeting are found in the Central Naval Archives... in the files of the Naval Excursion Committee! The seal of the Society with the Russian flag, the imperial crown and an anchor is put up for auction in 2022. However, the seller knows nothing regarding the Society itself during the Russo-Japanese War. The seal came to him by chance.

The problem with the search for documents may be partly due to the fact that Alexander Mikhailovich, who was the Chief Administrator of Merchant Shipping and Ports and approved the Society in May 1905, had already resigned in October (the Administration itself was immediately transferred to the Ministry of Finance and turned from an independent organisation into a department). Therefore, there is no information regarding the Society in the Department’s case files, nor in those of the Ministry of Finance, which, in fact, had no relation to the Society. Perhaps, since the Society dealt with the issues put before it by the CMI, information on it should be sought in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is located in Moscow.

This article has been prepared on the basis of information which has been found in Saint Petersburg archives and libraries, as well as in the minutes of meetings of the CMI. However, the search continues, and hopefully that in the near future it will be possible to cover the work of the Russian Society of Maritime Law in more detail. ■

Notes