What If The Hague Conventions Never Existed?

The Actual History

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 represent landmark achievements in the development of international law governing armed conflict and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. They emerged from two international peace conferences held in The Hague, Netherlands, that were initially proposed by Russian Tsar Nicholas II.

The First Hague Peace Conference of 1899 brought together 26 nations to discuss disarmament, the laws of war, and mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Despite skepticism from major powers, the conference produced three main conventions: one on the peaceful settlement of international disputes, which established the Permanent Court of Arbitration (still functioning today); another dealing with the laws and customs of war on land; and a third adapting the Geneva Convention principles to maritime warfare. The conference also adopted three declarations prohibiting specific military technologies: the launching of projectiles from balloons, the use of asphyxiating gases, and the use of expanding bullets (dum-dum bullets).

The Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907, with 44 participating states, expanded upon the work of the first, resulting in thirteen conventions. These addressed issues such as the opening of hostilities, rights and duties of neutral powers, naval warfare, submarine mines, bombardment of undefended areas, and the conversion of merchant ships into warships. It also revised the 1899 conventions and extended the Geneva Convention principles to naval war.

The Hague Conventions established several enduring principles in international humanitarian law: the distinction between combatants and civilians, limitations on methods of warfare, protection of civilian property and cultural heritage, and the requirements for humane treatment of prisoners of war. They developed the concept that "the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited" – a foundational principle that shaped later developments in international humanitarian law.

While the Hague Conventions' effectiveness was severely tested during World War I, they nonetheless established critical legal precedent. After the war, violations of the laws and customs of war as defined in the Hague Conventions formed the basis for war crimes prosecutions. The influence of the Hague Conventions extended to subsequent legal developments, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, the establishment of international criminal tribunals, and the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration, established by the 1899 Convention, continues to function today as a forum for the resolution of international disputes. The Hague has subsequently become the home of numerous international legal institutions, including the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and specialized tribunals.

Despite limitations and violations throughout the years, the Hague Conventions represented the first major multilateral attempt to codify rules of warfare, protect civilians and prisoners, restrict particularly inhumane weapons, and establish permanent institutions for the peaceful resolution of international disputes – creating a foundation for modern international humanitarian law that continues to evolve into the present.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Hague Conventions never existed? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the international peace conferences of 1899 and 1907 never materialized, leaving the world without these crucial early codifications of the laws of war and mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution.

Several plausible divergences could have prevented these landmark conferences:

The most direct divergence centers on Tsar Nicholas II, who issued the initial call for the 1899 conference. Had Russia's domestic situation been more volatile in the late 1890s, perhaps with earlier manifestations of the revolutionary sentiments that would later erupt in 1905, the Tsar might have focused exclusively on internal concerns rather than international peace initiatives. Alternatively, had Finance Minister Sergei Witte (who supported the conference partly for economic reasons to limit arms races) not held such influence, Russian foreign policy might have taken a different direction.

Another potential divergence involves the great power politics of the era. If Anglo-German naval tensions had intensified earlier, or if the Fashoda Incident between Britain and France in 1898 had escalated into open conflict rather than diplomatic resolution, the major European powers might have been too entrenched in hostilities to participate in peace conferences.

A third possibility lies in the intellectual climate of the period. The peace movements that provided crucial support for the conferences might have remained more fragmented or less influential. Without the advocacy of figures like Bertha von Suttner (who influenced Alfred Nobel and corresponded with the Tsar) or the organized peace societies that flourished in the late 19th century, the political momentum for such conferences might never have materialized.

In any of these scenarios, the absence of the Hague Conferences would mean that the 20th century would begin without the first systematic attempts to codify modern laws of warfare, restrict particularly cruel weapons, protect noncombatants, and establish permanent mechanisms for international dispute resolution. The evolutionary development of international humanitarian law would lack its crucial foundation, and the international legal order would follow a radically different trajectory through the turbulent decades to come.

Immediate Aftermath

The Russo-Japanese War: Unrestrained Warfare

The absence of the Hague Conventions would have been first significantly felt during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Without the 1899 provisions regarding the laws and customs of war on land, prisoners of war, and maritime warfare, this conflict would have unfolded with fewer international legal constraints.

In our timeline, both Russia and Japan largely adhered to emerging norms of warfare, with Japan in particular seeking to demonstrate its "civilized" status to Western powers by following European customs of war. Japanese treatment of Russian prisoners was notably humane, contradicting racist Western expectations. Without the Hague framework, however, neither nation would have felt the same pressure to demonstrate compliance with codified international standards.

The treatment of prisoners might have been substantially harsher on both sides. Maritime warfare likely would have seen fewer restrictions on naval bombardment of coastal cities, potentially resulting in greater civilian casualties in Port Arthur and other contested areas. The absence of Hague provisions on submarine mines might have led to more indiscriminate mining of waters, endangering neutral shipping.

Arms Race Acceleration

Without the restrictions and forums for discussion provided by the Hague Conferences, the pre-World War I arms race would have likely intensified even beyond its historical pace. The conferences, while ultimately unsuccessful in achieving significant disarmament, did provide forums where powers nominally committed to arms limitation, creating at least some political cost for unchecked military expansion.

In this alternate timeline, the Anglo-German naval race would proceed without even these minimal restraining influences. Military budgets across Europe would grow even faster, with particularly destabilizing effects on already fragile economies like Russia's. The increased military spending might have accelerated the collapse of empires whose financial situations were already precarious.

New weapons technologies would face fewer international legal hurdles to deployment. The declarations against expanding bullets, asphyxiating gases, and dropping explosives from balloons (which, while not always followed in our timeline, did create normative barriers) would not exist, potentially leading to earlier and more widespread adoption of these technologies.

Diplomatic Relations: Missing Infrastructure

The most immediate diplomatic consequence would be the absence of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which was established by the 1899 Convention and began functioning in 1902. Several early international disputes resolved through this mechanism would have required alternative resolution methods or might have escalated further.

For example, the 1903-1905 arbitration between Japan and the Western powers over taxation rights in Japan, the 1908-1909 Casablanca Dispute between France and Germany, and the 1909 Grisbådarna case between Norway and Sweden all found peaceful resolution through the PCA machinery. Without this institution, these conflicts could have contributed to heightened international tensions in the already unstable pre-WWI period.

The absence of the Hague system would also mean the lack of standardized procedures for "good offices" and mediation that sometimes provided diplomatic off-ramps for escalating crises. President Theodore Roosevelt's mediation of the Russo-Japanese peace negotiations, which earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, might have proceeded differently without the Hague framework as a reference point.

International Law's Altered Trajectory

The development of international humanitarian law would have followed a starkly different path. The Geneva Convention of 1864 would remain the only significant codification of rules related to warfare, focused narrowly on the treatment of wounded soldiers on land. The broad principles established at The Hague regarding the conduct of hostilities, prohibited weapons, and protections for civilians would be absent from the legal landscape.

International law would remain more fully anchored in bilateral rather than multilateral arrangements. The Hague Conferences represented early experiments in inclusive multilateral lawmaking with participation from non-European powers including Siam (Thailand), Persia (Iran), China, Japan, Mexico, and various South American states. Without this precedent, international law might have remained more exclusively European in its development and application.

The absence of the Martens Clause, introduced at the 1899 Conference, would remove a crucial legal principle that extended humanitarian protections beyond explicitly codified rules. This clause, which stated that civilians and combatants remained under the protection of "principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience" even in cases not covered by specific agreements, provided an important safety net in international humanitarian law that would be absent in this alternate timeline.

Long-term Impact

World War I: Unleashed Brutality

The most profound immediate differences would manifest during World War I. Without the Hague Conventions' prohibitions and limitations, several aspects of the war would have been even more devastating than in our timeline:

Chemical Warfare Without Constraints

In our timeline, the use of poison gas by Germany at Ypres in 1915 was recognized as a violation of the 1899 Hague Declaration concerning asphyxiating gases. This violation carried diplomatic costs and contributed to Germany's characterization as a lawless aggressor. Without this legal barrier, chemical weapons would likely have been deployed earlier, more systematically, and with less international condemnation.

Chemical weapons development might have advanced more rapidly, with deadlier agents being deployed before 1918. Countermeasures like gas masks might still have evolved, but civilian populations would have fewer legal protections against deliberate chemical attacks on cities. The moral barrier to using these weapons would be significantly lower, potentially normalizing chemical warfare for future conflicts.

Aerial Bombardment Intensified

The prohibition on "the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons" would never have existed, removing even the nominal legal constraints on aerial bombardment. The Zeppelin raids on London and other cities might have been more extensive and less controversial in international opinion. The development of strategic bombing doctrine might have accelerated, with fewer legal or normative constraints on targeting civilian population centers.

Unrestricted Submarine Warfare

Germany's submarine warfare campaign would have proceeded without the added diplomatic complications of violating Hague principles regarding merchant vessels. The sinking of the Lusitania and other passenger ships would still have created outrage, especially in the United States, but Germany would not have faced accusations of violating established international law, potentially altering the diplomatic calculus around American entry into the war.

Civilian Protection Diminished

The Hague Convention's protections for civilians, prohibitions against pillage, and rules regarding occupied territories would be absent. While these rules were frequently violated in our timeline, they did provide a basis for criticism and sometimes constrained behavior. Without them, occupied Belgium and northern France might have experienced even harsher treatment, with fewer international legal grounds for neutral nations to object.

Interwar Period: Justice and Institutions Transformed

War Crimes Trials Without Precedent

The Leipzig War Crimes Trials after WWI, though largely ineffective, were based on violations of the Hague Conventions. Without this legal foundation, the concept of prosecuting individuals for violations of the laws of war would have developed differently, if at all. The legal precedent for the later Nuremberg and Tokyo trials would be substantially weaker.

In this alternate timeline, the post-WWI settlement might have focused exclusively on collective state responsibility rather than individual criminal accountability. The concept of "crimes against peace" and "crimes against humanity" might have emerged much later or taken different forms without the Hague framework as a starting point.

League of Nations: Different Foundations

The League of Nations would still likely have emerged from the aftermath of World War I, but its approach to dispute resolution would differ significantly. Without the Permanent Court of Arbitration as a precedent, the Permanent Court of International Justice (the League's judicial arm) might have been structured differently or faced greater opposition to its creation.

The League's mechanisms for peaceful settlement of disputes would lack the procedural precedents established by the Hague system. The absence of pre-existing models for international arbitration and mediation would require the League to develop these systems from scratch, potentially resulting in less effective mechanisms during the critical interwar period.

World War II and Its Aftermath: Humanitarian Law Reconfigured

WWII: Even Fewer Constraints

World War II, already characterized by massive violations of humanitarian principles, would have occurred in a world with even fewer established legal constraints on warfare. The narrative of the war as partly a conflict between law-abiding and lawless powers would be less pronounced without the established Hague framework that Hitler's Germany so flagrantly violated.

Aerial bombardment of cities, already devastating in our timeline, might have been even more extensive without the pre-existing debate about its legality under Hague principles. The absence of established protections for cultural property might have resulted in even less restraint regarding the destruction of cultural heritage.

Geneva Conventions Reimagined

The Geneva Conventions of 1949, which in our timeline built upon and expanded the Hague framework, would have developed differently. Without the Hague precedents regarding the conduct of hostilities, prohibited methods of warfare, and occupation law, the Geneva Conventions might have focused more narrowly on the protection of victims rather than establishing comprehensive rules for the conduct of warfare.

The legal distinction between jus in bello (how war is conducted) and jus ad bellum (when war is justified), partially established through the Hague system, would be less developed. This could have profoundly affected how later conflicts were understood legally and ethically.

Cold War and Beyond: Alternative Legal Order

Nuclear Weapons Discourse

The legal and ethical debate about nuclear weapons would have unfolded without reference to Hague principles regarding unnecessary suffering and indiscriminate weapons. While this might not have changed the development of nuclear arsenals, it would have altered the framework through which their legality and morality were discussed.

The 1996 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, which drew heavily on Hague principles, would have used different legal reasoning. The emerging concept of "weapons too inhumane to use" would lack an important historical foundation.

International Humanitarian Law Development

The Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977), which in our timeline explicitly combined Hague and Geneva law, would have developed along a different trajectory. The detailed rules regarding methods and means of warfare and protections for civilians during hostilities might have emerged later or in more limited form.

The development of customary international humanitarian law, which has relied heavily on the foundation provided by the Hague Conventions, would follow a different evolutionary path. Basic principles like distinction between civilians and combatants, prohibition of unnecessary suffering, and protection of civilian objects would still likely emerge, but their codification and acceptance might be delayed by decades.

Contemporary International Justice

The modern system of international justice would look markedly different. The International Criminal Court, whose Rome Statute incorporates many concepts descended from the Hague Conventions, might define war crimes more narrowly or emphasize different aspects of international criminal law.

The numerous international and hybrid criminal tribunals established since the 1990s, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, would have operated with a different legal heritage, potentially changing which acts were prosecuted and how.

The Hague: Not a Legal Capital

Without the Hague Conventions and the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague would likely not have developed into the international legal capital it is today. The International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and various specialized tribunals might have been established elsewhere, fundamentally altering the geography of international justice.

The Peace Palace, funded by Andrew Carnegie and now an iconic symbol of international law, would never have been built. The concentration of legal expertise, educational institutions, and NGOs that now characterize The Hague would be dispersed elsewhere or might not have developed in the same way.

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, international humanitarian law would still exist but would be less developed, less coherent, and potentially less effective. The legal infrastructure for addressing international disputes would have evolved through different patterns, potentially resulting in a more fragmented and less robust international legal order. The fundamental concepts of humanizing warfare and providing peaceful alternatives to conflict would still exist, but their institutional expressions would be dramatically transformed.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Helen Marston, Professor of International Humanitarian Law at Oxford University, offers this perspective: "The absence of the Hague Conventions would have created a fundamentally different trajectory for international humanitarian law. While the impulse to humanize warfare wouldn't have disappeared, it would likely have remained fragmented and less codified for much longer. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 would have had to shoulder the burden of establishing principles that, in our timeline, had already been developing for half a century. I believe we would have eventually arrived at similar principles regarding civilian protection and limits on methods of warfare, but the process would have been slower, more halting, and potentially required even more catastrophic conflicts to generate the necessary political will."

Professor James Chen, Chair of Diplomatic History at Princeton University, suggests a more structural analysis: "Without the Hague Conferences, the architecture of international dispute resolution would have developed quite differently. The Permanent Court of Arbitration provided a critical template for later institutions. Its absence would have made the creation of the Permanent Court of International Justice and later the International Court of Justice more difficult, requiring truly novel institutional design rather than modification of existing models. The Hague Conferences also represented an important transitional moment from European-dominated international law to a more global system, with non-Western powers like Japan, Siam, and Persia participating. Without this precedent, the Eurocentric nature of international law might have persisted longer, creating additional legitimacy challenges for international institutions into the 21st century."

Lieutenant General Maria Hernandez (Ret.), former military legal advisor to the United Nations, provides a military perspective: "From a military standpoint, the absence of the Hague framework would have profoundly affected operational law and military doctrine. The principle that 'the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited' provided a crucial foundation for military legal training and operational constraints. Without this early codification, military necessity might have remained the dominant consideration much longer, with humanitarian constraints developing more unevenly across different armed forces. The professional military's understanding of lawful orders and unlawful commands would have evolved differently, potentially with more divergence between nations regarding acceptable conduct in warfare. By 2025, I believe most professional militaries would still have developed constraints on warfare, but with less international standardization and potentially greater variances in implementation."