In some cases, ideas from the 1907 Hague Conventions were added.

It has proved to be one of the most successful of the Hague conventions.

Hague Conventions (1907) which expanded on the provisions of this declaration.

This is a phrase retained from the earlier Hague Conventions.

Still, the Hague conventions were among the first formal statements of the laws of war.

There are two other Hague Conventions relevant to international civil practice which are not examined here.

The occupying Soviet army issued its own military money according to the Hague Conventions.

The primary multilateral treaties governing such declarations are the Hague Conventions.

In his opinion, the Hague Conventions regulating irregular warfare has been "more a failure than success."

Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague conventions in order to be bound by them.

All nations pledged to follow the Hague Conventions on fair treatment of prisoners of war.

According to the Hague Conventions, after the end of a war a neutral power is not required to extradite warfighters to anyone.

All participants were supposed to abide by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 but this was found to be impracticable for submarines.

The dishonourable nature of this command was well established and had been so for over a century before the Hague Conventions of 1907.

This means going beyond the balance struck in the Hague Conventions while, at the same time, recognising their value in addressing international situations.

The Clause appears in a slightly modified form in the 1907 Hague conventions:

However, a month after the German invasion in 1941, an offer was made for a reciprocal adherence to the Hague Conventions.

This was in direct violation of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, which outlawed the use of chemical weapons.

The Hague Conventions, addressing the codes of wartime conduct on land and at sea, were adopted before the rise of air power.

Although there is much support for this increased lethality, some people consider this separation effect to be in breach of the Hague Conventions.

This move was technically justified on legal grounds according to the provisions of the Hague Conventions on the laws of war.

The Hague Conventions of 1907 explicitly prohibited the creation of military bases on the territory of neutral states.

Before this, Uluots had opposed Estonian mobilisation as illegal under the Hague Conventions.

The Hague Conventions of 1907 specify that "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

These were novelties in modern warfare and in violation of the Hague Conventions, to which Germany was a signatory.