## Facts

- During the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), Russia’s Baltic Fleet sailed toward the Far East amid repeated reports that Japanese torpedo boats might attempt night attacks and might use deception, including posing as civilian craft.
- Vice-Admiral Rozhestvensky ordered heightened night precautions for the squadron based on these reports and the general tension surrounding the voyage.
- On the night of Oct. 21–22, 1904, the Russian fleet encountered a group of British fishing trawlers working the Dogger Bank fishing grounds in the North Sea.
- The British trawlers were engaged in ordinary fishing activity and displayed lights consistent with the standard rules for fishing vessels.
- In the darkness and confusion, Russian personnel interpreted lights and movements near the fleet as signs of an imminent torpedo-boat attack; firing began and spread across multiple Russian ships.
- Russian gunfire struck British trawlers, killing two British fishermen, injuring others, sinking at least one trawler, and damaging several more; at least one Russian ship was also hit by fire from Russian vessels during the incident.
- The episode caused a serious diplomatic crisis. Great Britain demanded an apology, reparation, and action against those responsible; Russia denied hostile intent and resisted British demands to subject Russian officers to British jurisdiction.
- Through French good offices, Great Britain and Russia agreed in late 1904 (by the St. Petersburg agreement) to submit the matter to an International Commission of Inquiry under the 1899 Hague Convention framework associated with the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
- The Commission consisted of five admirals (from Great Britain, Russia, the United States, France, and Austria-Hungary), sat in Paris, took evidence, and issued its report on Feb. 26, 1905.
- The report (later reprinted in *The Hague Court Reports* at page 403) set out findings on what occurred and drew conclusions on responsibility that enabled a diplomatic settlement, including compensation paid to the fishermen.

## Issues

1. Whether Russia was internationally responsible for the firing by its naval forces on British trawlers on the high seas during wartime operations.
2. Whether a mistaken belief that hostile torpedo boats were present could justify or excuse the use of force against clearly civilian fishing vessels.
3. Whether, and to what extent, the conduct of Russian commanders and personnel warranted findings of fault beyond mere error.
4. What consequences should follow from the incident, including satisfaction and compensation, and whether the inquiry mechanism could or should impose individual punishment.

## Decision

- The Commission found that the British vessels involved were fishing trawlers engaged in peaceful activity and had committed no hostile act.
- The Commission found no adequate proof that Japanese torpedo boats were present among the trawlers; the Russian fire resulted from mistake and alarm rather than a real attack.
- The Commission concluded that the opening of fire on the trawlers was not justified by the objective situation and involved wrongful conduct attributable to Russia.
- The Commission expressed serious fault with aspects of Russian conduct connected to the incident (including the manner in which fire was opened and the failures associated with the episode), while treating the incident as arising from fear and misapprehension rather than intentional aggression against Great Britain.
- The Commission’s report did not operate as a criminal judgment and did not place Russian officers under British jurisdiction; discipline and any punitive steps were left to Russia’s internal processes.
- The responsibility findings supported diplomatic resolution. Russia later paid compensation (commonly reported as a lump sum of £66,000) to address the losses suffered by the British fishermen.

## Legal Principles

- A state is responsible under international law for wrongful acts committed by its naval forces, including attacks on foreign civilian vessels on the high seas that lack sufficient justification.
- Good-faith mistake and wartime anxiety may explain conduct, but they do not by themselves remove state responsibility when force is used against neutral civilian vessels without an adequate factual basis.
- Neutral civilian vessels engaged in ordinary commerce or fishing are entitled to protection from attack absent clear grounds under the law of war; a duty of care applies before treating such vessels as hostile.
- International commissions of inquiry under the Hague framework can resolve dangerous interstate disputes by establishing an authoritative account of facts and drawing conclusions on responsibility that enable settlement.
- Reparation for wrongful injury to foreign nationals and property may be satisfied through diplomatic measures, including apology or expressions of regret and monetary compensation.

## Conclusion

Although reprinted under the cited reporter reference, the Dogger Bank proceeding concerned Great Britain and Russia: an International Commission of Inquiry convened after Russian warships mistakenly fired on British trawlers in October 1904. The Commission rejected the claim that hostile torpedo boats were present, found the attack unjustified on the facts, attributed responsibility to Russia, and set the basis for a diplomatic settlement that included compensation, while leaving questions of individual punishment to Russia rather than a British court.


Great Britain v. France (The Dogger Bank Case), 2 Hague Ct. Rep. 403 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1916)