Dogger Bank Incident (1904)

Tobias H Irmscher

Content type: Encyclopedia entries

Product: Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law
[MPIL]
Module: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International
Law [MPEPIL]
Article last updated: December 2006

Subject(s):
Diplomacy and consular relations — Responsibility of states — Reparations — Reparation — Warfare, sea
— Armed attack
Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International
Law under the direction of Professor Anne Peters (2021–) and Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum (2004–2020). 

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Subscriber: Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University; date: 17 September 2022
 A.  The Incident
1  On the night of 21 to 22 October 1904, the Russian Baltic Sea Fleet, while on its way to
the Far East for deployment in the Russo-Japanese War, encountered some 30 British
trawlers fishing in the → North Sea off Hull in the area of the Dogger Bank (→ Russia;
→ Baltic Sea; → Warships; → Fishing Boats). The last squadron of the fleet under
Commander-in-Chief Admiral Rozhdestvensky suspected it was being attacked by Japanese
torpedo boats and opened fire. The fire lasted some ten minutes and led to the death of two
British fishermen and injuries to six others; one of the trawlers sank, five others were
damaged to varying degrees, as was one Russian warship. The Russians continued their
journey with unreduced speed and without offering any help to the fishermen or informing
British authorities.

2  According to Russia, two unidentified vessels, which were hiding among the fishing boats
and had displayed no lights whatsoever, had approached the flagship at a high speed; in
view of the rumours and the (incorrect) reports of an attack on another Russian vessel, they
feared an imminent attack. The British government claimed that there had not been any
Japanese vessels and that the trawlers had shown all lights in accordance with international
regulations. The incident was seen as a deliberate attack on a neutral power and caused
public indignation in the United Kingdom (‘UK’), particularly in view of two prior incidents
involving unjustified action taken by Russian naval forces against British commercial
vessels and Britain’s alliance with Japan (→ Neutral Nationals; → Neutrality in Naval
Warfare). The British Foreign Office requested a full apology, full reparation, and the
punishment of those responsible for the attack as well as assurances of non-repetition
(→ Reparations; see also → State Responsibility).

B.  The Commission of Inquiry

3  The Russian Tsar immediately offered his deep regrets and payment of → compensation
once the circumstances of the incident had been clarified. The British government, however,
demanded an immediate and full inquiry and the punishment of the responsible officers. It
was said that if the Russian Fleet did not call at the next port and allow for a full
investigation, the UK might go to war against Russia.

4  Prompted by the → good offices of France, the two parties agreed on the institution of an
international inquiry as provided for in Arts. 9 to 14 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific
Settlement of International Disputes (‘1899 Hague Convention I’; → Hague Peace
Conferences [1899 and 1907]). Subsequent negotiations centred on whether the
commission of inquiry would decide on the individual responsibility of the respective
officers (→ Negotiation; → Individuals in International Law). Russia objected, claiming that
this was contrary to the restricted tasks that a commission of inquiry could perform under
the 1899 Hague Convention I. However, following British insistence, the parties agreed, in a
declaration signed at St Petersburg on 25 November 1904, on the details of the inquiry and
the commission’s terms of reference (Art. 2), which were to inquire into and report ‘on all
the circumstances relative to the North Sea incident, and particularly on the question as to
where the responsibility lies and the degree of blame attaching to’ any person involved
(→ Fact-Finding).

5  The commission, which sat in Paris, was composed of five senior naval officers—from
each of the two parties, France, the United States, and Austria-Hungary—and
complemented by two legal assessors. It spent considerable time discussing procedural

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Subscriber: Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University; date: 17 September 2022
 aspects and heard the parties’ agents and some 30 witnesses before drafting its final
report, which was read out in public on 26 February 1905.

C.  The Inquiry Report

6  The commission of inquiry found that Admiral Rozhdestvensky had ordered the opening
of fire after the lookout men had informed him of two suspicious vessels without lights and
he was, therefore, responsible for the firing. It held—with the Russian commissioner
dissenting—that no torpedo boats had been present among the trawlers or anywhere in the
area and, consequently, the opening of fire was not justifiable. The two suspicious-looking
vessels could have actually belonged to the previous squadron of the Russian Fleet.

7  The commission of inquiry further stated that Admiral Rozhdestvensky had, nevertheless,
taken utmost care to prevent trawlers recognized as such from being fired upon and that it
was reasonable for the fleet to have continued its journey under these circumstances. The
majority deplored the fact that the competent authorities were not informed following the
incident. The commissioners added, however, that their findings were not ‘of a nature to
cast any discredit upon the military qualities or the humanity of Admiral Rozhdestvensky’ or
his staff.

8  The report was accepted by both parties and, given the finding of Russia’s responsibility
and the consequential obligation to make reparations, Russia paid £65,000 in compensation
to the UK, which no longer requested punishment of the responsible officers.

D.  Evaluation
9  The inquiry represented the first use of the international inquiry mechanism provided for
in the 1899 Hague Convention I as a true innovation. It managed to settle successfully a
sensitive international dispute—which might have lead to much greater repercussions in
view of British threats to go to war—by establishing the facts and factual aspects of
responsibility and thereby easing considerable tension and public indignation. The report
proved to be acceptable for both parties and thus provided a durable basis for a peaceful
settlement of the conflict arising from the incident.

10  The inquiry contributed significantly to the development of inquiry as a means for the
→ peaceful settlement of international disputes. And yet it went beyond the limits of the
1899 Hague Convention I: in particular, the express restriction in Art. 9 1899 Hague
Convention I was disregarded, according to which inquiry was recommended only ‘in
differences of an international nature involving neither honour nor vital interests’. While
the dispute as depicted in the public certainly concerned → vital interests and questions of
honour, no clash of policy was at issue. Moreover, in this specific case, Russia was
presumably only willing to accept an international inquiry and not → arbitration.
Nevertheless, the commission of inquiry was not merely requested to establish facts; it was
also required to assess individual responsibility and apportion ‘blame’. Yet, the report is
rather reluctant in that respect and its legal significance in that regard may be doubtful.
The inquiry demonstrates that a strict distinction between legal and factual points is very
difficult and presumably would not, in any event, have helped achieve an effective
settlement of the dispute. The inquiry also illustrated how the lack of pre-existing rules of
procedure meant a considerable delay in the procedure: the commission of inquiry devoted
ten meetings to their procedure before dealing with the actual subject-matter. With this in
mind, the drafters of the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes expanded the number of articles relating to international inquiries from 6 to 28

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Subscriber: Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University; date: 17 September 2022
 (Arts 9–36) to provide more detailed rules on the organization and procedure of
international commissions of inquiry.

Select Bibliography
N Bar-Yaacov, The Handling of International Disputes by Means of Inquiry (OUP
London 1974).
RN Lebow ‘Accident and Crises: The Dogger Bank Affair’ (1978) 31 NavalWarCollRev
66–75.
JG Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (3rd ed CUP Cambridge 1998).
JG Merrills ‘International Commission of Inquiry—Incident in the North Sea (The
Dogger Bank Case)’, in P Hamilton and others (eds), The Permanent Court of
Arbitration: International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (Kluwer The Hague
1999) 297–302.

Select Documents
‘Correspondance et documents concernant l’incident dans la Mer du Nord—Affaire
Hull—du 23 octobre 1904 au 24 février 1905’, in F Stoerk (ed) Martens Nouveau
Recueil Général de traités et autres actes relatifs aux rapports de droit international
(Librairie Dieterich Leipzig 1906) series II vol 33, 641.
‘Finding of the International Commission of Inquiry Organized under Article 9 of the
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, of July 29,
1899’ (1908) 2 AJIL 929.
Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 1899 (adopted
29 July 1899, entered into force 4 September 1900) (1898–99) 187 CTS 410.
Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 1907 (adopted
18 October 1907, entered into force 26 January 1910) (1907) 205 CTS 233.
North Sea or Dogger Bank Case (Great Britain v Russia) (1905) Scott Hague Court
Rep 403.

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Subscriber: Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University; date: 17 September 2022