International Law. A Treatise. Volume 2 (of 2) / War and Neutrality. Second Edition

§ 206b. According to article 7, in case of a fight on board a man-of-war, the sick-bays must, as far as possible, be respected and spared. These sick-bays, and the material belonging to them, remain subject to the laws of war; they may not, however, be used for any purpose other than that for which they were originally intended so long as they are required for the wounded and sick. But should the military situation require it, a commander into whose power they have fallen may nevertheless apply them to other purposes, under the condition that he previously makes arrangements for proper accommodation for the wounded and sick on board. The protection to which sick-bays are entitled ceases if they are made use of to commit acts harmful to the enemy (article 8). But the fact that the staff of sick-bays is armed in order to defend the wounded and sick is not sufficient reason for withdrawing protection.

§ 207. All military hospital ships must be painted white outside with a horizontal band of green about one metre and a half in breadth. Other hospital ships must also be painted white outside, but with a horizontal band of red. The boats and small craft of hospital ships used for hospital work must likewise be painted white. And besides being painted in this distinguishing colour, all military and other hospital ships (article 5) must hoist, together with their national flag, the white flag with a red cross stipulated by the Geneva Convention. If they belong to a neutral State, they must also fly at the main mast the national flag of the belligerent under whose control they are placed. Hospital ships which, under the terms of article 4, are detained by the enemy, must haul down the national flag of the belligerent to whom they belong. All hospital ships which wish to ensure by night the freedom from interference to which they are entitled, must, subject to the assent of the belligerent they are accompanying, take the necessary measures to render their special painting sufficiently plain. According to article 6 the distinguishing signs mentioned in article 5 may only be used, whether in time of peace or war, for protecting or indicating the ships therein mentioned.

Although in this connection the red cross is especially stipulated as the distinctive emblem, there is no objection to the use by non-Christian States, who object to the cross on religious grounds, of another emblem. Thus Turkey reserved the right to use a red crescent, and Persia to use a red sun.

§ 208. A distinction must be made between neutral men-of-war and private vessels assisting the sick, wounded, and shipwrecked.

(1) If men-of-war take on board wounded, sick, or shipwrecked persons, precaution must be taken, so far as possible, that they do not again take part in the operations of war (article 13). Such individuals must not, however, be handed over to the adversary but must be detained till the end of the war.[416]

(2) Neutral merchantmen,[417] yachts, or boats which have of their own accord rescued sick, wounded, or shipwrecked men, or who have taken such men on board at the appeal of the belligerent, must, according to article 9, enjoy special protection and certain immunities. In no case may they be captured for the sole reason of having such persons on board. But, subject to any undertaking that may have been given to them, they remain liable to capture for any violation of neutrality they may have committed.

It must be specially observed that, according to article 12, any man-of-war of either belligerent may demand from merchant ships, yachts, and boats, whatever the nationality of such vessels, the surrender of the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked who are on board.

According to the reservation of Great Britain, mentioned above in § 206, article 12 is understood "to apply only to the case of combatants rescued during or after a naval engagement in which they have taken part."

§ 209. The religious, medical, and hospital staff of any captured vessel is inviolable, and the members may not be made prisoners of war, but they must continue to discharge their duties while necessary. If they do this, the belligerent into whose hands they have fallen has to give them the same allowances and the same pay as are granted to persons holding the same rank in his own navy. They may leave the ship, when the commander-in-chief considers it possible, and on leaving they are allowed to take with them all surgical articles and instruments which are their private property (article 10).

§ 209a. The provisions of Convention X. are only binding in the case of war between contracting Powers, they cease to be binding the moment a non-contracting Power becomes one of the belligerents (article 18). In the case of operations of war between land and sea forces of belligerents, the provisions of Convention X. only apply to forces on board ship (article 22). The commanders-in-chief of the belligerent fleets must, in accordance with the instructions of their Governments and in conformity with the general principles of the Convention, arrange the details for carrying out the articles of Convention X., as well as for cases not provided for in these articles (article 19). The contracting parties must take the necessary measures to instruct their naval forces, especially the personnel protected by Convention X., in the provisions of the Convention, and to bring these provisions to the notice of the public (article 20). The contracting Powers must, in case their criminal laws are inadequate, enact measures necessary for checking, in time of war, individual acts of pillage or maltreatment of the wounded and sick in the fleet, as well as for punishing, as unjustifiable adoption of military or naval marks, the unauthorised use of the distinctive signs mentioned in article 5 on the part of vessels not protected by the present Convention; they must communicate to each other, through the Dutch Government, the enactments for preventing such acts at the latest within five years of the ratification of Convention X.[418] (article 21).

§ 209b. Convention X. comes into force sixty days after ratification or accession on the part of each Power concerned (article 26). It replaces the Convention of 1899 for the adaptation to naval warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention, but this latter Convention remains in force between such of its contracting parties as do not become parties to Convention X. (article 25). Such non-signatory Powers of Convention X. as are parties to the Geneva Convention of 1906 are free to accede at any time, and a Power desiring to accede must notify its intention in writing to the Dutch Government which must communicate the accession to all the contracting Powers (article 24). Each of the contracting Powers is at any time at liberty to denounce Convention X. by a written notification to the Dutch Government which must immediately communicate the notification to all the other contracting Powers; the denunciation, however, does not take effect until one year after the notification has reached the Dutch Government, and a denunciation only affects the Power making the notification (article 27). A register kept by the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs must record the dates of the deposit of ratifications, as well as the dates of accessions or of denunciations; each contracting Power is entitled to have access to this register and to be supplied with duly certified extracts from it (article 28).

VI ESPIONAGE, TREASON, RUSES

See, besides the literature quoted above at the commencement of §§ 159 and 163, Pradier-Fodéré, VIII. No. 3157, and Bentwich in The Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Series, X. (1909), pp. 243-249.

§ 210. Espionage[419] and treason do not play as large a part in sea warfare as in land warfare;[420] still they may be made use of by belligerents. But it must be specially observed that, since the Hague Regulations deal only with land warfare, the legal necessity of trying a spy by court-martial according to article 30 of these Regulations does not exist for sea warfare, although such trial by court-martial is advisable.

§ 211. Ruses are customarily allowed in sea warfare within the same limits as in land warfare, perfidy being excluded. As regards the use of a false flag, it is by most publicists considered perfectly lawful for a man-of-war to use a neutral's or the enemy's flag (1) when chasing an enemy vessel, (2) when trying to escape, and (3) for the purpose of drawing an enemy vessel into action.[421] On the other hand, it is universally agreed that immediately before an attack a vessel must fly her national flag. Halleck (I. p. 568) relates the following instance: In 1783 the Sybille, a French frigate of thirty-eight guns, enticed the British man-of-war Hussar by displaying the British flag and intimating herself to be a distressed prize of a British captor. The Hussar approached to succour her, but the latter at once attacked the Hussar without showing the French flag. She was, however, overpowered and captured, and the commander of the Hussar publicly broke the sword of the commander of the Sybille, whom he justly accused of perfidy, although the French commander was acquitted when subsequently brought to trial by the French Government. Again, Halleck (I. p. 568) relates: In 1813 two merchants of New York carried out a plan for destroying the British man-of-war Ramillies in the following way. A schooner with some casks of flour on deck was expressly laden with several casks of gunpowder having trains leading from a species of gunlock, which, by the action of clockwork, went off at a given time after it had been set. To entice the Ramillies to seize her, the schooner came up, and the Ramillies then sent a boat with thirteen men and a lieutenant to cut her off. Subsequently the crew of the schooner abandoned her and she blew up with the lieutenant and his men on board.

Vattel (III. § 178) relates the following case of perfidy: In 1755, during war between Great Britain and France, a British man-of-war appeared off Calais, made signals of distress for the purpose of soliciting French vessels to approach to her succour, and seized a sloop and some sailors who came to bring her help. Vattel is himself not certain whether this case is a fact or fiction. But be that as it may, there is no doubt that, if the case be true, it is an example of perfidy, which is not allowed.

VII REQUISITIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, BOMBARDMENT

Hall, § 140*—Lawrence, § 204—Westlake, II. pp. 315-318—Moore, VII. §§ 1166-1174—Taylor, § 499—Bonfils, Nos. 1277-12771—Despagnet, Nos. 618-618 bis—Fiore, Code, Nos. 1633-1642—Pradier-Fodéré, VIII. Nos. 3153-3154—Nys, III. pp. 430-432—Pillet, p. 117—Perels, § 35, p. 181—Holland, Studies, pp. 96-111—Dupuis, Nos. 67-73, and Guerre, Nos. 42-47—Barclay, Problems, p. 51—Higgins, pp. 352-357—Lémonon, pp. 503-525—Bernsten, § 7, III.—Boidin, pp. 201-215—Nippold, II. § 28—Scott, Conferences, pp. 587-598, and in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 285-294.

§ 212. No case has to my knowledge occurred in Europe[422] of requisitions or contributions imposed by naval forces upon enemy coast towns. The question whether or not such requisitions and contributions would be lawful became of interest through an article on naval warfare of the future, published in 1882 by the French Admiral Aube in the Revue des Deux Mondes (vol. 50, p. 331). Aube pointed out that one of the tasks of the fleet in sea warfare of the future would be to attack and destroy by bombardment fortified and unfortified military and commercial enemy coast towns, or at least to compel them mercilessly to requisitions and contributions. As during the British naval manœuvres of 1888 and 1889 imaginary contributions were imposed upon several coast towns, Hall (§ 140*) took into consideration the question under what conditions requisitions and contributions would be lawful in sea warfare. He concluded, after careful consideration and starting from the principles regarding requisitions and contributions in land warfare, that such requisitions and contributions may be levied, provided a force is landed which actually takes possession of the respective coast town and establishes itself there, although only temporarily, until the imposed requisitions and contributions have been complied with; that, however, no requisitions or contributions could be demanded by a single message sent on shore under threatened penalty of bombardment in case of refusal. There is no doubt that Hall's arguments are, logically, correct; but it was not at all certain that the naval Powers would adopt them, since neither the Institute of International Law nor the U.S. Naval War Code had done so.[423] The Second Hague Peace Conference has now settled the matter through the Convention (IX.) concerning bombardment by naval forces in time of war which amongst its thirteen articles includes two—3 and 4—dealing with requisitions and contributions. This Convention has been signed, although with some reservations, by all the Powers represented at the Conference except Spain, China, and Nicaragua, but China and Nicaragua acceded later. Many States have already ratified.

According to article 3 undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or other buildings may be bombarded by a naval force, if the local authorities, on a formal summons being made to them, decline to comply with requisitions for provisions or supplies necessary for the immediate use of the naval force concerned. These requisitions must be proportional to the resources of the place; they can only be demanded by the commander of the naval force concerned; they must be paid for in cash, and, if this is not possible for want of sufficient ready money, their receipt must be acknowledged.

As regards contributions, Convention IX. does not directly forbid the demand for them, but article 4 expressly forbids bombardment of undefended places by a naval force on account of non-payment of money contributions; in practice, therefore, the demand for contributions will not occur in naval warfare.

§ 213. There is no doubt whatever that enemy coast towns which are defended may be bombarded by naval forces, acting either independently or in co-operation with a besieging army. But before the Second Peace Conference of 1907 the question was not settled as to whether or not open and undefended coast places might be bombarded by naval forces. The Institute of International Law in 1895, at its meeting at Cambridge, appointed a committee to investigate the matter. The report[424] of this committee, drafted by Professor Holland with the approval of the Dutch General Den Beer Portugael, and presented in 1896 at the meeting at Venice,[425] is of such interest that it is advisable to reproduce here a translation of the following chief parts:—

When the Prince de Joinville recommended in 1844, in case of war, the devastation of the great commercial towns of England, the Duke of Wellington wrote:—"What but the inordinate desire of popularity could have induced a man in his station to write and publish such a production, an invitation and provocation to war, to be carried on in a manner such as has been disclaimed by the civilised portions of mankind?" (Raikes, Correspondence, p. 367). The opinion of the Prince de Joinville has been taken up by Admiral Aube in an article which appeared in the Revue des Deux Mondes in 1882. After having remarked that the ultimate object of war is to inflict the greatest possible damage to the enemy and that "La richesse est le nerf de la guerre," he goes on as follows:—"Tout ce qui frappe l'ennemi dans sa richesse devient non seulement légitime, mais s'impose comme obligatoire. Il faut donc s'attendre à voir les flottes cuirassées, maîtresses de la mer, tourner leur puissance d'attaque et déstruction, à défaut d'adversaires se dérobant à leurs coups, contre toutes les villes du littoral, fortifiées ou non, pacifiques ou guerrières, les incendier, les ruiner, et tout au moins les rançonner sans merci. Cela s'est fait autrefois; cela ne se fait plus; cela se fera encore: Strasbourg et Péronne en sont garants...."

The discussion was opened again in 1888, on the occasion of manœuvres executed by the British Fleet, the enemy part of which feigned to hold to ransom, under the threat of bombardment, great commercial towns, such as Liverpool, and to cause unnecessary devastation to pleasure towns and bathing-places, such as Folkestone, through throwing bombs. One of your reporters observed in a series of letters addressed to the Times that such acts are contrary to the rules of International Law as well as to the practice of the present century. He maintained that bombardment of an open town ought to be allowed only for the purpose of obtaining requisitions in kind necessary for the enemy fleet and contributions instead of requisitions, further by the way of reprisal, and in case the town defends itself against occupation by enemy troops approaching on land.... Most of the admirals and naval officers of England who took part in the lively correspondence which arose in the Times and other journals during the months of August and September 1880 took up a contrary attitude....

On the basis of this report the Institute, at the same meeting, adopted a body of rules regarding the bombardment of open towns by naval forces, declaring that the rules of the law of war concerning bombardment are the same in the case of land warfare and sea warfare. Of special interest are articles 4 and 5 of these rules, which run as follows:—

Article 4. In virtue of the general principles above, the bombardment by a naval force of an open town, that is to say one which is not defended by fortifications or by other means of attack or of resistance for immediate defence, or by detached forts situated in proximity, for example of the maximum distance of from four to ten kilometres, is inadmissible except in the following cases:—

(1) For the purpose of obtaining by requisitions or contributions what is necessary for the fleet. These requisitions or contributions must in every case remain within the limits prescribed by articles 56 and 58 of the Manual of the Institute.

(2) For the purpose of destroying sheds, military erections, depôts of war munitions, or of war vessels in a port. Further, an open town which defends itself against the entrance of troops or of disembarked marines can be bombarded for the purpose of protecting the disembarkation of the soldiers and of the marines, if the open town attempts to prevent it, and as an auxiliary measure of war to facilitate the result made by the troops and the disembarked marines, if the town defends itself. Bombardments of which the object is only to exact a ransom are specially forbidden, and, with the stronger reason, those which are intended only to bring about the submission of the country by the destruction, for which there is no other motive, of the peaceful inhabitants or of their property.

Article 5. An open town cannot be exposed to a bombardment for the only reasons:—

(a) That it is the capital of the State or the seat of the Government (but naturally these circumstances do not guarantee it in any way against a bombardment).

(b) That it is actually occupied by troops, or that it is ordinarily the garrison of troops of different arms intended to join the army in time of war.

The First Peace Conference did not settle the matter, but expressed the desire "that the proposal to settle the question of bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force may be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration." The Second Peace Conference, however, by Convention IX.—see above, § 212, p. 265—has provided detailed rules concerning all the points in question, and the following is now the law concerning bombardment by naval forces:—

(1) The bombardment of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or other buildings is under all circumstances and conditions prohibited (article 1). To define the term "undefended," article 1 expressly enacts that "a place cannot be bombarded solely because automatic submarine contact mines are anchored off the harbour," but Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan entered a reservation against this, since they correctly consider such a place to be "defended."

(2) Although undefended places themselves are exempt, nevertheless military works, military or naval establishments, depôts of arms or war material, workshops or plant which could be utilised for the needs of the hostile fleet or army, and men-of-war in the harbour of undefended places may be bombarded. And no responsibility is incurred for any unavoidable damage caused thereby to the undefended place or its inhabitants. As a rule, however, the commander must, before resorting to bombardment of these works, ships, and the like, give warning to the local authorities so that they can destroy the works and vessels themselves. Only if, for military reasons, immediate action is necessary and no delay can be allowed to the enemy, may bombardment be resorted to without previous warning, the commander being compelled to take all due measures in order that the undefended place itself may suffer as little harm as possible (article 2).

The first case in which naval forces acted according to these rules occurred during the Turco-Italian war. On February 25, 1912, Admiral Faravelli, the commander of an Italian squadron, surprised, at dawn, the Turkish gunboat Awni-Illa and a torpedo-boat in the port of Beirut. These vessels were called upon to surrender, they were given until nine o'clock a.m. to comply with the demand, and the demand was communicated to the Governor and the Consular authorities. At nine o'clock the Turkish vessels were again, by signal, summoned to surrender, and as no reply was received, they were fired at and destroyed, but not without first having vigorously answered the fire of the Italians. Shells missing the vessels and bursting on the quay killed and wounded a number of individuals and damaged several buildings. The Turkish Government protested against this procedure as a violation of Convention IX. of the Second Peace Conference, but, provided the official report of Admiral Faravelli corresponds with the facts, the Turkish protest is unfounded.

(3) In case undefended places do not comply with legitimate requisitions, they likewise may be bombarded; see details above, § 212.

(4) In case of bombardments, all necessary steps must be taken to spare buildings devoted to public worship, art, science, or charitable purposes; historical monuments; hospitals, and places where the sick or wounded are collected, provided they are not at the time used for military purposes. To enable the attacking force to carry out this injunction, the privileged buildings, monuments, and places must be indicated by visible signs, which shall consist of large stiff rectangular panels, divided diagonally into two coloured triangular portions, the upper portion black, the lower portion white (article 5). Unless military exigencies render it impossible the commander of an attacking naval force must, before commencing the bombardment, do all in his power to warn the authorities (article 6).

(5) The giving over to pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is forbidden (article 7).

VIII INTERFERENCE WITH SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CABLES

Moore, VII. § 1176—Westlake, II. pp. 280-283—Liszt, § 41, III.—Bonfils, No. 1278—Pradier-Fodéré, VI. No. 2772—Fiore, III. No. 1387, and Code, Nos. 1650-1655—Perels, § 35, p. 185—Perdrix, Les câbles sousmarines et leur protection internationale (1902)—Kraemer, Die unterseeischen Telegraphenkabel in Kriegszeiten (1903)—Scholz, Krieg und Seekabel (1904)—Zuculin, I cavi sottomarini e il telegrafo senza fili nel diritto di guerra (1907)—Holland, in Journal de Droit International Privé et de la Jurisprudence comparée (Clunet), XXV. (1898), pp. 648-652, and War, No. 114—Goffin, in The Law Quarterly Review, XV. (1899), pp. 145-154—Bar, in the Archiv für Oeffentliches Recht, XV. (1900), pp. 414-421—Rey, in R.G. VIII. (1901), pp. 681-762—Dupuis, in R.G. X. (1903), pp. 532-547—Nordon in The Law Magazine and Review, XXXII. (1907), pp. 166-188. See also the literature quoted above, vol. I., at the commencement of § 286.

§ 214. As the "International Convention[426] for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables" of 1884 expressly stipulates by article 15 that freedom of action is reserved to belligerents, the question is not settled how far belligerents are entitled to interfere with submarine telegraph cables. The only conventional rule concerning this question is article 54 of the Hague Regulations, inserted by the Second Peace Conference, which enacts that submarine cables connecting occupied enemy territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed, and that, if a case of absolute necessity has compelled the occupant to seize or destroy such cable, it must be restored after the conclusion of peace and indemnities paid. There is no rule in existence which deals with other possible cases of seizure and destruction.

The Institute of International Law has studied the matter and adopted,[427] at its meeting at Brussels in 1902, the following five rules:—

(1) Le câble sousmarin reliant deux territoires neutres est inviolable.

(2) Le câble reliant les territoires de deux belligérants ou deux parties du territoire d'un des belligérants peut être coupé partout, excepté dans la mer territoriale et dans les eaux neutralisées dépendant d'un territoire neutre.

(3) Le câble reliant un territoire neutre au territoire d'un des belligérants ne peut en aucun cas être coupé dans la mer territoriale ou dans les eaux neutralisées dépendant d'un territoire neutre. En haute mer, ce câble ne peut être coupé que s'il y a blocus effectif et dans les limites de la ligne du blocus, sauf rétablissement du câble dans le plus bref délai possible. Le câble peut toujours être coupé sur le territoire et dans la mer territoriale dépendant d'un territoire ennemi jusqu'à d'une distance de trois milles marins de la laisse de basse-marée.

(4) Il est entendu que la liberté de l'État neutre de transmettre des dépêches n'implique pas la faculté d'en user ou d'en permettre l'usage manifestement pour prêter assistance à l'un des belligérants.

(5) En ce qui concerne l'application des règles précédentes, il n'y a de différence à établir ni entre les câbles d'État et les câbles appartenant à des particuliers, ni entre les câbles de propriété ennemie et ceux qui sont de propriété neutre.

The U.S. Naval War Code, article 5, laid down the following rules:—

(1) Submarine telegraphic cables between points in the territory of an enemy, or between the territory of the United States and that of an enemy, are subject to such treatment as the necessities of war may require.

(2) Submarine telegraphic cables between the territory of an enemy and neutral territory may be interrupted within the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy.

(3) Submarine telegraphic cables between two neutral territories shall be held inviolable and free from interruption.[428]

CHAPTER V NON-HOSTILE RELATIONS OF BELLIGERENTS

I ON NON-HOSTILE RELATIONS IN GENERAL BETWEEN BELLIGERENTS

Grotius, III. c. 19—Pufendorf, VIII. c. 7, §§ 1-2—Bynkershoek, Quaest. jur. publ. I. c. 1—Vattel, III. §§ 174-175—Hall, § 189—Lawrence, § 210—Phillimore, III. § 97—Halleck, I. pp. 310-311—Taylor, § 508—Wheaton, § 399—Bluntschli, § 679—Heffter, § 141—Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 525-527—Ullmann, § 185—Bonfils, Nos. 1237-1238—Despagnet, No. 555—Pradier-Fodéré, VII. Nos. 2882-2887—Rivier, II. p. 367—Calvo, IV. §§ 2411-2412—Fiore, III. No. 1482, and Code, Nos. 1721-1723—Martens, II. § 127—Longuet, §§ 134-135—Mérignhac, pp. 218-220—Pillet, pp. 355-356—Kriegsbrauch, p. 38—Land Warfare, §§ 221-223—Emanuel, Les conventions militaires dans la guerre continentale (1904).

§ 215. Although the outbreak of war between States as a rule brings non-hostile intercourse to an end, necessity of circumstances, convenience, humanity, and other factors call, or may call, some kinds of non-hostile relations of belligerents into existence. And it is a universally recognised principle of International Law that, where such relations arise, belligerents must carry them out in good faith. Fides etiam hosti servanda is a rule which was adhered to in antiquity, when no International Law in the modern sense of the term existed. But it had then a religious and moral sanction only. Since in modern times war is not a condition of anarchy and lawlessness between belligerents, but a contention in many respects regulated, restricted, and modified by law, it is obvious that, where non-hostile relations between belligerents occur, they are protected by law. Fides etiam hosti servanda is, therefore, a principle which nowadays enjoys as well a legal as a religious and moral sanction.

§ 216. As through the outbreak of war all diplomatic intercourse and other non-hostile relations come to an end, it is obvious that non-hostile relations between belligerents must originate either from special rules of International Law or from special agreements between the belligerents.

No special rules of International Law which demanded non-hostile relations between belligerents existed in former times, but of late a few rules of this kind have arisen. Thus, for instance, release on parole[429] of prisoners of war creates an obligation on the part of the enemy not to re-admit the individuals concerned into the forces while the war lasts. And, to give another example, by article 4 of the Geneva Convention of 1906, and article 14 of the Hague Regulations—see also article 17 of Convention X. of the Second Peace Conference—it is the duty of either belligerent to return to the enemy, by his prisoner-of-war bureau, all objects of personal use, letters, jewellery, and the like found on the battlefield or left by those who died in hospital.[430] Non-hostile relations of this kind, however, need not be considered in this chapter, since they have already been discussed on several previous pages.

Non-hostile relations originating from special agreements of belligerents, so-called commercia belli, may either be concluded in time of peace for the purpose of creating certain non-hostile relations between the parties in case war breaks out, or they may be concluded during the actual time of war. Such non-hostile relations are created through passports, safe-conducts, safeguards, flags of truce, cartels, capitulations, and armistices. Non-hostile relations can also be created by peace negotiations.[431] Each of these non-hostile relations must be discussed separately.

§ 217. Several writers[432] speak of non-hostile relations between belligerents created by licences to trade granted by a belligerent to enemy subjects either within certain limits or generally. It has been explained above, in § 101, that it is for Municipal Law to determine whether or not through the outbreak of war all trade and the like is prohibited between the subjects of belligerents. If the Municipal Law of one or both belligerents does contain such a prohibition, it is of course within the discretion of one or both of them to grant exceptional licences to trade to their own or the other belligerent's subjects, and such licences naturally include certain privileges. Thus, for instance, if a belligerent allows enemy subjects to trade with his own subjects, enemy merchantmen engaged in such trade are exempt from capture and appropriation by the grantor. Yet it is not International Law which creates this exemption, but the very licence to trade granted by the belligerent and revocable at any moment; and no non-hostile international relations between the belligerents themselves originate from such licences. The matter would be different if, either in time of peace for the time of war, or, during war, the belligerents agreed to allow certain trade between their subjects; but non-hostile relations originating from such an agreement would not be relations arising from a licence to trade, but from a cartel.[433]