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

§ 254. Since International Law is a law between States only and exclusively, no rules of International Law can exist which prohibit private individuals from taking up arms and committing hostilities against the enemy. But private individuals committing such acts do not enjoy the privileges of members of armed forces, and the enemy has according to a customary rule of International Law the right to consider and punish such individuals as war criminals. Hostilities in arms committed by private individuals are not war crimes because they really are violations of recognised rules regarding warfare, but because the enemy has the right to consider and punish them as acts of illegitimate warfare. The conflict between praiseworthy patriotism on the part of such individuals and the safety of the enemy troops does not allow of any solution. It would be unreasonable for International Law to impose upon belligerents the duty to forbid the taking up of arms by their private subjects, because such action may occasionally be of the greatest value to a belligerent, especially for the purpose of freeing a country from the enemy who has militarily occupied it. Nevertheless the safety of his troops compels the enemy to consider and punish such hostilities as acts of illegitimate warfare, and International Law gives him a right to do so.

It is usual to make a distinction between hostilities in arms on the part of private individuals against an invading or retiring enemy on the one hand, and, on the other, hostilities in arms committed on the part of the inhabitants against an enemy occupying a conquered territory. In the latter case one speaks of war rebellion, whether inhabitants take up arms singly or rise in a so-called levy en masse. Articles 1 and 2 of the Hague Regulations make the greatest possible concessions regarding hostilities committed by irregulars.[482] Beyond the limits of these concessions belligerents will never be able to go without the greatest danger to their troops.

It must be particularly noted that merchantmen of belligerents, which attack enemy vessels without previously having been attacked by them, commit a war crime,[483] and that the captains, officers, and members of the crews may, therefore, be punished as war criminals to the same extent as private individuals who commit hostilities in land warfare.

§ 255. Article 24 of the Hague Regulations now enacts the old customary rule that a belligerent has a right to employ all methods necessary to obtain information, and these methods include espionage and treason. But this right stands face to face with the right to consider and punish as war criminals enemy individuals, whether soldiers or not, committing acts of espionage or treason. There is an irreconcilable conflict between the necessity of obtaining information on the one hand, and self-preservation on the other; and accordingly espionage and treason, as has been explained above in § 159, bear a twofold character. On the one hand, International Law gives a right to belligerents to make use of espionage and treason. On the other hand, the same law gives a right to belligerents to consider espionage and treason, committed by enemy soldiers or enemy private individuals within their lines, as acts of illegitimate warfare, and consequently punishable.

Espionage has already been treated above in §§ 159-161. War treason may be committed in different ways. The following are the chief cases of war treason that may occur:—

(1) Information of any kind given to the enemy.

(2) Voluntary supply of money, provisions, ammunition, horses, clothing, and the like, to the enemy.

(3) Any voluntary assistance to military operations of the enemy, be it by serving as guide in the country, by opening the door of a defended habitation, by repairing a destroyed bridge, or otherwise.

(4) Attempt to induce soldiers to desert, to surrender, to serve as spies, and the like, and negotiating desertion, surrender, and espionage offered by soldiers.

(5) Attempt to bribe soldiers or officials in the interest of the enemy, and negotiating such bribe.

(6) Liberation of enemy prisoners of war.

(7) Conspiracy against the armed forces or against individual officers and members of them.

(8) Wrecking of military trains, destruction of the lines of communication or of the telegraphs or telephones in the interest of the enemy, and the destruction of any war material for the same purpose.

(9) Circulation of enemy proclamations dangerous to the interests of the belligerent concerned.

(10) Intentional false guidance of troops by a hired guide or by one who offered his services voluntarily.

(11) Rendering courier or similar services to the enemy.

It must be specially observed that enemy soldiers—in contradistinction to private enemy individuals—may only be punished for war treason when they have committed the act of treason during their stay within a belligerent's lines under disguise. If, for instance, two soldiers in uniform are sent into the rear of the enemy for the purpose of destroying a bridge, they may not, when caught by the enemy, be punished for war treason, because their act was one of legitimate warfare. But if they exchange their uniforms for plain clothes and thereby appear as members of the peaceful private population, they may be punished for war treason. A remarkable case of this kind occurred in the summer of 1904, during the Russo-Japanese War. Two Japanese disguised in Chinese clothes were caught in the attempt to destroy, with the aid of dynamite, a railway bridge in Manchuria, in the rear of the Russian forces. Brought before a court-martial, they confessed themselves to be Shozo Jakoga, forty-three years of age, a Major on the Japanese General Staff, and Teisuki Oki, thirty-one years of age, a Captain on the Japanese General Staff. They were convicted, and condemned to be hanged, but the mode of punishment was changed and they were shot. All the newspapers which mentioned this case reported it as a case of espionage, but it is in fact one of war treason. Although the two officers were in disguise, their conviction for espionage was impossible according to article 29 of the Hague Regulations, provided, of course, they were court-martialed for no other act than the attempt to destroy a bridge.

It must be particularly noted that there are many acts of inhabitants which a belligerent may forbid and punish in the interests of order and the safety of his army, although these acts do not fall under the category of war treason, and are not therefore punished as war crimes. To this class belong all acts which violate the orders legitimately decreed by an occupant of enemy territory.[484]

§ 256. Marauders are individuals roving either singly or collectively in bands over battlefields, or following advancing or retreating forces in quest of booty. They have nothing to do with warfare in the strict sense of the term, but they are an unavoidable accessory to warfare and frequently consist of soldiers who have left their corps. Their acts are considered acts of illegitimate warfare, and their punishment takes place in the interest of the safety of either belligerent.

§ 257. All war crimes may be punished with death, but belligerents may, of course, inflict a more lenient punishment, or commute a sentence of death into a more lenient penalty. If this be done and imprisonment take the place of capital punishment, the question arises whether such convicts must be released at the end of the war, although their term of imprisonment has not yet expired. Some publicists[485] answer this question in the affirmative, maintaining that it could never be lawful to inflict a penalty extending beyond the duration of the war. But I believe that the question has to be answered in the negative. If a belligerent has a right to pronounce a sentence of capital punishment, it is obvious that he may select a more lenient penalty and carry the latter out even beyond the duration of the war. And it would in no wise be in the interest of humanity to deny this right, for otherwise belligerents would have always to pronounce and carry out sentence of capital punishment in the interest of self-preservation.

V TAKING OF HOSTAGES

Hall, §§ 135 and 156—Taylor, § 525—Bluntschli, § 600—Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 475-477—Klüber, §§ 156 and 247—G. F. Martens, II. 277—Ullmann, § 183—Bonfils, Nos. 1145 and 1151—Pradier-Fodéré, VII. Nos. 2843-2848—Rivier, II. p. 302—Calvo, IV. §§ 2158-2160—Fiore, III. Nos. 1363-1364—Martens, II. § 119—Longuet, § 84—Bordwell, p. 305—Spaight, pp. 465-470—Kriegsbrauch, pp. 49, 50—Land Warfare, §§ 461-464.

§ 258. The practice of taking hostages as a means of securing legitimate warfare prevailed in former times much more than nowadays. It was frequently resorted to in cases in which belligerent forces depended more or less upon each other's good faith, such as capitulations and armistices for instance. To make sure that no perfidy was intended, officers or prominent private individuals were taken as hostages and could be held responsible with their lives for any perfidy committed by the enemy. This practice has totally disappeared, and is hardly likely to be revived. But this former practice must not be confounded with the still existing practice of seizing enemy individuals for the purpose of making them the object of reprisals. Thus, when in 1870, during the Franco-German War, Count Bismarck ordered forty French notables to be seized and to be taken away into captivity as a retaliation upon the French for refusing to liberate the crews of forty captured merchantmen, these forty French notables were not taken as hostages, but were made the object of reprisals.[486]

§ 259. A new practice of taking hostages was resorted to by the Germans in 1870 during the Franco-German War for the purpose of securing the safety of forces against possible hostile acts on the part of private inhabitants of occupied enemy territory. Well-known men were seized and detained in the expectation that the population would refrain from hostile acts out of regard for the fate of the hostages. Thus, when unknown people frequently wrecked the trains transporting troops, the Germans seized prominent enemy citizens and put them on the engines of trains to prevent the latter from being wrecked, a means which always proved effective and soon put a stop to further train-wrecking. The same practice was resorted to, although for a short time only, by Lord Roberts[487] in 1900 during the South African War. This practice has been condemned by the majority of publicists. But, with all due deference to the authority of so many prominent men who oppose the practice, I cannot agree with their opinion. Matters would be different if hostages were seized and exposed to dangers for the purpose of preventing legitimate hostilities on the part of members of the armed forces of the enemy.[488] But no one can deny that train-wrecking on occupied enemy territory by private enemy individuals is an act which a belligerent is justified in considering and punishing as war treason.[489] It is for the purpose of guarding against an act of illegitimate warfare that these hostages are put on the engines. The danger they are exposed to comes from their fellow-citizens, who are informed of the fact that hostages are on the engines and who ought therefore to refrain from wrecking the trains. It cannot, and will not, be denied that the measure is a harsh one, and that it makes individuals liable to suffer for acts for which they are not responsible. But the safety of his troops and lines of communication is at stake for the belligerent concerned, and I doubt, therefore, whether even the most humane commanders will be able to dispense with this measure, since it alone has proved effective. And it must further be taken into consideration that the amount of cruelty connected with it is no greater than in reprisals where also innocent individuals must suffer for illegitimate acts for which they are not responsible. And is it not more reasonable to prevent train-wrecking by putting hostages on the engines than to resort to reprisals for wreckage of trains? For there is no doubt that a belligerent is justified in resorting to reprisals[490] in each case of train-wrecking by private enemy individuals.[491]

VI COMPENSATION

Bonfils, No. 10261—Despagnet, No. 510 bis—Lémonon, pp. 344-346—Higgins, pp. 260-261—Scott, Conferences, p. 528—Nippold, II. § 24—Boidin, pp. 83-84—Spaight, p. 462—Holland, War, No. 19—Land Warfare, § 436.

§ 259a. There is no doubt that, if a belligerent can be made to pay compensation for all damage done by him in violating the laws of war, this will be an indirect means of securing legitimate warfare. In former times no rule existed which stipulated such compensation, although, of course, violation of the laws of war was always an international delinquency. On the contrary, it was an established customary rule[492] that claims for reparation of damages caused by violations of the rules of legitimate warfare could not be raised after the conclusion of peace, unless the contrary was expressly stipulated. It was not until the Second Hague Peace Conference that matters underwent a change. In revising the Convention concerning the laws and customs of war on land, besides other alterations, a new article (3) was adopted which enacts that a belligerent who violates the provisions of the Hague Regulations, shall, if the case demand, be liable to make compensation, and that he shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of his armed forces.

Attention should be drawn to the fact that Germany, on whose initiative this principle was adopted, proposed two articles concerning the matter, the one dealing with the payment of compensation for violations of the Hague Regulations with regard to subjects of neutral States,[493] and the other for violations of these Regulations with regard to enemy subjects. The conference, however, preferred to make no distinction between the different cases of violation but to adopt the general principle.

§ 259b. It is apparent that article 3 of Convention IV. enacts two different rules: firstly, that a belligerent who violates the Hague Regulations shall, if the case demand, pay compensation; and secondly, that a belligerent is responsible for all acts committed by any person forming part of his armed forces.

To take this second rule first, the responsibility of a State for internationally illegal acts on the part of members of its armed forces is, provided the acts have not been committed by the State's command or authorisation, only a vicarious responsibility, but nevertheless the State concerned must, as was pointed out above, Vol. I. § 163, pay damages for these acts when required. For this reason, article 3 does not create a new rule in so far as it enacts that belligerents must pay for damage caused by members of their forces.

On the other hand, the rule that compensation must be paid by belligerents for damage done through violations of the Hague Regulations, is a new rule, at any rate in so far as it is laid down in a general way. If interpreted according to the letter, article 3 of Convention IV. establishes the rule for payment of compensation for violations of the Hague Regulations only, and not for violations of other rules of International Law concerning land warfare or even concerning sea warfare. I have, however, no doubt that the Powers would recognise that the principle of article 3 must find application to any rule of the laws of war, if by the violation of such rule subjects of the enemy, or of neutral States, suffer damage. For instance, if the commander of a naval force, in contravention of Convention IX. of the Second Peace Conference, were to bombard an undefended place, compensation could be claimed for such subjects of the enemy and subjects of neutral States as suffered damage through the bombardment.

A point, however, to be kept in view is that article 3, although it establishes the obligation to pay compensation, does not stipulate anything concerning the time or the way in which claims for compensation are to be settled. This is clearly a case for arbitration, and it is to be hoped that the Third Peace Conference will make arbitration obligatory in cases of claims for compensation arising from violations, on the part of a belligerent, of the Hague Regulations as well as of other laws of war.

CHAPTER VII END OF WAR, AND POSTLIMINIUM

I ON TERMINATION OF WAR IN GENERAL

Hall, § 197—Lawrence, § 217—Phillimore, III. § 510—Taylor, § 580—Moore, VII. § 1163—Heffter, § 176—Kirchenheim in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 791-792—Ullmann, § 198—Bonfils, No. 1692—Despagnet, No. 605—Calvo, V. § 3115—Fiore, III. No. 1693—Martens, II. § 128—Longuet, § 155.

§ 260. The normal condition between two States being peace, war can never be more than a temporary condition; whatever may have been the cause or causes of a war, the latter cannot possibly last for ever. For either the purpose of war will be realised and one belligerent will be overpowered by the other, or both will sooner or later be so exhausted by their exertions that they will desist from the struggle. Nevertheless wars may last for many years, although of late European wars have gradually become shorter. The shortening of European wars in recent times has resulted from several causes, the more important of which are:—conscription, the foundation of the armies of all the great European Powers, Great Britain excepted; the net of railways which extends over all European countries, and which enables a much quicker transport of troops on enemy territory; and lastly, the vast numbers of the opposing forces which usually hasten a decisive battle.

§ 261. Be that as it may, a war may be terminated in three different ways. Belligerents may, first, abstain

from further acts of war and glide into peaceful relations without expressly making peace through a special treaty. Or, secondly, belligerents may formally establish the condition of peace through a special treaty of peace. Or, thirdly, a belligerent may end the war through subjugation of his adversary.[494]

II SIMPLE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES

Hall, § 203—Phillimore, III. § 511—Halleck, II. p. 468—Taylor, § 584—Bluntschli, § 700—Heffter, § 177—Kirchenheim in Holtzendorff, IV. p. 793—Ullmann, § 198—Bonfils, No. 1693—Despagnet, No. 605—Rivier, II. pp. 435-436—Calvo, V. § 3116—Fiore, III. No. 1693—Martens, II. § 128—Longuet, § 155—Mérignhac, p. 323—Pillet, p. 370.

§ 262. The regular modes of termination of war are treaties of peace or subjugation, but cases have occurred in which simple cessation of all acts of war on the part of both belligerents has actually and informally brought the war to an end. Thus ended in 1716 the war between Sweden and Poland, in 1720 the war between Spain and France, in 1801 the war between Russia and Persia, in 1867 the war between France and Mexico. And it may also be mentioned that, whereas the war between Prussia and several German States in 1866 came to an end through subjugation of some States and through treaties of peace with others, Prussia has never concluded a treaty of peace with the Principality of Lichtenstein, which was also a party to the war. Although such termination of war through simple cessation of hostilities is for many reasons inconvenient, and is, therefore, as a rule avoided, it may nevertheless in the future as in the past occasionally occur.

§ 263. Since in the case of termination of war through simple cessation of hostilities no treaty of peace embodies the conditions of peace between the former belligerents, the question arises whether the status which existed between the parties before the outbreak of war, the status quo ante bellum, should be revived, or the status which exists between the parties at the time when they simply ceased hostilities, the status quo post bellum (the uti possidetis), can be upheld. The majority of publicists[495] correctly maintain that the status which exists at the time of cessation of hostilities becomes silently recognised through such cessation, and is, therefore, the basis of the future relations of the parties. This question is of the greatest importance regarding enemy territory militarily occupied by a belligerent at the time hostilities cease. According to the correct opinion such territory can be annexed by the occupier, the adversary through the cessation of hostilities having dropped all rights he possessed over such territory. On the other hand, this termination of war through cessation of hostilities contains no decision regarding such claims of the parties as have not been settled by the actual position of affairs at the termination of hostilities, and it remains for the parties to settle them by special agreement or to let them stand over.

III SUBJUGATION

Vattel, III. §§ 199-203—Hall, §§ 204-205—Lawrence, § 77—Phillimore, III. § 512—Halleck, I. pp. 467-498—Taylor, §§ 220, 585-588—Moore, I. § 87—Walker, § 11—Wheaton, § 165—Bluntschli, §§ 287-289, 701-702—Heffter, § 178—Kirchenheim in Holtzendorff, IV. p. 792—Liszt, § 10—Ullmann, §§ 92, 97, and 197—Bonfils, Nos. 535 and 1694—Despagnet, Nos. 387-390, 605—Rivier, II. pp. 436-441—Calvo, V. §§ 3117-3118—Fiore, II. Nos. 863, III. No. 1693, and Code, Nos. 1078-1089—Martens. I. § 91, II. § 128—Longuet, § 155—Mérignhac, p. 324—Pillet, p. 371—Holtzendorff, Eroberung und Eroberungsrecht (1871)—Heimburger, Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit (1888), pp. 121-132—Westlake, in The Law Quarterly Review, XVII. (1901), p. 392.

§ 264. Subjugation must not be confounded with conquest, although there can be no subjugation without conquest. Conquest is taking possession of enemy territory by military force. Conquest is completed as soon as the territory concerned is effectively[496] occupied. Now it is obvious that conquest of a part of enemy territory has nothing to do with subjugation, because the enemy may well reconquer it. But even the conquest of the whole of the enemy territory need not necessarily include subjugation. For, first, in a war between more than two belligerents the troops of one of them may evacuate their country and join the army of allies, so that the armed contention is continued, although the territory of one of the allies is completely conquered. Again, a belligerent, although he has annihilated the forces, conquered the whole of the territory of his adversary, and thereby actually brought the armed contention to an end,[497] may nevertheless not choose to exterminate the enemy State by annexing the conquered territory, but may conclude a treaty of peace with the expelled or imprisoned head of the defeated State, re-establish the latter's Government, and hand the whole or a part of the conquered territory over to it. Subjugation takes place only when a belligerent, after having annihilated the forces and conquered the territory of his adversary, destroys his existence by annexing the conquered territory. Subjugation may, therefore, correctly be defined as extermination in war of one belligerent by another through annexation[498] of the former's territory after conquest, the enemy forces having been annihilated.[499]

§ 265. Although complete conquest, together with annihilation of the enemy forces, brings the armed contention, and thereby the war, actually to an end, the formal end of the war is thereby not yet realised, as everything depends upon the resolution of the victor regarding the fate of the vanquished State. If he be willing to re-establish the captive or expelled head of the vanquished State, it is a treaty of peace concluded with the latter which terminates the war. But if he desires to acquire the whole of the conquered territory for himself, he annexes it, and thereby formally ends the war through subjugation. That the expelled head of the vanquished State protests and keeps up his claims, matters as little eventually as protests on the part of neutral States. These protests may be of political importance for the future, legally they are of no importance at all.

History presents numerous instances of subjugation. Although no longer so frequent as in former times, subjugation is not at all of rare occurrence. Thus, modern Italy came into existence through the subjugation by Sardinia in 1859 of the Two Sicilies, the Grand Dukedom of Tuscany, the Dukedoms of Parma and Modena, and in 1870 the Papal States. Thus, further, Prussia subjugated in 1866 the Kingdom of Hanover, the Dukedom of Nassau, the Electorate of Hesse-Cassel, and the Free Town of Frankfort-on-the-Main. And Great Britain annexed in 1900 the Orange Free State and the South African Republic.[500]

IV TREATY OF PEACE

Grotius, III. c. 20—Vattel, IV. §§ 9-18—Phillimore, III. §§ 513-516—Halleck, I. pp. 306-324—Taylor, §§ 590-592—Moore, VII. § 1163—Wheaton, §§ 538-543—Bluntschli, §§ 703-707—Heffter, § 179—Kirchenheim in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 794-804—Ullmann, § 198—Bonfils, Nos. 1696-1697, 1703-1705—Despagnet, Nos. 606-611—Rivier, II. pp. 443-453—Nys, III. pp. 719-734—Calvo, V. §§ 3119-3136—Fiore, III. Nos. 1694-1700, and Code, Nos. 1931-1941—Martens, II. § 128—Longuet, §§ 156-164—Mérignhac, pp. 324-329—Pillet, pp. 372-375.

§ 266. Although occasionally war ends through simple cessation of hostilities, and although subjugation is not at all rare or irregular, the most frequent end of war is a treaty of peace. Many publicists correctly call a treaty of peace the normal mode of terminating war. On the one hand, simple cessation of hostilities is certainly an irregular mode. Subjugation, on the other hand, is in most cases either not within the scope of the intention of the victor or not realisable. And it is quite reasonable that a treaty of peace should be the normal end of war. States which are driven from disagreement to war will, sooner or later, when the fortune of war has given its decision, be convinced that the armed contention ought to be terminated. Thus a mutual understanding and agreement upon certain terms is the normal mode of ending the contention. And it is a treaty of peace which embodies such understanding.

§ 267. However, as the outbreak of war interrupts all regular non-hostile intercourse between belligerents, negotiations for peace are often difficult of initiation. Each party, although willing to negotiate, may have strong reasons for not opening negotiations. Good offices and mediation on the part of neutrals, therefore, always are of great importance, as thereby negotiations are called into existence which otherwise might have been long delayed. But it must be emphasised that neither formal nor informal peace negotiations do ipso facto bring hostilities to a standstill, although a partial or general armistice may be concluded for the purpose of such negotiations. The fact that peace negotiations are going on directly between belligerents does not create any non-hostile relations between them apart from those negotiations themselves. Such negotiations can take place by the exchange of letters between the belligerent Governments, or through special negotiators who may meet on neutral territory or on the territory of one of the belligerents. In case they meet on belligerent territory, the enemy negotiators are inviolable and must be treated on the same footing as bearers of flags of truce, if not as diplomatic envoys. For it can happen that a belligerent receives an enemy diplomatic envoy for the purpose of peace negotiations. Be that as it may, negotiations, wherever taking place and by whomsoever conducted, may always be broken off before an agreement is arrived at.

§ 268. Although ready to terminate the war through a treaty of peace, belligerents are frequently not able to settle all the terms of peace at once. In such cases hostilities are usually brought to an end through so-called preliminaries of peace, the definite treaty, which has to take the place of the preliminaries, being concluded later on. Such preliminaries are a treaty in themselves, embodying an agreement of the parties regarding such terms of peace as are essential. Preliminaries are as binding as any other treaty, and therefore they need ratification. Very often, but not necessarily, the definitive treaty of peace is concluded at a place other than that at which the preliminaries were settled. Thus, the war between Austria, France, and Sardinia was ended by the Preliminaries of Villafranca of July 11, 1859, yet the definitive treaty of peace was concluded at Zurich on November 10, 1859. The war between Austria and Prussia was ended by the Preliminaries of Nickolsburg of July 26, 1866, yet the definitive treaty of peace was concluded at Prague on August 23. In the Franco-German War the Preliminaries of Versailles of February 26, 1871, were the precursor of the definitive treaty of peace concluded at Frankfort on May 10, 1871.[501]