Letters To The Times Upon War And Neutrality, by Sir Thomas Erskine Holland.

A ship is regarded by international law as "piratical"[071] only if, upon the high seas, she either attacks other vessels, without being commissioned by any State so to do (nullius Principis auctoritate, as Bynkershoek puts it), or wrongfully displaces the authority of her own commander. The essence of the offence is absence of authority, although certain countries, for their own purposes, have, by treaty or legislation, given a wider meaning to the term, e.g., by applying it to the slave-trade. "Murder" is such slaying as is forbidden by the national law of the country which takes cognizance of it.

In ordering the conduct of which we complain, Germany commits an atrocious crime against humanity and public law; but those who, being duly commissioned, carry out her orders, are neither pirates nor murderers. The question of the treatment appropriate to such persons, when they fall into our hands, is a new one, needing careful consideration. In any case, it is not for us to rival the barbarism of their Government by allowing them to drown.

[I assume that the word "unarmed" here does not exclude the case of a vessel carrying arms solely for defence.]

Nothing could be more satisfactory than the views thus authoritatively put forth, first as to the applicable law, and secondly as to the means by which its prescriptions can be carried out.

SECTION 6

1. Mr. Healy seemed to think that something turned [074]upon the date (May, 1898) at which these articles were promulgated. In point of fact they were a mere reissue of articles drawn by the well-known jurist Francis Lieber, and, after revision by a military board, issued in April, 1868 by President Lincoln.

2. To Mr. Morley's enquiry, "Have we no rules of our own?" the answer must be in the negative. The traditional policy of our War Office has been to "trust to the good sense of the British officer." This policy, though surprisingly justified by results, is so opposed to modern practice and opinion that, as far back as 1878-80, I endeavoured, without success, to induce the Office to issue to the Army some authoritative, though simple, body of instructions such as have been issued on the Continent of Europe and in America. The War Office was, however, content to include in its "Manual of Military Law," published in 1888, a chapter which is avowedly unauthoritative, and expressly stated to contain only "the opinions of the compiler, as drawn from the authorities cited."

3. The answer to Sir William Harcourt's unanswered question, "Were there no rules settled at the Hague?" must be as follows. The Hague Convention of 1899, upon "the laws and customs of warfare," ratified by this country on September 4 last, binds the contracting parties to give to their respective armies instructions in conformity with the Règlement annexed to the Convention. This Règlement, which is substantially a reproduction of the unratified projet of the Brussels Conference of 1874, does deal, in Arts. 1-3, with guerilla warfare. It is no doubt highly desirable that, as soon as may be, the drafting of rules in accordance with the Règlement should be seriously taken in hand, our Government having now abandoned its non possumus attitude in the matter. It will, however, be found to be the case, as was pointed out by Mr. Balfour, that the sharp distinction between combatants and non-combatants contemplated by the ordinary laws of war is inapplicable[075] (without the exercise of undue severity) to operations such as those now being carried out in South Africa.

"Lieber's Instructions," issued in 1863 and reissued in 1898, will doubtless be superseded, or modified, in consequence of the United States having, on April 9, 1902, ratified the Convention of 1899, and on March 10, 1908, that of 1907, as to the Laws and Customs of War on Land.

The answer to Mr. Morley's enquiry in 1900 would not now be in the negative. The present writer's representations resulted in Mr. Brodrick, when Secretary for War, commissioning him to prepare a Handbook of the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which was issued to the Army by authority in 1904. On the instructions issued by other National Governments, see the author's Laws of War on Land, 1908, pp. 71-73.

The answer, given in the letter, to Sir William Harcourt's question must now be supplemented by a reference to the Handbook above mentioned as having contained rules founded upon the Règlement annexed to the Convention of 1899, and by a statement that that Convention, with its Règlement, is now superseded by Conventions No. iv. (with its Règlement) and No. v. of 1907, of which account has been taken in a new Handbook upon Land Warfare, issued by the War Office in 1913.

As to what is required from a lawful belligerent, see Arts. 1 and 2 of the Règlement of 1899, practically repeated in that of 1907. The substance of Art. 1 is set out in the letter which follows.

Art. 2 grants some indulgence to "the population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops, without having had time to organise themselves in accordance with Art. 1." Cf. infra, pp. 76, 79.

Art. 1 of the Règlement is more nearly in point, insisting, as it does, that even bodies not belonging to the regular army, which, it is assumed, would be in uniform (except in the case of a hasty rising to resist invasion), shall, in order to be treated as "lawful belligerents," satisfy the following requirements, viz.:—

The fact that, in special circumstances, as in the Boer war, marks in the nature of uniform have not been insisted upon, has, of course, no bearing upon the complaint now made by the Japanese Government.

All signatories of The Hague Convention are bound to issue to their troops instructions in conformity with the Règlement annexed to it. The only countries which, so far as I am aware, have as yet fulfilled their obligations in this respect are Italy, which has circulated the French text of the Règlement without comment; Russia, which has prepared a little pamphlet of sixteen pages for the use of its armies in the Far East; and Great Britain, which has issued a Handbook, containing explanatory and supplementary matter, besides the text of the relevant diplomatic Acts.

It is, of course, the case that Germany is in Belgium only as the result of her deliberate violation of solemnly contracted treaties, but she is in military "occupation" of the territory. From such "occupation" it cannot be disputed that there flow certain rights of self-defence. No one, for instance, would have complained of her stern repression of civilian attacks upon her troops, so long as it was confined to actual offenders. The passages quoted by Sir James from Hague Convention v., and from the Kriegsbrauch, relate entirely to the rights and duties of Governments, and have no bearing upon the tragical abuse of jurisdiction which is occupying the minds of all of us.

May I take this opportunity of calling attention to the fresh evidence afforded by the new Order in Council of our good fortune in not being bound by the Declaration of London, which erroneously professed to "correspond in substance with the generally recognised principles of International Law"? Is it too late, even now, to announce, by a comprehensive Order in Council, any relaxations which we and our Allies think proper to make of well-established rules of Prize Law, without any reference to the more and more discredited provisions of the Declaration, the partial and provisional adoption of which seems, at the outbreak of the war, to have been thought likely to save trouble?

SECTION 7

The three letters which immediately follow were written to point out that neither belligerent in the war of 1898 was under any obligation not to employ privateers. Within, however, a few days after the date of the second of these letters, both the United States and Spain, though both still to be reckoned among the few powers which had not acceded [081]to the Declaration of Paris, announced their intention to conduct the war in accordance with the rules laid down by the Declaration.

Art. 3 of the Spanish Royal Decree of April 23 was to the effect that "notwithstanding that Spain is not bound by the Declaration signed in Paris on April 16, 1856, as she expressly stated her wish not to adhere to it, my Government, guided by the principles of international law, intends to observe, and hereby orders that the following regulations for maritime law be observed," viz. Arts. 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration, after setting out which, the Decree proceeds to state that the Government, while maintaining "their right to issue letters of marque, ... will organise, for the present, a service of auxiliary cruisers ... subject to the statutes and jurisdiction of the Navy."

The Proclamation of the President of the United States of April 26 recited the desirability of the war being "conducted upon principles in harmony with the present views of nations, and sanctioned by their recent practice," and that it "has already been announced that the policy of the Government will not be to resort to privateering, but to adhere to the rules of the Declaration of Paris," and goes on to adopt rules 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration.

Ten years afterwards, viz. on January 18, 1908, Spain signified "her entire and definitive adhesion to the four clauses contained in the Declaration," undertaking scrupulously to conduct herself accordingly. Mexico followed suit on February 13, 1909. The United States are therefore now the only important Power which has not formally bound itself not to employ privateers. It seems unlikely that privateers, in the old sense of the term, will be much heard of in the future, though many questions may arise as to "volunteer navies" and subsidised liners, such as those touched upon in the last section, with reference to captures made by the Malacca; possibly also as to ships "converted" on the High Seas.

It is hardly necessary to say that non-compliance with the provisions of the Declaration of Paris by a non-signatory carries with it none of the consequences of a breach of the law of nations. The framers of that somewhat hastily conceived attempt to engraft a paper amendment upon the slowly matured product of œcumenical opinion, far from professing to make general law, expressly state that the Declaration "shall not be binding except upon those Powers who have acceded, or shall accede, to it." As regards Spain and the United States the Declaration is res inter alios acta.

It follows that, in recommending that any action taken by privateers against British vessels should be treated as an act of piracy, Sir George Baden-Powell is advocating an inadmissible atrocity, which derives no countenance from the view theoretically maintained by the United States, at the outset of the Civil War, of the illegality of commissions granted by the Southern Confederation. His recommendation that our ports should be "closed" to privateers is not very intelligible. Privateers would, of course, be placed under the restrictions which were imposed in 1870, in accordance with Lord Granville's instructions, even on the men-of-war of belligerents. They would be forbidden to bring in prizes, to stay more than twenty-four hours, to leave within twenty-four hours of the start of a ship of the other belligerent, to take more coal than enough to carry them to the nearest home port, and to take any further supply of coal within three months. We might, no doubt, carry discouragement of privateers by so much further as to make refusal of coal absolute in their case, but hardly so far as to deny entry to them under stress of weather.

The difficulties in the way of accepting Sir G. Baden-Powell's other suggestion are of a different order. Although we could not complain of the confiscation by either of the [083]supposed belligerents of enemy property found in British vessels, as being a violation of international duty, we might, at our own proper peril, announce that we should treat such confiscation as "an act of war." International law has long abandoned the attempt to define a "just cause of war." That must be left to the appreciation of the nations concerned. So to announce would be, in effect, to say: "Although by acting as you propose you would violate no rule, yet the consequences would be so injurious to me that I should throw my sword into the opposite scale." We should be acting in the spirit of the "Armed Neutralities" of 1780 and 1800. The expediency of so doing depends, first, upon the extent to which the success of our action would obviate the mischief against which it would be directed; and, secondly, upon the likelihood that the benefit which could be obtained only by imposing a new rule of international law in invitos would counterbalance the odium incurred by its imposition. On the former question it may be worth while to remind the mercantile community that, even under the Declaration of Paris, neutral trade must inevitably be put to much inconvenience. Any merchant vessel may be stopped with a view to the verification of her national character, of which the flag is no conclusive evidence. She is further liable to be visited and searched on suspicion of being engaged in the carriage of contraband, or of enemy military persons, or of despatches, or in running a blockade. Should the commander of the visiting cruiser "have probable cause" for suspecting any of these things, though the vessel is in fact innocent of them, he is justified in putting a prize crew on board and sending her into port, with a view to the institution of proceedings against her in a prize Court. A non-signatory of the Declaration of Paris may investigate and penalise, in addition to the above-mentioned list of offences, the carriage of enemy goods. This is, no doubt, by far the most important branch of the trade which is carried on [084]for belligerents by neutrals, but it must not be forgotten that even were this branch of trade universally indulged, in accordance with the Declaration of Paris neutral commerce would still remain liable to infinite annoyance from visit and search, with its possible sequel in a prize Court.

The question of the balance between benefit to be gained and odium to be incurred by insisting upon freedom to carry the goods of belligerents I leave to the politicians.

It is quite possible that the question of privateering may not become a practical one during the approaching war. Both parties may expressly renounce the practice, or they may follow the example of Prussia in 1870, and Russia at a later date, in commissioning fast liners under the command of naval officers—a practice, by the by, which is not, as Sir George seems to think, "right in the teeth of the Declaration of Paris." See Lord Granville's despatch in 1870.

On Sir George's proposals with reference to the carriage of enemy goods, little more need be said, except to deprecate arguments founded upon the metaphorical statement that "a vessel is part of the territory covered by her flag," a statement which Lord Stowell found it necessary to meet by the assertion that a ship is a "mere movable." There can be no possible doubt of the right, under international [086]law, of Spain and the United States to visit and search neutral ships carrying enemy's goods, and to confiscate such goods when found. They may also visit and search on many other grounds, and the question (one of policy) is whether, rather than permit this addition to the list, we choose to take a step which would practically make us belligerent. This question also, it may be hoped, will not press for solution.

In any case, let me express my cordial concurrence with your hope that, when hostilities are over, some really universal and lasting agreement may be arrived at with reference to the matters dealt with, as I venture to think prematurely, by the Declaration of Paris. A reform of maritime law to which the United States are not a party is of little worth. That search for contraband of war can ever be suppressed I do not believe, and fear that it may be many years before divergent national interests can be so far reconciled as to secure an agreement as to the list of contraband articles. In the meantime this country is unfortunately a party to that astonishing piece of draftsmanship, the "three rules" of the Treaty of Washington, to which less reference than might have been expected has been made in recent discussions. The ambiguities of this document, which have prevented it from ever being, as was intended, brought to the notice of the other Powers, with a view to their acceptance of it, are such that, its redrafting, or, better still, its cancellation, should be the first care of both contracting parties when the wished for congress shall take place.

May I add that no serious student of international law is likely either to overrate the authority which it most beneficially exercises, or to conceive of it as an unalterable body of theory.

"Anglo-Saxon," on the other hand, is equally justified in asserting that the "officially-recorded policy" of the States, i.e. of the Executive, is in accordance with Art. 2 of the Declaration. This policy has been consistently followed for more than half a century. Its strongest expression is perhaps to be found in the President's Proclamation of April 26, 1898, in which, after reciting that it being desirable that the war with Spain "should be conducted upon principles in harmony with the present views of nations and sanctioned by their recent practice, it has already been announced that the policy of the Government will not be to resort to privateering, but to adhere to the rules for the Declaration of Paris," he goes on to "declare and proclaim" the three other articles of the Declaration. The rule of Art. 2, as to exemption of enemy goods in neutral ships, was embodied in Art. 19 of the Naval War Code of 1900 (withdrawn in 1904, for reasons not affecting the article in question), and reappears in Art. 17, amended only by the addition of a few words relating to "hostile assistance" in the draft Code which the United States delegates to the Conferences of 1907 and 1908 were instructed to bring forward "with the suggested changes, and such further changes as may be made necessary by other agreements reached at the Conference, as a tentative formulation of the rules which should be considered." (My quotation is from the instructions as originally issued in English.) Such changes as have been made in the Code are due to discussions which have taken place between high naval and legal authorities at the Naval War College. I do not know whether the annual reports of these discussions, with which I am kindly supplied, [089]are generally accessible, but would refer, especially with reference to the Declaration of Paris, to the volumes for 1904 and 1906.

It can hardly be necessary to add that no acts of the Executive, such as the Proclamation of 1898, the order putting in force the Code of 1900, or the instructions to delegates in 1907 and 1909, amount to anything like a ratification of the Declaration in the manner prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.

This by the way. It is not very clear whether Mr. Gibson Bowles, in exhorting us to denounce the Declaration, relies upon its original lack of ratification, or upon some alleged "privateering" on the part of the Germans. Nothing of the kind has been reported. The commissioning of warships on the high seas is a different thing, which may possibly be regarded as an offence of a graver nature. Great Britain is not going to imitate the cynical contempt for treaties, evidenced by the action of Germany in Belgium and Luxemburg, in disregard not only of the well-known treaties of 1889 and 1867, but of a quite recent solemn undertaking, to which I have not noticed any reference. Art. 2 of The Hague Convention No. v. of 1907, ratified by her in 1909, is to the following effect:—

The true ground for objecting to the legality of the purchase by Turkey of the German warships which have been forced to take refuge in her waters is no doubt that stated by Sir William Scott in the Minerva, 6 C. Rob. at p. 400—viz. that it would enable the belligerent to whom the ships belong "so far to rescue himself from the disadvantage into which he has fallen as to have the value at least restored to him by a neutral purchaser." The point is not touched upon in the (draft) Declaration of London.

Even supposing the purchase to be unobjectionable, the duty of Turkey to remove all belligerents from the ships would be unquestionable.

In those early attempts at legislation for the conduct of warfare it seems to have been thought sufficient that the conclusions arrived at by authorised delegates should be announced without being embodied in a treaty. Surely, however, what purported to be international agreements [092]upon vastly important topics ought to have been accompanied by all the formalities required for "conventions," and should have been so entitled. In later times this has become the general rule for the increasingly numerous agreements which bear upon the conduct of hostilities. Thus we have The Hague "conventions" of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva "convention" of 1906, all duly equipped with provisions for ratification. Such provisions are also inserted in certain other recent agreements dealing with aerial bombardments, gases, and expanding bullets, which it has nevertheless pleased their contrivers to misdescribe as "declarations." Equally so misdescribed was the deceased Declaration of London, with a view, apparently, to suggesting, as was far from being the case, that it was a mere orderly statement of universally accepted principles, creating no new obligations.

Is it not to be desired that all future attempts for the international regulation of warfare should not only be specifically made subject to ratification, but should also, in accordance with fact, be described as "conventions"?

I must be excused from following Mr. Bowles into a [093]discussion of the bearing of those rules upon the Order in Council of March 11, 1915—a large and delicate topic, which must be studied in elaborate dispatches exchanged between this country and the United States.