§ 97. When war breaks out, even if it be limited to only two members of the Family of Nations, nevertheless the whole Family of Nations is thereby affected, since the rights and duties of neutrality devolve upon such States as are not parties to the war. And the subjects of neutral States may feel the consequences of the outbreak of war in many ways. War is not only a calamity to the commerce and industry of the whole world, but also involves the alteration of the legal position of neutral merchantmen on the Open Sea, and of the subjects of neutral States within the boundaries of the belligerents. For the belligerents have the right of visit, search, and eventually capture of neutral merchantmen on the Open Sea, and foreigners who remain within the boundaries of the belligerents, although subjects of neutral Powers, acquire in a degree and to a certain extent enemy character.[179] However, the outbreak of war tells chiefly and directly upon the relations between the belligerents and their subjects. Yet it would not be correct to maintain that all legal relations between the parties thereto and between their subjects disappear with the outbreak of war. War is not a condition of anarchy, indifferent or hostile to law, but a condition recognised and ruled by International Law, although it involves a rupture of peaceful relations between the belligerents.

§ 98. The outbreak of war causes at once the rupture of diplomatic intercourse between the belligerents, if such rupture has not already taken place. The respective diplomatic envoys are recalled and ask for their passports, or receive them without any previous request, but they enjoy their privileges of inviolability and exterritoriality for the period of time requisite for leaving the country. Consular activity likewise comes to an end through the outbreak of war.[180]

§ 99. The doctrine was formerly held, and a few writers[181] maintain it even now, that the outbreak of war ipso facto cancels all treaties previously concluded between the belligerents, such treaties only excepted as have been concluded especially for the case of war. The vast majority of modern writers on International Law have abandoned this standpoint,[182] and the opinion is pretty general that war by no means annuls every treaty. But unanimity as to what treaties are or are not cancelled by war does not exist. Neither does a uniform practice of the States exist, cases having occurred in which States have expressly declared[183] that they considered all treaties annulled through war. Thus the whole question remains as yet unsettled. Nevertheless a majority of writers agree on the following points:—

(1) The outbreak of war cancels all political treaties between the belligerents which have not been concluded for the purpose of setting up a permanent condition of things, for instance, treaties of alliance.

(2) On the other hand, it is obvious that such treaties as have been especially concluded for the case of war are not annulled, such as treaties in regard to the neutralisation of certain parts of the territories of the belligerents.

(3) Such political and other treaties as have been concluded for the purpose of setting up a permanent[184] condition of things are not ipso facto annulled by the outbreak of war, but nothing prevents the victorious party from imposing upon the other party in the treaty of peace any alterations in, or even the dissolution of, such treaties.

(4) Such non-political treaties as do not intend to set up a permanent condition of things, as treaties of commerce for example, are not ipso facto annulled, but the parties may annul them or suspend them according to discretion.

(5) So-called law-making[185] treaties, as the Declaration of Paris for example, are not cancelled by the outbreak of war. The same is valid in regard to all treaties to which a multitude of States are parties, as the International Postal Union for example, but the belligerents may suspend them, as far as they themselves are concerned, in case the necessities of war compel them to do so.[186]

§ 100. The outbreak of war affects likewise such subjects of the belligerents as are at the time within the enemy's territory. In former times they could at once be detained as prisoners of war, and many States, therefore, concluded in time of peace special treaties for the time of war expressly stipulating a specified period during which their subjects should be allowed to leave each other's territory unmolested.[187] Through the influence of such treaties, which became pretty general during the eighteenth century, it became an international practice that, as a rule, enemy subjects must be allowed to withdraw within a reasonable period, and no instance of the former rule has occurred during the nineteenth[188] century. Although some[189] writers even nowadays maintain that according to strict law the old rule is still in force, it may safely[190] be maintained that there is now a customary rule of International Law, according to which all such subjects of the enemy as have not according to the Municipal Law of their country to join the armed forces of the enemy must be allowed a reasonable period for withdrawal. On the other hand, such enemy subjects as are active or reserve officers, or reservists, and the like, may be prevented from leaving the country and detained as prisoners of war, for the principle of self-preservation must justify belligerents in refusing to furnish each other with resources which increase their means of offence and defence.[191] However that may be, a belligerent need not allow[192] enemy subjects to remain on his territory, although this is frequently done. Thus, during the Crimean War Russian subjects in Great Britain and France were allowed to remain there, as were likewise Russians in Japan and Japanese in Russia during the Russo-Japanese War, and Turks in Italy during the Turco-Italian War. On the other hand, France expelled all Germans during the Franco-German war in 1870; the former South African Republics expelled most British subjects when war broke out in 1899; Russia, although during the Russo-Japanese War she allowed Japanese subjects to remain in other parts of her territory, expelled them from her provinces in the Far East; and in May 1912, eight months after the outbreak of the Turko-Italian War, Turkey decreed the expulsion of all Italians, certain classes excepted. In case a belligerent allows the residence of enemy subjects on his territory, he can, of course, give the permission under certain conditions only, such as an oath to abstain from all hostile acts or a promise not to leave a certain region, and the like. And it must be especially observed that an enemy subject who is allowed to stay in the country after the outbreak of war must not, in case the forces of his home State militarily occupy the part of the country inhabited by him, join these forces or assist them in any way. If, nevertheless, he does so, he is liable to be punished for treason[193] by the local Sovereign after the withdrawal of the enemy forces.

§ 100a. Formerly the rule prevailed everywhere that an enemy subject has no persona standi in judicio and is, therefore, ipso facto by the outbreak of war, prevented from either taking or defending proceedings in the Courts. This rule dates from the time when war was considered such a condition between belligerents as justified the committing of hostilities on the part of all subjects of the one belligerent against all subjects of the other, and, further, the killing of all enemy subjects irrespective of sex and age, and, at any rate, the confiscation of all private enemy property. War in those times used to put enemy subjects entirely ex lege, and it was only a logical consequence from this principle that enemy subjects could not sustain persona standi in judicio. Since the rule that enemy subjects are entirely ex lege has everywhere vanished, the rule that they may not take or defend proceedings in the Courts has in many countries, such as Austria-Hungary, Germany, Holland, and Italy, likewise vanished. But in Great Britain and the United States of America[194] enemy subjects are still prevented from taking and defending legal proceedings,[195] although there are six exceptions to the general rule. Firstly, enemy subjects who do not bear enemy character because they are resident in neutral country or have a licence to trade or are allowed[196] to remain in the country of a belligerent, are therefore permitted to sue and be sued in British and American Courts. Secondly, if during time of peace a defendant obtains an opportunity to plead, and if subsequently war breaks out with the country of the plaintiff, the defendant may not plead that the plaintiff is prevented from suing.[197] Thirdly, if a contract was entered into and executed before the war, and if an absent enemy subject has property within the boundaries of a belligerent, he may be sued.[198] Fourthly, a prisoner of war[199] may sue during war on a contract for wages. Fifthly, if the parties, being desirous to obtain a decision on the merits of the case, waive the objection, enemy subjects may sue and be sued.[200] Lastly, a petition on the part of a creditor who is an enemy subject, to prove a debt under a commission of bankruptcy must be admitted[201] although the dividend will not be paid till after the conclusion of peace.

It is asserted that, in consequence of article 23 (h) of the Hague Regulations concerning land warfare enacting the injunction "to declare extinguished, suspended, or unenforceable in a Court of Law the rights and rights of action of the nationals of the adverse party," Great Britain and the United States are compelled to abolish their rule that enemy subjects may not sue. But the interpretation of article 23 (h) is controversial, Great Britain and the United States of America—in contradistinction to Germany and France—maintaining that the article has nothing to do with their Municipal Law but concerns the conduct of armies in occupied enemy territory.[202]

However this may be, it must be especially observed that, according to British and American law, claims arising out of contracts concluded before the war do not become extinguished through the outbreak of war, but are only suspended during war, and the Statute of Limitations does not, according to American[203] practice at any rate, run during war.

§ 101. Following Bynkershoek,[204] all British and American writers and cases, and also some French[205] and German[206] writers assert the existence of a rule of International Law that all intercourse, and especially trading, is ipso facto by the outbreak of war prohibited between the subjects of the belligerents, unless it is permitted under the customs of war, as, for instance, ransom bills, or is allowed under special licences, and that all contracts concluded between the subjects of the belligerents before the outbreak of war become extinct or suspended. On the other hand, most German, French, and Italian writers deny the existence of such a rule, but assert the existence of another according to which belligerents are empowered to prohibit by special orders all trade between their own and enemy subjects.

These assertions are remnants of the time when the distinction[207] between International and Municipal Law was not, or not clearly, drawn. International Law, being a law for the conduct of States only and exclusively, has nothing to do directly with the conduct of private individuals, and both assertions are, therefore, nowadays untenable. Their place must be taken by the statement that, States being sovereign and the outbreak of war bringing the peaceful relations between belligerents to an end, it is within the competence of every State to enact by its Municipal Law such rules as it pleases concerning intercourse, and especially trading, between its own and enemy subjects. And if we look at the Municipal Laws of the several countries, we find that they have to be divided into two groups. To the one group belong those States—such as Austria-Hungary, Germany, Holland, and Italy—whose Governments are empowered by their Municipal Laws to prohibit by special order all trading with enemy subjects at the outbreak of war. In these countries trade with enemy subjects is permitted to continue after the outbreak of war unless special prohibitive orders are issued. To the other group belong those States—such as Great Britain, the United States of America, and, unless desuetudo[208] has made an alteration, France—whose Municipal Laws declare trade and intercourse with enemy subjects ipso facto by the outbreak of war prohibited, but empowers the Governments to allow by special licences all or certain kinds of such trade.

As regards the law of Great Britain[209] and the United States of America, it has been, since the end of the eighteenth century, an absolutely settled[210] rule of the Common Law that, certain cases excepted, all trading with alien enemies is ipso facto by the outbreak of war illegal unless it is allowed by special licences of the Crown. From the general principle asserted in the leading cases,[211] the Courts have drawn the following more important consequences:—

It must be specially observed that, if the continental interpretation of article 23 (h) of the Hague Regulations—see above, § 100a—were not contradicted by Great Britain and the United States of America, both countries would be compelled to alter their Municipal Laws in so far as these declare such contracts as have been entered into with alien enemies before the outbreak of war dissolved, void, or suspended. Article 23 (h) distinctly enacts that it is forbidden to declare extinguished or suspended the rights of the nationals of the adverse party. Since, however, as stated above in § 100a, Great Britain and the United States of America uphold a different interpretation, this article does not concern their Municipal Laws respecting trading with alien enemies.

§ 102. In former times all private and public enemy property, immoveable or moveable, on each other's territory could be confiscated by the belligerents at the outbreak of war, as could also enemy debts; and the treaties[224] concluded between many States with regard to the withdrawal of each other's subjects at the outbreak of war stipulated likewise the unrestrained withdrawal of the private property of their subjects. Through the influence of such treaties as well as of Municipal Laws and Decrees enacting the same, an international usage and practice grew up that belligerents should neither confiscate private enemy property nor annul enemy debts on their territory. The last case of confiscation of private property is that of 1793 at the outbreak of war between France and Great Britain. No case of confiscation occurred during the nineteenth century, and although several writers maintain that according to strict law the old rule, in contradistinction to the usage which they do not deny, is still valid, it may safely be maintained that it is obsolete, and that there is now a customary rule of International Law in existence prohibiting the confiscation of private enemy property and the annulment of enemy debts on the territory of a belligerent. This rule, however, does not prevent a belligerent from seizing public enemy property on his territory, such as funds, ammunition, provisions, rolling stock of enemy state-railways, and other valuables; from preventing the withdrawal of private enemy property which may be made use of by the enemy[225] for military operations, such as arms and munitions; from seizing and making use of rolling stock belonging to private enemy railway companies, other means of transport of persons or goods which are private enemy property, and, further, all appliances for the transmission of news, although they are private enemy property, provided all these articles are restored and indemnities are paid for them after the conclusion of peace;[226] and from suspending, as a measure of self preservation, the payment of large enemy debts till after the conclusion of peace in order to prevent the increase of resources of the enemy.