respective acts of force need not at all be intended to be hostile, provided they are hostile de facto. Thus, acts of force by way of reprisals or during a pacific blockade or an intervention may be considered acts of war by the passive party and thereby contain the commencement of war, although they were not intended as acts of war. Lame argument That a war initiated by acts of force without a previous declaration or manifesto of war is nevertheless war according to International Law, nobody denies. But But many writers assert that the commencement itself of such a war contains a violation of International Law. If this were correct, many 1 important, and in their results far-reaching, wars of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries would have been begun with a violation of International Law. But the very fact of these numerous wars having been commenced through hostile acts of force only, shows that the practice of the States never adopted the alleged 2 rule of the necessity of a declaration or a manifesto of war. This does not mean that a State would be justified in opening hostilities without any preceding conflict. There is no greater violation of the Law of Nations than that committed by a State which commences hostilities in time of peace without previous controversy and without having tried to settle the difference through negotiation.3 But after negotiation has been tried in vain, a State 1 See Maurice, Hostilities without Declaration of War (1883). 2 It cannot be denied that many influential publicists insist upon necessity of a declaration of war. See, for instance, Grotius, III. c. 3, § 6; Vattel, III. § 51; Calvo, IV. § 1907; Bluntschli, § 521; Fiore, III. No. 1274; Heffter, §120. But the practice of the States has never accepted this opinion, and See above, § 93. does not act treacherously in case it resorts to hostilities without a declaration of war, especially after diplomatic intercourse has been broken off. General Effects of the Out break of War. II EFFECTS OF THE OUTBREAK OF WAR Vattel, III. § 63-Hall, §§ 124-126-Lawrence, §§ 165-168-Manning, pp. 163-165-Phillimore, III. §§ 67-91-Twiss, II. §§ 41-61— Halleck, I. pp. 526-552-Taylor, §§ 461-468—Walker, §§ 44-50— Wharton, III. §§ 336-337A-Wheaton, $$ 298-319-Heffter, §§ 121-123-Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 347-363-Gareis, § 81 -Liszt, § 39, V-Ullmann, §§ 146-147-Bonfils, Nos. 1044-1065Despagnet, Nos. 521-523-Pradier-Fodéré, VI. Nos. 2694-2720ivier, II. pp. 228-237-Calvo, IV. §§ 1911-1931-Fiore, III. Nos. 1290-1301-Martens, II. § 109-Longuet, §§ 8-15-Mérignhac, pp. 42-65-Pillet, pp. 72-84-Lawrence, War, pp. 45-55-Sainte Croix, "La Déclaration de guerre et ses effets immédiats" (1892), pp. 166–207. 97. When war breaks out, although it is 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 acquire, although sub jects of neutral Powers, enemy character.1 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 disappear with the outbreak of war between the parties thereto and between their subjects. War is not a condition of anarchy and indifferent or hostile to law, but a fact recognised and ruled by International Law, although it involves a rupture of peaceful relations between the belligerents, and their subjects also for the most part. of Diplo course and Activity. § 98. The outbreak of war effects at once the Rupture rupture of diplomatic intercourse between the belli- matic gerents, if such rupture has not already taken place. InterThe respective diplomatic envoys are recalled and Consular 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 comes likewise to an end through the outbreak of war.2 tion of § 99. The doctrine was formerly held, and a few Cancella. writers 3 maintain it even now, that the outbreak of Treaties. 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, and the opinion is pretty general that war by no means annuls every treaty. But unanimity in regard to such treaties as are and such as are not cancelled by war does not exist. Neither does a uniform practice of the States exist, cases having occurred in which States have 1 See above, § 90. 3 See, for instance, Phillimore, 2 See above, Vol. I. §§ 413 and III. § 530, and Twiss, I. § 252, in contradistinction to Hall, § 125. 436. expressly declared that they considered all treaties annulled through war. Thus the whole question remains as yet unsettled. But nevertheless with the majority of writers a conviction may be stated to exist on the following points: (1) The outbreak of war cancels all political treaties between the belligerents, such as treaties of alliance for example, which have not been concluded for the purpose of setting up a permanent condition of things. (2) On the other hand, it is obvious that such treaties are not annulled as have especially been concluded for the case of war, as treaties in regard to the neutralisation of certain parts of the territories of the belligerents for example. (3) Such political and other treaties as have been concluded for the purpose of setting up a permanent condition of things are not ipso facto annulled by the outbreak of war, but in the treaty of peace nothing prevents the victorious party from imposing upon the other party 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-making1 treaties, as the Declaration of Paris for example, are not cancelled through 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. 1 See above, Vol. I. §§ 18, 492, 555-568, carious gerents' $100. The outbreak of war affects likewise such Presubjects of the belligerents as are at the time within position the enemy's territory. In former times they could of Belliat once be retained as prisoners of war, and many subjects States concluded therefore in time of peace special Territory. on Enemy 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.1 Through the influence of such treaties, which became pretty general during the eighteenth century, it became an international usage and practice that all enemy subjects must be allowed to withdraw within a reasonable period. The last instance of the former rule is seen in the arrest and retention as prisoners of war of some ten thousand Englishmen in 1803 in France when war broke out between Great Britain and France, many of whom were not liberated before 1814. Although during the whole of the nineteenth century no other instance occurred, several publicists 2 even nowadays maintain that according to strict law the old rule is still in force. But this assertion is certainly unfounded. On the contrary, it may safely be maintained that there is now a customary rule of International Law that all enemy subjects must be allowed a reasonable period for withdrawal. But a belligerent need not allow 3 enemy subjects to remain on his territory, although this is sometimes 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. On the other hand, France expelled all Germans during the Franco-German war in 1870, the former 1 See a list of such treaties in II. p. 230; Liszt, § 39. Hall, § 126, p. 407, note I. 3 See above, Vol. I. § 324. 2 See Twiss, II. § 50; Rivier, |