Trade and the like between the Subjects of Belligerents. South African Republics expelled most of the British § 101. British and American writers assert the But such a rule of International Law in fact does not exist and has never existed, as International Law has nothing to do with the conduct of private individuals, but is a law between States only and exclusively. The fact is that all the above items are naturally within the competence of Municipal Law, which can govern and has governed them at discretion. The Municipal Law of the belligerents concerned may or may not allow commercial or any other intercourse between their private subjects, may suspend or cancel existing contracts including partnership, may or may not allow an enemy subject to sue and to be sued in Courts of justice. on what condition extinct, and when suspended? As regards British law, there is no doubt that it gerent's in the State. § 102. In former times all private and public Position enemy property, immoveable or moveable, on each of Belliother's territory could be confiscated by the belli- Property gerents at the outbreak of war, as could also enemy Enemy debts; and the treaties 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 has 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old rule, in contradistinction to the usage which they do not deny, is still valid, it may safely be maintained that it is obsolete, and that there is now a customary rule of International 1 The leading case is that of the Hoop, I Rob. 196. 2 The only British publicist who seems to agree with me is Manning, p. 167. Discussing the rule that trade is forbidden between the Law in existence prohibiting the confiscation of private enemy property and the annulment of enemy debts on the territory of a belligerent. Accordingly, the embargo of enemy ships in the harbours of the belligerents at the outbreak of war is no longer made use of,1 and a reasonable time is granted to them to leave those harbours. On the other hand, this rule does not prevent a belligerent from suspending the payment of enemy debts till after the war for the purpose of prohibiting the increase of enemy resources; from seizing public enemy property on his territory, such as funds, ammunition, provisions, and other valuables; and from preventing the withdrawal of private enemy property which may be made use of by the enemy for military operations, such as arms and munitions.2 And it may be expected in the future that those enemy mail-boats which were built from special designs for the purpose of quickly turning them into cruisers of the navy will be prevented from leaving the ports of a belligerent at the outbreak of war.3 1 See above, § 40, and below, $364. 2 The indulgence granted to enemy merchantmen in Russian and Japanese ports at the outbreak of the war in 1904, to leave those ports unmolested within a certain period of time, was therefore made to depend upon the absence of contraband in the cargoes. See Lawrence, War, p. 52. 3 See Lawrence, War, p. 55. CHAPTER III WARFARE ON LAND I ON LAND WARFARE IN GENERAL Vattel, III. §§ 136-138-Hall, §§ 184-185-Phillimore, III. § 94Taylor, § 469-Wheaton, § 342-Bluntschli, §§ 534-535-Heffter, § 125-Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 388-389-Gareis, § 84Bonfils, Nos. 1066-1067-Pradier-Fodéré, VI. Nos. 2734-2741Longuet, § 41-Mérignhac, p. 146-Pillet, pp. 85-89-Kriegsgebrauch, p. 9-Holland, War, Nos. 5-7. Means of § 103. The purpose of war, namely, the overpower- Aims and ing of the enemy, is served in land warfare through two aims,1—which are, first, defeat of the enemy armed Warfare. forces on land, and, secondly, occupation and administration of the enemy territory. The chief means through which belligerents try to realise those aims, and which are always conclusively decisive, are the different sorts of force applied against enemy persons. But beside such violence against enemy persons there are other means which are not at all unimportant, although they play a secondary part only. Such means are appropriation, utilisation, and destruction of enemy property; siege; bombardment ; assault; espionage; utilisation of treason; ruses. All these means of warfare on land must be discussed in this chapter, as must also occupation of enemy territory. 1 Aims of land warfare must not be confounded with ends of war; see above, § 66. VOL. II. I and of Land Lawful § 104. But-to use the words of article 22 of the Unlawful Hague Regulations-"the belligerents have not an unlimited right as to the means they adopt for injurWarfare. ing the enemy." For not all possible practices of injuring the enemy in offence and defence are lawful, certain practices being prohibited under all circumstances and conditions, and other practices being only under certain circumstances and conditions, or only with certain restrictions, allowed. The principles of chivalry and of humanity have been at work1 for many hundreds of years to create these restrictions, and their work has not yet reached its end. However, apart from these restrictions, all kinds and degrees of force and many other practices may be made use of in war. Objects Means of Land in contra- § 105. In a sense all means of warfare are directed against one object only-namely, the enemy State, which is to be overpowered by all legitimate means. Apart from this, the means of land warfare are directed against different objects. Such objects are chiefly the members of the armed forces of the enemy, but likewise, although in a lesser degree, other enemy persons; further, private and public property, fortresses, and roads. Indeed, apart from certain restrictions, everything may eventually be the object of a means of warfare, provided the means are legitimate in themselves and are capable of fostering the realisation of the purpose of war. § 106. Land warfare must be distinguished from sea warfare chiefly for two reasons. First, their circumstances and conditions differ widely from each other, Warfare. and, therefore, their means and practices differ also. Secondly, the Hague Peace Conference has enacted tion to Sea 1 See above, § 67. 2 See Oppenheim, Die Objekte des Verbrechens (1894), pp. 64 146, where the relation of human actions with their objects is fully discussed. |