Pro ting or Deleteri ous Gases. § 114. The Hague Conference also adopted a Declaration,1 jectiles signed on July 29, 1899, by twenty-four Powers-namely, diffusing Asphyxia- Austria-Hungary, Germany, Luxemburg, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Mexico, France, Greece, China, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Holland, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, Siam, Sweden-Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and Bulgaria stipulating that the signatory Powers should in a war between two or more of them abstain from the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases. This Declaration had the same fate as that concerning projectiles launched from balloons, since it expired in 1904. But its place will probably be taken in the future by a similar Declaration. Violence against batant Members of Armed Forces. - § 115. It will be remembered from above, § 79, Non-com- that numerous individuals belong to the armed forces without being combatants. Now, since and in so far as these non-combatant members of armed forces do not take part in the fighting, they may not directly be attacked and killed or wounded. However, they are exposed to all injuries indirectly resulting from the operations of warfare. And with the exception of doctors, chaplains, persons employed in military hospitals, official ambulance men, and the like, who according to articles 2 and 3 of the Geneva Convention enjoy the privilege of neutrality,2 such non-combatant members of armed forces can certainly be made prisoners, since the assistance they give to the fighting forces may be of great importance. Violence Persons. § 116. Whereas in former times private enemy persons of either sex could be killed or otherwise badly treated according to discretion, and whereas in especial the inhabitants of fortified places taken by assault used to be abandoned to the mercy of the assailants, it became in the eighteenth century a universally recognised customary rule of the Law 2 See below, § 121. 1 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd ser. p. 998. of Nations that private enemy individuals should not be killed or attacked. In so far as they do not take part in the fighting, they may not be directly attacked and killed or wounded. They are, however, like non-combatant members of the armed forces, exposed to all injuries indirectly resulting from the operations of warfare. Thus, for instance, when a town is bombarded and thousands of inhabitants are thereby killed, or when a train carrying private individuals as well as soldiers is wrecked by a mine, no violation of the rule prohibiting attack on private enemy persons has taken place. As regards captivity, the rule is that private enemy persons may not be made prisoners of war. But this rule has exceptions conditioned by the carrying out of certain military operations, the safety of the armed forces, the order and tranquillity of occupied enemy territory. Thus, for instance, influential enemy citizens who try to incite their fellow-citizens to take up arms can be arrested and deported into captivity. And even the whole population of a province may be imprisoned in case a levy en masse is threatening. Apart from captivity, restrictions of all sorts may be imposed upon and means of force may be applied against private enemy persons for many purposes. Such purposes are:-the keeping of order and tranquillity on occupied enemy territory; the prevention of any hostile conduct, especially conspiracies; the prevention of intercourse with and assistance to the enemy forces; the securing of the fulfilment of the commands and requests of the military authorities, such as for the provision of guides, drivers, hostages, farriers ; the securing of the compliance with requisitions and contributions, of the execution of public works necessary for military operations, such as the building Violence against against Important of fortifications, roads, bridges, soldiers' quarters, and the like. What kind of violent means may be applied for these purposes is in the discretion of the respective military authorities, who on their part will act according to expediency and the rules of martial law established by the belligerents. But there is no doubt that, if necessary, capital punishment and imprisonment1 are lawful means for these purposes. The essence of the position of private individuals in modern warfare with regard to violence against them finds expression in article 46 of the Hague Regulations, which lays down the rule that" family honours and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be respected." § 117. The head of the enemy State and officials in important positions who do not belong to the the Head of the armed forces occupy a similar position to private Enemy State and enemy persons in their liability to direct attack, Officials in death, or wounds. But they are so important for the Positions. enemy State, and they may be so useful for the enemy and so dangerous to the invading forces, that they can certainly be made prisoners of war. If belligerents can get hold of each other's heads of States and Cabinet Ministers, they will certainly remove them into captivity. And they can do the same with diplomatic agents and other officials of importance, because by weakening the enemy Government they may thereby influence the enemy to agree to terms of peace. That in case of general devastation the peaceful population may be detained in so-called concentration camps, there is no doubt; see below, § 154. And there is likewise no doubt that hostages may be taken out of the peaceful population; see below, p. 176, note 3, and p. 273, note 2. III TREATMENT OF WOUNDED, AND DEAD BODIES Hall, § 130-Lawrence, § 188-Maine, pp. 156-159-Manning, pp. 205 Geneva § 118. Although since the seventeenth century Origin of several hundreds of special treaties have been con- Convencluded between single States regarding the tending tion. of each other's wounded and the exemption of army surgeons from captivity, no other general rule of the Law of Nations was in existence before the second half of the nineteenth century than this, that the wounded must not be killed, mutilated, or otherwise ill-used. A change for the better was initiated by Jean Henry Dunant, a Swiss citizen from Geneva, who was an eye-witness of the battle of Solferino in 1859, where many thousands of wounded died who could under more favourable circumstances have been saved. When he published, in 1862, his pamphlet, "Un Souvenir de Solférino," the Geneva Société d'utilité publique, under the presidency of Gustave Moynier, created an agitation in favour of better arrangements for the tending of the wounded on the battlefield, and convoked an international congress at Geneva in 1863, where thirty-six representatives of nearly all the European States met and discussed the matter. In 1864 the Bundesrath, the Government of the Federal State of Switzerland, took the matter officially in hand and invited all European and several American States to send official representatives to a Congress at Geneva for the purpose of discussing and concluding an international treaty regarding the wounded. This Congress met in 1864, and sixteen States were represented. Its result is the international "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Soldiers wounded in Armies in the Field," commonly called "Geneva Convention," signed on August 22, 1864. By-and-by other States than the original signatories joined the Convention. At present the whole body of the civilised States of the world, with the exception of Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, San Domingo, Ecuador, Haiti, Monaco, Lichtenstein, and Panama, are parties, and it may, therefore, be maintained that its contents are generally recognised International Law. That the rules of the Convention are in no wise perfect, and need supplementing regarding many points, became soon apparent. A second International Congress met at the invitation of Switzerland in 1868 at Geneva, where additional articles 2 to the original Convention were discussed and signed. These additional articles have, however, never been ratified. The Hague Peace 1 See Martens, N.R.G., XVIII. p. 607, and above, Vol. I. § 560, where the States that have become parties are enumerated. 2 See Martens, N.R.G., XVIII p. 61. |