Siege is called the surrounding and investing of an enemy locality by an armed force, cutting off those inside from all communication for the purpose of starving them into surrender or for the purpose of attacking the invested locality and taking it by assault. Bombardment is the throwing of shot and shell upon persons and things by artillery. Siege may be accompanied by bombardment and assault, but this is not necessary, since a siege may be carried out by mere investment and starvation caused thereby. Assault, siege, and bombardment are severally and jointly perfectly legitimate means of warfare.1 Bombardment as well as assault, if taking place on the battlefield, need no special discussion, as they are allowed under the same circumstances and conditions as force in general is allowed. The question here is only under what circmstances assault and bombardment are allowed outside the battlefield. The answer is indirectly given by article 25 of the Hague Regulations, where it is categorically enacted that "the attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings, which are not defended, is prohibited." Siege is not specially mentioned, because no belligerent would dream of besieging an undefended locality, and because siege of an undefended town would involve unjustifiable violence against enemy persons and, therefore, be unlawful. Be this as it may, the fact that now defended localities only may be bombarded, involves a decided advance on the former condition of International Law. For it was 1 The assertion of some writers --see, for instance, Pillet, pp. 104107, and Mérignhac, p. 173-that bombardment is lawful only after an unsuccessful attempt of the besiegers to starve the besieged into surrender is not based upon a recognised rule of the Law of Nations. Assault, how carried out. Siege, how formerly asserted by many writers and military experts that, for certain reasons and purposes, undefended localities could exceptionally be bombarded also. But it must be specially observed that it matters not whether the defended locality is fortified or not, since an unfortified place can likewise be defended. And it must be mentioned that nothing prevents a belligerent who has taken possession of an undefended fortified place from destroying the fortifications by bombardment as well as by other means. § 156. No special rules of International Law exist with regard to the mode of carrying out an assault. Therefore, only the general rules respecting offence and defence find application. It is in especial not3 necessary to notify an assault to the authorities of the respective locality, or to request them to surrender before making an assault. That an assault may or may not be accompanied or preceded by a bombardment, need hardly be mentioned, nor that by article 28 of the Hague Regulations pillage of towns taken by assault is now expressly prohibited. § 157. With regard to the mode of carrying out siege without bombardment no special rules of International Law exist, and here too only the general rules respecting offence and defence find application. Therefore, an armed force besieging a town can, for instance, cut off the river which supplies the drinking water to the besieged, but they are not allowed to poison such river. And it must be specially observed that no rule of law exists which obliges a besieging force to allow all non-combatants, or only women, children, the aged, the sick and wounded, 1 See, for instance, Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. p. 451. 2 See Holls, The Peace Conference at the Hague (1900), p. 152. This becomes indirectly apparent from article 26 of the Hague Regulations. 4 See above, § 110. or subjects of neutral Powers, to leave the besieged locality unmolested. Although such permission is sometimes granted, it is in most cases refused, because the fact that non-combatants are besieged together with the combatants, and that they have to endure the same hardships, may, and very often does, exercise a pressure upon the authorities to surrender. That diplomatic envoys of neutral Powers may not be prevented from leaving a besieged town is a consequence of their exterritoriality. However, if they voluntarily remain, can they claim an uncontrolled 2 communication with their home State by correspondence and couriers? When Mr. Washburne, the American diplomatic envoy at Paris during the siege of that city in 1870 by the Germans, claimed the right of sending a messenger with despatches to London in a sealed bag through the German lines, Count Bismarck declared that he was ready to allow foreign diplomatists in Paris to send a courier to their home States once a week, but only under the condition that their despatches were open and did not contain any remarks concerning the war. Although the United States and other Powers protested, Count Bismarck did not alter his decision. The whole question must be treated as open. ment, how § 158. Regarding bombardment, article 26 of the BombardHague Regulations enacts that the commander of the carried attacking forces shall do all he can to notify his out. intention to resort to bombardment. But it must be emphasised that a strict duty of notification for all cases of bombardment is thereby not imposed, since 1 Thus in 1870, during the Franco-German War, the German besiegers of Strassburg as well as of Belfort allowed the women, the children, and the sick to leave the besieged fortresses. 2 The matter is discussed by Rolin-Jaequemyns in R.I., III. (1871), pp. 371-377. 3 See above, vol. I. § 399, and Wharton, I. § 97. it is only enacted that a commander shall do all he can to send notification. He cannot do it when the circumstances of the case prevent him, or when the necessities of war demand an immediate bombardment. Be that as Be that as it may, the purpose of notification is to enable private individuals inside the locality to be bombarded to seek shelter for their persons and for their valuable personal property. Article 27 of the Hague Regulations enacts the hitherto customary rule that all necessary steps must be taken to spare as far as possible all buildings devoted to religion, art, science, and charity; further, hospitals and other places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided these buildings and places are not used at the same time for military purposes. To enable the attacking forces to spare these buildings and places, the latter must be indicated by some particular signs, which must be previously notified to the attacking forces and must be visible from the far distance from which the besieging artillery carries out the bombardment.1 It must be specially observed that no legal duty exists for the attacking forces to restrict bombardment to fortifications only. On the contrary, destruction of private and public buildings through bombardment has always been and is still considered lawful, as it is one of the means to impress upon the authorities the advisability of surrender. Some writers 2 assert 1 No siege takes place without the besieged accusing the besiegers of neglecting the rule that buildings devoted to religion, art, charity, the tending of the sick, and the like, must be spared during bombardments. The fact is that in case of a bombard ment the destruction of such buildings cannot always be avoided, although the artillery of the besiegers do not intentionally aim at them. That the forces of civilised States intentionally destroy such buildings, I cannot believe. 2 See, for instance, Pillet, pp. 104-107; Bluntschli, $ 554A; Mérignhac, p. 180. Vattel (III. § 169) does not deny the right to bombard the town, although he does not recommend it. either that bombardment of the town, in contradistinction to the fortifications, is never lawful, or that it is only lawful when bombardment of the fortifications has not resulted in inducing surrender. But this opinion does not represent the actual practice of belligerents, and the Hague Regulations do not adopt it. X ESPIONAGE AND TREASON Vattel, III. §§ 179-182-Hall, § 188-Lawrence, § 222-Phillimore, III. § 96-Halleck, I. pp. 571-575-Taylor, $$ 490 and 492-Wharton, III. § 347-Bluntschli, $$ 563-564, 628-640-Heffter, § 125Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 461-467-Ullmann, § 149--Bonfils, Nos. 1100-1104-Despagnet, Nos. 539, 540, 542-Pradier-Fodéré, VI. Nos. 2762-2768-Rivier, II. pp. 282-284-Calvo, IV. §§ 21112122-Fiore, III. Nos. 1341, 1374-1376—Martens, II. § 116Longuet, §§ 63-75-Mérignhac, pp. 183-209-Pillet, pp. 97-100Kriegsgebrauch, pp. 30-31-Holland, War, Nos. 65-67-Friedemann, "Die Lage der Kriegskundschafter und Spione" (1892). Character Treason. § 159. War cannot be waged without all kinds of Twofold information about the forces and the intentions of of Espionthe enemy and about the character of the country age and within the zone of military operations. To obtain the necessary information, it has always been considered lawful on the one hand to employ spies, and, on the other, to make use of the treason of enemy soldiers or private enemy subjects, whether they were bribed or offered the information voluntarily and gratuitously. Article 24 of the Hague Regulations enacts the old customary rule that the employment of methods necessary to obtain information about the 1 Some writers maintain, how- enemy soldiers into espionage; ever, that it is not lawful to bribe see below, § 162. |