Bombardment of the Enemy Coast.

that such requisitions and contributions may be levied, provided a force is landed which actually takes possession of the respective coast town and establishes itself there, although only temporarily, until the imposed requisitions and contributions have been complied with; that, however, no requisitions or contributions could be demanded by a single message sent on shore under threatened penalty of bombardment in case of refusal. There is no doubt that Hall's arguments are logically correct. But whether the practice of sea warfare in future will be in accordance with the rules laid down by Hall is at least doubtful. Hall starts from the principles regarding requisitions and contributions in land warfare, yet it is not at all certain that the naval Powers would consider themselves bound by these principles as regards maritime operations. Be that as it may, the fact is certain that articles 51 and 52 of the Hague Regulations apply to land warfare only.1

§ 213. There is no doubt whatever that enemy coast towns which are defended can be bombarded by naval forces, either acting independently or in co-operation with a besieging army. But the question is whether or not open and undefended coast places can be bombarded by naval forces. The Institute of International Law appointed in 1895 at its meeting at Cambridge a committee to investigate the matter. The report of this committee, drafted by Professor Holland with the approval of the Dutch General Den Beer Portugael, and presented in 1896

1 The Institute of International Law has touched upon the question of requisitions and contributions in sea warfare in article 4, No. 1, of its rules regarding the bombardment of open towns by naval forces; see

below, p. 222. U.S. Naval War Code, article 4, allows " reasonable" requisitions, but no contributions, since " ransom " is not

allowed.

2 See Annuaire, XV. (1896), pp. 148-150.

at the meeting at Venice,1 is of such interest that I think it advisable to reproduce here in translation the following chief parts of it :

When the Prince de Joinville recommended in 1844, in case of war, the devastation of the great commercial towns of England, the Duke of Wellington wrote:-"What but the inordinate desire of popularity could have induced a man in his station to write and publish such a production, an invitation and provocation to war, to be carried on in a manner such as has been disclaimed by the civilized portions of mankind?" (Raikes, "Correspondence," p. 367). The opinion of the Prince de Joinville has been taken up by Admiral Aube in an article which appeared in the "Revue des Deux Mondes" in 1882. After having remarked that the ultimate object of war is to inflict the greatest possible damage to the enemy and that "La richesse est le nerf de la guerre," he goes on as follows:-" Tout ce qui frappe l'ennemi dans sa richesse devient non seulement légitime, mais s'impose comme obligatoire. Il faut donc s'attendre à voir les flottes cuirassées, maîtresses de la mer, tourner leur puissance d'attaque et déstruction, à defaut d'adversaires se dérobant à leurs coups, contre toutes les villes du littoral, fortifiées ou non, pacifiques ou guerrières, les incendier, les ruiner, et tout au moins les rançonner sans merci. Cela s'est fait autrefois; cela ne se fait plus; cela se fera encore: Strasbourg et Péronne en sont garants.

The discussion was opened again in 1888, on the occasion of manœuvres executed by the British Fleet, the enemy part of which feigned to hold to ransom, under the threat of bombardment, great commercial towns, such as Liverpool, and to cause unnecessary devastation to pleasure towns and bathing-places, such as Folkestone, through throwing bombs. One of your reporters observed in a series of letters addressed to the "Times" that such acts are contrary to the rules of International Law as well as to the practice of the present century. He maintained that bombardment of an open town ought to be allowed only for

1 See Annuaire, XV. (1896), p. 313.

the purpose of obtaining requisitions in kind necessary for the enemy fleet and contributions instead of requisitions, further by the way of reprisals, and in case the town defends itself against occupation by enemy troops approaching on land. . . . Most of the admirals and naval officers of England who took part in the lively correspondence which arose in the "Times" and other journals during the months of August and September 1880 took up a contrary attitude.

On the basis of this report the Institute, at the same meeting, adopted a body of rules regarding the bombardment of open towns by naval forces, declaring that the rules of the law of war concerning bombardment are the same regarding land warfare and sea warfare. Of special interest are articles 4 and 5 of these rules, which run as follows:

Article 4. In virtue of the general principles above, the bombardment by a naval force of an open town, that is to say one which is not defended by fortifications or by other means of attack or of resistance for immediate defence, or by detached forts situated in proximity, for example of the maximum distance of from four to ten kilomètres, is inadmissible except in the following cases :

(1) For the purpose of obtaining by requisitions or contributions what is necessary for the fleet. These requisitions or contributions must in every case remain within the limits prescribed by articles 56 and 58 of the Manual of the Institute.

(2) For the purpose of destroying sheds, military erections, depots of war munitions, or of war vessels in a port. Further, an open town which defends itself against the entrance of troops or of disembarked marines can be bombarded for the purpose of protecting the disembarkation of the soldiers and of the marines, if the open town attempts to prevent it, and as an auxiliary measure of war to facilitate the result made by the troops and the disembarked marines, if the town defends itself. Bombardments

of which the object is only to exact a ransom are specially forbidden, and, with the stronger reason, those which are intended only to bring about the submission of the country by the destruction, for which there is no other motive, of the peaceful inhabitants or of their property.

Article 5. An open town cannot be exposed to a bombardment for the only reasons :—

(1) That it is the capital of the State or the seat of the Government (but naturally these circumstances do not guarantee it in any way against a bombardment).

(2) That it is actually occupied by troops, or that it is ordinarily the garrison of troops of different arms intended to join the army in time of war.

Thus the matter stands as far as the Institute of International Law is concerned. But nobody can say what line of action naval forces will follow in the future regarding bombardment of the enemy coast.1

The U.S. Naval War Code now deals with the question in its article 4. The bombardment of undefended unfortified towns is thereby forbidden, except (1) when such bombardment is incidental to the destruction of military and naval establishments and the like, (2) when the reasonable requisitions are not complied with. The bombardment for the nonpayment of "ransom " is absolutely forbidden.

1

"

1 Amongst the six “ wishes expressed by the final act of the Hague Peace Conference is the following:-"The Conference expresses the wish that the proposal to settle

the question of the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force may be referred to a subsequent Conference for consideration."

Uncer

tainty of Rules concerning Interfer

VIII

INTERFERENCE WITH SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CABLES

Liszt, § 41, VI.-Bonfils, No. 1278-Pradier-Fodéré, VI. No. 2772-Fiore, III. No. 1387-Perels, § 35, p. 185-Perdrix, "Les câbles sousmarines et leur protection internationale” (1902)—Kraemer, "Die unterseeischen Telegraphenkabel in Kriegszeiten" (1903)—Scholz, “Krieg und Seekabel" (1904)-Holland, in "Journal de Droit International Privé et de la Jurisprudence comparée" (Clunet), XXV. (1898), pp. 648-652-Goffin, in "The Law Quarterly Review," XV. (1899). pp. 145-154-Bar, in the "Archiv für Oeffentliches Recht," XV. (1900), pp. 414-421-Rey, in R.G., VIII. (1901), pp. 681-762— Dupuis, in R.G., X. (1903), pp. 532-547. See also the literature quoted above, vol. I., at the commencement of § 286.

§ 214. As the "International Convention1 for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables" of 1884 stipulates expressly by its article 15 that freedom of ence with action is reserved to belligerents, the question is not settled how far belligerents are entitled to interfere Telegraph with submarine telegraph cables. The Institute of International Law has studied the matter and adopted,2 at its meeting at Brussels in 1902, the following five rules:

Submarine

Cables.

(1) Le câble sousmarin reliant deux territoires neutres est inviolable.

(2) Le câble reliant les territoires de deux belligérants ou deux parties du territoire d'un des belligérants peut être coupé partout, excepté dans la mer territoriale et dans les eaux neutralisées dépendant d'un territoire neutre.

(3) Le câble reliant un territoire neutre au territoire d'un des belligérants ne peut en aucun cas être coupé dans la mer territoriale ou dans les eaux neutralisées dépendant d'un territoire neutre. En haute mer, ce câble ne peut être coupé que s'il y a blocus effectif et dans les limites de la ligne du blocus, sauf rétablissement du câble dans le plus

1 See above, vol. I. §§ 286 and 287.

2 See Annuaire, XIX. (1902), p. 331.