VOL. II. bref délai possible. Le câble peut toujours être coupé sur le territoire et dans la mer territoriale dépendant d'un territoire ennemi jusqu'à d'une distance de trois milles marins de la laisse de basse-marée. (4) Il est entendu que la liberté de l'Etat neutre de transmettre des dépêches n'implique pas la faculté d'en user ou d'en permettre l'usage manifestement pour prêter assistance à l'un des belligérants. (5) En ce qui concerne l'application des règles précédentes, il n'y a de différence à établir ni entre les câbles d'État et les câbles appartenant à des particuliers, ni entre les câbles de propriété ennemie et ceux qui sont de propriété neutre. The U.S. Naval War Code, article 5, lays down the following rules : (1) Submarine telegraphic cables between points in the territory of an enemy, or between the territory of the United States and that of an enemy, are subject to such treatment as the necessities of war may require. (2) Submarine telegraphic cables between the territory of an enemy and neutral territory may be interrupted within the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy. (3) Submarine telegraphic cables between two neutral territories shall be held inviolable and free from interruption.1 It is impossible for a treatise to discuss the details of the absolutely unsettled question how far belligerents can interfere with submarine telegraph cables. Readers who take a particular interest in it may be referred to the excellent monograph of Scholz, Krieg und Seekabel (1904), which discusses the matter thoroughly and ably. D CHAPTER V NON-HOSTILE RELATIONS OF BELLIGERENTS Fides etiam hosti servanda. I ON NON-HOSTILE RELATIONS IN GENERAL BETWEEN Grotius, III. c. 19-Pufendorf, VIII. c. 7, §§ 1-2-Bynkershoek, § 215. Although the outbreak of war between States brings regularly all non-hostile intercourse to an end, necessity of circumstances, convenience, humanity, and other factors may call some kinds of non-hostile relations of belligerents into existence. And it is a universally recognised principle of International Law that, where such relations rise, belligerents must carry them out with due faith. Fides etiam hosti servanda is a rule which already in antiquity was adhered to when no International Law in the modern sense of the term existed. But it had then a religious and moral sanction only. Since in modern times war is not a condition of anarchy and lawlessness between belligerents, but a contention for many parts regulated, restricted, and modified by law, it is obvious that, where non-hostile relations between belligerents occur, they are protected by law. Fides etiam hosti servanda is, therefore, a principle which nowadays enjoys a legal besides its religious and moral sanction. Non Relations. § 216. As through the outbreak of war all diplo- Different matic intercourse and all other non-hostile relations kinds of come to an end, it is obvious that any non-hostile hostile relations between belligerents must originate from special agreements. These agreements-so-called commercia belli-may either be concluded in time of peace for the purpose of creating certain non-hostile relations between the parties in case war breaks out, or they may be concluded during the very time of war. Now such non-hostile relations are created through passports, safe-conducts, safeguards, flags of truce, cartels, capitulations, and armistices. Nonhostile relations may also be created by peace negotiations.1 to trade. 217. Several writers 2 speak of non-hostile re- Licences lations between belligerents created by licences to trade granted by a belligerent to enemy subjects either within certain limits or generally. It has been explained above, in § 101, that it is for Municipal Law to determine whether or not through the outbreak of war all trade and the like is prohibited between the subjects of belligerents. Now, if the Municipal Law of one or both belligerents does contain such a prohibition, it is of course within the discretion of one or both of them to grant exceptional licences to trade to their own or the other belligerent's subjects, and such licences naturally include certain 1 See below, § 267. 2 See, for instance, Hall, § 196; Halleck, II. pp. 343-363; Law. rence, 235; Manning, p. 168; Taylor, § 512; Wheaton, §§ 409- privileges. Thus, for instance, if a belligerent allows enemy subjects to trade with his own subjects, enemy merchantmen engaged in such trade are exempt from capture and appropriation by the grantor. Yet it is not International Law which creates this exemption, but the very licence to trade granted by the belligerent and revocable at any moment; and no non-hostile international relations between the belligerents themselves originate from such licences. The matter would be different if belligerents agreed either in time of peace for the time of war or during time of war upon certain trade to be allowed between their subjects. However, non-hostile relations originating from such an agreement would not be relations arising out of a licence to trade, but out of a cartel.1 Passports and Safeconducts. II PASSPORTS, SAFE-CONDUCTS, SAFEGUARDS Grotius, III. c. 21, §§ 14-22-Vattel, III. §§ 265-277-Hall, §§ 191 and 195-Lawrence, § 234-Phillimore, III. §§ 98-102-Halleck, II. pp. 323-328-Taylor, § 511-Wheaton, § 408-Bluntschli, $$ 675-678-Heffter, § 142-Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 525527-Ullmann, § 157-Bonfils, Nos. 1246-1247-Despagnet, Nos. 558 and 560-Pradier-Fodéré, VII. Nos. 2884, 2932-2938—Calvo, IV. §§ 2413-2418-Fiore, III. No. 1499-Longuet, §§ 142-143Mérignhac, pp. 239-240-Pillet, pp. 359-360-Kriegsgebrauch, p. 41-Holland, War, No. 96. § 218. Belligerents on occasions arrange among themselves that passports and safe-conducts shall be given to certain of each other's subjects. Passports are written permissions given by a belligerent to enemy subjects for the purpose of travelling 1 See below, § 224. within that belligerent's territory or enemy territory occupied by him. Safe-conducts are written permissions given by a belligerent to enemy subjects for the purpose of going to a particular place for a defined object, for instance, to a besieged town for conducting certain negotiations; but safe-conducts may also be given to goods, and they comprise then the permission for such goods to be carried unmolested to a certain place. Passports as well as safe-conducts make the grantee inviolable as long and in so far as he complies with the conditions specially imposed upon him or actually corresponding with the merits of the special case. Both passports and safe-conducts are not transferable, and may be granted to enemy subjects for a limited and an unlimited period, and in the former case their validity expires with the expiration of the period. Both may be withdrawn, not only when the grantee abuses the protection, but also for military expediency. It must, however, be specially observed that passports and safe-conducts are only a matter of International Law when their grant has been arranged between the belligerents or their responsible commanders. If they are granted without such an arrangement unilaterally on the part of one of the belligerents, they fall outside the scope of International Law.1 § 219. Belligerents on occasions arrange among Safethemselves that they shall grant protection to certain guards. of each other's subjects or property against their own forces in the form of safeguards, of which there are two kinds. One consists in a written order given to an enemy subject or left with enemy property and 1 The distinction between passports and the like arranged to be granted between the belligerents, on the one hand, and, on the other, such as are granted unilaterally, |