these parts hear of the conclusion of peace before such date, they must abstain at once from further hostilities. Most publicists correctly answer this question in the affirmative. But the French Prize Courts in 1801 condemned the English vessel "Swineherd" as a good prize which was captured by the French privateer "Bellona " in the Indian Seas within the period of five months fixed by the Peace of Amiens for the termination of hostilities in these seas.1 V EFFECTS OF TREATY OF PEACE Grotius, III. c. 20- tion of § 272. The chief and general effect of a peace Restoratreaty is restoration of the condition of peace between Condition the former belligerents. As soon as the treaty is of Peace. ratified, all rights and duties which exist in time of peace between the members of the family of nations are ipso facto and at once revived between the former belligerents. On the one hand, all acts legitimate in warfare cease to be legitimate. Neither contributions and requisitions, nor attacks on members of the armed forces and on fortresses, nor capture of ships, nor 1 The details of this case are given by Hall, § 199; see also Philli. more, III. § 521. occupation of territory are any longer lawful. If forces, in ignorance of the conclusion of peace, commit such hostile acts, the condition of things at the time peace was concluded must as far as possible be restored. Thus, ships captured must be set free, territory occupied must be evacuated, members of armed forces taken prisoners must be liberated, contributions imposed and paid must be repaid. On the other hand, all peaceful intercourse of the former belligerents as well as of their subjects takes place again as before the war. Thus diplomatic intercourse is reinstated, consular officers recommence activity.2 It must be specially observed that the condition of peace created by a peace treaty is legally final in so far as the order of things set up and stipulated by the treaty of peace is now the settled basis of the future relations between the parties, however contentious the matters concerned may have been before the outbreak of war. In concluding peace the parties expressly or implicitly declare that regarding such settled matters they have come to an understanding. They may indeed make war against each other in future on other grounds, but they are legally bound not to go to war for such matters as have been settled by a previous treaty of peace. That the practice of States does sometimes not comply with this rule is a well-known fact which, although it discredits this rule, cannot shake its theoretical validity. 1 The Mentor, I Rob. 175. Matters are, of course, different in case a future date-see above, $ 271-is stipulated for the ter. mination of hostilities. 2 The assertion of many writers, that such contracts between sub. jects of belligerents as have been suspended by the outbreak of war revive ipso facto by the conclusion of peace is not the out. come of a rule of International Law. But just as Municipal Law may suspend such contracts ipso facto by the outbreak of war, so it may revive them ipso facto by the conclusion of peace (see above, § 101). of Uti § 273. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the Principle effect of a treaty of peace is that everything remains Possi in such condition as it was at the time peace was detis. concluded. Thus, all moveable State property, as munitions, provisions, arms, money, horses, means of transport, and the like, seized by an invading belligerent remain his property, as likewise do the fruits of immoveable property seized by him. Thus, further, if nothing is stipulated regarding conquered territory, it remains in the hands of the possessor, who can annex it. But it is nowadays usual, although not at all legally necessary, for the conqueror desirous of retaining conquered territory to stipulate cession of such territory in the treaty of peace. § 274. Since a treaty of peace is considered a final Amnesty. settlement of the war, one of the effects of every peace treaty is the so-called amnesty-that is, an immunity for all wrongful acts done by the belligerents themselves, the members of their forces, and their subjects during the war, and due to political motives. It is usual, but not at all necessary, to insert an amnesty clause in treaties of peace.1 All so-called war crimes which have not been punished before the conclusion of peace can now no longer be punished. Individuals who have committed such war crimes and are arrested for them must be liberated.2 International delinquen 1 See above, §§ 251-257. Clause 4 of the "Terms of Surrender of the Boer Forces in the Field "see Parliamentary Papers, South Africa, 1902, Cd. 1096-seems to contradict this assertion, as it expressly excludes from the amnesty "certain acts, contrary to usages of war, which have been notified by the Commander in Chief to the Boer Generals, and which shall be tried by court-martial immediately after the close of 2 This applies to such indivi- Release of of War. cies committed intentionally by belligerents through violation of the rules of legitimate warfare are considered condoned. Even claims for reparation of damages caused by such acts cannot be raised after the conclusion of peace, unless the contrary is expressly stipulated. On the other hand, the amnesty has nothing to do with ordinary crimes and with debts incurred during war. A prisoner of war who commits a murder during captivity may be tried and punished after conclusion of peace, just as a prisoner who runs into debt during captivity may be sued after the conclusion of peace, or an action may be brought on ransom bills after peace has been restored. But it must be specially observed that the amnesty grants immunity only for wrongful acts done by the subjects of one belligerent against the other. Such wrongful acts as have been committed by the subjects of a belligerent against their own Government are not covered by the amnesty. Therefore treason, desertion, and the like committed during the war by his own subjects may be punished by a belligerent after the conclusion of peace, unless the contrary has been expressly stipulated in the treaty of peace.1 § 275. A very important effect of a treaty of peace Prisoners is termination of the captivity of prisoners of war." This does, however, not mean that with the conclusion of peace all prisoners of war must at once be released from their place of detention. It only means-to use the words of article 20 of the Hague Regulationsthat "After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall take place as speedily as need not be liberated at the con- -that Turkey must accord an amnesty to such of her subjects as had compromised themselves during the war. 2 See above, § 132. possible." The instant release of prisoners on the spot would not only be inconvenient for the State which kept them in captivity, but also for themselves, as in most cases they possess no means to pay for their journey home. Therefore, although they cease with the conclusion of peace to be in captivity, prisoners of war remain as a body under military discipline until they are brought to the frontier and handed over to their Government. That prisoners of war may be retained after conclusion of peace until they have paid debts incurred during captivity seems to be a pretty generally recognised rule. But it is controverted whether such prisoners of war may be retained as are undergoing a term of imprisonment imposed upon them for disciplinary offences. After the Franco-German War in 1871 Germany retained such prisoners,2 whereas Japan after the RussoJapanese War in 1905 released them. § 276. The question how far a peace treaty has Revival of the effect of reviving treaties concluded between the Treaties. parties before the outbreak of war is much controverted. The answer depends upon the decision of the other question, how far the outbreak of war cancels existing treaties between belligerents.3 There can be no doubt that all such treaties as have been cancelled by the outbreak of war do not revive. On the other hand, there can likewise be no doubt that such treaties revive as have only become suspended by the outbreak of war. But no certainty or unanimity exists regarding such treaties as do not belong to the above two classes, and it must, therefore, be emphasised that no rule of International Law exists concerning 1 See, however, Pradier-Fodéré, VII. No. 2839, who objects to it. 2 See Pradier-Fodéré, VII. No. 2840. VOL. II. 3 See the very detailed dis. cussion of the question in Philli more, III. §§ 529-538; see also above, $99. U |