Chapter V challenge. other, or to injure him (verletzen), shall give him Necessity of a notice at least three days before, by a safe messenger." This decree seems to have been generally obeyed. Such a declaration of a feud (Fehdebrief) is quoted in the pamphlet of Dr. Emil Steinbach, Zur Friedensbewegung, Vienna, 1899, p. 56, as follows, dated 1430: "Know ye, the Burgomaster and Councillors of the City of Speyer, that I, Winrich von Fischnich, wish to be your enemy, on account of the complaint which I have against you, and damage may be done, however this may happen, nevertheless I wish to secure my honor against you and yours by this my open authenticated letter," etc., etc. In war the necessity of a solemn declaration of hostilities, addressed direct to the opponent, was strictly required from antiquity down to the eighteenth century. Only in recent times has the practice become. less formal in this respect, and either public explanations, diplomatic notes, manifestoes, proclamations, etc., in connection with the withdrawal of regular diplomatic representatives, have been substituted for a formal declaration of war. The reason of this change is obviously the fact, that with modern methods of international communication secrecy in preparing for war has become practically impossible, and unexpected raids or invasions at the time of a declaration need no longer be feared. At the same time some formal declaration of the existence of a state of war is made all the more important on account of the clearly defined duties of neutrals, and the omission of such a formality would meet with universal reprobation. The most recent and by far Chapter V the most striking illustration of this fact is to be found in the notice addressed by the British Government to all Governments with which it had diplomatic relations, announcing that a state of war existed between Great Britain and the South African Republic, notwithstanding the fact that the Government of Great Britain regarded the hostilities themselves only in the light of a military execution against a vassal State, where no formal declaration of war was required. to time and With reference to the restraint upon the time, Restraint as place, and method of the encounter, nothing needs place. to be added, so far as the duel is concerned. It is generally recognized as the duty of the seconds to carefully safeguard all these points. In the time of feudal warfare similar restraints were gradually introduced, often by the Church, and were later adopted in the decrees of the Diet of the Empire. Thus arose first the well-known limitation of feuds with regard to time the command of God's Peace, according to which, during the holy periods of the Church year, as well as on several days in each week, generally from Thursday evening until Monday morning, an absolute armistice was proclaimed and every act of feud strictly prohibited. Then came the exemption Exemptions. of certain persons and places, according to Professor von Zallinger,' as follows: unarmed people, the clergy, women, peasants, and merchants were not to suffer by the feuds of the knighthood. The peace of con 1 Otto v. Zallinger, Wesen und Ursprung des Formalismus in altdeutschen Privatrecht, Vienna, 1898. Chapter V secrated places, churches, and cemeteries, and of the village inside of its limits and the peace of public highways should not be disturbed by the feud. With particular emphasis, in several decrees of the peace of the land (landfrieden), the sanctity and inviolability of the home is proclaimed, and gradually the most interesting and significant principle is evolved that only such feuds shall be permitted as are directed against the immediately against the person, the body, and the life of the enemy, but not against his property. Zallinger cites two provisions of this kind from the end of the twelfth century: Feuds permitted person but not against property. Neutralization. "Si quis habet inimicum, persequitur eum in campo absque damno rerum suarum." (If any one has an enemy, let him pursue him in the field without injuring his property.) 66 . Qui cumque habet manifestum inimicum, eam in persona et non in rebus laedere potest." (He who has an open enemy may injure him in his person, but not in his property.) The similarity in the development of the laws of war is manifest. Thus far there has been no attempt to limit the time of warfare, the going into winter quarters being obviously for entirely different reasons, and the attempts of some enthusiastic Sabbatarians. to introduce a day of rest during the Spanish-American War having been generally dismissed with a smile. On the other hand, the exemption of particular persons and property from the consequences of warfare, their "neutralization" according to the terminology of international law, -is now universally accepted as a matter of course in an increasing number of Chapter V instances. Whole States have been neutralized, as, for example, Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxemburg, as well as single provinces, such as Chablais and Faucigny on the southern shore of the lake of Geneva, and the Suez Canal. The provisions adopted by the Peace Conference, regarding military hospitals and ambulances and the personnel connected therewith, as well as non-combatants in general, have been referred to in the discussion of the Convention on the Laws of War. measures. The closest parallelism of similar phenomena, both Preventive in duelling and in the history of unrestrained feudal warfare, is to be found in the preventive measures. So far as duelling is concerned, these are well known, and need no lengthy discussion. The analogous development with reference to feudal warfare is characterized by the fact that by the middle of the thirteenth century, especially after the great law of peace of Frederick II. in the year 1235, the right to feudal hostility, which up to that time was absolutely unlimited, was thereafter restricted to cases in which no help was to be expected from the courts, and, therefore, hostilities were not to be begun until after an unsuccessful appeal to the courts. It was the beginning of compulsory arbitration. Not until two hundred and sixty years later, however, in 1495, was the celebrated decree of Eternal Pacification — ewige Landfrieden-issued by Emperor Maximilian the First, in which for the first time no difference was made between permitted and prohibited feuds, Chapter V Remarks of and all private use of force was for the first time characterized as a breach of the peace of the land. It is reported that the Emperor himself was so appalled by the stupendous consequences of this decree that he brooded over it in solitude for two days before signing it. It was, moreover, a little ahead of time. After its promulgation serious feuds continued to rend the Empire, and even the celebrated penal code of the Emperor Charles V., issued in 1532- the so-called Carolina-did not dare to draw the necessary consequences of the decree of Maximilian, and in Article 129 made penal only such feuds as were begun without righteous cause. A consideration of these facts should be a sure preventative of undue pessimism, with respect to the further gradual development of the idea of universal peace. The Article under discussion specially applies the provisions of what may be called the gentleman's code of duelling to international relations. The following remarks made by Mr. Holls upon introducing the proposition may serve, to a certain extent, as a commentary. "Permit me to explain briefly the fundamental idea upon which the proposition now submitted to you is based. It was and is, first and foremost, the undeniable fact, that there are and always will be differences between nations and between governments which neither arbitration nor mediation, according to the usual acceptance of the term, are calculated to prevent. Nevertheless, it would be |