Page images
PDF
EPUB

"Article 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible."

This is held by Holland not to prejudge the matter of reprisals and by Westlake not to prevent the payment of a ransom which an invader may require upon condition of sparing a place not yet occupied from the damage that would result from a lawful operation of war.

"Article 51. No contribution shall be collected except under a written order and on the responsibility of a commander-in-chief.

"This levy shall only take place, as far as possible, in accordance with the rules in existence and the assessment in force for taxes.

"For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the payee."

"The receipt mentioned in this article," says Holland, “is intended as evidence that money, goods, or services have been exacted, but implies, in itself, no promise to pay on the part of the occupant. He does not even thereby bind his government, if victorious, to stipulate in the treaty of peace that the receipts shall be honored by the government of the territory which has been under occupation. A Swiss proposal making it obligatory to honor the receipts mentioned in this and the following articles, was indeed deliberately rejected at the first Hague conference."1

"Article 52. Neither requisitions in kind nor services can be demanded from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country and of such a nature as not to imply for the population any obligation to take part in military operations against their country. "These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on 'Holland, "Laws of War," 1908, p. 55.

the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. Supplies in kind shall as far as possible be paid in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible."

"Requisitions in kind," says Holland, "may, of course, relate not only to provisions but also to horses, vehicles, clothing, tobacco, etc. The services here intended are such as would be rendered by drivers, blacksmiths, artisans and laborers of all kinds, as also by the occupiers of houses upon which troops are quartered. . . . Payment for supplies is even politic, as decreasing the chances of their being concealed." 1

On this article Westlake says, in discussing the subject, that "the money, things, and services which invaders take from the inhabitants of the enemy territory are now classed as contributions when they are money, requisitions when they are things or services. . . . Contributions have been dealt with in Articles 48 to 51 of The Hague Convention IV, and the code now proceeds to deal with requisitions."

He then proceeds to make some general observations upon the subject of contributions and requisitions, the first being that the character of the laws of war, "as being always restrictive and never giving a positive sanction to violence, is plainly indicated in the articles in question. No right to levy contributions or make requisitions is declared by Articles 48 and 49 as hypothetical on the payment of the money being imposed, and Articles 50, 51, and 52 are expressly provisions of restraint."

"If we ask what at different times it has not been prohibited to take from the inhabitants of the enemy territory, the answer for the oldest time is that nothing was prohibited to be taken from them. Neither in antiquity nor under the doctrine of courir sus had the inhabitants of the enemy territory any rights against the invader. . . . But when the view prevailed that occupation was conquest, as soon as his inroad became an occupation he was placed in a new relation to the

1 Holland, "Laws of War," p. 56.

inhabitants of the occupied territory. They would no longer be properly regarded as his enemies but as his subjects, and the worst government that ever existed with the pretension of being civilized never dreamed of leaving the property, money, and persons of its subjects, not chargeable with active opposition to it, to the arbitrary will of its military commander. . . . Lastly there has come the modern doctrine that between the passive citizen and the enemy state war introduces a relation by virtue of which the former may be made to suffer what for the purpose of the war it is necessary' or 'natural' for the latter to inflict. Combine with this the fact that most nations do not consider themselves rich enough to conduct a campaign on enemy's territory without availing themselves of the resources of that territory, and the exaction of requisitions and contributions is justified in the measure in which the invader's own resources are deemed by him to be insufficient. In sum, requisitions and contributions have continued to be exacted, by force of tradition and circumstances, through a series of successive theoretical views, none of which has been capable of fixing a limit to them." 1

"Hostages are sometimes seized," says Hall, "by way of precaution in order to guarantee the maintenance of order in occupied territory. . . . The seizure of hostages is less often used as a guarantee against insurrection than as a momentary expedient or as a protection against special dangers which, it is supposed, cannot otherwise be met. In such cases a belligerent is sometimes drawn by the convenience of intimidation into acts which are clearly in excess of his rights. In 1870 the Germans ordered that, 'railways having been frequently damaged, the trains shall be accompanied by well-known and respected persons inhabiting the towns or other localities in the neighborhood of the lines. These persons shall be placed upon the engine, so that it may be understood that in every accident caused by the hostility of the inhabitants their compatriots will

1 Westlake, "Int. Law," 2d ed., vol. II, pp. 107-9.

be the first to suffer. . . .' The order was universally and justly reprobated on the ground that it violated the principle which denies to a belligerent any further power than that of keeping his hostage in confinement; and it is for governments to consider whether it is worth while to retain a right which can only be made effective by means of an illegal brutality which existing opinion refuses to condone." 1

Article 53 of The Hague Convention IV reads that:

"An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the state, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property of the state which may be used for operations of war.

[ocr errors]

"All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods, apart from cases governed by maritime law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of war material, may be seized, even though belonging to private persons, but they must be restored and indemnities for them regulated at the peace." Article 54 reads that:

"Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral one shall not be seized or destroyed except in case of absolute necessity. They also must be restored and the indemnities for them regulated at the peace."

This has also been discussed elsewhere.2

Article 55 goes on to say that:

"The occupying state shall regard itself as only administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, immovables, forests, and agricultural undertakings belonging to the enemy state and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of those properties and administer it according to the rules of usufruct (life tenancy)."

The rules of usufruct require that the right must be so used that its capital or substance receives no injury.

Hall, "Int. Law," 6th ed., pp. 470, 471.

2 See p. 351, ante.

Article 56 reads that:

"The property of communes and that of institutions dedicated to religious worship, charity, education, art, or science, even when belonging to the state, shall be treated in the same manner as private property.

"Any seizure or destruction of, or intentional damage done to, such institutions, historical monuments, or works of art or science is prohibited and should be made the subject of prosecution."

Under property of communes or local bodies, T. E. Holland claims that town halls, waterworks, gas works or police stations may be included.1

In concluding this portion of Convention IV of the second Hague conference containing the limitations placed by it upon military authority over the territory of the hostile state, it may be well in regard to the points omitted or partially treated in the articles that have been given in the preceding paragraphs to quote once more from the main body of the convention preceding the regulations. It says that:

"Until a more complete code of the laws of war can be issued, the high contracting parties think it expedient to declare that in cases not included in the regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience." 2

170. Termination of War.-War between civilized states almost always ends by the conclusion of a treaty of peace. Sometimes, however, the war fades away to an end by the inability or the want of desire to continue hostilities, and no treaty is made at the time, as in the war between Spain and France in 1720, the war between Spain and Chile in 1867, and 1T. E. Holland, "Laws of War," p. 59.

2 Higgins, "Hague Peace Conferences," p. 211.

« PreviousContinue »