Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/207

 INTERNATIONAL LAW 195 project of an international declaration submitted to tlie Brussels conference of 1874. The conference did not result in any international convention, and England firmly repu diated portions of the declaration which appeared to be calculated to &quot; facilitate aggressive wars, and to paralyse the patriotic efforts of an invaded people.&quot; But on the whole this document, although not accepted into the legis lation of nations, expresses their general sense on most of the points with which it deals. It lays down rules with regard to (1) the occupation of a hostile country by military force, (2) the distinction between combatants and non- combatants, (3) the means of injuring an enemy, (4) sieges and bombardments, (5) spies, (6) prisoners of war, (7) sick and wounded, (8) private individuals and private property, (9) contributions and requisitions, (10) flags of truce, (11) capitulations, (12) armistices, (13) belligerents interned or wounded treated in neutral territory. Under the first, second, eighth, and ninth heads the effects of war are restricted to the property of the state and its recognized army, although the necessity of military organization in order to entitle combatants to the rights of war is laid down too stringently. Private property must be respected, and pillage is expressly forbidden, but on the other hand an army of occupation has a right to seize all the personal property of the state which is likely to be of use in war, including any kind of munitions of war although belonging to private individuals or companies. The occupying state is to consider itself in the light of an administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, &c., of the hostile state. Contributions and requisitions may be imposed on the inhabitants, for which receipts must be given. Under the third head there are forbidden the use of poison or poisoned weapons, murder by treachery or murder of a dis armed enemy, declaration of &quot; no quarter,&quot; projectiles caus ing unnecessary suffering or prohibited by the declaration of St Petersburg 1818, abuse of the flag of truce, and unneces sary destruction of enemy s property ; but ruses de guerre are permitted. Spies (who collect information on false pretences or secretly in territory occupied by the enemy) shall when captured be tried and treated according to the law of the army which captures them. The bearer of a flag of truce is inviolable unless he abuse his position, but a commander is not bound to receive a flag of truce. Treat ment of the wounded is regulated by the Geneva Conven tion of 1864, and such modifications thereof as may from time to time be made. The English reader will find a copy of the Brussels project in Boyd s edition of Wheaton s International Law. The Geneva Convention, to which reference is here made, was an international compact between the European states, establishing the neutrality of ambulances and military hospitals, and of all persons engaged in the service thereof, as well as of inhabitants of the country bringing help to the wounded. The hospitals, &c., shall bear a distinctive flag (red cross on white ground), and badges similarly distinguished shall be allowed for individuals entitled to the benefits of neutrality. The St Petersburg declaration renounces for the contracting parties in case of war among themselves the use of &quot;any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.&quot; War by land is necessarily carried on within the territory of one or other of the belligerents, and generally in the midst of surroundings devoted to the permanent works of civilization and peace. Naval warfare is a duel between two sets of &quot; floating fortresses,&quot; on an element which is no nation s exclusive property, and in no nation s continuous possession. This is the principal reason for the superior humanity characterizing the rule of war on land, where the licence of primitive warfare would be infinitely more disastrous than it would be at sea. Another reason why the law of the sea retains so much of its original severity is that its rules have been developed under the influence of a regular court and a professional bar, and have acquired the fixed and inelastic character peculiar to positive law. The toleration of privateering already noticed is an example of the difference between the two systems, and the practice of bombarding seaports to enforce contributions is another. The liability of private property to capture is, however, the most important point of difference. The public vessels of the enemy are of course the natural prey of our own. The private property of the enemy may be contained either in private vessels of his own or in the ships of neutral powers, and we may add for the sake of convenience a third case, where the private vessels of the enemy carry goods belong ing to neutral owners. In the last case, when the hostile vessel has been captured, the neutral property is not affected thereby enemy ship does not make enemy goods. In the second case the treaty of Paris has promulgated the rule that/ree ship makes/r^e goods, which may now be regarded as the established modern rule. In the first case ship and cargo alike are the prey of our vessels of war. In the result, therefore, we may capture the enemy s ships and the enemy s property on board his own ships, but we must spare neutral vessels and all the goods therein, whether belonging to enemies or neutrals, and neutral goods when found on board the enemy s vessels. There is, however, a manifest tendency in international opinion to withdraw private vessels and private property lawfully used altogether from the sphere of warlike operations. The law of capture by sea is further considered under the heading PRIZE. It remains to speak of the right of neutrals, and their obligations to the belligerents. The neutral nation is to be regarded as the friend of both belligerents, and is bound to treat both of them alike. Jurists distinguish between &quot;strict&quot; or &quot; ordinary &quot; neutrality, and &quot; imperfect &quot; neutrality, in which certain advantages are allowed to both belligerents, or in which advantages are granted to one of the belligerents only under a prior treaty, which the other belligerent does not choose to consider a casus belli. The &quot;perpetual&quot; neutrality of Belgium and Switzerland secured by treaties binds those states to abstain from taking part in any war arising between their neighbours. The combination of several northern powers to enforce by arms certain alleged rights of neutrals against the claims of belligerents in 1780 and 1800 has been termed an &quot;armed neutrality.&quot; Neutral states are entitled to prohibit all belligerent operations within their territory, using that phrase in the enlarged sense it bears in international law. They may prevent the passage of fleets or armies through those por tions of the sea or land over which their jurisdiction extends. Hostilities carried on within neutral territory are unlawful, and captures effected thereby are void. The rule is indis putable, but its application to warfare by sea has not been free from controversy. A capture made outside the neutral territory by the boats of a ship lying within the neutral territory has been held to imply an illegal use of that terri tory for purposes of war. On the other hand, a capture begun outside but consummated within the neutral territory, is also, notwithstanding the theory set up by Byukershoek, entirely illegal. It is in fact as much the duty as the right of the neutral state to insist on these prohibitions, as the omission to do so in any case might give an advantage to one belligerent over the other inconsistent with true neutrality. The exemption of neutral property everywhere from the operation of war has been already noticed. The impartiality which it is the duty of the neutral to observe towards the belligerents has been summed up by Vattel in two propositions cited with approval by Wheaton : (1) that no assistance should be given to cither party in matters relating to war unless under some pre-existing