The

matter has convinced Her Majesty's Government that it is their duty firmly to repudiate, on behalf of Great Britain and her Allies in any future war, any project for altering the principles of International Law upon which this country has hitherto acted, and, above all, to refuse to be a party to any agreement, the effect of which would be to facilitate aggressive wars, and to paralyse the patriotic efforts of an invaded people." proposals of this Conference, it may be remarked, were embodied with hardly any differences in the Hague Convention. It is, however, to be noted particularly that the right of the inhabitants of an occupied district to rise en masse against the invader is a question still unsettled. The latter Convention, as far as it goes, represents the Law of Nations with regard to the Laws and Usages of War on Land at the present day. It incorporates by reference the rules laid down in the General Convention and in the Declaration of St. Petersburg, and substantially embraces and gives the force of Law to the resolutions adopted at the Brussels Conference. The substance of these rules, together with such explanation as has been thought necessary and a statement of certain other usages which have not yet received International sanction, are set out in the following pages.

Before concluding this introductory statement a few definitions may usefully be added. The terms

"Military Law," "Martial Law," and the "Laws of War" must in the first instance be distinguished and explained. "Military Law," according to the official Manual, is the law which governs the soldier in peace and war, at home and abroad. It is embodied in the

Army Act of 1881, supplemented by the Rules of Procedure made under its authority, by the King's Regulations, and by Army Orders. As stated in the same Manual, the Army Act of itself has no force, but is brought into operation by an Act known as the "Annual Army Act." It applies only to persons subject to Military Law, as will be seen from the following case which was decided in 1902, in the High Court of Justice in Ireland :-The plaintiff Rainsford was a District Commissioner at Kintampo, in the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast. An insurrection broke out in his district, and it was occupied by military forces, the defendant, who was the senior military officer at Kintampo, being in command. The latter imposed on the Commissioner a duty of a military kind, and on his refusal to obey, had him arrested and sent to Coomassie. Rainsford was at no time subject to Military Law, and it was held that the fact that a military duty had been imposed upon him did not per se make him subject to that Law. He subsequently brought an action for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and libel. The case was tried before Lord Chief Baron Palles and a special jury,

with the result that the plaintiff was awarded £500 damages.

"Martial Law may be defined as the will of the Commanding Officer of an armed force. It makes the commander all-powerful within the limits of the area in respect of which this law is proclaimed. Had the foregoing case occurred in a place where Martial Law was in force, the result would have been different.

The "Laws of War" are the rules and regulations observed by combatants during the continuance of a war, and may be of a hostile or non-hostile character. That branch of them which relates to the operations of belligerents on land forms the subject of this little manual.

CHAPTER I,

THE QUALIFICATIONS OF BELLIGERENTS.

THE legal effect of a Declaration of War is to place all the members of the two belligerent States in a condition of hostility to one another. It does not, however, follow from this that a belligerent has a right to kill or seize indiscriminately the subjects of the hostile State. War should be conducted with a view to crushing armed resistance within the shortest possible time, and this object would not be furthered by the seizure or slaughter of persons who are either unable to take part in hostilities or have avoided such a course. It is the established practice of modern times to make a marked distinction between combatants and noncombatants. The latter category includes the whole of the civilian population as long as they refrain from taking an active part in the war. Enemy subjects found within the borders of a State on the outbreak of hostilities are also entitled to consideration, and various provisions relative to this point have been embodied in treaties and other documents from time to time; one of the earliest being a clause in Magna Charta to the

effect that, in the event of war, the rights of foreign merchants should be carefully respected. It is the practice either to permit these persons to depart with their families and property within a specified time, or to allow them to remain during the continuance of the war, provided that they live peacefully and refrain from assisting their countrymen by information or otherwise.

The persons authorized to engage in active hostilities against the enemy are the regularly commissioned forces of the nation, and all others who either are called upon to defend their country, or who spontaneously take up arms for their own defence in cases of necessity. It has been stated by Cicero [De Officiis, I. 11] that all persons who had not been regularly enrolled and taken the military oath were incapable of serving by the Roman Law. In the war of 1870-71, a proclamation was issued and put into force by the Prussians to the effect that all soldiers of the French army captured bearing arms should produce certificates showing that they belonged to the authorized forces of the enemy, in order to entitle them to the privileges accorded to prisoners of war. The proclamation further stated that persons found in plain clothes and fighting on their own responsibility would be tried by Courtmartial, and given ten years' imprisonment, or, in aggravated cases, would be put to death. The above