Page images
PDF
EPUB

villages, or buildings are liable to direct bombardment when reasonable requisitions for provisions and supplies at the time essential to the naval force are withheld, in which case due notice of bombardment shall be given.

The rules adopted by the Institute of International Law at Venice, 1896, provide:

ART. 1. There is no difference between the rules of the law of war as to bombardment by military forces on land and that by naval forces.

The Hague Convention, with respect to the laws and customs of war on land, provides:

ART. XXV. The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings which are not defended is prohibited.

ART. XXVI. The commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.

ART. XXVII. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

The situation is, however, somewhat different in bombardment by land forces. It is evident, however, that it was not the intent that these rules of The Hague Convention should apply to naval warfare, as the conclusions of The Hague Conference contain, in the seventh resolution, the following statement: "The Conference expresses the wish that the proposition of regulating the question of bombardment of ports, cities, or villages by a naval force should be referred for examination to another conference."

As Article 4 of the code now reads, it has been held that unfortified and undefended towns may be bombarded directly, when such direct bombardment is a part of a more general attempt at the destruction of military or naval establishments, public depots of munitions of war, etc. It has been held that such bombardment might be undertaken upon a given day with the expectation that at some future time the

"military or naval establishments," etc., would be bombarded.

Such action would not be permissible, however, according to the best opinion of modern times. Bombardment can only be aimed at "military or naval establishments," etc., as named in Article 4. The "unfortified and undefended towns, villages, or buildings" may without direct intention be injured in the fire incidental to such bombardment. Such injury can not be called bombardment of the "towns, villages, or buildings."

It should be observed that a single act of forcible resistance to an order of a properly authorized military officer may constitute defense. A town, village, or dwelling may thus easily pass from an undefended to a defended condition.

The requisition for supplies must be reasonable and must be properly made. The characteristics of such action are indicated by the Hague Convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land.

ART. LII. Neither requisition 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 involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their country.

These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.

The contributions in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged.

To avoid possible misinterpretation, the clause should read: "The bombardment, by a naval force, of unfortified and undefended towns, villages, or buildings is forbidden, though such towns, villages, or buildings are liable to the damages incidental to the destruction of military or naval establishments, public depots of munitions of war, or vessels of war in port, and such towns, villages, or buildings are liable to bombardment when reasonable requisitions for provisions and supplies at the time essential to the naval force are withheld, in which case due notice of bombardment shall be given.”

(b) Should the clause "The bombardment of unfortified and undefended towns and places for the nonpayment of ransom is forbidden," be stricken out?

The clause "The bombardment of unfortified and undefended towns and places for the nonpayment of ramsom is forbidden" should be retained as a part of the code. The matter of such bombardment has been recently and quite fully discussed before this Naval War College by Prof. John Bassett Moore and will be found in the publications of the Naval War College, International Law Situations with Solutions and Notes, 1901, pages 5-37. Latest opinion and practice alike support the retention of this clause of Article 4.

(c) Should a clause to the effect that "An open town which is defended against the entrance of troops or disembarked marines may be bombarded in order to protect the landing of soldiers and marines if the open town attempts to prevent it, and as an auxiliary measure of war, in order to facilitate an assault made by the troops and the disembarked marines, if the town defends itself," be inserted?

The insertion of such a provision is unnecessary, as "an open town" which is in the position described is no longer "an open town" in the sense of an undefended town, which is the town exempt by Article 4; therefore the town, by defense against the entrance of troops or disembarked marines, becomes liable to the military operations which might include bombardment if circumstances made it necessary.

(d) Would bombardment of an open town be justifiable in case a division of the enemy's army occupies the town and refuses to surrender on demand of the United States naval force?

The Institute of International Law, in its session in September, 1896, adopted the following regulation:

An open town may not be exposed to bombardment by the sole fact:

1. That it is the capital of a state or the seat of government (but, naturally, these circumstances give it no guarantee against bombardment).

2. That it is actually occupied by troops, or that it is ordinarily garrisoned by troops of various arms, destined to rejoin the army in time of war.

This rule, if generally accepted, would not cover the case under consideration, however, for the occupancy by the enemy's troops is not the sole fact nor even the important fact in this case. The important fact is that an armed force refuses on demand to surrender, and the fact that it remains in "an open town" in name, can not exempt the town or force from the necessary military measures. The town, in fact, becomes defended under these circumstances and is liable to treatment as such a town.

(e) The harbor of an unfortified town is supposed to contain submarine mines making entry dangerous. The commanding officer of the United States naval forces requests assurances in regard to the condition of the harbor. This is refused. Is the officer justified in bombarding the town in order to obtain an answer or as a measure of war?

The refusal to give information or assurances to the commanding officer leaves him no alternative other than to assume that the town is defended against approach from the sea. Such being the case, he is justified in bombarding the town after due notice, either in order to obtain an answer to his reasonable request for information or as a measure of war.

Article 5.

The following rules are to be followed with regard to submarine telegraphic cables in time of war, irrespective of their ownership:

(a) Submarine telegraphic cables between points in the territory of an enemy, or between the territory of the United States and that of an enemy, are subject to such treatment as the necessities of war may require.

(b) Submarine telegraphic cables between the territory of an enemy and neutral territory may be interrupted within the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy.

(c) Submarine telegraphic cables between two neutral territories shall be held inviolable and free from interruption.

(a) Should the clause, "or at any point outside of neutral jurisdiction, if the necessities of war require,” be added to (b) under Article 5?

After consideration of recent practice and the discussions in regard to the treatment of submarine telegraphic cables, it would seem best to elaborate the first clause of Article 5. It was evidently not intended to require that the provisions of Article 5 should be followed invariably. Accordingly the first clause should read as follows: "Unless under satisfactory censorship or otherwise exempt, the following rules are established with regard to the treatment of submarine telegraphic cables in time of war, irrespective of their ownership."

Clauses (a) and (c) are generally accepted as correct statements of the rules to be followed in case of cables connecting belligerent points on the one hand and neutral points on the other.

The situation involved in clause (b), "Submarine telegraphic cables between the territory of an enemy and neutral territory may be interrupted within the territorial jurisdiction of the enemy," in various forms has been much discussed. It has been claimed that a submarine telegraphic cable between the terrritory of an enemy and neutral territory (1) should not be interrupted under any conditions, (2) could be interrupted only within the three-mile limit, (3) could be interrupted only when the belligerent landing place was under effective blockade, and (4) could be interrupted at any point outside of neutral jurisdiction if military necessity required such interruption. Others would modify some of these provisions further according to ownership, location, etc.

The subject of the treatment of submarine telegraphic cables was quite fully considered in the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Cable Communications, made to the English Parliament, March 26, 1902. The Institute of International Law also gave the subject much attention at its meeting in September, 1902. The English committee admits that arrangements should be made "on the supposition that a considerable propor

« PreviousContinue »