Letters to "The Times" upon War and Neutrality (1881-1920) Part 12

By Art. 28 (_b_) of The Hague Regulations, "it is especially prohibited to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army": words which, one cannot doubt, would include not only a.s.sa.s.sination of individuals, but also, by implication, any offer for an individual "dead or alive." The Regulations are, of course, technically binding only between signatories of the convention to which they are appended; but Art. 28 (_b_) is merely an express enactment of a well-established rule of the law of nations. A recent instance of its application occurred, before the date of The Hague Convention, during operations in the neighbourhood of Suakin. An offer by the British Admiral of a reward for Osman Digna, dead or alive, was, if I mistake not, promptly cancelled and disavowed by the home Government.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND.

Brighton, April 17 (1906).

SECTION 9

_The Choice of Means of Injuring_

BULLETS IN SAVAGE WARFARE

Sir,--The Somaliland debate was sufficient evidence that The Hague Convention "respecting the laws and customs of war on land" is far more talked about than read. Colonel Cobbe had, it appears, complained of the defective stopping power, as against the foes whom he was encountering, of the Lee-Metford bullet. It is the old story that wounds inflicted by this bullet cannot be relied on to check the onrush of a hardy and fanatical savage, though they may ultimately result in his death.

Whereupon arises, on the one hand, the demand for a more effective projectile, and, on the other hand, the cry that the proposed subst.i.tute is condemned by "the universal consent of Christendom"; or, in particular, "by the Convention of The Hague," which, as was correctly stated by Mr. Lee, prohibits only the use of arms which cause superfluous injury.

You print to-day two letters enforcing the view of the inefficiency against savages of the ordinary service bullet. Perhaps you will find s.p.a.ce for a few words upon the question whether the employment for this purpose of a severer form of projectile, such as the Dum Dum bullet, would be a contravention of the "laws of war."

The law of the subject, as embodied in general international national agreements, is to be found in four paragraphs; to which, be it observed, nothing is added by the unwritten, or customary, law of nations. Of these paragraphs, which I shall set out textually, three affirm general principles, while the fourth contains a specific prohibition. The general provisions are as follows:--

"The progress of civilisation should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war. The only legitimate object which States should set before themselves during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy. For this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men. This object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which would uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men or render their death inevitable. The employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity." (St.

Petersburg Declaration, 1868. Preamble.)

"The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited." (Hague _Reglement_, Art. 22.)

"Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions [the Declaration of St. Petersburg alone answers to this description] it is in particular prohibited (_e_) to employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury." (_Ib._ Art. 23.)

The only special prohibition is that contained in the Declaration of St.

Petersburg, by which the contracting parties--

"Engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval forces of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances."

No one, so far as I am aware, has any wish to employ a bullet weighing less than 14 oz. which is either explosive or charged as above. So far, therefore, as the generally accepted laws of warfare are concerned, the only question as to the employment of Dum Dum or other expanding bullets is whether they "uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable"; in other words, whether they are "of a nature to cause superfluous injury." It is, however, probable that people who glibly talk of such bullets being "prohibited by The Hague Convention" are hazily reminiscent, not of the _Reglement_ appended to that convention, but of a certain "Declaration," signed by the delegates of many of the Powers represented at The Hague in 1899, to the effect that--

"The contracting Powers renounce the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

To this declaration neither Great Britain nor the United States are parties, and it is waste-paper, except for Powers on whose behalf it has not only been signed, but has also been subsequently ratified.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND.

Athenaeum Club, May 2 (1903).

The Declaration last mentioned (No. 3 of the first Peace Conference) is now something more than waste paper, having been generally ratified. Great Britain, on August 17, 1907, at the fourth plenary sitting of the Second Peace Conference, announced her adhesion to it, as also to the, also generally ratified, Declaration No. 2 of 1899, which forbids the employment of projectiles constructed solely for the diffusion suffocating or harmful gases.

The provisions of Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of the _Reglement_ annexed to The Hague Convention of 1899 "concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land," as quoted in the letter, have been textually reproduced in Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of the _Reglement_ annexed to the Hague Convention, No. iv. of 1907, on the same subject, ratified by Great Britain on November 27, 1909.

The written agreements as to the choice of weapons may be taken therefore to start from the general principles laid down in the preamble to the Declaration of St. Petersburg (though held by some Powers to err in the direction of liberality), and in Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of The Hague _Reglements_. The specially prohibited means of destruction are, by the Declaration of St.

Petersburg, explosive bullets; by The Hague _Reglements_, Art.

23 (_a_) poison or poisoned arms; by The Hague Declarations of 1898, Nos. 2 and 3, "projectiles the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful gases," and "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions." As to Declaration No. 1, _cf. supra_, p. 22. It must be remarked that the Declarations of St. Petersburg and of The Hague, unlike The Hague Reglements, apply to war at sea, as well as on land.

_Cf. supra_, p. 22, and see the author's _The Laws of War on Land (written and unwritten)_, 1908, pp. 40-43.

GASES

Sir,--The weightily signed medical protest which you publish this morning will be widely welcomed. The German employment of poisonous gases for military purposes, which the Allies were obliged, reluctantly, though necessarily, to reciprocate, was, of course, prohibited by international Acts to which Germany is a party. Not only does the Declaration of 1899 specifically render unlawful "the use of projectiles the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful gases," but the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both forbid, in general terms, the employment of "(_a_) poison or poisoned arms," "(_c_) arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous suffering." The United States, like the rest of the world, are a party to the two Conventions, and would doubtless, after the experiences of recent years, no longer hesitate, as. .h.i.therto, to adhere to the Declaration of 1899; in accordance with Admiral Mahan's view at that date, to the effect that "the effect of gas sh.e.l.ls has yet to be ascertained," and, in particular, "whether they would be more, or less, merciful than missiles now available."

The prohibition ought, no doubt, to be renewed and, if possible, strengthened; but this is surely not, as your correspondents suggest, work for the Peace Congress. The rules for naval warfare set out in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 form no part of the Treaty of Paris of that year.

I venture to make a similar remark with reference to any discussion by the Peace Congress of "the freedom of the seas," a topic unfortunately included by President Wilson among his "14 points." The peace delegates will be concerned with questions of regroupings of territory, penalties, and reparation. The rehabilitation and revision of international law is a different business, and should be reserved for a subsequent conference.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND.

Oxford, November 29 (1918).

SECTION 10

_The Geneva Convention_

As far back as the year 1870, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals exerted itself to induce both sides in the great war then commencing to make some special provision for relieving, or terminating, the sufferings of horses wounded in battle.

In 1899 it made the same suggestion to the British War Office, but the reply of the Secretary of State was to the effect that "he is informed that soldiers always shoot badly wounded horses after, or during, a battle, whenever they are given time to do so, _i.e._ whenever the operation does not involve risk to human life. He fears that no more than this can be done unless and until some international convention extends to those who care for wounded animals the same protection for which the Geneva Convention provides in the case of men; and he would suggest that you should turn your efforts in that direction."

Thereupon, Mr. Lawrence Pike, on November 23, addressed to _The Times_ the letter which called forth the letter which follows.

WOUNDED HORSES IN WAR

Sir,--Everyone must sympathise with the anxiety felt by Mr. L.W. Pike to diminish the sufferings of horses upon the field of battle. How far any systematic alleviation of such sufferings may be compatible with the exigencies of warfare must be left to the decision of military experts.

In the meantime it may be as well to a.s.sure Mr. Pike that the Geneva Convention of 1864 has nothing to do with the question, relating, as it does, exclusively to the relief of human suffering. This is equally the case with the second Geneva Convention, which Mr. Pike is right in supposing never to have been ratified. He is also right in supposing that "the terms of the convention are capable of amendment from time to time," but wrong in supposing that they can be amended "by the setting up of precedents." The convention can be amended only by a new convention.

It is not the case that Art. 7 of the convention, which merely confides to commanders-in-chief, under the instructions of their respective Governments, "les details d'execution de la presente convention," gives them any authority to extend its scope beyond what is expressly stated to be its object--viz. "l'amelioration du sort des militaires blesses dans les armees en campagne." While, however, the Geneva Convention, does not contemplate the relief of animal suffering, it certainly cannot be "set up as a bar" to the provision of such relief. Commanders who may see their way to neutralising persons engaged in the succour or slaughter of wounded horses would be quite within their powers in entering into temporary agreements for that purpose.

I may add that the "Convention concerning the laws and customs of war on land," prepared by the recent conference at The Hague, and signed on behalf of most Governments, including our own, though not yet ratified, contains a chapter "Des malades et des blesses," which merely states that the obligations of belligerents on this point are governed by the Convention of Geneva of 1864, with such modifications as may be made in it. Among the aspirations (_voeux_) recorded in the "Acte final" of the conference, is one to the effect that steps may be taken for the a.s.sembling of a special conference, having for its object the revision of the Geneva Convention. Should such a conference be a.s.sembled Mr. Pike will have an opportunity of addressing it upon the painfully interesting subject which he has brought forward in your columns.

Your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND.

Oxford, November 27 (1899).

The "second Geneva Convention," above mentioned, was the "Projet d'Articles additionnels," signed on October 20, 1868, but never ratified.

Art. 21 of the _Reglement_ annexed to The Hague Convention of 1899 as to the "Laws and Customs of War on Land," stating that "the obligations of belligerents, with reference to the care of the sick and wounded, are governed by the Convention of Geneva of August 22, 1864, subject to alterations which may be made in it," is now represented by Art. 21 of The Hague _Reglement_ of 1907, which mentions "the Convention of Geneva," without mention of any date, or of possible alterations. The Convention intended in this later _Reglement_ is, of course, that of 1906, for the numerous Powers which have already ratified it, since for them it has superseded that of 1864. The British ratification, of April 16, 1907, was subject to a reservation, the necessity for which was intended to be removed by 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 20, as to which, see _supra_, p, 37. The later is somewhat wider in scope than the earlier Convention, its recital referring to "the sick," as well as to the wounded, and its first article naming not only "les militaires," but also "les autres personnes officiellement attachees aux armees."

With a view to the expected meeting of the Conference by which the Convention was signed in 1906, Mr. Pike and his friends again, in 1903, pressed upon the British Government their desire that the new Convention should extend protection to persons engaged in relieving the sufferings of wounded horses.

The British delegates to the Conference, however, who had already been appointed, and were holding meetings in preparation for it, were not prepared to advise the insertion of provisions for this purpose in the revised Convention of Geneva.

"The principles of the Geneva Convention" of 1864 were applied to naval warfare by The Hague Convention No. iii. of 1899, and those of the Geneva Convention of 1906 by The Hague Convention No. x. of 1907 respectively. Both were ratified by Great Britain. Cf. _supra_, Chapters ii. and iv.