Obrázky stránek

terms of description have been inserted in the amended article, so that the clause now reads:

ARTICLE 27. During sieges and bombardments all necessary measures should be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings devoted to religious worship, arts, science, and charity, historical monuments, hospitals, and places of assembly of sick and wounded, provided they be not used at the same time for a military purpose.

It shall be the duty of the besieged to designate these buildings or places of assembly by special visible signs which shall be made known beforehand to the besieger.


It has been seen that the substance of the prohibition, which was originally contained in this article, has already been embodied in article 23 of the amended code. As a result of the experience gained in recent wars it has been deemed best to forbid a belligerent, in somewhat more explicit terms, to resort to force or constraint with a view to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to furnish information in respect to the positions, operations, or intended movements of their own army. With this end in view an appropriate regulation was adopted by the committee and approved by the conference. The new rule provides :

ARTICLE 44. A belligerent is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of an occupied territory to furnish information concerning the army of the other belligerent or concerning his means of defense.


The article in its original form was intended to regulate the levying of requisitions in occupied territory of the enemy, and provided, in its last paragraph, that levies in kind should, as far as possible, be paid for in cash; if not paid for, the article contained the requirement that receipts should be given for property taken in the exercise of the belligerent right of requisition. The new paragraph contains the additional requirement that the property represented by these receipts shall be paid for with the least practicable delay, and the article as amended takes the following form:

ARTICLE 52. Requisitions in kind and services can only be levied on communes and inhabitants for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in accordance with the resources of the country and of such a character as not to oblige the inhabitants to take part in the war operations against their country.

These requisitions and services shall be levied only by authority of the commander in the locality occupied.

Supplies furnished in kind shall be paid for in cash as far as possible, otherwise they shall be verified by receipts and the amounts due paid as soon as possible.


This article, in its new form, enlarges to some extent the field of application of the original paragraph by bringing within its operation all means of communication of every kind which are intended for the transportation or conveyance of persons, property, or intelligence. The final paragraph forbids the destruction of submarine cables except in case of absolute and over-ruling military necessity. When such lines are taken and used, they are to be restored, with suitable indemnities, on the conclusion of peace.

As amended, the article has been given the following form:

ARTICLE 53. An army occupying a territory may seize only the specie, funds, and bills receivable which are actually the property of the state, depots of arms, means of transportation, stores, and provisions, and, in general, all movable property of the government capable of being used in the military operations.

All means used on land, sea, or in the air for the transmission of information or the transportation of passengers or freight, except where governed by maritime law, stores of arms, and, in general, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized even if they belong to private parties, but they must be restored and the indemnities shall be fixed upon the conclusion of peace.

ARTICLE 54. Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in case of absolute necessity. They must also be restored and the indemnities adjusted upon the conclusion of peace.


The following article was adopted by the committee and approved by the conference in plenary session with a view to its insertion as a final paragraph of the rules of war on land:

The belligerent party who shall violate the requirements of those regulations shall be held to indemnity in a proper case. He will be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming a part of his armed forces.

It is one of the most essential rules of international good neighborhood that the states composing the family of nations shall be guided by the highest good faith in the execution of their treaty obligations. The rules of war of 1899 form no exception to this wholesome and necessary rule. It should be observed, however, that the several requirements of the undertaking are carried into effect, not under the immediate control and direction of the foreign offices of the signatory powers, but by military officers in the theater of hostile activity, each acting within the sphere of his command and duty in the military establishment of the belligerent under whose flag he serves. It is not surprising that differences of interpretation and of execution should have arisen in the application of the convention of 1899, or that undue severity should have been shown, from time to time, in the exercise of authority by subordinate commanders. To correct this dangerous tendency and give due emphasis to the well-established administrative principle that the state itself is responsible for the acts of its military commanders and subordinate agents, it was determined to add a concluding paragraph having some of the aspects of a penal clause. Its operation will be to require those charged by their governments with the exercise of high military command to maintain such a constant supervision over the acts of their subordinates as will be calculated to secure the exact and rigorous enforcement of the several requirements of the convention.

If the circumstances of a particular war are such as to suggest the application of a rule of limitation to cases arising under the article, such mutual stipulations in that regard as are warranted by the facts may properly find a place in the treaty of peace.


The convention of 1899 contained three declarations. In the first the signatory powers agreed to forbid, for the period of five years, the throwing of projectiles and explosives from balloons. This declaration expired by its own limitation on July 29, 1904. The second declaration forbade the employment of projectiles having for their sole purpose to diffuse asphyxiating or deleterious gases. The third and last of the declarations forbade the use of small-arm projectiles “which expand or flatten easily in the human body such as those having jackets which do not entirely cover the core or are provided with incisions.” The last-named prohibition the United States declined to accept and that Government has never, by accession or adherence, become a party to its operation.


It will be observed that the declaration of 1899 on the subject of small-arm projectiles makes the prohibition to depend upon a particular injury to the tissues caused by a bullet having the mechanical construction described in the declaration. Other forms of bullet, of which there are a great number, some of which inflict wounds that exceed in cruelty those described in the convention, do not fall within the scope of the prohibition and, as the declaration contains no general terms of restriction, may be employed with impunity.

For that reason an amendment was submitted to the First Peace Conference, by General Crozier of the American delegation, which forbade the use of bullets “ which inflicted wounds of needless or unnecessary severity; such, for example, as explosive bullets and, in general, every kind of small-arm projectile which exceeds the limit necessary for placing a man immediately hors de combat.General Crozier's amendment, though lucidly explained and supported by the most convincing arguments, failed of adoption, and the declaration, in the form proposed by the subcommittee, was approved by the conference and inserted in the convention.

General Crozier's sound and well-considered views have been fully vindicated by the test of subsequent practical experience, and his reasoning has lost none of its cogency or force in the years which have elapsed since his amendment was rejected. Small-arm projectiles having the mechanical construction, or causing the wounds which are particularly described in the declaration, have ceased to be manufactured; and the forms now in use, some of which inflict wounds of great and unnecessary severity, are no longer within the narrow and illogical terms of the prohibition. Had the Crozier amendment been adopted, it is highly probable that a type of small-arm projectile would have been developed which would have met all reasonable requirements in respect to velocity, range, and flatness of trajectory, without the needless and inhuman laceration of tissues which attend those now in use, or which are proposed for adoption in the armies of some civilized powers.

Although the United States was not able to accept the declaration of 1899 in the form in which it appears in the convention, it has always regarded the restriction as an appropriate subject for conventional regulation, supplementing, as it does, the humane require ments of the St. Petersburg declaration of 1868.

The declaration of 1899, while conceived in a highly humane spirit, made the prohibition in respect to the use of small-arm projectiles to depend, not upon their effects upon the human body, or upon their efficiency in placing a man hors de combat, but, to some extent, upon their mechanical construction, and upon certain specific effects upon the tissues which were expressly stated in the declaration. It will be apparent that any restriction which it may be determined to impose, by treaty or otherwise, upon the use of certain small-arm projectiles should be logically conceived, clearly stated, and should be made to depend upon the wound occasioned by their

In other words, it should be based upon the character and extent of the injury inflicted — upon the destruction of tissues rather than upon the mechanical construction of the projectile which causes the destruction.

It was believed that the time had come for the adoption of a sound and wholesome prohibition upon the use of small-arm projectiles the effects of which upon the human body are in excess of the requirements of civilized warfare. A government has the right to use a projectile which, by its shock of impact, will place an individual combatant hors de combat. So much of injury is lawful, but all injury in excess of the limit so imposed is unlawful, because it is cruel, inhuman, accomplishes no military purpose, and exceeds the standards of reasonable military necessity.

A proposition couched in the following language, which is identical with that used by General Crozier in 1899, was prepared, and


« PředchozíPokračovat »