SpeculationuponlegalprinciplesmanifestlybecamecommonamongtheRoman

aristocracy，andincourseoftimethequestionsuggesteditselfwhatwas

theessentialnatureofthisJusGentiumwhichhadatfirstverypossibly

beenregardedasameremarketlaw。TheanswerwasshapedbytheGreekphilosophy，

whichwasafavouritesubjectofstudyamongtheclasstowhichtheRoman

lawyersbelonged。SeeninthelightofStoicaldoctrinetheLawofNations

cametobeidentifiedwiththeLawofNature;thatistosay，withanumber

ofsupposedprinciplesofconductwhichmaninsocietyobeyssimplybecause

heisman。ThustheLawofNatureissimplytheLawofNationsseeninthe

lightofapeculiartheory。ApassageintheRomanInstitutesshowsthat

theexpressionswerepracticallyconvertible。Thegreatestfunctionofthe

LawofNaturewasdischargedingivingbirthtomodernInternationalLawandthemodernLawofWar。Ioughttoobservethatinthisaccountofthematterprobablyonecorrection

hastobemade。SomeacutescholarshaveexaminedtheauthoritiessinceI

wrote，andtheyareinclinedtothinkthatveryancientlytherearesome

instancesoftheuseofJusGentiuminawiderandsomethinglikeitsmodern

sense;thatis，lawbindingontribesandnationsassuch。Grantingthat

thisisso，stilltheimpressionthattheRomanLawcontainedasystemof

whatwouldnowbecalledInternationalLaw，andthatthissystemwasidentical

withtheLawofNature，hadundoubtedlymuchinfluenceincausingtherules

ofwhattheRomanscalledNaturalLawtobeengraftedon，andidentified

with，themodernlawofnations。WhentheolderRomansenseofthewords

diedoutcannotbeconfidentlyascertained，thoughofcourseinaworldwhich

wasdividedbetweentwogreatrivalsovereigns，theRomanEmperorandthe

KingofPersia，therewaslittleroomforLawofNationsinthetruesenseofthewords。When，however，atwhatperiod，didthisJusGentiumorJusNaturalrise

intothedignitywhichtheRomanlawyersgivetoit？Thereisastrongprobability

thatthisexaltationwasnotveryancient，butthatittookplaceduring

theperiod，roughlyaboutthreehundredyears，coveredbytheso—calledRoman

Peace。ThatPeaceextendedfromthetimeatwhichtheRomanEmpirewassettled

bythesuccessofAugustusoverallhisenemiestotheearlyyearsofthe

thirdcentury。TheRomanLawtransformedalargenumberoftheideasofa

greatportionoftheworld;butitsowntransformationfromatechnicalto

aplasticsystemwasoneoftheresultsoftheso—calledRomanPeace。If

wewanttoknowwhatwaris，weshouldstudywhatpeaceis，andseewhat

thehumanmindiswhenitisunaffectedbywar。WeshouldstudytheKorean

Peace，duringwhichtheexistinglegalconceptionoftherelationofthe

sexesframeditself;duringwhichtheChristianChurchwasorganised，and

duringwhichtheoldLawofNationsorNaturetransformeditselfintoan

idealsystemspeciallydistinguishedbysimplicityandsymmetry，andbecameastandardforthelegalinstitutionsofallsystemsofjurisprudence。ThesecondpropositionforwhichIarguedisoneofveryconsiderable

importance。ItwasthattheLawofNations，asframedbythejuristswho

wereitsauthors，spreadovertheworldnotbylegislation，butbyaprocess

ofearlierdate。Ontheappreciationofthispositiondependsnotonlythe

viewtakenoftheLawofNatureandoftheapplicationofInternationalLaw，

butalsocertainpracticalconsequenceswhichnaybemomentous;andata

quiterecentdateourcountrywasindangerofadoptinganopinionwhich

wouldhaveseparateditfromtherestofthecivilisedworld，andfromwhichitcouldonlybesavedbycorrectideasonthisverypoint。Inorderthatyoumayconvinceyourselveswhatmightbetheconsequences

ofdemandingalegislativesanction，orasanctionderivedfromanauthority

onalevelwiththatofamodernlegislature，fortherulesofInternational

Law，Irecommendyoutocomparetheviewofittakenbythestatesmenand

juristsoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththattowhichthiscountrymight

havecommitteditself;andfromwhichitwasdeliveredbythedirectintervention

ofParliament。TheUnitedStatesareparticularlyworthexamininginregard

tothepointbeforeus，becausetheywereaninstanceofanewnationdeliberately

settingitselftoconsidersplatnewobligationsithadincurredbydetermining

totakerankasastate。Italyisanotherandalaterexample，andthere

havebeensomeothersinSouthAmerica，butallthesesocieties，madeup

fromsmallerpre—existingterritorialmaterials，weregreatlyinfluenced

bytheexampleoftheAmericanFederalUnion。ThedoctrineswhichtheUnited

Statesadoptedmaybegatheredfromsomeveryvaluablevolumeswhichthe

AmericanGovernmenthasquiterecentlycausedtobepublished，andtowhich

Iwillpresentlycallyourattention。ThesystematicAmericanwriterson

InternationalLawarelessinstructiveonthepointswhichIamgoingto

placebeforeyouthanthesebooks，becausetheyusuallyfollowtheorder

oftopicstakenupbyolderEuropeanwriters。ButIwillquoteapassage

fromoneofthemostcarefulandsoberofwriters，ChancellorKent，andalso

fromawriterwhounhappilydiedtheotherday，andwhoseproductionswere

muchvaluedintheUnitedStates——Mr。Pomeroy。Youwillhavetorecollect

thatthequestionatissuebetweentheEnglishandAmericanslawyerswas

lesswhatisthenatureofInternationalLaw，andhowitarose，thanthe

questionhow，andtowhatextent，haveitsrulesbecomebindingonindependent

states。Thesequestionsareoftenconfoundedtogether，orfoundtobeindissoluble，aswillbeplainfromtheextractswhichIamabouttoread。Therehasbeenadifferenceofopinionamong，writersconcerningthefoundation

oftheLawofNations。Ithasbeenconsideredbysomeasameresystemof

positiveinstitutions，foundeduponconsentandusage;Whileothershave

insistedthatitwasessentiallythesameastheLawofNature，appliedto

theconductofnations，inthecharacterofmoralpersons，susceptibleof

obligationsandlaws。Wearenottoadopteitherofthesetheoriesasexclusively

true。ThemostusefulandpracticalpartoftheLawofNationsis，nodoubt，

institutedorpositivelaw，foundedonusage，consent，andagreement。But

itwouldbeimpropertoseparatethislawentirelyfromnaturaljurisprudence，

andnottoconsideritasderivingmuchofitsforceanddignityfromthe

sameprinciplesofrightreason，thesameviewsofthenatureandconstitution

ofman，andthesamesanctionofDivinerevelation，asthosefromwhichthe

scienceofmoralityisdeduced。ThereisanaturalandapositiveLawof

Nations。Bytheformer，everystate，initsrelationswithotherstates，

isboundtoconductitselfwithjustice，goodfaith，andbenevolence;and

thisapplicationoftheLawofNaturehasbeencalledbyVattelthenecessary

LawofNations，becausenationsareboundbytheLawofNaturetoobserve

it;anditistermedbyotherstheinternalLawofNations，becauseitis

obligatoryupontheminpointofconscience。Weoughtnot，therefore，to

separatethescienceofpubliclawfromthatofethics，norencouragethe

dangeroussuggestionthatgovernmentsarenotsostrictlyboundbytheobligations

oftruth，justice，andhumanity，inrelationtootherpowers，astheyareinthemanagementoftheirownlocalconcerns。States，orbodiespolitic，aretobeconsideredasmoralpersons，having

apublicwill，capableandfreetodorightandwrong，inasmuchastheyare

collectionsofindividuals，eachofwhomcarrieswithhimintotheservice

ofthecommunitythesamebindinglawofmoralityandreligionwhichought

tocontrolhisconductinprivatelife。TheLawofNationsisacomplexsystem，

composedofvariousingredients。Itconsistsofgeneralprinciplesofright

andjustice，equallysuitabletothegovernmentofindividualsinastate

ofnaturalequality，andtotherelationsandconductofnations;ofacollection

ofusages，customs，andopinions，thegrowthofcivilizationandcommerce;andofacodeofpositivelaw。Intheabsenceoftheselatterregulations，theintercourseandconduct

ofnationsaretobegovernedherprinciplesfairlytodeducedfromtherights

anddutiesofnations，andthenatureofmoralobligation;andwehavethe

authorityofthelawyersofantiquity，andofsomeofthefirstmastersin

themodernschoolofpubliclaw，forplacingthemoralobligationofnations

andofindividualsonsimilargrounds，andforconsideringindividualand

nationalmoralityaspartsofoneandthesamescience。TheLawofNations，

sofarasitisfoundedontheprinciplesofNaturalLaw，isequallybinding

ineveryageanduponallmankind。ButtheChristiannationsofEurope，and

theirdescendantsonthissideoftheAtlantic，bythevastsuperiorityof

theirattainmentsinarts，andscience，andcommerce，aswellasinpolicy

andgovernment;and。aboveall，bythebrighterlight，themorecertaintruths，

andthemoredefinitesanctionwhichChristianityhascommunicatedtothe

ethicaljurisprudenceoftheancients，haveestablishedaLawofNations

peculiartothemselves。Theyformtogetheracommunityofnationsunited

byreligion，manners，morals，humanity，andscience，andunitedalsobythe

mutualadvantagesofcommercialintercourse，bythehabitofformingalliances

andtreatieswitheachother，ofinterchangingambassadors，andofstudyingandrecognisingthesamewritersandsystemsofpubliclaw。ThisJusGentiumoftheImperialjurisconsultsisidenticalwiththeLaw

ofNature，orNaturalLaw，ofmanymodernethicalandjuridicalwriters;

andbothare，infact，thelawofGod，madeknownsomewhatdimlytothewhole

humanraceatalltimes，andsetforthwithunmistakablecertaintyandtranscendent

powerinHisrevealedwill。Thisis，intruth，thehighestlawbywhichmoral

beingscanbegoverned;highestinitsLawgiver，whoisomnipotentovereach

individualman，aswellasoversocietiesandstates;highestintheabsolute

perfectionoftheruleswhichitcontains;highestintheabsolutecogency

ofthecommandswhichitutters;highestintheabsoluteobligationofthe

dutieswhichitenforces;highestintheabsolutecertaintyandirresistible

coercivepowerofthesanctionswhichitwields，andwhichoperateuponthedeepestspiritualnatureofeveryhumanbeing。Itmustbecleartoyou，Ithink，thatwriterswhoadheretotheseopinions

arenotlikelytotroublethemselvesgreatlywiththequestionoftheoriginal

obligatoryforceofInternationalLaw。IftheLawofNationsbebindingon

statesconsideredasmoralbeingsonaccountofitsderivationfromtheLaw

ofNatureorofGod，stateswheninahealthymoralconditionwilldefer

tothemasindividualmendotothemoralityoftheTenCommandments。The

wholequestioninfact，aslaiddownbyliens，andwithlessmoderationby

Pomeroy，isaquestionofethics，andalldemandofalegislativesanction

maybediscarded。ButnowletusturntothefourvolumesoftheAmerican

InternationalDigesteditedbyDr。FrancisWharton。Itisentitled，’ADigest

oftheInternationalLawoftheUnitedStates，’anditconsistsofdocuments

relatingtothatsubjectissuedbyPresidentsandSecretariesofState，of

thedecisionsofFederalCourts，andoftheopinionsofAttorneys—General。

Amongthepropositionslaiddowninthesevolumesyouwillfindthefollowing，allofthemacceptedbytheAmericanFederalGovernment。’ThelawoftheUnitedStatesoughtnot，ifitbeavoidable，sotobe

construedastoinfringeonthecommonprinciplesandusagesofnationsand

thegeneraldoctrinesofInternationalLaw。Evenastomunicipalmatters

thelawshouldbesoconstruedastoconformtotheLawofNations，unless

thecontrarybeexpresslyprescribed。AnActoftheFederalCongressought

nevertobeconstruedsoastoviolatetheLawofNationsifanyotherpossible

constructionremains，norshoulditbeconstruedtoviolateneutralrights

ortoaffectneutralcommerce，furtherthaniswarrantedbytheLawofNations

asunderstoodinthiscountry。’Again：’TheLawofNationsispartofthe

MunicipalLawofseparatestates。TheintercourseoftheUnitedStateswith

foreignnationsandthepolicyinregardtothembeingplacedbytheConstitution

inthehandsoftheFederalGovernment，itsdecisionsuponthesesubjects

arebyuniversallyacknowledgedprinciplesofInternationalLawobligatory

oneverybody。TheLawofNations，unlikeforeignMunicipalLaw，doesnot

havetobeprovedasafact。TheLawofNationsmakesenintegralpartof

thelawsoftheland。Everynation，onbeingreceivedatherownrequest

intothecircleofcivilisedgovernment，mustunderstandthatshenotonly

attainsrightsofsovereigntyandthedignityofnationalcharacter，but

thatshebindsherselfalsotothestrictandfaithfulobservanceofall

thoseprinciples，laws，andusageswhichhaveobtainedcurrencyamongstcivilised

states，andwhichhavefortheirobjectthemitigationofthemiseriesof

war。InternationalLawisfoundeduponnaturalreasonandjustice，theopinionsofwritersofknownwisdom，andthepracticeofcivilisednations。’HereyouseethataccordingtoAmericandoctrineInternationalLawhas

precedencebothofFederalandofMunicipalLaw，unlessintheexceptional

casewhereFederalLawhasdeliberatelydepartedfromit。Itisregarded

bytheAmericanlawyersashavingverymuchthesamerelationtoFederal

andStateLawastheFederalConstitutionhas，andthisnodoubtisthereason

whyinsomanyfamousAmericanlawbooksConstitutionalLawandInternational

Lawarethefirstsubjectsdiscussed，InternationalLawonthewholehavingprecedenceofConstitutionalLaw。TheprincipleonwhichtheseAmericandoctrinesofInternationalLawrepose

is，Ithink，tolerablyplain。ThestatesmenandjuristsoftheUnitedStates

donotregardInternationalLawashavingbecomebindingontheircountry

throughtheinterventionofanylegislature。Theydonotbelieveittobe

ofthenatureofimmemorialusage，’ofwhichthememoryofmanrunnethnot

tothecontrary。’Theylookuponitsrulesasamainpartoftheconditions

onwhichastateisoriginallyreceivedintothefamilyofcivilisednations。

Thisview，thoughnotquiteexplicitlysetforth，doesnotreallydiffer

fromthatentertainedbythefoundersofInternationalLaw，anditispractically

thatsubmittedto，andassumedtobeasufficientlysolidbasisforfurther

inferences，byGovernmentsandlawyersofthecivilisedsovereigncommunities

ofourday。Iftheyputitinanotherwayitwouldprobablybethatthestate

whichdisclaimstheauthorityofInternationalLawplacesherselfoutsidethecircleofcivilisednations。Thereis，however，onecommunitywhichononeoccasionwentneartodissenting

fromtheAmericanopinionandfromtheassumptionswhichitinvolves。This

wasourowncountry，GreatBritain。Inonecelebratedcase，onlytheother

day，theEnglishjudges，thoughbyamajorityofoneonly，forgedtheirdecision

onaverydifferentprinciple，andaspecialActofParliamentwasrequired

tore—establishtheauthorityofInternationalLawonthefootingonwhich

therestoftheworldhadplacedit。Thecasewasoneofgreatimportance

andinterest，anditwasarguedbeforealltheEnglishjudgesintheCourt

ofCriminalAppeal。ItisknownastheQueenv。Keyn，butismorepopularly

calledthe’Franconia’Case（2Ex。Div。63）。The’Franconia，’aGermanship，

wascommandedbyaGermansubject，Keyn。OnavoyagefromHamburgtothe

WestIndies，whenwithintwoandahalfmilesfromthebeachatDover，and

lessthantwomilesfromtheheadoftheAdmiraltypier，the’Franconia，’

throughthenegligence，asthejuryfound，ofKeyn，ranintotheBritish

ship’Strathclyde，’sankher，andcausedthedeathofoneofherpassengers。

Keynwastriedformanslaughter，andwasconvictedattheCentralCriminal

Court;butthequestionthenarosewhetherhehadcommittedanoffencewithinthejurisdictionofEnglishtribunals。Thepointonwhichthatquestionturnedwasthis。AllthewritersonInternational

Lawagreethatsomeportionofthecoastwaterofacountryisconsidered

forsomepurposestobelongtothecountrythecoastsofwhichitwashes。

Thereissomedifferenceofopinionbetweenthemastotheexactpointto

whichthisterritorialwater，whichisconsideredaspartofacountry’s

soil，extends。Thisdoctrine，however，ifitweresound，mustatsometime

orotherhavebeenborrowedbytheEnglishcourtsandlawyersfrominternational

authority。PrevioustotheappearanceofInternationalLaw，thelawfollowed

inEnglandwasdifferent。Thegreatnavaljudicialauthoritywasthenthe

AdmiralofEngland，whosejurisdictionwasoverallBritishsubjectsand

otherpersonsonboardBritishshipsonthehighseas。Ifthedoctrineof

theinternationaljuristsprevailed，achangemust，atsometimeorother，

havetakenplaceinthelaw，andthepointaroseastowhetheranysuchchange

couldbepresumed，andbywhatagencyitcouldhavebeeneffected。Thejudges

wereverynearlyequallydividedonthepoint，whichisafundamentalone

affectingthewholeviewtobetakenoftheauthorityofInternationalLaw

inthiscountry。Intheenditwasdecidedbythemajorityofthejudges

thatnosufficientauthoritywasgivenforthereceptioninthiscountry

oftheso—calledInternationaldoctrine;buttherewasnoquestionthatthis

doctrinewasthedoctrineofthemajorityofstates，andtheinconvenience

ofhavingoneruleforEnglandandanotherfortherestofthecivilised

worldwaspalpablysogreatthatParliamentfinallysteppedin，andinthe

year1878passedwhatiscalledthe’TerritorialWatersAct，’bywhichthe

jurisdictionoftheEnglishCourtswhichhadsucceededtothejurisdiction

oftheAdmiralofEnglandwasdeclaredtoextendaccordingtotheInternational

ruletothreemilesfromthecoastlineofEngland。Inthecourseofthe

judgmentswhichweregiven，whichareextremelylearned，curious，andinteresting，

LordColeridge。whowaswiththeminorityofthejudges，usedthefollowinglanguage：’MybrothersBrettandLindleyhaveshownthatbyaconsensusofwriters，

withoutonesingleauthoritytothecontrary，someportionofthecoastwaters

ofacountryisconsideredforsomepurposestobelongtothecountrythe

coastsofwhichtheywash。Iconcurinthinkingthatthediscrepanciesto

befoundinthesewritersastothepreciseextentofthecoastwaterswhich

belongtoacountrydiscrepancies，afterall，notserioussincethetime

atleastofGrotiusarenotmaterialinthisquestion;becausetheyallagree

intheprinciplethatthewaters，tosomepointbeyondlow—watermark，belong

totherespectivecountriesongroundsofsenseifnotofnecessity，belong

tothemasterritoryinsovereignty，orproperty，exclusively，sothatthe

authorityofFranceorSpain，ofHollandorEngland，istheonlyauthority

recognisedoverthecoastRaterswhichadjointhesecountries。Thisisestablished

assolidlyasbytheverynatureofthecaseanypropositionofInternational

Lawcanbe。Strictlyspeaking，"InternationalLaw"isaninexact

expression，anditisapttomisleadifitsinexactnessisnotkeptinmind。

Lawimpliesalawgiver，andatribunalcapableofenforcingitandcoercing

itstransgressors。Butthereisnocommonlawgivertosovereignstates;and

notribunalhasthepowertobindthembydecreesorcoercethemifthey

transgress。TheLawofNationsisthatcollectionofusageswhichcivilised

stateshaveagreedtoobserveintheirdealingswithoneanother。Whatthese

usagesare，whetheraparticularonehasorhasnotbeenagreedto，must

bematterofevidence。Treatiesandactsofstatearebutevidenceofthe

agreementofnations，anddonotinthiscountryatleastpersebindthe

tribunals。Neither，certainly，doesaconsensusofjurists;butitisevidence

oftheagreementofnationsoninternationalpoints;andonsuchpoints，

whentheyarise，theEnglishCourtsgiveeffect，aspartofEnglishlaw，tosuchagreement’（p。153）。LordChiefJusticeCockburn，ontheotherhand，afterdiscussingatlength

theviewsofthirtywritersofdifferentcountriesandcommentingonthe

differencebetweenthem，goesontoremark：’Canaportionofthatwhich

wasbeforehighseahavebeenconvertedintoBritishterritorywithoutany

actiononthepartoftheBritishGovernmentorLegislature——bythemere

assertionsofwritersonpubliclaw——orevenbytheassentofothernations？

Andwheninsupportofthisposition，orofthetheoryofthethree—mile

zoneingeneral，thestatementsofthewritersonInternationalLawarerelied

on，thequestionmaywellbeasked，uponwhatauthorityarethesestatements

founded？Whenandinwhatmannerhavethenations，whoaretobeaffected

bysucharuleasthesewriters，followingoneanother，havelaiddown，signified

theirassenttoit？——tosaynothingofthedifficultywhichmightbefound

insayingtowhichoftheseconflictingopinionssuchassenthadbeengiven’（p。202）。Itwouldappear，therefore，fromtheauthoritieswhichIhavecitedthat

inthetwogreatEnglish—speakingpeopleoftheworld，onedescendedfrom

theother，thereprevailtwo，andpossiblythree，opinionsastotheobligatory

forceofInternationalLawonindividualstates。Thelawyersandstatesmen

oftheUnitedStatesofAmericaregardtheacknowledgmentofandsubmission

totheinternationalsystemasdutieswhichdevolveoneveryindependent

sovereigntythroughthefactofitsbeingadmittedintothecircleofcivilized

Governments。AmongtheEnglishjudges，LordColeridgeconsidersthatthe

assentofanationisnecessarytosubjectittoInternationalLaw，butthat

inthecaseofGreatBritainandalltheothercivilisedEuropeanPowers

thisassenthasbeengiveneitherbyexpressactionordeclaration，orat

alleventsbynon—dissent。Lastly，LordChiefJusticeCockburn，whileaccepting

theviewthatInternationalLawbecamebindingonstatesbytheirassent

toit，manifestlythoughtthatthisassentmustsomehowbeconveyedbythe

acquiescingstateinitssovereigncharacter，throughsomepublicaction

whichitsConstitutionrecognizesaslegallyqualifiedtoadoptanewlaw

oranewlegaldoctrine;thatis，inGreatBritainbyActofParliamentor

bytheformaldeclarationofaCourtofJustice。ThetwoopinionswhichI

firstmentioned，thatoverandoveragainpropoundedintheAmericanDigest

andthatofLordColeridge，thoughthelanguageusedissomewhatinexact

andinonecasetoometaphorical，seemtometoexpressthedoctrineofthe

wholecivilisedworldoutsideGreatBritain，andtoconformtothehistorical

explanationwhichIwillpresentlyplacebeforeyou。Ontheotherhand，the

opinionofLordChiefJusticeCockburn，whichisonetowhichEnglishjudges，

alwaysbusilyoccupiedininterpretingandapplyingthelawsofthiscountry，

arenaturallyliable，wouldhavecausedthegreatestinconvenienceifit

hadbeendeclaredtobepartofthelawofEngland。Itpracticallyisthat

theinternationalrulescouldonlyhavebeenimportedintooursystemby

oneofthemodernprocessesbywhichourinstitutionsarechanged。Inthat

caseeachseparateallegedruleofInternationalLawwouldhavehadtobe

showntohavebeenengraftedonourlegalsystembythelegislationofParliament，

bythealternativelegislation，withincertainlimits，oftheEnglishCourts，

orbytheconformityoftherulewithsomeprovableusage。Forasimpleruleamostcomplicatedrulewouldhavebeensubstituted。ThepointimmediatelybeforetheEnglishCourtofCriminalAppealcan

neverariseagainsincethepassingoftheTerritorialWatersAct;butit

isconceivable，ifnotlikely，thatwehavenotheardthelastofthemore

generalquestionofprinciple。Imaysaythatitseemstomethatthesolution

ofthedifficultycanonlybesuppliedbythehistoricalmethod。AsIhave

assertedmanytimes，thesesystemsoflawhavenotalwaysbeenextendedover

thecountriesinwhichtheyarefoundprevailingbywhatwecalllegislation。

Inmoreancienttimes，andtoagreatextentevenatthisday，inthatEastern

portionoftheworldinwhichsomuchoftheusagesofearliermankindstill

survive，systemsofreligionandsystemsofmorals，generallydrawingwith

themsomesystemoflaws，gaincurrencybytheirownmoralinfluence;certain

mindsbeingnaturallypredisposedtorecedethemacquiesceinthemevenwith

enthusiasm。Mr。JusticeStephen，inthecontroversialworkwhichhecalls

’Liberty，Equality，andFraternity，’hasaneloquentpassageonthesubject。

’Thesourcesofreligionliehidfromus。Allthatweknowis，thatnowand

againinthecourseofagessomeonesetstomusicthetunewhichishaunting

millionsofears。Itiscaughtuphereandthere，andrepeatedtillthechorus

isthunderedoutbyabodyofsingersabletodrownalldiscordsandtoforce

thevastunmusicalmasstolistentothem。Suchresultsasthesecomenot

byobservation，butwhentheydocometheycarryawayaswithafloodand

hurryintheirowndirectionallthelawsandcustomsofthosewhomthey

affect。’Whatisheresaidofreligion，istruetoacertainextentofmorality。

IntheEastabodyofnewmoralideasissureintimetoproduceastring

oflegalrules;anditissaidbythosewhoknowIndiaanditsnativeswell

thattheproductionofwhatforwantofabetternamewemustcallaCode

isafavouriteoccupationwithlearnedandactiveminds，thoughofcourse

inacountrywhichnowadaysfollowstoagreatextentthemorality（though

notthefaith）ofChristianEurope，andreceivesnewlawsfromaregularly

constitutedLegislature，theenthusiasmfornewmoraldoctrinesisevergrowing

feeblerandthedemandforlegalrulesaccommodatedtothemisbecomingless。

Now，InternationalLawwasaCodeinthesamesenseinwhichmanyEastern

collectionsofruleswereCodes。Itwasfoundedonanewmorality，thatwhich

hadbeendiscoveredinthesupposedLawofNature，andinsomemindsitexcitedunboundedenthusiasm。ThesameprocesshadpreviouslybeenfollowedinEuropeasregardsRoman

CivilLaw。Wemaynotquiteunderstandtheadmirationwhichthetechnical

partoftheRomanLawinspired，butofthefactthereisnodoubt。Thisprocess

bywhichlawsextendedthemselveshadnotquitediedoutwhentheinternational

juristsappeared，andinpointoffacttheirsystemofruleswasreceived

bytheworldverymuchasasystemoflawfoundedonmoralsisreceivedto

thisdayintheEast。Nodoubtitfellonsoilpreparedforit。Theliterate

classes，thescholars，greatpartsoftheclergy，andthesovereignsand

statesmenofEuropeacceptedit，andtheresultwasaninstantdecayofthe

worstatrocitiesofwar。Indeed，itisonlynecessarytolookattheearliest

authoritiesonInternationalLaw，inthe’DeJureBellietPacis’ofGrotius

forexample，toseethattheLawofNationsisessentiallyamoraland，to

someextentareligious，system。TheappealofGrotiusisalmostasfrequent

tomoralsandreligionastoprecedent，andnodoubtitistheseportions

ofthebook，whichtoushavebecomealmostcommonplaceorwhichseemirrelevant，whichgainedforitmuchoftheauthoritywhichitultimatelyobtained。Thebulkoftheselectureswillconsistofanaccount，assummaryasI

canmakeit，ofsuchportionsoftheInternationalsystemasappeartome

tobereasonablysettled;butbeforeIproceedtothisportionofmycourse，

IthinkIoughttosaysomethingonsomemoderncriticismsofthebasisof

InternationalLawwhichhavemadetheirappearancequiterecently，andwhich

Ithinkhaveatendencytomultiply。ThecriticismstowhichIreferappear

tometobeasingularproofofthegreatauthoritywhichinourdayhas

beenobtainedbythetreatiseofJohnAustinontheProvinceofJurisprudence。

Theyareinfacttoaconsiderableextentare—statementofhispositions。

ThescopeofAustin’sundertakinginthisclassicalworkisoftennowadays

exaggerated。Heattempted，byanalysisofthevariousconceptionswhichlaw

initsvarioussensesincludes，toselectonesenseoflawinwhichlegal

generalizationswerepossible。Hisultimateobjectappearstohavebeento

effectascientificrearrangementoflawasaCode。Littleunfortunately

hasbeendoneatpresent，saveperhapsintheGermanEmpireandinIndia，

tocarryoutthisobject;butnodoubtAustindiddosomethingtowardsthe

ultimatecodificationofpositivelawbyconfininghisinvestigationtothe

varioussubordinateconceptionswhichmakeuplawassounderstood。Asprobably

manyofyouknow，hisfundamentalassertionisthatineverycountrythere

issomeportionofthecommunitywhichcanforcetheresttodoexactlywhat

itpleases。Thisiscalledbyhimthe’Sovereign，’awordonwhichitis

necessaryassoonaspossibletoobservethatitisheretakeninadifferent

sensefromthatinwhichitisemployedbytheclassicalwritersonInternational

Law。FromAustin’spointofviewInternationalLawresembledmoralitymore

thanlaw;itwaschieflyenforcedbydisapprobationofactscommittedinviolationofit;itcouldnotberesolvedintothecommandofanysovereign。Inmynextlecture，Ishallcontrastthisword’Sovereignty’asusedby

Austinandtheso—calledschoolofanalyticaljuristswithitsuseinInternational

Law，andspeciallyconsidertherightsoverlandandwaterwhichareassertedbyinternationallawyerstoariselogicallyfromtheconceptionofSovereignty。InmyfirstlectureIspokeofthecriticismsonInternationalLawconducted

byJohnAustininhis’ProvinceofJurisprudenceDetermined’asveryinteresting

andquiteinnocuous;buttheresultsaresometimessostatedasiftheyshowed

thatAustinhadintendedtodiminish，andhadsucceededindiminishing，the

dignityorimperativeforceofInternationalLaw。Anobservationheremust

bemadethatonesenseoflawisjustasgoodanddignifiedasanother，if

itbeonlyconsistentlyused。Inphilosophythecommonestsenseoflawis

thatinwhichitisusedbysuchwritersastheauthorofthebookcalled

’TheReignofLaw。’Notermcanbemoredignifiedormorevaluablethan’law’

asthusemployed。Whatwehavetodo，istokeepthismeaningoflawseparate

inourmindsfromlawinothersenses。Itisveryconvenient，whenthemain

subjectofthoughtispositivelaw，thatweshouldrememberthatInternational

Lawhasbutslenderconnectionwithit，andthatithaslessanalogytothe

lawswhicharethecommandsofsovereignsthantorulesofconduct，which，

whateverbetheirorigin，aretoaverygreatextentenforcedbythedisapprobation

whichattendstheirneglect。Whatismostimportanttorecollectarethe

pointsofcollectionwhichdoexistbetweenInternationalLawandpositivelaw。Hereonecannotbutremarkthataseriousmistakeastohumannatureis

becomingcommoninourday。Austinresolvedlawintothecommandofasovereign

addressedtoasubject，andalwaysenforcedbyasanctionorpenaltywhich

createdanimperativeduty。Themostimportantingredientbroughtoutby

thisanalysisisthesanction。Austinhasshown，thoughnotwithoutsome

strainingoflanguage，thatthesanctionisfoundeverywhereinpositive

law，civilandcriminal。Thisis，infact，thegreatfeatwhichheperformed，

butsomeofhisdisciplesseemtometodrawtheinferencefromhislanguage

thatmenalwaysobeyrulesfromfearofpunishment。Asamatteroffactthis

isquiteuntrue，forthelargestnumberofruleswhichmenobeyareobeyed

unconsciouslyfromamerehabitofmind。Mendosometimesobeyrulesfor

fearofthepunishmentwhichwillbeindictediftheyareviolated，but，

comparedwiththemassofmenineachcommunity，thisclassisbutsmall

——probably，itissubstantiallyconfinedtowhatarecalledthecriminal

classes——andforonemanwhorefrainsfromstealingormurderingbecause

hefearsthepenaltytheremustbehundredsorthousandswhorefrainwithout

athoughtonthesubject。Avastvarietyofcausesmayhaveproducedthis

habitofmind。Earlyteachingcertainlyhasagreatdealtodowithit;religious

opinionhasagreatdealtodowithit;anditisverypossible，andindeed

probable，thatinavastnumberofcasesitisaninheritedsentimentspringing

fromtheenforcementoflawbystates，andtheorgansofstates，duringlong

ages。Unfortunatelyithasbeenshowninourdaythatthementalhabit，so

farasregardspositivecivilandcriminallaw，maybeeasilydestroyedby

connivanceatviolationsofrule;andthisissomeevidenceofitshavingalongdescentfrompenallawoncesternlyenforced。Whatwehavetonoticeis，thatthefoundersofInternationalLaw，though

theydidnotcreateasanction，createdalaw—abidingsentiment。Theydiffused

amongsovereigns，andtheliterateclassesincommunities，astrongrepugnance

totheneglectorbreachofcertainrulesregulatingtherelationsandactions

ofstates。Theydidthis，notbythreateningpunishments，butbythealternative

andoldermethod，longknowninEuropeandAsia，ofcreatingastrongapproval

ofacertainbodyofrules。Itisquitetruethatsomeofthereasonsgiven

byGrotiusforInternationalLawwouldnotnowcommendthemselvesifthey

werepresentedtothemindforthefirsttime;butitdoesnotdotolook

toofarbackintotheoriginsoflawforthereasonsofitsestablishment。

MuchofthebeginningsofEnglishLawistobefoundintheYearBooks;but

itwouldnotbetooharshtosaythatsomeofthereasonsgivenforrules

nowreceived，whicharetobefoundintheYearBooks，aremixedwithagreat

dealofsheernonsense。TheoriginalreasonsfortheInternationalrules

arepossiblytosomeextentnonsense：theyoftenseemtouscommonplace，

theyareoftenrhetorical，theyareoftenentangledwithobsoletetheories

ofmoralsordeductionsfromirrelevantprecedents，andontheotherhand

theyoftenassumeapowerofdiscerningwhattheDivinepleasureisona

particularsubjectwhichtheideasofthepresentdaywouldnotadmit。As

totheirexpediency，thathastobedecidedbyexperience，andexperiencehas，onthewhole，pronounceddecisivelyintheirfavour。Thereare，however，atthesametimesomerealdefectsinInternational

Lawwhicharetraceabletothedifferencebetweenthatlawandpositivelaw，

andtheabsenceofmechanismbywhichpositivelawisdeveloped。International

LawwasnotdeclaredbyaLegislature，anditstillsuffersfromwantof

aregularLegislaturetoimproveandtodevelopit。Itisstilldeveloped

bytheantiquatedmethodofwritercommentingonwriter，nosecuritybeing

nowadaystakenforthecompetenceorauthorityofthewriterexceptvague

opinion。Therearereallywriterswhothroughconfusedness，orthroughnatural

prejudice，areopentotheimpliedcensureofDr。Whewellthattheyhave

ratherencouragedthandiminishedtheriskandtheevilsofwar。International

Lawsuffersalsofromtheabsenceofanymethodofauthoritativelydeclaring

itstenoronsomeofitsbranches，andaboveallfromtheabsenceofany

methodofenforcingitsrulesshortofwarorfearofwar。Alltheseare

realandoftenformidabledrawbacksontheusefulnessofInternationalLaw，and

noteacherofInternationalLawcanneglectthem。Beforetheendofthis

course，thoughnotquiteimmediately，Iproposetoexaminethem，andtoconsider

whetherthegroovingexperienceofcivilisedmankindpointstoanynewremedies

orbettermeansofenforcingoldones。

LECTUREIII。STATESOVEREIGNTY，Inowproposetooccupyyouwithagroupofquestionsarisingoutofa

subjectofmuchinterestandmagnitude——theSovereigntyofstatesover

landandwater。IwillfirstquoteadefinitionofSovereigntywhichwould

fairly，Ithink，satisfythejuristsofthepresentday。Itistakenfrom

anexcellentbookbythelateMr。MontagueBernard，ofwhichthetitleis，

’TheNeutralityofGreatBritainduringtheAmericanCivilWar。’Thedefinition

isprimarilyadefinitionofaSovereignState。’ByaSovereignState，’says

Mr。Bernard，’wemeanaCommunityornumberofpersonspermanentlyorganised

underaSovereignGovernmentoftheirown，andbyaSovereignGovernment

wemeanaGovernment，howeverconstituted，whichexercisesthepowerofmaking

andenforcinglawwithinaCommunity，andisnotitselfsubjecttoanysuperior

Government。Thesetwofactors，theonepositive，theothernegative，the

exerciseofpowerandtheabsenceofsuperiorcontrol，composethenotionofSovereigntyandareessentialtoit。’ItisnecessarytoobservethattheconceptionofSovereigntywentthrough

severalchangesbeforeitbecamecapableofthisdescription。Theviewof

Sovereigntytakenbytheearliestinternationaljuristsinthesixteenth

andseventeenthcenturiesappearstometobetakenfromRomanLaw。Itis

atbottomdominiumdominion，ownership。Weshouldnotbefarwronginsaying

thatthesewritersregardthecivilisedworldasaspaceofsoildivided

betweenanumberofRomanproprietors;muchoftheirlanguageistakendirectly

fromRomanLaw;and，asusual，itistakenparticularlyfromthoserules

oftheRomansystemwhichtheRomansthemselvesbelievedtobeidentical

withtherulesoftheLawofNature。Manyfundamentalprinciplesareexplained

bythisview。ThusallStates，inInternationalLaw，areregardedasequal。

Asawriterofthelastcenturysaid，RussiaisregardedasisGeneva;and

inthesamewaysowouldasetofRomanownersberegardedasequalbefore

thelaw。Again，InternationalLawpaysregardtoSovereignsonly，itdoes

notregardanyotherpartofthecommunityanymorethanaRomantribunal

wouldregardtheslavesandfreedmenofaRomanestate。Ithinktoothat

thesejurists，onthewhole，regardtheSovereignasanindividualman。It

istruethatsomanyofthembelongedtothefewrepublicsthenexisting，

andspeciallytotheUnitedProvincesoftheNetherlands，thattheywere

ofcourseawareofthenecessityofoccasionallycontemplatingtheSovereign

asacorporation;butonthewholetheviewwhichisatthebasisoftheir

conceptionisthattheSovereignisanindividual;andsovereignsareregarded

bytheselawyersasabsoluteandnotmerelyparamountownersofthestates

whichtheygovern。Theydonotfool;belowtheexistingPrinceorRuler，

whohadbeenoriginallyamanexercisingdespoticpower。Further，Sovereignty

isatthisdatealwaysassociatedwithadefiniteportionoftheearth’ssurface。###第3章ButSovereignty，orwhatcorrespondedinancienttimemostnearlytoit，

wasnotprimitivelyassociatedwithalltheseideas;theytooktheplace

ofotherideasofolderdate。ThusSovereigntywasnotalwaysterritorial;

itwasnotalwaysassociatedwithadefiniteportionoftheearth’ssurface。

Ihavepointedout，intheworkfromwhichIhaveseveraltimesquoted，that

theolderideasarereflectedinthetitlesoftheearliestMonarchsinWestern

Europe。ThesewereRexAnglorum，RexFrancorum，RevScotorum——Kingofthe

English，KingoftheFranks，KingoftheScots。Andoneofthemostpathetic

figuresinhistoryisstillalwaysknowntousasthe’QueenofScots。’Evidently

thefundamentalconceptionwasthattheterritorybelongedtotheTribe，

andthattheSovereignwasSovereignoftheTribe。Thefactisthatthefeudalisation

ofEuropehadtobecompletedbeforeitwaspossiblethatSovereigntycould

beassociatedwithadefiniteportionofsoil。Theinvestigationoftheprocess

whichwecallfeudalisationdoesnotbelongtothisbranchofHistorical

Jurisprudence：butthereisnodoubtthatinthelongrunSovereigntycame

alwaystobeassociatedwiththelaststageofthisprocess。Thelawyers

onthewholeregardSovereigntyastheSovereigntyexercisedbyindividuals，

andtheresultwasextremelyimportanttoInternationalLaw，fortheassumed

individualityofsovereignsenableditsfounderstoregardstatesasmoral

beingsboundbymoralrules。IftheunitsoftheInternationalsystemhad

continuedtobewhattheyapparentlywereatfirst，tribesorcollections

ofmen，itisdoubtfulwhetherthatsystemcouldhavebeenconstructed，andatallevents，whetheritcouldhavetakenitsactualpresentform。SomeofthewordsinMr。Bernard’sdefinitionreflectamuchlaterinfluence

uponlaw——e。g。thatofMr。JohnAustin。Hegivestothepositionthata

sovereignGovernmentcannotbecontrolledbyanother，animportancewhich

canhardlybesaidtobelongtoitinInternationalLaw。Thepositionis，

infact，indispensableinAustin’ssystem。Thereis，inhisview，anall—powerful

portionofeverycommunitywhichcandowhatitpleasesasregardstherest，

andthisall—powerfulportionorSovereignistheauthoroflaw。Noobjection

canbetakentoitfromtheviewofAustin’stheory;butitshouldbealways

carefullyrememberedinourbranchofjurisprudencethatMr。JohnAustin’s

definitionofSovereigntyisnotthatofInternationalLaw，thoughinalmost

alltheverymoderntreatiseswhichhavedealtwiththissubjectsolveconfusion

betweenthetwoisobservable。ItisnecessarytotheAustiniantheorythat

theall—powerfulportionofthecommunitywhichmakelawsshouldnotbedivisible，

thatitshouldnotshareitspowerwithanybodyelse，andAustinhimself

speakswithsomecontemptofthesemi—sovereignordemi—sovereignstates

whicharerecognisedbytheclassicalwritersonInternationalLaw。Butthis

indivisibilityofSovereignty，thoughitbelongstoAustin’ssystem，does

notbelongtoInternationalLaw。Thepowersofsovereignsareabundleor

collectionofpowers，andtheymaybeseparatedonefromanother。Thusa

rulermayadministercivilandcriminaljustice，maymakelawsforhissubjects

andforhisterritory，mayexercisepoweroverlifeanddeath，andmaylevy

taxesanddues，butneverthelesshemaybedebarredfrommakingwarandpeace，

andfromhavingforeignrelationswithanyauthorityoutsidehisterritory。

ThisinpointoffactistheexactconditionofthenativeprincesofIndia;

andstatesofthiskindareatthepresentmomentrisinginallthemore

barbarousportionsoftheworld。IntheprotectorateswhichGermany，France，

Italy，andSpainhaveestablishedintheAustralasianseasandonthecoast

ofAfrica，thereisnoattemptmadetoannexthelandortofoundacolony

intheoldsenseoftheword，butthelocaltribesareforbiddenallforeign

relationsexceptthosepermittedbytheprotectingstate。Aswasthedeclared

intentionofthemostpowerfulfounderofprotectoratesofthiskind，Prince

Bismarck，iftheyweretoresembleanythingtheyweretoresembleIndiaunderthegovernmentoftheEastIndiaCompany。AsamatteroffactnearlyallthemodernwritersonInternationalLaw

dodividetherightsflowingfromtheSovereigntyofstatesintogroups。

Theirdistributionofthoserightsisnotuniform，andsomeoftheirdivisions

aremoredefensiblethanothers。Grotiusdividedthelawofwhichhewrote，

asisknownfromthetitleofhisbook，intolawofwarandlawofpeace;

andwritersofourday，followingthisdistribution，butfallingintoan

errorintowhichGrotiusdidnotfall，classifyalltherightsofstates

asrightsofwarandrightsofpeace。Somemodernpublicistsmakeamore

generaldivisionintotwoclasses;first，primaryrightsorabsoluterights，

andinthesecondplaceconditionalorhypotheticalrights;thefirstbeing

therightstowhichastateisentitledasanindependentmoralbody，or

inotherwordsthattowhichitisentitledduringpeace;theconditional

rightsbeingthosetowhichitisentitledwhenplacedinspecialcircumstances，

thespecialcircumstancescontemplatedbeingwar。Thesubjectofrightsand

duties，arisinginaconditionofwar，willbetakenupatadifferentpoint

ofthiscourse，andto—daywewillconfineourselvestotheabsoluteorprimary

rights，thosewhichastatepossessesduringpeace。Iobserveinmodernwriters

atendencysotostatethispartofthelaw，andsotoargue，astosuggest

thattheseabsoluterightsarenothingmorethanthosewhichmaybelogically

inferredfromthemerefactthatastatehasexistence。Thisisverysimply

putintheaccountofthesameclassofrightswhichisgivenbytheauthor

ofavaluableworkonInternationalLaw，Mr。Hall。Hesays：’Undertheconditions

ofstatelifetherighttocontinueanddevelopexistencegivestoastare

otherclassesofrights。Theseare：first，toorganiseitselfinsuchmanner

asitmaychoose;secondly，todowithinitsdominionswhateveractsitmay

thinkcalculatedtorenderitprosperousandstrong;thirdly，tooccupyunappropriated

territoryandtoincorporatenewprovinceswiththefreeconsentoftheinhabitants，

providedthattherightsofanotherstateoveranysuchprovincearenot

violatedbyitsincorporation。Thuswithregardtothefirstpowerorright

whichisallegedtoreside，bythenatureofthecase，inasovereignstate，

thepoweroforganisingitselfinsuchamannerasitmaychoose，itfollows

thatsuchastatemayplaceitselfunderanyformofgovernmentthatitwishes，

andmayframeitssocialinstitutionsuponanymodel。Toforeignstates，

thepoliticalorsocialdoctrineswhichmaybeexemplifiedinit，orwhichmayspreadfromit，arelegallyimmaterial。’Thisiscorrectlaw，andinourdayIdonotdoubtthattomostminds

itwouldseemplainthat，theconditionofSovereigntybeingtakenforgranted，

theserightssostatedfollow。But，asamatteroffact，confiningourselves

tothisbranchofstatepowers，nonehavebeenmoreviolentlydeniedordisputed;

andiftheywerepreserveditisfarlessowingtotheirlogicalconnection

withthedefinitionofstateSovereignty，thanfromthefactthat，fromthe

veryfirst，thepositionthattheyexisthasbeenplainlystatedbytheinternational

lawyers。Andthefactthattheserightshavebeenpreservedisasignaltribute

totheimportanceofInternationalLaw。Ithappensthatthelongpeacewhich

extendedfrom1815to1854was，bothatitsbeginningandatitsend，all

butbrokenupbythedenialofthesesimplerightsofwhichIhavebeenspeaking。

ThepacificationoftheContinent，aftertheoverthrowoftheFrenchEmpire，

wassucceededbyaseriesofmovementsinstitutedbycommunitiesforthe

purposeofobtainingConstitutions;thatis，forguardingagainstbeingremitted

tothesameconditionofdespoticruleinwhichtheFrenchRevolutionhad

foundthem。AlltheseConstitutionshadfortheirobjectthelimitationof

thepowersoftheKing。Perhapsthemostdemocraticofthemwastheoneknown

astheSpanishConstitutionof1812。WheninfacttheSpanishCortesatCadiz

framedthisConstitution，Ferdinand，theKingofSpain，wasinthehands

oftheFrench;andthereforetheSpanishConstitution—makershadtocontemplate

aConstitutionsuitabletoacountryfromwhichtheKingwouldbe，perhaps，

permanentlyabsent。Naturally，therefore，thepowersoftheKingwerein

thisConstitutionreducedtoverylittle。TheKingofSpain，onhisreturn

fromimprisonment，denouncedthisConstitution，butitobtainedgreatfavour

incertainpartsofEurope，andin1820theNeapolitans，afterarevolution，

compelledtheirKingtograntaConstitutionwhichwasacopyofit。Much

dismaywascausedtotheContinentalPowerswhichretainedtheirdespotisms，

andtheCongressesofLaybachandTroppauassembledtoconsiderthedanger

ofthespreadofwhatwerethenknownas’Frenchprinciples’fromNaples

totherestofEurope。ItwasfinallydeterminedthattheNeapolitanConstitution

shouldbemodified，andthatcompulsionshouldbeputonthenotveryreluctant

KingbythearmsofAustria。GreatBritain，however，protestedagainstthe

decision。SoonafterwardstheConstitutionof1812wasadoptedafteramilitary

risinginSpainitself。ThisledtotheassemblageoftheCongressofVerona

andtotherestorationoftheSpanishdespotism，thecompulsiononthisoccasionbeingputuponSpainbyFrance。Before，however，theEuropeanpeacefinallybrokeup，thecurrenthad

turnedintheotherdirection;andGreatBritain，whoseforeignaffairswere

nowdirectedbyLordPalmerston，employeditsinfluencetoassiststates

whichdesiredtoobtainConstitutions。Inadditiontothedesireforpopular

governmentthespiritofnationalityhadnowcomeintoplay;andtheultimate

resultwastheinterventionofNapoleonIIIinItalyandthedestruction

oftheItaliandespotisms。ThereforeallthePowersinEurope，duringthe

peace，didinturnactuponprinciplesfromwhichtheinferencemightbe

drawnthattheydeniedtherightofastateundercertaincircumstancesto

adoptwhatpoliticalConstitutionitpleases;neverthelessthisruleoflaw

inthelongrunprevailed;norcantherebetheslightestquestionthatit

isofthegreatestvalue。Ofallrulesofpubliclawitistheonewhich

doesmosttopreventthewholeofthecivilisedworldbeingbroughtunder

aniron—boundtheoryofgovernment。Itenablestheoriesofgovernmentto

betestedbyexperimentinseveralstates，andpreventsanyoneofthemfromoverwhelmingtherestwhetherinthenameoforderorinthenameoffreedom。IpassnowtothesecondoftheruleswhichIhavequotedfromMr。Hall。

Everysovereignstateisentitledtodo，withinitsdominions，whateveracts

itmaythinkcalculatedtorenderitprosperousandstrong。Twoconsequences

followfromthisposition。Astatemaytakewhatmeasuresitpleasesfor

itsowndefence;andastatemayadoptwhatevercommercialsytstemitthinks

mostlikelytopromoteitsprosperity。Thatastatehasthesepowersisnot

nowdenied，andwouldnot，Ithink，bedisputed;butneverthelessifthe

existenceoftheserightshadnotnowfortwocenturiesbeenaffirmedby

InternationalLaw，Ithinktheywouldhaveturnedouttobefullofpretexts

forwar。Evenatthismomentthepatienceofstatesishardlytriedbythe

wayinwhichtheirneighboursactupontheprinciple。TakeFranceandGermany。

Rarelyinthehistoryoftheworldhavetherebeensuchachievementsofmilitary

engineeringasareexemplifiedinthefortresseswhichlinethelongborder

ofthetwocountries。Everyoneofthosefortressesisjustasavailable

forattackasfordefence;andknowingwhatmenare，itisreallywonderful

thatnocomplainthasatpresentbeenmadeofthemerefactoftheirconstruction。

TakeagaintwodependenciesofEuropeancountries，whicharereallygreat

countriesstandingonafootingoftheirownBritishIndiaandAsiaticRussia。

Thesearenotcountriesinwhichfortressesare，orarelikelytobe，constructed

inanylargenumber。Theconditionsofclimateandotherdifficultiesrender

themdefencesofnogreatvalue;buteitherPowerisengagedatvastoutlay

increatingasystemofrailwayswithinitsowncountries;andwecansee

evennowthatanyfreshrailwayconstructedwithintheborderoftheone

countrygivesriseatleastforcriticismandprivatecomplaintonthepart

oftheother。IdonotthinkwecandoubtthatifInternationalLawhadnot

beenperfectlyclearandpreciseonthesubjectoftheserights，alleged

toflowfromtheSovereigntyofstates，theywouldconducetoeveryvariety

ofcomplaintfollowedbyeveryvarietyofwar。WhatreallyenablesstatestoexercisetheirSovereigntyinthiswayisnothingbutthelegalruleitself。Soalsowithregardtocommercialsystems。Theydifferenormouslyincontiguous

communities。ThereisnoquestionthatofoldtheEnglishNavigationLaws

werebitterlydislikedbyagreatpartofEurope;andnowthereisastanding

differencebetweenanumberofcommunitiesonthesubjectofFreeTradeand

Protection，andbutfortheruleaffirmingtheunrestrictedrighttoadopt

suchcommercialsystemasacountrypleases，thisdifferenceofeconomical

opinionwouldundoubtedlybemostdangerous。Asthelawstands，astatemay

directlyanddeliberatelylegislateagainsttheparticularindustriesof

another;andsofarasweareconcernedwehavesofullyacquiescedinthis

principlethatweallowourcoloniestoexercisetheprivilegesoncegrudgingly

concededtoindependentstates，andtoexcludeourmanufacturesbyprohibitoryfiscalprovisions。ThethirdofMr。Hall’srulesstatesthetasovereignstatehasanunlimited

powertooccupyunappropriatedterritory。Hereisaverygreatquestion，

whichwasthefertilesourceofquarrelintheseventeenthandeighteenth

centuries，andwhichperhapsmayassumeanewimportanceinthetwentieth。

ThediscoveryoftheAmericancontinentandthegrowthofmaritimeadventure

gavefreshinteresttoasubject;whichhadbeenleftinneglectedobscurity，

andtherisinginternationalsystemwasnotatfirstreadywithrulesto

meetit。ThefirsttendencyofInternationalLawwastoattributeanexaggerated

importancetopriorityofdiscovery。Itwasthoughtbytheearlierjurists

tobethesamethinginprincipleastheRomanInventio，theformofoccupation

bywhichundertheLawofNaturepropertywasacquiredinavaluableobject，

suchasajewel，belongingtonobody。Butinourdayspriordiscovery，though

stillheldinconsiderablerespect，isnotuniversallyheldtogiveanexclusive

title。TheUnitedStatesindeedhavenotunreservedlyagreedtothedegradation

offirstdiscoveryfromitsoldconsideration。In1843thatGovernmentprotested

againstthegroundtakenbytheBritishForeignOfficethatadiscoverymade

byaprivateindividual，intheprosecutionofaprivateenterprise，gives

nointernationalright。ButtheAmericanSecretaryofStateinthesamedespatch

admittedittobeapointnotyetsettledbytheusageofnations，hoerfar

discoveryofaterritorywhichiseitherunsettledorsettledonlybysavages

givesarighttoit。（Wharton，i。5。）Butthisinconvenienceofrestingrights

uponmerediscoveryhascausedmoredistinctformsofoccupationorannexation

tobepreferredtoit。Nearlyalltitlesofdiscoveryareofolddate，and

manyofthesearemattersofhistoricaldispute;whileatthesametimethe

worldissowellknownthatnewtitlesofdiscoveryarerare。Onthewhole，

somekindofformalannexationofnewterritoryisnowregardedasthebest

sourceoftitle。Itisstillallowedthatpriordiscovery，ifestablished，

maygivelegalimportancetoactsandsignsotherwiseambiguousorwithout

validity。Acairnofstones，aFlagstaffortheremainsofone，maymean

littleornothingiffoundonadesolatecoast;butifitcanbeshownto

havebeenputupbythefirstdiscoverers，itmayobtaingreatsignificance

andimportance。Alldiscoveryisnowdisregarded，unlessitbefollowedby

actsshowinganintentiontoholdthecountryasyourown，themostconclusiveoftheseactsbeingtheplantinguponitsomecivilormilitarysettlement。Agreatdistinctionisnowdrawnbetweenappropriatorsofnewterritory

whoarefurnishedwithageneralorspecialauthoritytoeffecttheannexation，

andappropriatorswhohavenosuchauthority。Ifthestatetowhichthecommissioned

appropriatorbelongsshouldafterwardsratifytheappropriation，agoodinternational

titlewouldbeacquiredbyit，andsoalsoifauthoritytoappropriateon

behalfofthestatehadbeenoriginallygiven。Inthecaseofanuncommissioned

navigator，somethingmorethanamereformalassumptionofpossessionis

required。Forexample，ifabodyofadventurersestablishthemselvesina

previouslyunappropriatedcountry，declaringitatthesametimetobelong

tothestateofwhichtheyaresubjects，thisstatemayratifytheiract

anddeclaration，andthetitleismadecomplete;butifanuncommissioned

navigatortakespossessionofanewcountryinthenameofhisSovereign，

andthensailsawaywithoutformingasettlement，themoderndoctrineis

thatthisoriginallyimperfecttitlecannotafterwardsbecompletedbyratification，

andisliablemeanwhiletobesetasidebytheindependentactsofother

sovereigns。

LECTUREIV。

TERRITORIALRIGHTSOFSOVEREIGNTY。AllthedepartmentofInternationalLawwithwhichIwasoccupiedatthe

closeofmylastlecture，theacquisitionbyaStateofunappropriatedterritory;

hasbeenmuchinfluencedbytheRomanLaw。Whattakesplacemaystillbe

describedbytheRomanphraseoccupatio。Thefundamentalruleisthesame

intheoriginalandinthederivativesystem。Inorderthatnewlandsmay

beappropriated，theremustbephysicalcontactwiththem，orphysicalcontactresumableatpleasure，coupledwithanintentiontoholdthemasyourown。Theleadingprecedentinsuchcasesisthecontroversyastothestatus

oftheOregonterritoryandastothemodeinwhichthatstatusarose。You

willfinditsetforthatsomelengthinallthemoderninternationaltreatises，

andmoreparticularlyinthoseofAmericanwriters。Nodisputemorenearly

gaverisetoawar。Theinterestsatfirstatstakeseemedtobemerelythose

ofcompetingfurcompanies;butthisimpressionhasnotbeenjustifiedby

theevent。Thewholepositionoftheterritoriesindisputehasbeenchanged

bytheconstructionoftwogreatrailways。TheNorthernPacificRailwayhas

openedupthefertileandwealthylandswhichwereclaimedbytheAmericans

onthesouth，whileonthenorththelandsclaimedbyGreatBritaininclude

theCanadianprovinceofBritishColumbia，whichhasbeenpracticallyincorporated

withtheCanadianDominionbytheconstructionoftheCanadianPacificRailway。

Ishouldperhapsaddthatthefactsincontroversywerenotaltogetherplain;

butitisgenerallyadmittedthatCaptainGray，fromwhomtheAmericansclaimed

title，wastheuncommissionedagentofafurcompany，whileCaptainVancouver，

uponwhosediscoveriestheEnglishclaimwasbased，thoughheassumedpossession

oftheterritoryforGreatBritain，nevertookthissteptillheheardof

Gray’sobservation。This，afterwhatIhavesaidoftheprinciples，mayserve

toshowthedifficultiesofthequestionatissue。ItwasmostwiselysettledbyacompromiseembodiedintheTreatyofWashington。Hereletmeobservethatonegreatquestionconstantlyarisesuponthe

appropriationofterritorybydiscoveryorbyoccupation：whatareaofland

isaffectedbythenecessaryactswhentheyareproperlycompleted？Settlements

areusuallyfirstestablisheduponcoasts，andbehindthemstretchlongspaces

ofunoccupiedterritory，fromaccesstowhichothernationsmaybecutoff

bytheappropriationoftheshorelands，andwhich，withreferencetoapopulation

creepinginwardsfromthesea，mustbelookeduponasmoreorlessattendant

onthecoast。Whattheninthiscaseisinvolvedintheoccupationofagiven

portionofshore？Itseemstobeasettledusagethattheinteriorlimit

shallnotextendfurtherthanthecrestofthewatershed。Itisalsogenerally

admitted，ontheotherhand，thattheoccupationofthecoastcarrieswith

itarighttothewholeterritorydrainedbytheriverswhichemptytheir

waterswithinitsline;buttheadmissionofthisrightisperhapsaccompanied

bythetacitreservationthattheextentofcoastmustbearsomereasonableproportiontotheterritorywhichisclaimedinvirtueofitspossession。IsaidbeforethattheproceedingsofseveralEuropeanPowersgiveus

reasontothinkthatquestionswithregardtoSovereigntyovernewcountries

acquiredbyoccupationmayagainarise，thoughpossiblynotinthepresent

century。Itistobeobserved，however，thathithertothetitle，whichhas

beenputforwardtolandsassumedbyGermanyandFrance，bySpainandItaly，

hasverygenerallybeenmadetorestupontheconsentofthenativeindigenous

communityoccupyingthem，orofsomesortofGovernmenttowhichtheyare

inthehabitofsubmitting。Thequestionastothedegreeinwhichtheoccupation

ofnewlandbyasavageorbarbaroustribewouldbaroccupationbycivilized

settlersisoneofconsiderableantiquityandofmuchdifficulty，andthe

wayinwhichithasbeentreatedhasnotbeengenerallythoughttoreflect

creditoncivilizedexplorersorthestatestowhichtheybelonged。There

isnodoubtthatinternationalpracticestartedwiththeassumptionthat

thenativeindigenoustitlemightbeneglectedonthegroundthattheinhabitants

foundinthediscoveredcountrieswereheathen。RomanCatholicexplorers

andtheirsovereignsweresatisfiedwithadmittingthatitwasthedutyof

statestakingpossessionofnewterritorytoconverttheinhabitantstothe

RomanCatholicformofChristianity。TheattemptsoftheSpanishGovernment

toChristianisetheIndiansofMexicoandSouthAmericaappeartohavebeen

quitehonest，andthesubsequentsufferingsoftheaboriginesseemtobe

attributabletothecivilinstitutionsintroducedfromSpain。InSpain，as

inallcontinentalEuropeancountries，atthedayofColumbusandCortez

thereexistedthecorveeorobligationtolabourgratuitouslyfortheState

onroadsandotherpublicworks;andthecorveewastransplantedtothenew

Americandependencies。TherewasalsointheminingprovincesofNorthern

Spainaconsiderablepopulationwhowereboundtoworkatminingoperations

forthebenefitoftheproprietors，andwhosestatusverynearlyapproached

thatoftheslave。Thisquasi—servilestatuswasmorewidelyextended，and

wasevenfoundinScotlandatthebeginningofthelastcentury。Itwastherefore

hardlysurprisingthatitwasintroducedintoSpanishAmerica，Northand

South，whereitbroughtaboutfrightfulcruelties。QueenIsabellaofCastile

appearstohavebeensincerelyanxioustoabatethecrueltyoftheSpanish

forcedlabour;butshewasassuredbythemissionariesthat，whenreleased

fromtheobligationsofcultivationandmining，thetimidnativesretreated

intothewildsfromthecompanyoftheSpaniardsandlosttheirChristianity。

ManyofyoumustbeawarethattheoriginofnegroslaveryinSouthAmerica

hasbeentracedtothesubstitutionofahardierracefortheweaklynative

Indians，whoweredyinginmultitudes。Perhapsitisonlyjusttoremark

that，afternearlyfourcenturies，theill—reputedSpanishexperimentshave

inthelongrunbroughtaboutanearerassimilationofthewhiteandcoloured

racesthanhasbeenseeninanyotherpartoftheworld。TherearesomeSpanish

AmericanRepublicsinwhichthewholecommunityisvirtuallyofIndianextractionandcolour。InNorthAmerica，wherethediscoverersornewcolonistswerechiefly

English，theIndiansinhabitingthatcontinentwerecomparedalmostuniversally

totheCanaanitesoftheOldTestament，andtheirrelationtothecolonists

wasregardedasnaturallyoneofwaralmostbyDivineordinance。Thisview

wasfirstdissentedfrombyanEnglishsecttowhommanyexperimentsinthe

practicalapplicationofhumanityaredue——theQuakers;andtheagreements

madewiththeIndiansofPennsylvaniabyWilliamPennsatisfiedtheconsciences

ofthosewhomherepresented。Nay，furtherobservationhasshownaverydecided

tendencyintheUnitedStatestoadmitthatthelandnecessaryfortheir

subsistenceshouldnotbetakenawayfromtheNorthAmericanIndiansunless

insomeformorothersufficientprovisionbemadefortheirsubsistence

byagricultureorbyhunting。Thepurelylegaldoctrineisthis：averyfamous

Americanjudge，whodidmorethananyothermantoshapetheearlyjurisdiction

oftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates，laiddownthattheBritishtitle

toAmericanterritory，whichtheFederalGovernmentinherited，excludedthe

AmericanIndiansfromallrightsexcepttherightofoccupancy，andgave

theFederalGovernmentthepowerofextinguishingthisrightofoccupancy

byconquestorpurchase。Buttheadmissionthatenoughlandmustbeleft

forthesubsistenceofallsavagenativesisnowgenerallymadebyallproprietors

ofnewterritory。Asarule，however，atthepresentmomentthetribesor

communitiesfoundonthelandswhichtheEuropeanstateshavetakenpossession

of，havepassedthestagewhichtheAmericanIndianswereinwhenEuropeans

firstcameintocontactwiththem。PrinceBismarckhasexpresslydeclared

thatheregardstheGermanannexationsasfollowingtheexampleoftheBritish

EastIndiaCompany。Hereitisassumedthatsomeorganisedcommunityisfound

inpossessionoftheland。Aftertheannexationtheyretainwhateverrights

theypossessedbefore，saveonlytherightofhavingforeignrelationswithanybodytheyplease。UptothispointIhavebeenspeakingofthejurisdictionandauthority

claimedbysovereignstatesovercertaindefiniteportionsoftheearth’s

surface。Thenarrowlimitsofmycourseforbidmyexhaustingwhatisavery

extensivesubject。Itwillbemoreconvenient，Ithink，thatIshouldleave

theremainingtopicscontainedinthesubjectofSovereigntyoverland，and

thatIshouldpassontoSovereigntyoverwater，treatingitverybriefly。

Asbefore，Imerelynotepointsofinterestanddifficultywhichoccuras

Iproceed。Statesinfactareinthehabitofexercisingorclaimingsovereign

authorityoverportionsofthesea，overlakesandrivers，andovercertain

vesselsbelongingtothemortotheirsubjectswhenlyinginthewaterofthehighseasorinwateroverwhichtheyexerciseorclaimjurisdiction。Thefirstbranchofourinquirybringsustowhat，atthebirthofInternational

Law，wasoneofthemostbitterlydisputedofallquestions，thequestion

ofthemareclausumandthemareliberum——seaunderthedominionofaparticular

Powerorseaopentoall——namesidentifiedwiththegreatreputationsof

GrotiusandSelden。Inallprobabilitythequestionwouldnothavearisen

butforthedictumoftheInstitutionalRomanwritersthattheseawasby

naturecommonproperty。Andthemootpointwaswhethertherewasanything

innature，whateverthatwordmighthavemeant，whicheitherpointedtothe

community，oftheseaorofrivers，andalsowhatdidhistoryshowtohave

beentheactualpracticeofmankind，andwhetheritpointedinanydefinite

waytoageneralsenseofmankindonthesubject。Wedonotknowexactly

whatwasintilemindofaRomanlawyerwhenhespokeofnature。Norisit

easyforustoformevenaspeculativeopinionastowhatcanhavebeenthe

actualconditionoftheseainthoseprimitiveagessomehowassociatedwith

theconceptionofnature。Theslenderevidencebeforeusseemstosuggest

thattheseaatfirstwascommononlyinthesenseofbeinguniversallyopen

todepredation。TheseaofearlyGreekliteratureappearstohaveswarmed

withpirates。Butthereisolderevidence。TherearesomeEgyptianinscriptions

whichappeartospeakofpiraticalleaguesformedamongthesmallMediterranean

statesformakingdescentonweakandwealthymaritimecommunities。There

aresomeofthenamesrecordedwhichmaybeidentifiedwiththeancientappellations

oftribessubsequentlyfamous;andonecannotavoidthesuspicionthatthe

famouswarofTroyarosefromanexpeditionofthiskind，whateverother

pretextsforittheremayhavebeen。Whateverjurisdictionmayhavebeen

assertedprobablydidnotspringfromanythingwhichmaybecallednature，

butwasperhapsasecurityagainstpiracy。Atalleventsthisiscertain，

thattheearliestdevelopmentofMaritimeLawseemstohaveconsistedin

amovementfrommareliberum，whateverthatmayhavemeant，tomareclausum

fromnavigationinwatersoverwhichnobodyclaimedauthority，towaters

underthecontrolofaseparatesovereign。Theclosingofseasmeantdelivery

fromviolentdepredationatthecostorbytheexertionofsomepoweror

powersstrongerthantherest。NodoubtSovereigntyoverwaterbeganasa

benefittoallnavigators，anditendedintakingtheformofprotection。

Mr。W。E。Hall，inaveryinterestingchapterofhisvolume（Partii。2），

hasshownthatInternationalLaw，inthemodernsenseofthewords，began

inageneralsystemofmareclausum;theAdriatic，theGulfofGenoa，the

NorthSea，andtheBaltic，wereallclosedandwereunderauthority，and

Englandclaimedtohaveprecedenceandtoexercisejurisdictionofvarious

kindsfromtheNorthSeaandthepartsoftheAtlanticadjoiningScotland

andIrelandsouthwardstotheBayofBiscay。Inallthesewaterstheomission

tolowertheflagtoaBritishshipwouldhavebeenfollowedbyacannon

shot。Thenceforwardtheprogressofmaritimejurisdictionwasreversed——

frommareclausumtomareliberum。AndtheSovereigntyallowedbyInternational

Lawoverportionsoftheseaisinfactadecayedandcontractedremnant

oftheauthorityonceallowedtoparticularstatesoveragreatpartoftheknownseaandocean。Thecauseswhichthrewopenalargenumberofmariaclausaarenotobscure。

Inthefirstplacetherewastheopinionofsomeofthemostrespectedand

authoritativeofthefoundersofInternationalLaw。Forexample，thestrong

opinionofGrotius，perhapsthemostreverencedofallthesewriters，that

theproperdoctrinewasthatofthemareliberum。Next，andmoreespecially，

thisopeningofseaswasbroughtaboutbythediscoveryofAmericaandthe

passageroundtheCapeofGoodHope。Therepugnanceofthemostadventurous

statestotheextravagantpretensionsofSpainandPortugalwasquickened

andstimulatedbytheknowledge，thattheirtitlewasfoundedinthemain

onapartitionoftheeasternandwesternoceansbyanauthoritywhichthe

newmaritimenations，theDutchandtheEnglish，nolongerreverenced——

thePope。ThusthewidelyprevailingexclusivemaritimeSovereigntyofearly

daysdeclined。TheEnglishclaimsdwindledtoclaimsoverterritorialwater

closetothecoast，andoverportionsoftheseainterposedbetweenpromontory

andpromontoryknownastheKing’sChambers，andoverthewholeofthenarrow

seasforceremonialpurposes;theselastclaimswereoncesoseriousthat

evenPhilipIIofSpainwasfiredintobyanEnglishcaptainforflyinghis

flagwhenhecameintothenarrowseastorthepurposeofmarryingourQueenMary。ThelanguageoftheordinanceofHastings，attributedtolyingJohn，wasevenmuchstronger：’Ifalieutenantofthelyingdoencounterupontheseaanyshipsorvessels，

ladenorunladen，thatwillnotstrikeorveiltheirbonetsatthecommandment

ofthelieutenantofthelying，hewillfightagainstthemofthefleet;

iftheybetakentheybereportedasenemies，andtheirshipsandgoodstakenandforfeitedasthegoodsofenemies。’IhavealreadyspokenofthedoubtsentertainedbyEnglishjudges，and

expressedinthe’Franconia’case，astothatjurisdictionoverthreemiles

oraleaguewhichissaidtoexistoverterritorialwaters。Ifthoseopinions

beexamined，itwillseemthatthedoubtschieflyrestonthefluctuations

anddifferencesofviewastotheexactextentofterritorialwaterwhich

maybeclaimedunderthegeneralruleofInternationalLaw。Insomecases

theclaimisidenticalwiththatoftheinternationalwriterstoSovereignty

forthreemilesoverthewaternextadjoiningtheshores。Inothercases

theclaimislarger。Itiseasytounderstandthesedifferencesifwebring

hometoourmindsthatwhattookplacewasarenunciationofindefinitefor

definiteclaims，entailinggenerallyacontractionoftheextentofseaassertedtobewithinagivenjurisdiction。AnothersurvivaloflargerpretensionsistheEnglishclaimtoexclusive

authorityoverwhatwerecalledtheKing’sChambers。Theseareportionsof

theseacutoffbylinesdrawnfromonepromontoryofourcoaststoanother，

asfromtheLand’sEndtoMilfordHaven。TheclaimhasbeenfollowedinAmerica，

andajurisdictionofthelikekindisassertedbytheUnitedStatesover

DelawareBayandotherestuarieswhichenterintoportionsoftheirterritory。

AmoreindefiniteclaimwasadvancedbyBritishsovereignstoalargerextent

ofthewaterbytheprohibitionwhichtheyissuedagainsttherovingor，

asthetechnicalwordwas，thehoveringofforeignshipsofwarnearthe

neutralcoastsandharboursofGreatBritain。Inmorerecenttimeswhatwas

knownasthe’HoveringAct’waspassed，in1736，andthisassumesforcertain

revenuepurposesajurisdictionoffourleaguesfromthecoastbyprohibiting

foreigngoodstobetranshippedwithinthatdistancewithoutpaymentofduties。

TheUnitedStateshereagainhavecopiedthisprovision，andineithercountry

thestatutorylegislationhasbeendeclaredbythecourtsofjusticetobe

consistentwiththelawandusageofnations。Theonceextensivebutnow

greatlydiminishedclaimsofGreatBritainhavenotbeenexclusivelyofadvantage

toher。Wehaveatraceoftheamplitudeoftheoldclaiminthenecessity

whichGreatBritainhassubmittedtoofgreatexpenditureonthecostlyduty

oflightingbylighthousesandinotherwaysamuchlargerextentofseawaythanisclearlyunderherjurisdiction。Thejurisdictionofastateoveraportionoftheseanearestitscoasts，

eitherasafragmentofancientclaimsorundertheruleofInternational

Law，isoftensaidtoexistbyvirtueofafictionunderwhichwateristreated

asland。Youwillfindonexaminingtheopinionsofthejudgesinthe’Franconia’

casethattheadmissibilityorotherwiseofsuchafictionfillsconsiderable

spaceinthearguments。Conversely，thefullSovereigntyofastateover

theportionsoflandwhichitincludes，andwhicharecoveredbywater，rivers

andlakes，mightbesupposedtoexistundertheLawofNature。Butthisapparent

naturalcompletenessofSovereigntyislimited，asisseeninonecasewhich

hashadmorethanitsshareofattentionfrominternationalwriters。Wherever，

asoftenhappensinariverofgreatlength，itpassesthroughtheterritory

ofaconsiderablenumberofstates，ithasbeenassertedthateachoneof

thosestateshasarightofnavigationtothesea;andithasevenbeenclaimed

thatwhollyforeignstatescannavigatetheriverfromitsmouthuptoany

oneoftheco—ripariansovereignties。Itisthefactthatsucharightas

IharedescribedhasbeenexercisedinallgreatEuropeanriversformany

centuries，andIbelievethereasontobeonewhicheverytravelleralong

suchariverastheRhinewillatonceunderstand。Thecommandofaportion

oftheriverwasnotvaluedinformerdaysforthepurposeofobstructing

orclosingit：itsadvantageconsistedinthetollswhichwereexactedfrom

avesselasitpassedfromonesovereigntytoanother，andthelongrivers

wereburdenedwithobligatorypaymentsofthiskinddowntothemouth。Of

coursetheburdenwasexcessivelyheavyontheRhineowingtothenumber

ofsemi—sovereigntiesorfractionalsovereigntieswhichaboundedwithinthe

limitsoftheEmpire。InoneinstanceaportionoftheRhinewasabsolutely

closedunderaprovisionoftheTreatyofWestphalia。TheScheldt，orpassage

throughtheDutchterritoryatthemouth，wasclosedtoeveryotherco—riparian

Power，andwasfreeonlytotheDutchthemselves。Therewassomepretext

forthisexceptionalrule，becausenodoubtthisportionoftheRhinewas

mainlytheworkofDutchindustry，fortheriverentersthereintothegigantic

constructionswhichhavebeenmadebyDutchengineersandbyDutchlabourers

forthepurposeofprotectingorrecoveringtheDutchterritoryfromthe

sea。TheclosingoftheScheldtwas，however，neverinfavourwiththeinternational

writers，andwasforagreatlengthoftimestronglyobjectedto。Ithas

agloomycelebrity，foritwastheforcibleopeningofthispassagebythe

FrenchinfavouroftheFlemingsandagainsttheDutchwhichledtotheentranceofourowncountryintothewaroftheFrenchRevolution。SomewritersonInternationalLawhaveassertedthattheinnocentnavigation，

asthephraseruns，ofarivercircumstancedliketheRhine，existedbynature。

Thiswascontrovertedbytheothers，andthequestionisoneofthegreat

topicsofargumentinInternationalLaw。Thediscussion，assometimeshappens，

hasbeenmuchembarrassedbytheuseoftermsofdubiousmeaning。Thosewho

deniedtherightgenerally，allowedthattherewasanimperfectrightto

theprivilegeclaimed。Theseterms’perfect’and’imperfectright’descend

tousfromtheRomanLaw，whereanimperfectlawisalawwithoutasanction。

JohnAustinhasexaminedtheseterms’imperfect’and’perfectlaw，’andasserts

thatinsuchcasesthelawgiver，thoughhehasindicatedhisintention，has

forgottenoraccidentallyomittedtoimposepenaltiesondisobedience。Such

auseofwordsisaltogetheroutofplaceinInternationalLaw，becausein

thatsystemthereisneveranydirectsanction，sincethereisnocommon

sovereign。（consequently’imperfectlaw’and’imperfectright’havegradually

attainedadifferentsenseinlaterInternationalLaw。Sometimesthewords

wereusedtoimplythatitwouldbefairandreasonabletoconcedetheliberty

claimed，sometimesitseemstohavemeantthatastateallegedtolieunder

animperfectobligationmayconcedetheprivilege，butmightconsultits

ownconvenienceastothemethodofconcession。Ifthiswayofexpressing

theconflictingdoctrineshadalwaysbeenfollowed，itisanotinconvenient

basisforpracticallysettlingthequestion。Manystateswillacknowledge

animperfectdutywhichwouldrefusetoallowaperfectrightinanysenseofthewords。###第4章Onthisbasis，however，thatofimperfectright，tabpassageofrivers

hasbeenlargelyregulatedbytreaty。TheRhineandtheElbewereplaced

underspecialregulationsin1814and1815，afterthecloseofthegreat

war，bywhichallthestatesalongtheirbankshadarightofaccesstothe

sea。In1828therebeganaviolentdisputebetweenEnglandandtheUnited

StatesastothepowerofnavigatingtheSt。Lawrence。TheSt。Lawrenceis

inpointoffacttheoutletbywhichthewaterofthegreatlakesorfresh—water

inlandseasescapesfromthecontinentofAmericaintotheAtlantic。England

claimed，asowneroftheterritorynearthemouth，toclosetheSt。Lawrence

atpleasure，thoughsheneverexercisedthepowerwhichsheassumed。Onthe

otherhand，theUnitedStates，assovereignownersofvaluableterritory

abuttingonsomeofthegreatlakes，assumedafreerightofnavigationto

themouthoftheSt。Lawrence。BothPowersclaimedmorethantheyhopedto

obtain。ThelanguageoftheEnglishForeignOfficeassumedthatEnglandhad

aperfectrighttoforbidthenavigationoftheriver。TheUnitedStates

seemedtoassertthatthewholeriverwasopentothemselves，andperhaps

tonavigatorsofallcivilisedstates。Thecontroversyendedin1854much

inthesamewayasthedisputesaboutpassagedowntheRhine，andtheprinciples

hereappliedwereshortlyafterwardsappliedtothegreatriversofSouth

America。Theywereallthrownopen，theParana，theUruguay，andtheAmazons。

Thisliberalityperhapswasmoreduetoanincreasedperceptionoftheadvantages

ofcommercethantotheadoptionofeitheroneorotheroftheallegedrules

ofInternationalLaw。Inallcases，however，thelegalviewofthematter

isthattheriparianstateshaveassentedtoanarrangementbasedonanimperfectright。Ihavespokenatthecloseofmylastlectureoftheintricatecontroversies

inInternationalLawwhichhaveafictionforabase。Perhapsthefiction

mostcelebratedamonginternationallawyersisthatofex—territoriality。

Thefictionofex—territorialityisinfactfoundedonametaphor。Aman

inaforeigncountryorashipinforeignwatersisconceivedasstillwithin

thelimitsoftheoriginalsovereigntytowhichhebelonged。Sometimes，it

hasbeensaid，theshipisconceivedasaportionofthesovereignstate

floatingaboutinthehighseaorelsewhere。Thewordseemstohavebeen

originallyusedtodescribetheprivilegesofambassadorsinforeignstates，

anditdescribesthemasvividlyandonthewholeasaccuratelyasametaphor

can。Themaindrawbacktotheuseofsuchmetaphorsinlegaldiscussionis

thatmen，andparticularlylawyers，beginintimetoconceivethemetaphor

ashavinganexistenceofitsown，andtheymakeitthestartingpointfornewinferenceswhichthemselvesareoftenmetaphorical。Thispeculiarityremarkablydistinguishedanotheremploymentofthefigure

ofwhichIamspeaking。Thejuristsofsomenationscontendthattheships

ofastateareex—territorialwhenintheterritorialwatersofanotherstate。

Thisisagaindeniedbyothers，andvariousverydifficultquestionshave

ariseninquiterecenttimesthroughtheambiguityofthetermsemployed。

Wemaytakeasanexampleofthisthecontroversywhicharosefourteenor

fifteenyearsagoastothedutyofcaptainsofshipsofwarinregardto

fugitiveslaves。ShipsoftheBritishGovernmentwereconstantlylyingin

theterritorialwaterofindependentstatesintheEasternseas;forexample，

inthePersianGulfwithintheterritorialwaterofPersiaorwithinthe

territorialwaterofTurkey。IfaMan—of—Warlyinginitsterritorialwater

wasunderthejurisdictionofthestatetowhichtheneighbouringcoastbelonged，

onetreatmentofaverydifficultcasewasincumbentonhercaptainwhich

wouldbecomewhollydifferentifaship—of—warremainedwithintheterritorial

waterofthestatewhoseflagitwasflying。Thiscasewasthatofthefugitive

slaveescapingtoaBritishMan—of—War。Itfrequentlyarose，foritwas

generallyknownamongthepopulationsnearthecoastthattheEnglishlaws

didnotalloworpayanyregardtothestatusofslavery。Iftheshipwas

withinthelawoftheneighbouringterritory，therecouldbenoquestion

thatthefugitiveshouldbegivenupagaintohismaster。Ontheotherhand，

iftheshipweresubjecttothelawofthecountrywhoseflagitsailedunder，

thenitbecamethedutyofthecaptaintocarryawaythefugitiveandto

puthimonshoreinsomeplacewherehewouldnotbeagainreducedtoslavery。

Conflictingreportsreachedthiscountryastowhatwasthepracticeinthese

seas，andalargecommission，consistingchieflyoflawyers，wasap—pointed

forthepurposeofdeterminingthepracticeanddecidingwhatthelawought

tobe。Thediscussionswhichfollowedmaybecomparedwiththoseinthe’Franconia’

caseforthenumberoftopicsofInternationalLawwhichtheyincluded。In

thelongrunthecommissioncametoanagreement。Someofthemthoughtthat

aBritishshipinTurkishwaterwasforallpurposesex—territorialandunder

BritishSovereignty。OthersthoughtthatitwasforthetimeundertheSovereignty

oftheTurkishGovernment。Butitwasunanimouslydeterminedbythecommissioners

that，whicheverviewprevailed，aBritishofficercouldnotlawfullybecalled

upontogiveupafugitiveinanycasewheretheresultofsurrenderinghimwouldbetoexposehimtoillusage。WhatIhavesaidappliestoMen—of—War，topublicshipsflyingtheflag

oftheirownsovereign，butthefictionofex—territorialityhashadawider

scopethanwhenappliedtosuchships。Allthroughthegreatwaratthebeginning

ofthecenturytheUnitedStatesmaintainedthatevenprivatevesselsought

tobeconsideredasex—territorialandasretainingthelawofthecountry

towhichtheirownersbelonged。ThispretensionwasstoutlycombatedbyGreat

Britain。ThecontroversyreallyturnedononepeculiarpracticeoftheBritish

Navyinthosedays。Beingmannedbyimpressmentinitsowncountry，itscaptains

soughttosupplyinsufficiencyintheircrewsbyexaminingtheshipsofneutral

nationswhichtheymet，andtakingoutofthemanysailorswhowerefound

tobeofBritishnationality。Theyargued（andthatthisistheruleweshall

seehereafter）thateveryprivateneutralshiponthehighseaisliable

tobesearchedinorderthatabelligerentvesselmaybesatisfiedthatthere

arenogoodsbelongingtoanenemyonboard。ForthispurposeaBritishcaptain

hadtherightofenteringafriendlyneutralship;andbeingtherelawfully，

itwasarguedbytheBritishlawyersandCourtsthathecouldtakeawayand

removetohisownshipsailorsengagedinthenavigationoftheneutralship

whoweresubjectsofGreatBritain。Nodisputewasevermoreviolentthan

this，anditleddirectlytothewarbetweentheUnitedStatesandGreat

Britainwhichbeganin1814。Itishappilynotprobablethatanysuchdispute

willoccuragain，althoughthereisnoabsoluteimpedimenttoitsrevival

inthedecisionsofCourtsorinlawbooks。Impressmentisnowgivenupby

theBritishGovernment，andifinsomefuturewarGreatBritainiscompelled

tosupplyitsshipswithcrewsthroughcompulsion，resortwillalmostcertainly

behadtosomeotherexpedient。Itisnotimpossiblethatwemayhaveto

copythesystemwhichisinforceinFranceandGermany，ofaconscription

confinedtothemaritimepopulation。Itshouldalsobeborneinmindthat

intheMen—of—Warofourday，whicharemachinesofthehighestelaborateness

anddelicacy，workedbysteamandhydraulicpower，thenumbersofthecrew

relativelytothesizeofthevesselaremuchsmallerthantheywereinthe

earlymaritimewarsofthecentury，sothattheprobabilityoftheshipbeing

placedinrealdifficultyfromtheinsufficiencyofhercrewisconsiderablydiminished。Theextremeformofthefictionofex—territorialitywhichtheAmericans

putforwardinrespectofprivateshipsisthusnotlikelytobeadvanced

again，becausetheprovocationwhicheliciteditisveryunlikelytorecur;

andindeedifanAmericanproposalonwhichIshallhavetosaymuchhereafter，

thatallprivatepropertyontheseashallbeexemptfromcapture，wereto

beadoptedbythegeneralagreementofnations，theex—territorialityof

merchantshipsmightpossiblybeexpungedfromInternationalLawbyinternational

agreement，becausetherightsofvisitingandsearchingneutralmerchant

shipsintimeofwarwoulddisappearofthemselves。Butitmustbeunderstood

thatatpresentthisclaimtoex—territorialityhasneverbeenformallynegatived

orsetaside。ThetreatybetweenGreatBritainandtheUnitedStateswhich

closedthewarof1814saysnothingonthissubjectoronthesubjectof

thegrievanceswhichwerethefoundationoftheclaim，andIsupposethat

anAmericanlawyerwouldbeboundbythedecisionsofhisownNationalCourts

toassertit，atleastabstractedly。WhatIhavesaid，itwillbeseen，applies

solelytoprivatevessels。Withregardtopublicvessels，Men—of—War，there

isamuchnearerapproachtouniformityofpracticeanddoctrine。Onthe

whole，thepositionthatapublicshipflyingtheflagofthesovereignof

anindependentcountryisunderthelawofthatcountry，evenwheninthe

territorialwatersofanothercountry，isacceptedbytheCourtsandlawyers

ofthecivilisedworld。Butadistinctionisdrawnbetweenactsofwhich

theconsequencesbeginandendonboardtheshipandtakenoeffectexternally

toher，andactsdoneonboardwhichhaveanexternaloperation。Inthefirst

casethejurisdictionofthesovereigntowhomtheshipbelongsisexclusive。

Inthesecond，thesovereigninwhosewaterstheshipislyingmaydemand

redressfortheillegality，butitmustbedemandedfromtheGovernmentwhich

isSovereignownerofthevessel。Thecasesmaybeillustratedbyoccurrences

whichhaveactuallyhappened。OnesailoronboardaMan—of—Warlyinginterritorial

watershootsanother;orasailorfiresariflefromthedeckoftheship

andkillsanativeoftheneighbouringcountry。Inthefirstcase，thecaptain

maydealatoncewiththeoffenderasthelawandusageofhisowncountry

permit。Inthesecond，hemustwaituntilademandismadeuponhissovereign。

Ihavealreadymentionedtheexceptionalcaseofafugitiveslavetaking

refugeonboardaforeignpublicshipinterritorialwater。Thedecision

ofthecommissionersdidnotsettleanyprinciple，butestablishedaworking

rulewhichissufficientfortheoccasion。

LECTUREV。NAVALORMARITIMEBELLIGERENCY，TosumupwhatIhavebeensaying。Ihavebeendiscussingcertainlegal

fictionswhicharesignifiedthroughlegalmetaphors，andespeciallyone

ofthembywhichplacesandthingsnotactuallywithintheterritorialjurisdiction

ofastatearesupposedtobewithinthatstateforthepurposeofcollecting

intoagrouptherulesoflawwhichapplytothem。Thisfictionofex—territoriality，

isappliedbygeneralconsenttotheresidencesandpersonsofambassadors

anddiplomaticagentsinforeigncountries，andonthewholethelawonthese

subjectsisexpressedwithsufficientaccuracybythefictionbeforeus。

Bymostnationsthefictionisalsoappliedtotheportionsofseaadjacent

tothecoastanddeemedtobewhatiscalledtheterritorialwatersofa

particularstate;thatistosay，waterwhich，sofaraswatercanbeassimilated

toland，isregardedaspartofthestate’sterritory。Finally，bysomecommunities

amerchantshiponthehighseaisallegedtobeex—territorial——tobe

inthesamepositionastheterritoryofthecountrytowhichshebelongs。

Inthislastwaythefictionbeforeushasbecomemixedwithaveryimportant

branchoflaw，thelawofNavalBelligerency，andIuseitasaconvenient

pointoftransittothatsubjectwhichImighttakeupatseveralplaces

intheselectures，butwhichIwishtoincludeinthisportionofthemfor

severalcogentreasons。Itisaprovinceoflawwhichroseintoextremeimportance

attheendofthelastcenturyandthebeginningofthepresent;ithaslong

been，andstillis，thefieldofmanybitterdisputes;itisapartofInternational

Lawinwhichagreatreformhasrecentlybeenattempted;andthoughtheattempt

partiallymiscarried，thecauseoffailuredeservesourattentiononavariety

ofgrounds;itshedslightoncertainweaknessesoftheinternationalsystem，

andraisesaveryseriousquestionastothetrueinterestsofEnglandin

areformofthatsystemwhichallbutobtainedtheassentofthecivilisedworld。Iproceed，therefore，todealwithnavalormaritimebelligerencyinits

effectsonbelligerentPowersandonneutrals。Theelementsofthesubject

aresimple。Whentwostatesgotowar，theships，publicandprivate，of

oneare，relativelytotheother，somanyarticlesofmovablepropertyBoating

onthesea。Thecaptureofoneofthembyashipoftheotherbelligerent

isprimafacieregulatedbythesameprincipleastheseizureonlandof

avaluablemovablebyasoldierorbodyofsoldiers。Thelawonthesubject

descendstousdirectlyfromtheRomanLaw。Thepropertyofanenemyisone

ofthosethingswhichtheRomanLawinoneofitsoldestportionsconsiders

toberesnulliusnoman’sproperty。Itmaybetakenjustasawildbirdor

wildanimalistaken，byseizingitwiththeintentiontokeepit;butit

isexpresslylaiddownthatawildanimalifitescapesceasestobethe

propertyofthecaptor;andthequestionis，whenisthecapturedpropertysoreducedtopossessionastomakeitaltogetherthepropertyofthecaptor？TherewasmuchdisputeonthispointamongtheinterpretersofRomanLaw。

Some，includingGrotius，maintainedthatthepropertestwastime，andthe

thinghadtobepossessedbythecaptorforfour—and—twentyhours。Atrace

ofthisrulemaybeseenintheallegedpowerofthemaritimecaptortodestroy

thevesselwhichhehastakenwhenhehasnomeansofbringingitintoa

port。Thereis，however，anotherruleofRomanoriginwhichhasgradually

supplantedthefirstmentioned。Thecaptormusttakethecapturedproperty

infrapresidia，withinthefortifiedlinesofaRomancamp。Thisapplied

tomaritimewarfaremeansnowadaysatseaaportofthecaptor’scountry，

asdistinguishedfromanopenroadstead，ortheportofanallyofthecaptor

ortheportofaneutralPower。Asitissometimesput，theshipmustbe

takenintomilitarypossession;thatis，intoapossessionfromwhichit

cannotberescuedotherwisethanbyforce。Butinorderthatthecaptormay

havethefullbenefitofhiscapture，yetanotherconditionmustbesatisfied。

Thecapturedshipanditscargo，orcargobelongingtotheenemybutfound

inaneutralship，mustbetakenbeforeaprizecourtandcondemnedaslawful

prize。Tillthiscondemnationhastakenplacethepurchaserofthecaptured

propertycouldnotbesurethathehadacompletetitletoit，andcouldnotobtainfullvalueforitifhesoldit。Prizecourtsaresometimescalledinternationalcourts，andnodoubtmodern

InternationalLawdoes，tosomeextent，recognizethem;butinprinciple

aprizecourtisacourtestablishedbypositivemunicipallaw，anditis

entrustedbythesovereignofthestateinwhichitisestablishedwiththe

dutyofdecidingwhethershiporcargoisprizeornoprize。Intheabstract

itsobjectistosatisfytheconscienceofthesovereignthatthecaptures

madebyhissubjectsarevalidcaptures。Heisalways，intheory，supposed

toberesponsibleforthem。Butthegreatpracticalfunctionofaprizecourt

istodecidebetweenthebelligerentsovereign’ssubjectsandsubjectsof

neutralstates。Neutralgoodsmayformpartofthecargofoundintheenemy’s

shipwhichhasbeenlegallycaptured;or，again，cargobelongingtotheother

belligerentmayhavebeenfoundonthehighseainaneutralship;or，again，

thevesselbroughtintoportmayhavebeenunlawfullycapturedthroughhaving

beenintheterritorialwatersofaneutralstate，orbyanattackorganised

insuchterritorialwaters。Inbothofthesecasescaptureisforbidden。

Ifthebelligerentsovereignpermittedthem，hewouldbeguiltyofaninjurytoanunoffendingneutral。Thecaptureofshiporcargobelongingtoonebelligerentbythearmed

shipsoftheotherispartofthefortuneofwar;norcanthecaptormuch

complainofhavingtobringhisprizeintoaportforcondemnation。Sofar

asthecapturedvesselisconcerned，thishardshipissomewhatmitigated

bythepracticeofwhatiscalled’ransoming。’Thecommanderwillingtopromise

adefinitesumforshiporcargopreparesadocumentwhichiscalleda’Ransom

Bill。’Itisdrawninduplicate。Thecapturingofficertakesonecopy，and

thecommanderofthecapturedshipanother;andthisransombilloperates

asasafe—conducttothecapturedvesselonhervoyagetoaseparateport。

Sofarasrelatestocruisersoftheotherbelligerent，sheenjoysimmunity

fromtheirpowerofcapturingherunlessshehasvariedhercoursesoastoraisesuspicionofanintentiontoescape。Therealhardshipsofcaptureatsea，towhichalargepartoftheworld

isnot，evennow，reconciled，arethoseaffectingneutrals。Ifanenemy’s

shipatseacontainsneutralcargo，theneutralmustsubmittohavehisgoods

takenintoportforadjudication，andmustofcourseforegoopportunities

ofobtainingafavourablemarket，thoughhisgoodsarenotliabletocapture。

Ifaneutralshipcontainsadmittedlyenemy’scargo，thecaptainmustsubmit

tohavehisgoodstranshipped。Theserulesareofmuchantiquity。Theyare

foundinoneofthosetreatiseswhichareauthoritiesonInternationalLaw，

butwhichareolderthanitsrecognisedbeginning。Inthe’Consolatodel

Mare，’whichissupposedtocontainthemaritimeusagesoftheseaswhich

formedpartoftheMediterraneanbasin，therearevariouslawswithreference

tothecaptureofneutralshipsandneutralcargo，andenemy’scargoinneutral

bottoms。Theseseaswere，inthedaysinwhichtheseusagesgrewup，full

ofsmallcommercialports，allmanufacturingandexporting，andnotsituated

atgreatdistancesfromoneanother。Theoriginoftherulewhichweare

discussingexactlyfitsinwiththerelationsofacertainnumberofsmall

sovereigntiesofthiskind;andthatthisisreallytheoriginoftherule

beforeusisindicatedbyprovisionsrelatingtotheinterruptionofvoyage，

asforexamplebyrulescompellingtheneutralshiptochangehercourse

fortheportofthecaptor，andprovidingthatsheshallhavecompensation

forherlossoftime。TheconditionoftheseseaswhichIhavesketched——

anumberofsmalltownsengagedinactualcommerce，butnotseparatedfrom

oneanotherbyanygreatlengthofsea——goesfartoexplainthisancient

maritimelaw;butasonemaritimePowerandanothergrewinstrengthand

cametovaluetheadvantagesofneutrality，thediscontentwiththeseold

rulesbegan，andadesirearoseforamoregeneralandsimplersystem。One，

infact，whichgrewupwaslookeduponwithmuchfavour。Itisoftendenoted

byasortofjinglewhichdoesnotconveyarealantithesis：’Enemyships，

enemygoods;freeships，freegoods。’Allthecargofoundinahostilevessel

maybemadeprize;ifthevesselitselfbelongtoaneutral，allthegoads

shallbetreatedasneutralpropertyandshallnotbeliabletocapture。

Francewasononesidewithasevereruleconfiscatingtheneutralshipwhen

anyhostilecargowascarriedinit，whiletheDutchwereforasystemmore

lenienttoneutrals，andfinallyFranceherselfbecamepatronessofthisrule。Manytreatieshavebeennegotiatedbetweencivilisedstateswhichembodied

eitherboththeserulesoroneofthem;butstilltherulewhichenables

thebelligerenttocapturehostilecargowhereverhefindsit，wasonthe

wholethatwhichlayatthebaseofInternationalLaw。Thefirstserious

attempttoeffectageneralreformofthisprinciplewasundertakenatthe

closeoftheCrimeanwar;andin1854thePowerswhichhadtakenpartin，

orhadbeenmostdirectlyinterestedin，thatwar，issuedwhatwascalled

theDeclarationofParis。Afterrecitingthatmaritimelawintimeofwar

hadbeenthesubjectofdeplorabledisputes;thattheuncertaintyofthis

lawgaverisetodifferencesofopinionwhichmightoccasionseriousdifferences

andevenconflicts，theplenipotentiariesatParis，seekingtointroduce

intointernationalrelationsfixedprinciplesonthesubjectbeforethem，

declarethattheyhaveadoptedthefollowingsummaryoftheruleswhichthey

wishtoseecarriedintopractice：First，privateeringisabolished;second，

theneutralflagcoversenemy’sgoodswiththeexceptionofcontrabandof

war;third，neutralgoods，withtheexceptionofcontrabandofwar，arenot

liabletocaptureundertheenemy’sflag;fourth，blockadesinordertobe

bindingmustbeelective;thatistosay，maintainedbyaforcesufficient

reallytopreventaccesstothecoastoftheenemy。Thenetresultshows

thattherule，freeshipsmakefreegoods，wasadopted;buttheotherrule

whichhassooftenbeencoupledwithit，enemyshipsmakeenemygoods，wasnotadopted。ThisDeclarationwasadheredtobyallthePowerswhohadjoinedinthe

Crimeanwar，anditseemedforawhilethatitwouldreceivetheassentof

thewholeofthecivilizedworld，thusformingthefirstgreatexampleof

areformoftheLawofNationsrestingonthebasisofexpresslypledged

faithinsteadoftheolderfoundationofprecedentandancientrule。But

ontheDeclarationbeingsubmittedtotheUnitedStates，theGovernmentof

thatcountryobjectedtothefirstarticle，’Privateeringisabolished。’

Aprivateerisanarmedprivateshipcommissionedbybelligerentsovereign

todepredateonthecommerceofhisenemy，andrewardedbyashareofthe

capture，whichinrecenttimeshasamountednearlytothewholeofit。The

reasongivenfortherefusaloftheUnitedStatesbyMr。Marcy，theSecretaryofState，wasplausibleenough。’TheUnitedStatesconsiderpowerfulnaviesandlargestandingarmies

aspermanentestablishmentstobedetrimentaltonationalprosperityand

dangeroustocivilliberty。Theexpenseofkeepingthemupisburdensome

tothepeople;theyareinsomedegreeamenacetopeaceamongnations。A

largeforceeverreadytobedevotedtothepurposesofwarisatemptation

torushintoit。ThepolicyoftheUnitedStateshaseverbeen，andnever

morethannow，adversetosuchestablishments，andtheycanneverbebrought

toacquiesceinanychangeinInternationalLawwhichmayrenderitnecessary

forthemtomaintainapowerfulnavyorlargestandingarmyintimeofpeace。

Ifforcedtovindicatetheirrightsbyarms，theyarecontent，inthepresent

aspectofinternationalrelations，torelyinmilitaryoperationsonland

mainlyuponvolunteertroops，andfortheprotectionoftheircommercein

noinconsiderabledegreeupontheirmercantilemarine。Ifthiscountrywere

deprivedoftheseresourcesitwouldbeobligedtochangeitspolicyand

assumeamilitaryattitudebeforetheworld。Inresistinganattempttochange

theexistingmaritimelawthatmayproducesucharesult，itlooksbeyond

itsowninterest，andembracesinitsviewtheinterestofsuchnationsas

arenotlikelytobedominantnavalPowers。Theirsituationinthisrespect

issimilartothatoftheUnitedStates，andtothemtheprotectionofcommerce

andthemaintenanceofinternationalrelationsofpeaceappealasstrongly

astothiscountrytowithstandtheproposedchangeinthesettledLawof

Nations。Tosuchnationsthesurrenderoftherighttoresorttoprivateers

wouldbeattendedwithconsequencesmostadversetotheircommercialprosperitywithoutanycompensatingadvantages……’Itcertainlyoughtnottoexcitetheleastsurprisethatstrongnaval

Powersshouldbewillingtoforegothepractice，comparativelyuselessto

them，ofemployingprivateers，uponconditionthatweakerPowersagreeto

partwiththeirmosteffectivemeansofdefendingtheirmaritimerights。

ItisintheopinionofthisGovernmenttobeseriouslyapprehendedthat

iftheuseofprivateersbeabandoned，thedominionovertheseaswillbe

surrenderedtothosePowerswhichadoptthepolicyandhavethemeansof

keepinguplargenavies。Theonewhichhasadecidednavalsuperioritywould

bepotentiallythemistressoftheocean，andbytheabolitionofprivateering

thatdominationwouldbemorefirmlysecured。SuchaPowerengagedinawar

withanationinferiorinnavalstrengthwouldhavenothingtodoforthe

securityandprotectionofitscommercebuttolookaftertheshipsofthe

regularnavyofitsenemy。Thesemightbeheldincheckbyone—halforless

ofitsnavalforce，andtheothermightsweepthecommerceofitsenemyfrom

theocean。Norwouldtheinjuriouserectofavastnavalsuperioritytoweaker

statesbemuchdiminishedifthatsuperiorityweresharedcanonsthreeor

fourgreatPowers。Itisunquestionablytheinterestofsuchweakerstates

todiscountenanceandresistameasurewhichfostersthegrowthofregularnavalestablishments。’Itisatthesametimetoberemarkedthatthisopinion，thoughintelligible，

hadnotalwaysprevailed，andthatearlyintheirhistorytheUnitedStates

hadnegotiated，throughBenjaminFranklin，atreatywithPrussiain1785

bywhichitwasstipulatedthatintheeventofwarneitherPowershould

commissionprivateers。Ontheotherhand，anearlypresidentoftheAmerican

Union，Monroe，hadlaiddownthatitwasunworthyofcivilisedstatesto

preyuponprivatepropertywhenintransitatsea。Theresultoftherefusal

oftheUnitedStatestoassenttotheDeclarationof1854wasthatthisDeclaration

hasnotbecomepartofthegenerallawofothercivilisations，fortheassent

ofastatewhichisperhapsdestinedtobethemostpowerfulintheworld，

andcertainlythemostpowerfulneutralstateintheworld，hasbeenwithheld

fromit。ButtheUnitedStatesGovernmentexpresseditswillingnesstojoin

inamodifiedformoftheDeclaration，ifallprivatepropertyatseashould

beexemptedfromcapture，asPresidentMonroehadarguedthatitoughtto

be;andthereisgoodreasontobelievethatifthesignatoriesoftheDeclaration

wouldagreetothisexemptionofprivateproperty，theUnitedStateswouldwithdrawtheirobjectiontotheabolitionofprivateering。ThefirstarticleoftheDeclarationwasinvokedinadisputewhicharose

betweentheFrenchandPrussianGovernments，thenatwar，duringthecontest

of1870。ThePrussianGovernment，soontobemergedinthatofGermany，proposed

toraiseavolunteernavy。AllGermanseafaringmenweretooverthemselves

forserviceinaFederalnavyforthewholeperiodofthethenproceeding

war。TheFrenchGovernmentobjectedtothisasabreachofthefirstarticle

oftheDeclaration。Theydeclaredthatitwasaspeciesofrevivalofprivateering。

Somewriters，includingMons。Calvo，andtoacertainextentMr。Hall，have

supportedtheseviews;butsomeconditionsoftheserviceproposedtobe

established，asforexamplethenecessityforthevolunteerswearingauniform，

theincorporationofthenewforcewiththeexistingnavy，andanoathto

articlesofwar，seemtometotakethesenavalvolunteersoutoftheclass

ofprivateers。Asamatteroffact，theDecreewasneverpracticallyactedupon。ItwillbeseenfromthetextoftheDeclarationofParis，whichisset

forthabove，thatitsrulesdonotapplyintwocases：first，wherecontraband

ofwariscarriedinaship;andnext，inthecaseofashipendeavouring

toobtainentrancetoablockadedtown。Thereforethelawofcontrabandof

warandthelawofblockadearenottouchedbythereformundertheDeclarationofParis，exceptsofarasaprinciplelongcontendedforisappliedtoblockades。FromtheverybeginningofInternationalLawabelligerenthasbeenallowed

topreventaneutralfromsupplyinghisenemywiththingscapableofbeing

usedimmediatelyinwar。Suchthingsarecalledtechnically’Contrabandof

War，’andmaybecondemnedindependentlyofallquestionastotheneutrality

oftheowner。Theshipandcargoaretakenintoaportofthecaptor;the

contrabandiscondemnedinaprizecourt，butthefateoftheshipitself

varies。Iftheshipbelongstotheownerofthecontraband，oriftheowner

oftheshipisprivytothecarriageofthecontraband，theshipiscondemned;

butnotsoiftheshipbelongstoadifferentowner，whoknowsnothingof

thedestinationofthecontrabandcommodities。ThisbranchofInternational

Lawiscomplexanddifficult，butitowesitsintricacyanddifficultyto

onespecialquestion：whatarethearticlesstigmatisedascontraband？From

theveryfirst，Grotiushadlaiddownthatthingsdirectlyusedinwar——

forexample，weapons——werecontraband。Healsoruledthatthingsuseless

inwar，articlesofluxuryashedescribedthem，werenotcontraband。But

outsidethesecategoriestherewereagreatnumberofthingscapableofemployment

bothinwarandpeace——resancipitisusus——anditisinregardtothese

thatinnumerablequestionshavearisen。Arearticlesofnavalconstruction

——forexample，therawmaterialsofsailsandcordage——contraband？Do

theybecomesoatanyparticularstageofmanufacture？Areiron，brass，steel，

etc。contraband？Arecoalsandhorses？Areprovisionscontraband？Tothese

questionsallsortsofanswershavebeengiven。Inmanyspecialtreaties

thelistofcontrabandandnon—contrabandcommoditiesisgiven，andthepractice

ofstatesisextremelyvarious。Onthewholethemostgeneralrulewhich

canbelaiddownisthat，withtheexceptionofweaponsormunitionsofwar，

thecontraband，ornon—contraband，characterofthecargomustdependon

itsdestination，andonthenatureoftheparticularwarwhichisgoingon。

Thecommoditymostrecentlysoughttobebroughtintothelistascontraband

iscoal。England，thegreatexporterofcoal，refusedtoadmititsbeing

necessarilycontraband;butinthewarof1870theEnglishGovernmentdeclined

toallowBritishcoaltobecarriedtoaFrenchfleetthatwaslyinginthe

NorthSea。Themostvehementofthedisputeshasbeen，perhaps，thatabout

provisions。Attheendofthelastcentury，whenthegreatwaroftheRevolution

hadbeam，EnglishstatesmenbelievedtheFrenchpopulationtobeonthepoint

ofstarvation;andthattheFrenchweresufferinggreatdistressfromscarcity

offoodisnowmostfullyestablished。TheEnglishGovernmentthereforeseized

allshipsboundtoaFrenchportwhichwereladenwithprovisions。Astheir

enemywasbelievedbythemtobeonthepointofabandoningthecontestthrough

wantofprovisions，theyrefusedtoallowthestockofprovisionstobeincreased。

JustatthesamemomenttheUnitedStateshadbecomethegreatneutralPower

enjoyingtheadvantagesofthecarryingtrade，andtheGovernmentofthe

UnitedStatesissuedaseriesofvehementprotestsagainsttheassumption

ofthecontrabandcharacterofprovisionsinanycircumstances。Itisprobable

thatinfutureprovisionswillonlybecontrabandwhendestinedforaport

inwhichanenemy’sfleetislying。ThepointonwhichIdesiretofixyour

attentionisthatthetestofarticleswhicharecontrabandofwarisnotyetsettled。TheotherportionoftheolderlawwhichisnotaffectedbytheDeclaration

ofParisisBlockade。Blockadeisdefinedastheinterruptionbyabelligerent

ofaccesstoaplace，ortoterritory，whichisinpossessionofanenemy。

Blockadeisprobablyconfinedtomaritimehostilities;butithasconsiderable

externalresemblancetoasiegebyland，andthelawoftheoneactingby

landhasvisiblyaffectedthelawoftheotheractingbysea。Butasamatter

offacttheobjectsofblockadeandsiegearenotthesame。Theaimofa

siegeisthecaptureofastrongplaceortownbeset。Theaimofablockade

istoputstressonthepopulationofaport，oronthepopulationbehind

it，throughdenyingitcommunication，commercialorotherwise，withtherest

oftheworldaccessibletoitonlybysea。Thisiteffectsbytherulesof

InternationalLaw，whichpermitblockadingshipstocaptureshipsofthe

otherbelligerentwhichattempttoentertheblockadedport，ortocomeoutofit，orwhichmayreasonablybesuspectedofhavingthisintention。Therearetwomainconditionsofthecaptureofneutralvesselsbyablockading

squadron。Oneisthattheymustbewarnedoftheexistenceoftheblockade。

Themodeofgivingthisnoticerequiredbylawvariesindifferentcountries。

Franceandcertainothercountriesgivenoticetoeachshipindividually，

theircruisersstoppingit，andseeingthatthestoppageisnotifiedonthe

ship’spapers。EnglandandtheUnitedStatesmakepublicnoticeintheir

ownterritory，andcommunicatethefactoftheblockadetoforeignPowers。

Undermoderncircumstances，whereinformationisconveyedoverthecivilised

worldbynewspapersandtheelectrictelegraph，itcertainlyseemsthatthe

EnglishandAmericanpracticeissufficient。Itishardlypossiblethatthereshouldbeignorancenowadaysoftheexistenceofanestablishedblockade。ThesecondconditionisthatmentionedintheDeclarationofParis：the

blockademustbeeffective;thatis，itmustbemaintainedbyanavalforce

strongenoughtopreventaccesstotheblockadedcoast。Itistheactof

secretlyevadingaforceonthewholeadequatewhichconstitutestheoffense

thatsubjectsaneutralshiptocapture——whatiscalled’runningtheblockade。’

Thestresslaidonthesufficiencyoftheblockadeisalegacyfromthelast

century。Hardlyanycountryhasnotbeenatsometimeorotheraccusedof

establishingwhatiscalleda’paperblockade;’thatistosay，publicly

announcingtheblockadeofaparticularportionofthecoast，butnotsupporting

itbyasufficientforceofships。Itisjustlythoughtthatsuchablockade

givesthemaximumofannoyancetohonestneutrals，butallowsamaximumnumber

ofdishonestneutraladventurerstopenetratetheline。Nothingcanjustify

theabsoluteinterdictionofaportionofthecoasttoneutralcommerceexcept

amethodlikelyonthewholetosecurethatend。Ablockademustasageneral

rulebecontinuouslymaintained，butanexceptionisallowedinthecase

ofshipsdrivenawaybystormandstressofweather。

LECTUREVI。

THEDECLARATIONOFPARIS。OnepointofconsiderableinterestinInternationalLawistheverydifferent

degreeofdurabilitywhichthevariouspartsofthesystemhaveprovedto

possess。Theoldestruleswhichbelongtoitsstructurearesimplyrules

ofreligionandmoralityordinarilyappliedbetweenmanandman，butsomodified

bytheinternationalwritersastobecapableofapplicationbetweenstate

andstate。Bythesideoftheseareborneruleswhichhavebeeninherited

fromtheoldeststratumoftheRomanLaw，rulesofgreatsimplicity，and

distinguishedatthesametimebyagreatamountofcommonsense。Theserules

stillsurviveandarestillavailableforthesolutionofinternationalquestions。

Ontheotherhand，therearepartsofInternationalLawwhicharecomparatively

modem，whicharehighlycomplex，andwhichintheirdaywereofgreatimportance，

butwhichhavenowbecomethoroughlyobsoletethroughchangesinthesocial

conditionofnationsorinternationalintercourse。Agoodexamplemaybe

pointedoutinwhatwasonceknownastheRuleoftheWarof1756。Ifyou

lookintoaninternationaldiscussiondatingfromthelatterpartofthe

lastcentury，ifyoulookintothereportsofthedecisionsofcourtsbelonging

tothesameepoch，youwillfindconstantallusionstothisrule，whichultimately

becamethesubjectofaseriousquarrelbetweenEnglandandtheUnitedStates，

asovereigncommunitywhichhadnotbeeninexistencewhentherule~as

firstheardofEngland，likeprobablyallthenationsoftheEuropeancontinent，

adheredtothedoctrinethattradewithcoloniesanddependencieswasthe

exclusiveprivilegeofthesubjectsofthemothercountry。Thequestionarose

whetherwarmadeanydifferencetothismonopoly。Whenthemothercountry

becameabelligerent，theroutefollowedbythecolonialtradewaslessobstructed

thaninordinarytimes。Theshipswhichwatchedtheforeignerwhoinpeace

triedtointrudeuponit，wereperhapsdrivenawaybythevesselsofthe

otherbelligerent;andtheroutebeingmoreopen，neutralsconstantlytried

toengageintradewhichintimeofpeacewouldhavebeenforbiddentothem。

What，then，wastheconsequenceofneutralinvasionsofthisprivilege？It

wasarguedonbehalfoftheneutraltrader，thattherebeingnobodyelse

toundertakethetransportofcommodities，hewasentitledtoshareinit。

ThiswasdeniedbytheEnglishcourtsofjustice，andtheydecidedthata

neutralship，engagedinatradeofthisdescription，wasliabletocapture。

Thiswastheruleofthewarof1756，whichdeniedtoneutralshipowners

participationinthetradewhichwasamonopolyofthemothercountryor

thecountrywhichwassovereignoverthedependency。Therewasatthattime

arulewhichforbadecertainarticlestobeexportedfromIreland;andof

coursethetradeofIndia，whichwasinthehandsofacompany，waseven

lessopentononprivilegedtraders。Butthisrule，andthestateofthings

whichitimplied，arenowcompletelyobsolete，andallthedissertations

aboutthemwhichoncefilledthebooksareobsolete。ItwastheUnitedStates，

thennewasasovereigncommunity，whichfirstcontestedmoststronglythe

legalityoftherule。Butithasbeeninfactdestroyedbytheindirectinfluence

oftheUnitedStates。ThefortuneoftheUnitedStatesshowedthatagreat

increaseofnationalwealthfollowedindependence，andthedemonstrableprofitableness

ofopentradesappedtheoldcolonialtheories，while，nodoubt，thesuccess

oftheUnitedStatesinsecuringtheirindependenceshowedthedangerofattemptingtocontrolextensiveanddistantdependencies。###第5章Aspeciallyinterestingsetofquestionsarisesonthefourarticlesof

theDeclarationofParis，thegreatmodernsystemofreformedmaritimelaw

which，butforonedissentient，wouldhavebecomethelawofthewholecivilised

world。ThisDeclaration，aswehaveseen，keepsalivetwosub—departments

oftheoldlawofnationsinverymuchtheiroriginalstate;thelawofcontraband

ofwar，andthelawofblockade。Letusaskourselveswhetherthesebranches

oflawarelikelytobelong—livedevenasslightlyalteredbythearrangements

ofParis。Ihavealreadypointedoutthatthelistofarticlesofcontraband

ofwarwasnotyetclosed。Theproposaltoincludecertainthingsinthis

classhasnotinsomecasesbeenconclusivelyrejected，while，ontheother

hand，asitisverygenerallyallowedthatcommoditiesmaybecomecontraband

throughthecircumstancesofaparticularwar，perfectlynewkindsofcontraband

mayyetmaketheirappearance。Perhapsthearticlesastowhichtherehas

beenmostdisputehavebeenthosewhichfollowthefirstclassandheadthe

second;thefirstclassbeingmunitionsofwar，andthesecondclassthings

ofwhat，inInternationalLaw，arecalled’doubtfuluse;’timber，sailcloth，

hempintheearlystagesofmanufacture，cordage，pitchandtar。LordStowell

admitsthis，andgivesthereason，thatwarshavebecomemoreandmorenaval，

sothatarticlesofmostuseinregardtoships，andthepropulsionofships，

gainmoreandmorelikenesstomunitionsofwar。Therewereendlesscontroversies

onthesubject。TherewererepeateddifferenceswiththeBalticPowersit

whoseterritoriesthematerialsofthesethingswereforthemostpartproduced。

Manytreatiesgavelistsofarticlesofcontraband，andtosomeofthese

Englandwasaparty。TheprinciplewhichtheEnglishGovernmentseveraltimes

adoptedwas，thatnavalstoresmightbetakenpossessionof，butthat，unlike

articlesofcontraband，theymustbepaidforbythecaptor。Butchanges

inthestructureandmodeofpropulsionofshipstendtomakethiskindof

contrabandorquasi—contrabandobsolete。Steamrenderssailsoflittleutility，

anddiminishestheirnumber。Thehullsarenowmoreandmoremadeofiron，

andironwireeventakestheplaceofcordage。Itispossiblethatnaval

storesmaydisappearfromthelistofcontraband，whiletheremaybeastruggletoincludesuchinnocentarticlesascoalandfood。Thesecondexceptiontotheimmunityofneutralpropertyis，property

carriedinashipattempting，orreasonablysuspectedofattempting，toenter

ablockadedport。Blockadesinthelastcenturywereconsideredbybelligerents

amostelectivemethodofdistressinganenemy;andovergreatpartofthe

Europeancontinentthegreatmarketsfortradersandthefortifiedstations

forshipsaremostexposedtoblockade。Topreventneutralvesselsfromentering

orleavingtheseports，wastodosevereinjurytotrade;andtoimpoverish

theblockadedportwastoimpoverishthecountryroundabout，and，ifships

ofwarwerelyingwithintheport，todiminishseriouslythetotalfighting

forceoftheenemy。BrestandToulonwerepracticallyblockadedallthrough

thegreatwaratthebeginningofthiscenturyandtheendofthelast。England

wasagainabelligerentduringtheCrimeanwar，andthereweresomeblockades，

notperhapsveryimportant，ofportsintheBalticandtheBlackSea。But

duringtheAmericanwarbetweentheNorthernandSouthernStatesshebecame

aneutral，ithavingbeenatlastallowed，evenbytheUnitedStates，that

therewasastateofbelligerencybetweenthecombatants。Eventhenitbecame

clearthataconsiderablechangehadoccurred。Steammadethelimitednavy

oftheNorthernStatesabletomaintainafairlyelectiveblockadeofnearly

thewholecoastoftheSouthernConfederateStates。Steamalsogreatlyfacilitated

theoperationsoftheneutralblockade—runners。Butthelandbehindtheports

oftheSouthernStateswasrichandfertile，andmanyrailwayshadbeenconstructed

inthoseterritories。Theeffect，therefore，oftheblockadewasveryunlike

theejectoftheblockadesinthegreat[Trenchwar。Articlesoffirstnecessity

wereeasilysuppliedtotheblockadedportsfromwithin，andtheeffectof

theblockadewastoraisethepriceofluxuries，whichwerealwaysimported

fromabroad。If，however，welookonthepresentstateoftheworld，weshall

seethatnoEuropeancontinentalPowerofanyimportanceexistswhichis

notconnectedbyrailwayswiththeinteriorofthecountrytowhichitbelongs，

andalso，throughconnectinglinks，withtherailwaysystemofthewhole

Continent。Ablockademaystillraisethepriceofnecessariesandconveniences，

butunlessaidedbyalandsiegeitcannotpreventasufficientandeven

plentifulsupplyofnecessariesandconveniencesenteringablockadedplace。

Itcannotarresttrade;itcanonlydivertit。Alandtrafficwouldatonce

taketheplaceofamaritimetraffic。Hardlyanycolonialproducereached

theblockadedportsduringthegreatwarwithFrance。Nowitwouldflowin

fromadozenopeningsinEasternandNorth—easternEurope。Itispossible

thatnopartofNorthAmericacouldnowbeblockadedsoastogreatlydistress

thecountrybehind。Therehasbeenanextensiveconstructionofrailways

throughallthestatesontheeastsideoftheUnitedStates，andanimmense

multiplicationofmanufacturesthroughoutthecountry。SouthAmerica，rapidly

growinginwealthbutinsufficientlysuppliedwithrailwaycommunication，

wouldbetheonlypartoftheworldtowhichneutralswouldresort，andatwhichblockadeswouldbeofanyvalue。Thefactthatinanyfuturemaritimewaritwillprobablybefoundthat

thesebranchesoflawhavechangedtheircharacter，notthroughanyalteration

ofopinion，butthroughindustrialdevelopment，maysuggestasuspicionthat

thenewmaritimelawcreatedbytheDeclarationofParis，thoughnowhardly

morethanthirtyyearsold，mayyetshortlyproveobsolete。Theposition

isthis。Neutraltradeisrelievedfromannoyanceandinterruption，andprivateering

isabolishedasregardsmostoftheworld。ButtheUnitedStatesdecline

thenewneutralimmunitiesbecausetheywillnotsurrenderprivateering。

Nowinanynewwaranattempttoenforcethepartsoflawunfavourableto

neutrals，willprobablyturntheneutraltradingcommunityintoabelligerent，

andthepowerofemployingitsownandforeignshipsasprivateerswould

maketheAmericanUnionaveryformidablebelligerent。Thequestionis，whether

itisworthwhileamendingtheDeclarationofParis，andmakingitofuniversal

applicationbyacceptingthefurtherreformsproposedbytheUnitedStates;

thatis，byexemptingallprivatepropertyfromcapture，andbyabolishingprivateering。Letusfirstaskourselves：whatissupposedtobetheobjectinwarof

subjectingthepropertyofanenemytocapture，eitherinhisownshipsor

inneutralbottoms？Itdoesnotdirectlybenefitthecountrycarryingout

thelaw，becauseundermodernpracticeavesselproperlycapturedbelongs，

nottotheState，buttothecaptors。Theassumptionisthatitdistresses

theenemy，thatitenfeebleshistrade，andraisesgreatlythepriceofmany

luxuriesandcommodities，and，morethanall，thatitseriouslydiminishes

hiscapital。Itisheretobeobservedthattheviewofmaritimelawtaken，

evenbyinternationallawyers，doesnotquiteanswertothetruthAmetaphor

usedinthelastcenturywasthattheoperationsofmaritimewarresembled

aflightofcarrierpigeonspursuedbyaflightofhawks。Buthewhowould

repeatthisfigurewouldhavetoforgettheenormousgrowthofthepractice

ofmaritimeinsurance。Itmayhappenastowarrisksaswithinsuranceagainst

perilsofthesea，thatacaptureofasman’svessel，ifprudentlymanaged，

mayenrichratherthanimpoverishhim。Nodoubtenhancedratesofinsurance

doimpoverishanation，anddodiminishitscapital。Butthelossiswidely

diffused，itfallsonthewell—to—doclass，andawarmustbeveryprotracted

inwhichincreaseofmarineinsurancewouldbesensiblyfeltbythemassofthepopulation。Anothergeneralpositionmaybenoticed。Inawarinwhichaggression

iskeptontheoldfootingbythepowersofarmamentwhichprivateeringgives，

thePowerwhichhasmostpropertyatseaismostinjured。Theoldlawtook

forgrantedtheequalitynotonlyofnavalstrengthamongstates，butin

volumeoftradeandofpropertyrisked。Totheamountofrisktheamount

oflosswillalwayscorrespond。Thequestion，therefore，arises：whatinterest

havewe，whatinteresthasGreatBritain，inrefusingtograntageneral

immunityfromcapturetoallprivatepropertyatsea？Inthefirstplace，

sofarastradeisconductedbymaritimeconveyance，thiscountryhasincomparably

thelargestshareinit。Thisisingreatpartaconsequenceofarevolution

inshipbuilding。Solongasshipswerebuiltofwood，themaritimePowers

werethosewhichcommandedmosttimber。TheBalticstates，Russia，andthe

UnitedStatesseemedlikelytohaveinturnamonopolyoftransport。The

Dutchswepttheworldfortimberadaptedtomaritimepurposes。Butnowthat

shipsofallclassesaremadeofiron，themonopolyofconstructionandpossession

haspassedtoGreatBritain。Weareboththeconstructorsandthecarriers

oftheworld，andwesuffermorethananyothercommunityfromalldangers，interruptions，andannoyanceswhichbesetmaritimecarriage。Butfarthemostseriousconsiderationaffectingthematterbeforeus

——thatis，theconformityoftheDeclarationofParistoourpermanentinterests

——istherelationofmaritimelaw，whichitsetsup，tothesupplyoffood。

Thestatesmenofthelastcentury，andofthefirstpartofthis，unhesitatingly

assumedthatitwastheinterestofthiscountrytoraisethelargestpart

ofthefoodofitspopulationfromBritishsoil。Theywereusedtowars，

andthegreatFrenchwarseemedtothemtoestablishthatacountrynotfed

bytheproduceofitsownsoilmightbereducedtothegreateststraits。

Infact，thepriceofcornduringthegreatFrenchwar，andevenforsome

yearsfollowingit，wasabsolutelyprodigious。Thisisthesecretoftheir

protectionism，andnotanyparticulareconomicaltheory。Theylookedonthe

evilsofimportingfoodfromabroadasacleardeductionfromexperience。

Sincethatperiod，theinfrequencyofwarshaskeptoutofsighttheunexampled

natureofourpositionwithregardtofood。Sofarasthearticlesmostnecessary

tolifeareconcerned，wearemainlyfedfromothercountries，removedfrom

usbyvastdistancesfromNorthAmericaandfromIndia;thatistosay，a

greatpartofthenationalfoodbeforereachingusisonlyaccessibleto

usthroughmaritimecarriage，verylongandcapableofveryeasyinterruption。

SirJamesCaird，inapaperwhichhehasrecentlypublished，saysthatthe

foodimportedintoGreatBritainduringtheyear1887wouldprobablyreach

onehundredandfortymillionssterling。Norcanthebalancebetweenforeign

commoditiesandhomesuppliesbeseriouslyaltered。SirJamesCairdpoints

outinthesamepaperthatGreatBritainissteadilybecomingapastoral

countryinsteadofanagriculturalcountry。Thestateoflivingunderany

circumstancesisatalltimesveryhardtoalter;andpopulation，atvarious

degreesofpace，alwaysmultipliesuptosubsistence。Ontheotherhand，

thepricewhichwepayforourprodigiouspurchaseoffoodinothercountries

isreallypaidbyourmanufactures，ofwhichtheultimatesourcesareour

coalandouriron，andtheinheritedskillofouroperativeclasses。Thus

thegreaterpartofthefoodwhichweconsumeinanyyearcanonlyreach

usthroughalongvoyage，andthepricewhichisthemeansofbringingit

tousmustalsocomethroughavoyageofequallength。These，ofcourse，

areeconomicalreasons，butIalsolookonthesubjectfromthepointof

viewofInternationalLaw。Unlesswarsmustbealtogetherdiscardedascertain

neveragaintorecur，oursituationisoneofunexampleddanger。Somepart

ofthesupplieswhicharematteroflifeanddeathtousmaybebroughtto

usasneutralcargowithlessdifficultythanbeforetheDeclarationofParis

wasissued，butanationstillpermittedtoemployprivateerscaninterrupt

andendangeroursuppliesatagreatnumberofpoints，andsocananynation

withamaritimeforceofwhichanymaterialportioncanbedetachedforpredatory

cruising。Itseems，then，thattheproposaloftheAmericanGovernmentto

giveupprivateersonconditionofexemptingallprivatepropertyfromcapture，

mightwellbemadebysomeverystrongfriendofGreatBritain。Ifuniversally

adopted，itwouldsaveourfood，anditwouldsavethecommoditieswhich

arethepriceofourfood，fromtheirmostformidableenemies，andwoulddisarmthemostformidableclassofthoseenemies。OfcourseIamawareoftheobjectionswhichmightbemade。Itmaybe

askedwhetheritwouldtendtodiminishwarsifeconomicallosswerereduced

tothelowestpoint，andifhostilitybetweennationsresolveditselfinto

abattleofarmedchampions，ofironcladsandtrainedarmies，ifwarwere

tobesomethinglikethecontestsbetweentheItalianStatesintheMiddle

Ages，conductedbyfreecompaniesinthepayofthisorthatcommunity。I

thinkthat，eventhusmodified，warwouldbegreatlyabated。Butthisis

asubjectwhichoughtnottobetakenforgrantedwithoutdiscussion，and

Ihopeinsomefuturelecturetotakeitupandgointoitcompletely。

LECTUREVII。

THEMITIGATIONOFWAR。TheageinwhichInternationalLawwasbornwasanageoflandwars。The

warsofsuccessionandoffeudalascendancyhadpartiallydiedout，butthe

Reformationbroughtwithitanewfuryoffighting，andthewarsofreligion

wereamongthemostferociousthatmankindhadwaged。Armiesdidnotthen

somuchconsistofrivalpotentates，asofhostsinwhicheachindividual

detestedeverymanonthegenerallybelievedtohaveculminatedinthesiege

ofMagdeburg。ThereisafamouspassageofGrotiusaboutthelicenceoffighting

whichhesawaroundhim;andthoughthedatesforbidustoseeherewith

solvewritersanyallusiontothesiegeofMagdeburg，thereseemslittle

doubtthatthestoriesofthehorrorswhichbecamecurrentgaveanewpointtothespeculationsofGrotiusandhisschool。Untilveryrecenttimesthereisgreatgroundfordistrustingtheaccuracy

ofthefigureswhichpurporttorepresenttheamountofslaughteratbattles

andsieges。Itissaid，however，thatthepopulationofMagdeburg，which

wastakenbystorm，wasreducedfrom25，000to2，700。Thesiegeisdescribed

byanEnglisheyewitness，whoseaccountofit，generallyregardedasauthentic，

constitutesthose’MemoirsofaCavalier’whicharegenerallyembodiedin

theworksofDefoe。Thewriterstatesthatoutof25，000men，andsomesaid

30，000，therewasnotafterthestormasoultobeseenalivetilltheflames

drovethosethatwerehidinvaultsandsecretplacestoseekdeathinthe

streetsratherthanperishinthefire。Ofthesemiserablecreaturestoo

somewerekilledbythefiercesoldiers，butatlasttheysavedthelives

ofsuchascameoutoftheircellarsandholes，andsoabout2，000poordesperate

creatureswereleft。Therewaslittleshooting。Theexecutionwasancutting

ofthroatsandmerehousemurders。Laterhistoricalinformationtendson

thewholetorelievethememoryofCountTilly，thecommanderofthebesiegers，

fromtheinfamywhichhashithertoattachedtoit;butallsiegesinthat

dayweretothelastdegreehomicidal，andthereisageneralimpression

thatthepeculiarferocityofthesoldieryafterthecaptureofatownby

stormwasduetotheTartars，whohadtwiceoverrunwhatwerethenthemost

fertileandcivilisedportionsoftheworld，andwhoneversparedthepopulation

ofthetownwhichhadresistedthem。Theyappeartohaveconsideredthat

everystratagemandeverydegreeofbadfaithwasjustifiableforthepurpose

ofinducingthegarrisontosurrender，butinthelongruntheyneverspared

anyman。Norhavethecountriesinwhichthesemassacrestookplaceever

whollyrecoveredfromthem。Sofar，indeed，asthecentreandwestofEurope

areconcerned，thereisvisibleacalmingdownofthesebitterextremities

ofwarassoonasGrotius，withperhapsafewpredecessorsandaseriesof

successors，begantowrite。Ihavealreadyseveraltimesreferredtohis

method。Hewasguided，asitseems，principallybywhathesupposedtobe

examplesandprecedents。Hewasamanofgreatlearningaccordingtothe

particularstandardsoflearningwhichprevailedinthatday;butthecritical

treatmentofhistoryhadnotbegun，andtheworstofthepileofinnumerable

exampleswhicharecollectedinthe’DeJureBellietPacis’isthatwecannot

besureoftheauthenticityoftheaccountsofthemwhicharefoundinthe

booksofancientwriters。Grotiusdigestedtheseprecedents。Heseparated

themosthumanefromthemostferocious，performingthefunctionofseparation

byapplyingtothemassofmatterbeforehim，firstofallthetestofreligious

teachingashefounditintheScriptures，andnexttheprincipleofwhat

theRomanscalledtheLawofNature。Themethodofhisimmediatesuccessors

hasbeensubstantiallythesame;butinourdaysomescepticismhasarisen，

notsomuchastothephilosophicalvalueoftheprocessaswithregardto

itspracticalresults。Inmoderninternationalwritingsyoumaysometimes

finditsaidthatthesofteningoftheusagesofwarwasnotsomuchdue

toGrotius，ortowriterswhocameafterhim，astothegrowinghumanity

ofmilitarycommanders。ItistruethatamongthesuccessorsofGrotiusthere

isagreatvarietyinthedegreeofhumanitywhichcharacterizesthem。Puffendorf

andBynkershoekareinferiortoVattelingentleness，andinthewishto

preferthemorehumanetothequellerusage，butbeyondcomparisonthemost

humaneofthepublicistsisVattel，aSwiss。Thereis，however，verygood

reasontosupposethatitwasthewritingsofthepublicistswhichmostencouraged

thehumanityofwar。TheyallfollowedGrotiusinprofessingunboundedrespect

fortheRomanconceptionoftheLawofNature。Philosophicallythatprinciple

isnownotmuchcaredfor;butthesupposedrulesoftheLawofNaturewere

appliedbyanothersetofwriterstoanothersubjectmatter。Therewasa

gradualgrowthallovercontinentalEuropeintheeighteenthcenturyofrespect

andreverence，andevenenthusiasm，forhumanity，andyoumayperceivethat

onthewholethepersonswhoexperienced，orpretendedtoexperience，this

feeling，were：believersintheLawofNature。Thechiefofthemwasthat

famousmanthewholeofwhosephilosophy，political，social，andeducational，

wasbasedontheLawofNature，JeanJacquesRousseau。Itseemsintruth，

apartfromwhattheopinionofscholarsmayhavebeen，thattherewasalways

acloseassociationbetweentheLawofNatureandhumanity，andthatbytheir

constantprofessionofapplyingthatlawandofeasilydistinguishingits

dictatesfromoneanothertheinternationalwritersdidmateriallyincreasethegentlenessofmankindevenwhentheirpassionsweremostexcited。Thewarsofthelastpartoftheseventeenthandmostoftheeighteenth

centurywerenavalwars。Agreatamountoflawgrewupwhiletheywerecontinuing。

Onechiefreasonwhy，onthewhole，navalusagesarereasonableandhumane

is，thatthebelligerentswerecheckedbytheneutrals。Inlandwarsaneutral

canonlyaffectproceedingstowhichheobjectsbytakingpartinthestrife;

butfromtheveryfirstthebelligerentmaritimePowerswerepreventedfrom

goingtothefulllengthsofpredatorydestructivenessbytheauthorityof

prizecourts。Itis，however，quitetruethatthecommandersoflandforces

didgraduallyabandontheferocitywithwhichTillyhasbeenreproached。

TherewasnomorehumanecommanderonthewholethanourownDukeofWellington。

Itissingular，atthesametime，thatheconstantlyfallsintoanerror

withwhichEnglishlawyersarespeciallycharged，thatofconfoundingmilitary

law，whichisregulatinglaw，withmartiallaw，whichmeansthewillofthe

officercommanding。HealwaysspokeofthelawofwarasconsistinginthevolitionoftheCommanderoftheForces。ThefirstgreatattemptwhichwasmadeaftertheepochofGrotiustogive

generalfixityandtohumanisethelawoflandwar，wasmadealmostinour

daybyanunfortunatesovereigntowhomjusticehasneverbeenfullydone，

AlexanderIIofRussia。Hedoesseemtohavebeenanimated，aswereboth

thestatesmenandliterarymenoccasionallyintheeighteenthcentury，by

anenthusiasmforhumanity。Youareallawarethatalmostimmediatelyafter

hissuccessiontotheRussianthroneheabolishedserfdom;buthisefforts

toreformInternationalLaw，andspeciallytheusagesofwar，arelessremembered。

HejoinedinpromotingtheGenevaConvention，ofwhichIshallsaymuchpresently;

hewastheauthoroftheproposalforrenouncingtheuseofcertainweapons

whichcausedwoundsofunusualpainfulness;andhewasthesovereignwho

summonedandwhotookanunflagginginterestintheBrusselsConventionof1874。TheBrusselsConventionfailed，andweshall

find，Ithink，hereafterthatthereasonswhyitfailedareremarkablyinstructive。

Iwillsaythatoneofthegroundsforitsnotcomingtomaturitywas，that

itwascommencedtoosoonafteroneofthegreatestofmodernwars，which

probablyneverhadarivalintheviolenceofthepassionswhichitexcited。

EnglandbeforetheConventionmethadstipulatedfortheomissionofall

discussionoftherulesofnavalwar。These，Isuppose，wereconsideredto

havebeensufficientlysettledforthedaybytheDeclarationofParis;and

atthecloseofthediscussionsoftheConference，whenevenitsmembers

admittedthattheyhadbeenabletoagreeonaverysmallpartofthematters

submittedtothem，itwastheEnglishForeignSecretaryofState，LordDerby，

whofinallygavetheConventionitsdeathblow。UndoubtedlythesmallerPowers

ofEurope，andthePowerswhichhavenotyettakenupthesystemofgreat

armiesraisedbyconscription，hadveryseriousreasonsforobjectingto

manyofitssuggestions，whichhadnotunnaturallysprungupintheminds

ofmilitarymenwhosympathisedeitherwithFranceorwithGermanyinthe

warwhichafewyearsbeforehadbeenbroughttoaconclusion。TheBrussels

Conferencehad，however，oneresultwhichhadgreatimportanceandinterest。

JustatthecloseoftheAmericanWarofSecessiontheUnitedStateshad

preparedaManualofRuleandUsagefortheuseoftheirofficersinthe

field。Thisexample——theformationofapracticalManualstatingforthe

officersofeachnationwhatcontingenciestheyweretobepreparedforin

actualcontestandhowtheyweretodealwiththem——wasfollowedbyGermany，

byEngland，andbyFrance？andsomeoftheseManualshavebeenadoptedby

smallerPowers。Buttheywereallgreatlyaffectedbytherecommendations

oftheConferenceofBrussels;andinrealityitmaybesaidthatwherever

therewasanythinglikeanapproachtounanimityinthedecisionsandvotes

oftheConference，itisadoptedinthissomewhatirregularformbythegreaterpartofthenationsoftheworld。TheManualpreparedforEnglishofficers，whichwas，Ibelieve，chiefly

compiledbythepresentLordThring，thentheofficialdraftsmanoftheBritish

Government，isoneofthebest。Visiblythewriterhastakenallthathe

couldtakefromthehumanerdoctrinesofthepublicists，moreparticularly

fromVattel，butheneverpretendstolaydownauthoritativelythelaw，which

heneverthelessdeclaresinsuchaformthatitisnowpossibleforastudent

oflawtoreaditandtogainfromitaveryvividnotionofwhataland

warinwhichEnglandwasengagedwouldbelikeifunhappilyitoccurred。

IwillproceedtoreadtoyoucertainpassagesfromthisManual，takingportions

atthesametimefromotherManuals，andmakingsomeremarksasIgoonupon

theolderhistoryofthecustomsofwarofwhichittreats。Iamsorryto

saythattheBritishGovernmenthasnotthoughtfittoallowittobepublished，

andthereforeIamafraiditcannotbeprocured。Itbeginswithastatementofgeneralprinciples。’War，properlysocalled，isanarmedcontestbetweenindependentnations，

andcanonlybemadebythesovereignpoweroftheState。Inthiscountry

aformalannouncementofwarismadebyaproclamationissuedbyherMajesty

andpostedintheCityofLondon。Thefirstconsequenceofthisexistence

ofastateofwarbetweentwonationsis，thateverysubjectoftheonenation

becomesintheeyeofthelawanenemytoeverysubjectoftheothernation;

foraseverysubjectispoliticallyapartytotheactofhisownGovernment，

awarbetweentheGovernmentsoftwonationsisawarbetweenalltheindividuals

ofeachnation。Thisprinciplecarriedtoitsextremelimitswouldauthorise

thedetention，asprisonersofwar，ofsubjectsofoneofthehostileparties

travellingorresidentinthecountryoftheotheratthetimeoftheoutbreak

ofwar，andtheconfiscationoftheirgoods。Theexercise，however，ofsuch

arightiscontrarytothepracticeofmodernwarfare，andtheconductof

Napoleoncannotbejustified，whoontheoutbreakofthewarwithEngland

in1803seizedalltheEnglishtravellinginFrancebetweeneighteenand

sixtyyearsofage，anddetained10，000oftheminprison，wheretheyremained

tillthepeaceof1814。Theusagewithrespecttogoodsistoallowtheowners

todisposeofthem，orleavethemtobeclaimedbytheownersontherestoration

ofpeace。Theexpulsionofsubjectsoftheenemyfromtheterritoryofthe

opposingstateisjustifiable，andmaybeexercisedornotaccordingtocircumstances。

DuringtheCrimeanwarRussianswereallowedtoresidequietlybothinEngland

andFrance。IntheFranco—Germanwarof1870hostilestrangersrevererequired

toquitthesoilofFrancewithinafewdaysaftertheyhadreceivednotice

toquit。Ontheotherhand，warisnotarelationofmantoman，butofstate

tostate，andinitselfimpliesnoprivatehostilitybetweentheindividuals

bywhomitiscarriedon。Theyareenemiesonlyintheircharacterofsoldiers，

andnotasmen。Theobjectofwar，politicallyspeaking，istheredressby

forceofanationalinjury。Theobjectofwarinamilitarypointofview

istoprocurethecompletesubmissionoftheenemyattheearliestpossible

periodwiththeleastpossibleexpenditureofmenandmoney。’’Wars，’says

LordBacon，’arenomassacresandconfusions，buttheyarethehighesttrial

ofright，whenprincesandstates，thatacknowledgenosuperioronearth，

shallputthemselvesuponthejusticeofGodforthedecidingoftheircontroversiesbysuchsuccessasitshallpleaseHimtogivetoeitherside。’Goingbackuponthislistofgeneralprinciples，Imustcallyourattention

tothecontrastbetweenthestatementthatthefirstconsequenceoftheexistence

ofastateofwarbetweentwonationsisthateverysubjectoftheonebecomes

intheeyeofthelawanenemytoeverysubjectoftheothernation，and

thepropositionthatwarisnotarelationofmantoman，butofstateto

state，andofitselfimpliesnoprivatehostilitybetweentheindividuals

bywhomitiscarriedon，thattheyareenemiesonlyintheircharacterof

soldiers，andnotasmen。SeveralcriticsinEuropeancountrieshaveremarked

onthis，thatthetwopropositionsdonotfallinwithoneanother;that

thefirstofthemwouldauthorisethekillingofwomenandchildren，whereas

thesecondreduceswartoacontestbetweenprofessionalsoldiers。Ithink

thereissomejusticeinthiscriticism，thatthetwopropositionsbelong

todifferentperiodsofhistory。Thefirstrepresentswhatmighthavebeen

thetheoryoflawifanattempthadbeenmadetoexpressitattheperiod

ofGreekclassicalantiquity，whilethesecondpropositionrepresentsanew

theorytowhichtheworldhasgenerallyadvanced。Manypassageswhichmeet

usinThucydidesshowthatinpointoffactintheviewoftheGreekswar

musthavebeenthought（ifanybodytheorisedaboutit）tobewagedbetween

thewholeofthesubjectsofonestateandthewholeofthesubjectsofanother。

Thereisapassagethatrecursfrequently，thattheykilledthemen，and

thewomenandchildrentheyreducedtoslavery。Thewomenandchildrenwere

infactconsidered，aswellasthemen，tobeinastateofenmitytothe

otherbelligerentstate。Iremarkhere，whatmanyhaveremarkedaswell，

thatoneconsequenceofthedecayandabolitionofslaverywasanincrease

ofbloodshed。Womenandchildrenandoccasionallygrownmenhadavalueof

theirownwhichsuppliedamotiveforkeepingthemalive，andatalater

datebloodshedwas，toacertainextent，diminishedbythepracticeofransoming;

andtherewerenobloodierwarsthanthosewhichoccurredwhenthepracticeofransominghadjustdiedout。ThenextportionoftheManualhasforatitle：’Themeansbywhichwar

shouldbecarriedon’——thatistosay，themeansbywhichwarisasafact

carriedonamongcivilisedandrelativelyhumaneenemies。Thewritersays：

’Thepoisoningofwaterorfoodisamodeofwarfareabsolutelyforbidden;

buttheturningoffthesupplybystoppingconvoysoffoodtotheenemyis

oneoftheusualmethodsofreducingthemtosubmission。Theuseofpoisoned

weaponsandofweaponscalculatedtoproduceunnecessarypainormiseryis

prohibited，onthegroundthat，astheobjectofwarisconfinedtodisabling

theenemy，theinflictionofanyinjurybeyondthatwhichisrequiredtoproducedisabilityisneedlesscruelty。’Astothepoisoningofwaterandfood，thebestexplanationofitsprohibition

isthatitseemstohaveexistedfromveryearliesttimes。Itisquitecertain

thatbothGreeksandRomansthoughtthatthepoisoningofwaterandfood

wasworthyonlyofbarbarians。Whatwastheoriginofthisfeeling？hasbeen

askedbywritersofmoderndays。Itmayhavebeenthatthepoisoningofwater

andfoodwasthoughtapeculiarlypailfulmodeofinflictingdeath。Theonly

poisonofgreatefficacywhichseemstohavebeenknowntoantiquity，and

whichindeedwasthebaseofthesubtlepoisonsemployedintheMiddleAges

bytheItalians，wasarsenic，whichnodoubtcausesdeathcoupledwiththe

extremestpain。Oritmayhavebeentheideathatpoisonwasnotfairfighting

——andthisshowsitselfasaverystrongfeelinginveryancientdays——

thatonthewholeeachcombatantoughttohavethemeansofemployinghisskillinresistance。Onthesubjectoftheuseofpoisonedweapons，andweaponscalculated

toproduceunnecessarypainorinjury，oneofthechiefmodernreformsof

thelawofwarhasbeenattempted，andwithasmuchsuccessasitwaspossible

forittocommand。BytheDeclarationofSt。Petersburg，proposedbythe

EmperorAlexanderIIandsignedin1868byallthecivilisedPowers，the

contractingpartiesagreedtorenouncetheusebytheirforcesonlandor

seaofanexplosiveprojectileofaweightbelow400grammes——alittle

morethanfourteenounces——chargedwithfulminatingorinflammablematter。

IhaveheardthatthisprovisionintheDeclarationofSt。Petersburghas

nolongeritshumaneeffectinconsequenceoftheprogressofscience，which，

Iamsorrytosay，hasoftenhadtheeffectofdefeatingattemptstoincrease

theareaofhumanity。Itisallegedthattheconicalbulletswhichareuniversal

inmodernarmamentdoinfactcausepainassevereandwoundsasincurable

aseverdidtheexplosivebulletswhichwerejustcominginabouttheyear

1868。Iammyselfincompetenttomeettheobjection，butatalleventswe

mustmarkthattheDeclarationofSt。Petersburg，expressingtheopinion

ofthewholecivilisedworld，declaresthattheobjectofwarisconfined

todisablingtheenemy，andlawfulusagedoesnotwarrantanystateincausing

injurieswhichgivemorepainthanisnecessaryforthatcomparativelyhumaneobject。Afurtheruniversallyacceptedruleisasfollows：’Assassinationisagainst

thecustomsofwar。Assassinationisthemurderbytreacheryofindividuals

ofthehostileforces。Theessenceofthecrimeistreachery，asasurprise

isalwaysallowable，andasmallforcemaypenetrateintotheenemy’scamp，

despatchthesentinels，takethegeneralofficerprisonerorkillhim，without

infringinganyofthecustomsofwarorsubjectingthemselves，iftaken，

tobetreatedotherwisethanasprisonersofwar。Itisthedutyoftheenemy

tobepreparedagainstamilitarysurprise，butnottoguardhimselfagainstthetreacherousattacksofindividualsintroducedindisguiseintothecamp。’Assassinationbegantoberegardedwithpeculiarhorrorimmediatelyafter

theReformation。NodoubtitwasthemurderofWilliamofOrange，morethan

suspectedofhavingbeenpromptedbytheSpaniards，whichbroughtaboutthe

fiercedenunciationsofwhichitisthesubject。Therewillalways，ofcourse，

besomedangerofthiscrimebeingresortedtowhenawar，asissometimes

thecase，appearstodependentirelyonthelifeofoneindividual——agreat

statesmanoragreatgeneral。ThatwasthepositionofWilliamofOrange，

intheopinionofallhisCatholicenemies。Butithasoftenbeennotedthat

anewfeelinghadarisenintheintervalbetweenthewarsoftheReformation

andtheprogressofthegreatestwarinwhichthiscountryhaseverbeen

engaged。ManywritersquotewiththestrongestapprovaltheactionofMr。

FoxwhenForeignSecretary。Apromisingschemeforthemurderofthegreat

Napoleonwascommunicatedtohim，andheatoncemadeitknowninParisand

informedtheEmperorofthedangerwhichthreatenedhim。Thefeelingelicited

bythisproceedingoftheEnglishForeignSecretarywassostrongandhas

solittledecayed，thatIthinkwiththewriteroftheManualwemaysafelylaydownthatassassinationisagainstthecustomsofwar。Heproceeds：’Withtheexceptionofthemeansabovestatedtobeprohibited，

anyinstrumentsofdestruction，whetheropenorconcealed，partialorwidespread

intheireffects，shellsofanyweight，torpedoes，mines，andthelike，may

legitimatelybeemployedagainstanyenemy;andseeingthattheuseislegitimate，

thereisnoreasonwhytheofficersorsoldiersemployingthemshouldbe

refusedquarterorbetreatedinaworsemannerthanothercombatants。A

humanecommanderwill，nodoubt，sofarastheexigenciesofwaradmit，endeavour

toprovidethattheeffectoftheexplosionofamineortorpedoshouldextend

tocombatantsonly，butpracticallynorulecanbelaiddownonthesubject。

Thegeneralprincipleis，thatinthemodeofcarryingonwarnogreater

harmshallbedonetotheenemythannecessityrequiresforthepurposeof

bringinghimtoterms。Thisprincipleexcludesgratuitousbarbarities，and

everydescriptionofcrueltyandinsultthatservesonlytoexasperatethe

sufferingsortoincreasethehatredoftheenemywithoutweakeninghisstrengthortendingtoprocurehissubmission。’IhavefurthertoremarkontheseportionsoftheManualsbeforeus，that

oneofthemostcuriouspassagesofthehistoryofarmamentisthestrong

detestationwhichcertaininventionsofwarlikeimplementshaveinallcenturies

provoked，andtherepeatedattemptstothrowthemoutofusebydenyingquarter

tothesoldierswhousethem。Themostunpopularanddetestedofweapons

wasoncethecrossbow，whichwasreallyaveryingeniousscientificinvention。

Thecrossbowhadananathemaputonit，in1139，bytheLateranCouncil，

whichanathematizedartemillammortiferametLeoodibilem。Theanathema

wasnotwithouteffect。Manyprincesceasedtogivethecrossbowtotheir

soldiers，anditissaidthatourRichardI。reviveditsusewiththeresult

thathisdeathbyacrossbowboltwasregardedbyagreatpartofEurope

asajudgment。Itseemsquitecertainthatthecondemnationoftheweapon

bytheLateranCouncilhadmuchtodowiththecontinuedEnglishemployment

oftheolderweapon，thelongbow，andthustotheEnglishsuccessesinthe

warswithFrance。Butbothcrossbowandlongbowwerebeforelongdrivenout

ofemploymentbythemusket，whichisinrealityasmallerandmuchimproved

formofthecannonthatatanearlierdatewereusedagainstfortifiedwalls。

Duringtwoorthreecenturiesallmusketeersweremostseverely，andaswe

shouldnowthinkmostunjustly，treated。TheChevalierBayardthankedGod

inhislastdaysthathehadorderedallmusketeerswhofellintohishands

tobeslainwithoutmercy。Hestatesexpresslythatheheldtheintroduction

offirearmstobeanunfairinnovationontherulesoflawfulwar。Red—hot

shotwasalsoatfirstobjectedto，butitwaslongdoubtfulwhetherinfantry

soldierscarryingthemusketwereentitledtoquarter。MarshalMontLuc，

whohasleftMemoirsbehindhim，expresslydeclaresthatitwastheusageofhisdaythatnomusketeershouldbespared。Thebayonetalsohasacurioushistory。Nodoubtitmustbeconnected

byorigininsomewaywiththetownofBayonne，butthestoriesordinarily

toldaboutitsinventionandearlyuseseemtobemerelyfables。Noinvention

addedmoretothedestructivenessofwar，asthebayonetturnsthemusket

intoaweaponwhichisatonceafirearmandalance。Theremarkablething

aboutitis，thatthoughknownitremainedforsolongunused。ItwasFrederick

theGreatwhoissaidfirsttohaveuseditgenerallyorevenuniversally

amonghissoldiers。Theprobabilityisthatthefearofexposinginfantry

todeprivationofquarteriftakenprisonerscausedthishesitationinusing

it。Inourownarmywehaveanexampleofthefeelingwhichtheoldusage

ofwaronthesubjectofcertainweaponscreated，inthegreenuniformof

theRifleBrigade。Itseemstohavebeenlongdoubtedwhetherfootsoldiers

armedwiththeearlyformofriflewouldhavetheirlivesgrantedtothem

iftheyweretakenprisoners;andthegreenuniform，firstusedamongthe

olivefoliageofSpainandPortugal，wassupposed，itisnowsaiduntruly，

togiveagreaterprotectionthanclothesofanyothercolouratalongerdistance。###第6章Lookingbackonthislong—continuedstateoffeelingonthesubjectsof

newanddestructiveinventions，onemayperhapswonderthatminesandtorpedoes，

andparticularlythetorpedoofourday，havenotmetwithharsherfeeling。

Butthereasonwhynosuchattemptsaswereformerlytriedtodriveoutof

useespecialweaponsarelikelyhereaftertobeseen，isthat，inthefirst

place，anyart，andespeciallyanartofdestruction，isinourdaylikely

toseerapidimprovements。Weknowofnolimittothepowerofdestroying

humanlife;andwhentheextensionoftheareaofthispowerbyaprofessional

classhasoncesetin，itisimpossibleforustolaydowntowhatlengths

itmaygooroverwhattimeitmayextend。Theinventionproceedssorapidly

thatapeculiarlyobjectionableformofitcanrarelybenotedandspecified。

Ontheotherhand，itisamoresatisfactoryreflectionthatwarshaveon

thewholebecomelessfrequent，andtheyhavealsobecomeshorter。Hence

theopportunitiesofobservingthewidespreadandcrueldestructioncaused

bythemostformidableclassofnewwarlikeinventionsaremuchrarerthantheywere。Iwillproceedtosaysomethingonthehistoryofthetorpedoeswhich

occupysomuchofourattention。Imayremarkthatwhenitwasfirstinvented

thetorpedowasreceivedwithdownrightexecration。Itfirstmadeitsappearance

inthewarbetweentherevoltedcolonies，nowformingtheUnitedStates，

andthemothercountry，anditwasthenknownasthe’AmericanTurtle。’Many

attemptstoobtainanimprovedformofitweremadeduringthewarbetween

EnglandandFrance，whenNapoleonandhisarmieswerehangingonthecoast。

Theprincipleofusingclockworkhadalreadybeeninvented，butthepeace

of1814putanendforthetimetothatmethodofinvention，anditwaslongbeforetheworldheardagainofthecatamaran，asthetorpedowasnextcalled。Theepochsintheperiodofhumanitarianprogressandvoluntarycodification

whichdeservetobeidentifiedwiththenameoftheEmperorAlexanderII

ofRussiaare：theConventionofGenevaastowounded，accededtobyall

theEuropeanPowersinthecourseoftheyears1864，1865，and1866;the

DeclarationofSt。Petersburgin1868;andtheConferenceatBrussels，which

filledthegreaterpartoftheyear1874。Ireferyoufortheresultsof

bothtoHalleck’sexcellentbook。

LECTUREVIII。

THEMODERNLAWSOFWAR。InmylastlectureIexplainedthedetestationwhichnewly—inventedinstruments

ofwarsometimesoccasionedinoldendays，andoftheseveritywithwhich

soldierswhoemployedthemweresometimestreated。TheManualfortheuse

ofofficersinthefield，onwhichIambasingtheselectures，statesthegeneralruleonthesubjectofnewwarlikeinventionsinthefollowingterms：’Withtheexceptionofthemeansabovestatedtobeprohibited。anyinstruments

ofdestruction，whetheropenorconcealed，partialorwidespreadintheir

effects，shellsofanyweight，torpedoes，mines，andthelike，maylegitimately

beemployedagainstanenemy;andseeingthattheuseislegitimate，there

isnoreasonwhytheofficersorsoldiersemployingthemshouldberefused

quarter，orbetreatedinamannerworsethanothercombatants。’Themeans

abovestatedtobeprohibitedarepoisoningwaterorfood，assassination，

andtheuseofexplosivebulletsabovecertainweight。Itisaddedthat’a

humanecommanderwill，sofarastheexigencieswaradmit，endeavourtoprovide

thattheeffectoftheexplosionofamineoratorpedoshouldextendtocombatantsonly，butpracticallynorulecanbelaiddownonthesubject。’Thelatestinstanceinwhichminesofanextentanddestructivenessfar

exceedingtheimmediateobjectwereused，wasonewhichattractedbutlittle

noticeinthiscountryowingtothedistanceofthelocalityat;whichthe

explosiontookplace。Ithappened，however，thatinthecourseoftheadvance

oftheRussianarmiesthroughtheTartarcountriestothefrontierofAfghanistan

awell—knownRussiancommander，muchbelovedandrespected，GeneralSkobeleff，

foundhisprogressobstructedbyagreatfortificationerectedbyalarge

tribeofTartars。ThiswasthefortressofAkhalTeke，anenormousconstruction

ofburntclay。Itwouldhavetakenmuchtime，andcostmanylives，toattack

itbyanyoftherecognisedmethodsofcapture。Itappeared，however，that

thetribewhichhaderectedthisfortresshadnoconceptionwhateverofa

mine，andSkobeleffpassedseveralweeksbeforethesewallsinexcavating

minesofanenormousextent。Atlast，thebesiegedhavingnosuspicionthat

theywerelikelytobeattackedinanywayexceptthatknowntothem，the

mineswereexploded，andthegreaterpartofthefortressandavastnumber

ofpersonsinsideitwereatoncedestroyed。Theremainderofthetribereceived

veryseveretreatmentfromthesuccessfulbesiegers，andbutasmallportion

escaped。Itissadtothinkthatthisexampleofwarlikeseveritywasset

bythegeneralofthePowerwhich，itwouldbeonlyjusttoadmit，hasdone

mosttomitigatethecrueltiesofwar。Skobeleffdefendedhimselfonthe

groundthatwhathehaddonewastruehumanityratherthanseverity，and

thatinnootherwaycouldatribewhichwasnotonlyformidableinwar，

buthaddonemuchtopreventtheeventemporaryestablishmentofpeacein

thosecountries，bereduced。But，nodoubt，inalloperationsofwarwhich

areconductedundertheeyesofcivilisedmen，whowatchthemthroughthe

pressandthetelegraph，thepracticeisstatedintheseManuals，that’a

humanecommanderwill，sofarastheexigenciesofwaradmit，endeavourto

providethattheeffectoftheexplosionofamineoratorpedoshouldextend

tocombatantsonly;butpractically，’itiscautiouslyadded，’norulecan

belaiddownonthesubject。’Thegeneralprincipleis——andthisisthe

conclusionofallthesewriters——thatinthemodeofcarryingonthewar

nogreaterharmshallbedonetotheenemythannecessityrequiresforthe

purposeofbringinghimtoterms。Thisprincipleexcludesgratuitousbarbarities，

andeverydescriptionofcrueltyandinsultthatservesonlytoexasperate

thesufferingsortoincreasethehatredoftheenemywithoutweakeninghisstrengthortendingtoproducehissubmission。Aninterestingquestionforustoaskourselvesis，whetherinthefuture

historyofwarfarethereislikelytobeanysuchproscriptionofweapons

throughsheerdislikeorhorroraswascommonintheMiddleAges。Iammyself

notconvincedbutthathereaftertheremaybeaveryseriousmovementin

theworldonthesubjectofsomepartsofthenewly—inventedarmament。Let

usjusttakeintoourconsiderationtwonewinventions，whichhaveshown

themselvescapableofcausingterrificdestruction——twonewimplements

ofnavalwarfare，theRamandtheTorpedo。Neitherhasbeenextensivelytried

atpresent——onehardlyatall。AtthebattleofLissaintheAdriatic，

onthecoastofNorthAmericaduringtheWarofSecession，andalsoonthe

westerncoastofSouthAmerica，theramhasbeentried，andhasprovedto

beaninstrumentwhoseeffectscanhardlybemeasured。Shipshavebeensunk

inamomentortwobyitsuse。Oftheuseofthetorpedo，however，wehave

hardlyanyexample。Amongmilitaryandnavalmenthereisstillgreatcontroversy

astoitseffectiveness。TorpedoesduringtheRusso—Turkishwarwerelaid

downinthemouthsoftheDanubeingreatquantities，buttheRussianshad

nodifficultyinremovingthemwithoutinjurytothemselves;andallover

theWorlditisstillaquestionwhetherthedefenceortheattack，asthese

writersputit，isthestrongerintheircase。Inthiscountry，Ithink，

whichisconfidentofthepossessionofthemostformidableformsofthis

implement，thereisatpresentconsiderablebeliefinitseffectivenessin

war;butinFrance，ontheotherhand，theopiniononthewholetendsin

theotherdirection。Frenchnavalwritersmaintainemphaticallythat，as

yet，ithasnotbeenprovedthatthetorpedoisaweaponwhichcanbeused

onalargescalewithsafetybyanavalcombatant;buttheseFrenchwriters

haveraisedaquestionwhichisextremelyinteresting，touswithregard

tothediscussionwhichIamjustclosing。’Youmustremember，’saysone

ofthem，acelebratedFrenchadmiral，’thatatorpedoisusedunderwater

andinthedark。Now，areyouquitesurethatyouwillalwaysaimyourattack

againsttheshipwhichyouintendtodestroy？Supposethatthecommander

ofatorpedofleetmakeshiswaytoaforceofshipslyingoffaparticular

coast，andoneofhistorpedoesissuccessfullyfixedtothevulnerableparts

ofoneofthem。Theelectricsparkisapplied，andtheshipandeverybody

onboarditisblownintotheairorsentintothedepthsofthesea！Supposing，

however，immediatelyafterwardsitisdiscoveredthattheshipwhichhas

beendestroyedisaneutral，perhapsoneofthefinestvesselsofafriendly

Power！Donotyouthinkthattherewouldbeathrillofhorrorthroughthe

civilizedworld，andareyousureteatacombinationofcivilisednations

willnotbeformedwhichwillcondemnthetorpedotothesameproscription，

andperhapsbythesamemeans，asfarmoremercifulweaponswerecondemned

intheMiddleAges？’Formypart，Ithinkthisreasoningexceedinglystrong，

andIamnotyetconvincedthatwarlikeinventionmaynotreachsomepointatwhichthenaturalfeelingsofhumanitywillcauseittobearrested。IpassnowbrieflytoaportionoftheseManualswhichinspiritisa

gooddealconnectedwiththatwhichIamplacingbeforeyou。Itisthechapter

whichtheycontainon’SpiesandStratagems。’Aspy，theyallsay，inamilitary

senseisapersonwhoisfoundinadistrictoccupiedbytheenemycollecting

secretly，andindisguise，informationrespectinghisconditionanddesigns，

withaviewofcommunicatingsuchinformationtotheopposingforce。Secrecy

anddisguisearetheessentialcharacteristicsofaspyinthemilitarysense。

Anofficerinuniform，howevernearlyheapproachestotheenemy，orhowever

closelyheobserveshismotions，isnotaspy，andiftakenmustbetreated

asaprisonerofwar。Spieswhentakenarepunishablewithdeath，either

byhangingorshooting。Theservicesofspiesmustbesecuredbyrewards，

asnoonecanbecalledupontoundertaketheofficeofspyasamatterof

dutyoragainsthiswill。Acommandermay，course，availhimselfofinformation

ifgivenbyatraitor。Howfarheisjustifiedinendeavouringtosuborn

treachery，isamoredifficultquestion。SuchtransactionsarespillbyVattel

tobenotuncommon，thoughneverboastedofbythosewhohaveenteredon

them。Anofficermayfeigntobeatraitorforthepurposeofensnaringan

enemywhoattemptstocorrupthisfidelity;butifhevoluntarilymakesovertures

totheenemyunderpresenceofbeingatraitor，andthendeceivestheenemy

withfalseinformation，hisconductisdishonourable，andcontrarytothe

customsofwar。Prisonersofwarcannotbepunishedorilltreatedforrefusing

todisclosethenumberorconditionofthebodytowhichtheybelong。False

attacks，thedisseminationoffalseinformationorpass—wordswhennotperfidious，

arepermissiblebythecustomsofwar。Indeed，totakeatownbysurprise，

ortoturnapositionbyastratagem，ismoregloriousnowadaystoaGeneral

thantoeffecttheobjectbyforce，inproportionastowinagreatbattle

withlittleslaughterismorecreditabletotheskilloftheGeneralthan

togainabloodyvictory。Itmust，however，beobservedthatnodeceitis

allowablewherenoexpressorimpliedengagementexiststhatthetruthshould

beactedorspoken。Toviolatesuchanengagementisperfidy，andcontrary

aliketothecustomsofwarandthedictatesofhonour。Forexample，itis

agrossbreachoffaithandanoutrageagainstthecustomsofwartohoist

aHospitalflagonbuildingsnotappropriatedtothewounded，ortouseaplaceprotectedbyaHospitalflagforanyotherpurposethanaHospital。Theopinionhereexpressed，thatsuccessesgainedthroughaspyaremore

creditabletotheskillofacommanderthansuccessesindrawnbattles，was

verylargelyheldinthelastcentury，andmilitarywritersofgreatcelebrity

haveleftaccountsofthesuccessfulusewhichtheymadeofspiesandtheir

services。FredericktheGreatofPrussia，inNovember1760，publishedMilitary

InstructionsfortheuseofhisGenerals，whichwerebasedonawidepractical

knowledgeofthematter。Heclassedspiesas’ordinaryspies，’’doublespies，’

’spiesofdistinction，’and’spiesbycompulsion。’By’doublespies’hemeant

spieswhoalsopretendedtobeintheserviceofthesidetheybetrayed;

by’spiesofdistinction’hemeantofficersofHussarswhoseserviceshe

foundusefulunderthepeculiarcircumstancesofanAustriancampaign。When

hecouldnotprocurehimselfspiesamongtheAustriansowingtothecareful

guardwhichtheirlighttroopskeptaroundtheircamp，theideaoccurred

tohim，andheactedonitwithsuccess，ofutilizingthesuspensionofarms

thatwascustomaryafteraskirmishbetweenHussars，tomakethoseofficers

themeansofconductingepistolarycorrespondencewiththeofficersonthe

otheraide。’Spiesofcompulsion’heexplainedinthisway。Whenyouwish

toconveyfalseinformationtoanenemy，youtakeatrustworthysoldierand

compelhimtopasstotheenemy’scamptorepresentthereallthatyouwish

theenemytobelieve。Youalsosendbyhimletterstoexcitethetroopsto

desertion;andintheeventofitsbeingimpossibletoobtaininformation

abouttheenemy，Frederickprescribesthefollowing：choosesomerichcitizen

whohaslandandawifeandchildren，andanotherman，disguisedashisservant

orcoachman，whounderstandstheenemy’slanguage。Forcetheformertotake

thelatterwithhimtotheenemy’scamptocomplainofinjuriessustained，

threateninghimthatifhefailstobringthemanbackwithhimafterhaving

stayedlongenoughforthedesiredobjecthiswifeandchildrenshallbe

hangedandhishouseburnt。’Iwasmyself，’headds，’constrainedtohave

recoursetothismethod，anditsucceeded。’Thehumanityandgoodfaithof

FredericktheGreathaveneverbeencelebrated;buthowmuchoftheseprinciples

survivetoourowntimeswecangatherfromLordWolseley’s’Soldier’sPocket

Book。’’Thebestway，’hesuggests，’tosendoutaspyistosendapeasant

withaletterwrittenonverythinpaper，whichmayberolledupsotightly

astobeportableinaquillaninchandahalflong，andthispreciousquill

maybehiddeninthehairorbeard，orinahollowatthenendofawalking

stick。Itisalsoagoodplantowritesecretcorrespondenceinlemonjuice

acrossanewspaperortheleavesoftheNewTestament。Itisthensafeagainst

discovery，andwillbecomelegiblewhenheldbeforeafireornearared—hot

iron。Asanation，’addsLordWolseley，’wearebroughtuptofeelitadisgrace

eventosucceedbyfalsehood。Theword"spy"conveyssomething

asrepulsiveas"slave。"Wekeephammeringalongwiththeconviction

that"honestyisthebestpolicy，"andthattruthalwayswinsin

thelongrun。Thesesentimentsdowellforacopy—book，butamanwhoactsuponthemhadbettersheathhisswordforever。’OneofthemostimportantsubjectsofwhichthenewManualstreatisthe

personoftheenemy。Theenemy，itislaiddown，consistsofarmedforces

andoftheunarmedpopulation。Thefirstprincipleofwaristhatarmedforces

aslongastheyresistmaybedestroyedbyanylegitimatemeans。Theright

ofkillinganarmedmanexistsonlysolongasheresists。Assoonashe

submits，heisentitledtobetreatedasaprisonerofwar。Quartershould

neverberefusedtomenwhosurrender，unlesstheyhavebeenguiltyofsome

suchviolationofthecustomsofwaraswouldofitselfexposethemtothe

penaltyofdeath;andwhensoguiltytheyshould，wheneverpracticable，be

takenprisonersandputupontheirtrialbeforebeingexecuted，asitis

seldomjustifiableinacombatanttotakethelawintohisownhandsagainst

anunresistingenemy。Mostofyou，Iimagine，areawarethatthisprinciple，

statedinthisbroadway，isquitemodern。Mostofushavelearnt，whenchildren，

touchingstoriesoftherefusalofquartertogarrisonsthathadsurrendered

inouraversofsuccessionwithFrance。ManyofusrememberFroissart’sstory

ofsixcitizensofCalaiswhomEdwardIIIwaswithdifficultyrestrained

fromhangingfortheobstinateresistancetheyhadmadetothesiegeoftheir

town。Inpointoffact，duringthiswar，andthelaterwarofHenryVagainst

France，evenwhenthesuccessfulGeneralwasdisposedtobemerciful，he

generallyreservedacertainnumberofthebesieged，thoughasmallnumber，

forexecution。WhenRouensurrenderedtoHenryVthelatterstipulatedfor

threeofthecitizenstobeleftathisdisposal，ofwhomtwopurchasedtheir

lives，butthethirdwasbeheaded。Whenthesameking，theyearfollowing，

wasbesiegingthecastleofMontereau，hesenttwentyprisonerstotreat

withtheGovernorforasurrender;butwhentheGovernorrefusedtotreat

eventosavetheirlives，andwhen，aftertakingleaveoftheirwivesand

families，theywereescortedbacktotheEnglisharmy，theKingofEngland

orderederected，andhadthemallhangedinsightofthosewithinthecastle。

WhenMeauxsurrenderedtothesameking，itwasstipulatedthatsixofthe

bravestdefendersshouldbedelivereduptojustice，fourofwhomwerebeheaded

atParis，anditscommanderatoncehangedonatreeoutsidethewallsof

thecity。Nodoubtthisseveritywasdueinagreatdegreetothehardmeasure

whichinthosedayswasalwaysdealtouttoaforcewhichhadresistedan

attackwhentherewasnochanceofsuccess。Andthisisonegroundonwhich

thesavagepracticeswhichaccompaniedstormsandsiegeswereexplained;

butitisalwaystoberecollectedthatintheseFrenchandEnglishwars

therewasanothercauseofextremetruculence。Inthemindsofthosewho

wagedthemtheywerewarsofsuccession，andquestionsthereforeofthefaith

andsubmissionduetoasovereignmixedthemselvesupwiththeordinaryconsiderations

ofthefield。Onreadingtheaccountsofthemcarefully，thespecialseverities

ofourEdwardIIIandourHenryVmaybeseentobeconstantlyexplained

bythesuccessfulking’sbeliefthathewasdealingwithtraitorswhohad

surrenderedthemselves;andinfactitappearstohavebeentheconviction

thatthepopulationattackedowedlegallyfealtytotheGeneralofthearmy

attackingthem，whichledspeciallytothecrueltiesofthesewars，just

asaconvictionofthelawfulnessoftheseverestpunishmentforheresyand

infidelityledtothesavagenessofthewarsofreligion。Thereisnodoubt

thatatpresenttheManualsstatethepracticecorrectly，thatquarterought

nevertoberefusedtomenwhosurrender，unlesstheyhavebeenguiltyof

somesuchviolationofthecustomsofwaraswouldofitselfexposethem

tothepenaltyofdeath，andwhensoguiltytheyshouldwheneverpracticable

betakenprisonersandputupontheirtrialbeforetheyareexecuted，for

itisseldomjustifiableforacombatanttotakethelawintohisownhands

againstanunresistingenemy。Thepointwasonewhichwaslargelydiscussed

attheConferenceofBrussels，anditwasproposedbysomeofthedelegates

thatevenspiesshouldbenolongerexecutedwhentaken，butshouldalwaysbetreatedasprisonersofwar。WecomenowtoportionsoftheseManualsofwarlikecustomswhichare

pleasanterreading。’Thewoundedmustnotonlybespared，buthumanitycommands

thatiftheyfallintothehandsoftheiropponentsthecaretakenofthem

shouldbesecondonlytothecaretakenofthewoundedbelongingtothecaptors。

Surgeonsandothersinattendanceonthewounded，thoughformingpartof

thearmedforces，areexemptedfromtheliabilityofbeingattackedunless

theydivestthemselvesoftheirnon—combatantcharacterbyactuallyusing

arms，inwhichcasetheymaybetreatedaspartofthecombatantbody。The

sameamenityandunderthesameconditionsshouldbeextendedtocampfollowers，andotherpersonsinattendanceonthearmybutnotbearingarms，’ThefirstandlastpartsofthisparagraphgivetheresultsoftheGeneva

Convention，thefurthestpointwhichhasatpresentbeenreachedbyhumane

doctrineintheactualconductofwar。ThisConventionwassignedonAugust

22，1864。Itstatesthatitwasdrawnupfortheameliorationofthecondition

ofthewoundedofarmiesinthefield。Iwillreadyouafewofitsprincipalprovisions：’AmbulanceendmilitaryHospitalsshallbeacknowledgedtobeneutral，

andassuchshallbeprotectedandrespectedbybelligerentssolongasany

sickorwoundedmaybetherein。Suchneutralityshallceaseiftheambulances

orHospitalsshouldbeheldbyamilitaryforce。PersonsemployedinHospitals

andambulances，comprisingthestaffforsuperintendence，medicalservice，

administration，transportofwounded，aswellaschaplains，shallparticipate

inthebenefitofneutralitywhilesoemployed，andsolongasthereremain

anywoundedtobringinandtosuccour。’Thepersonsdesignatedinthepreceding

articlemayevenafteroccupationbytheenemycontinuetofulfiltheirduty

intheHospitalorambulancewhichtheyserve，ormaywithdrawinorderto

rejointhecorpstowhichtheybelong。Undersuchcircumstances，whenthose

personsshallceasefromtheirfunctionstheyshallbedeliveredbytheoccupying

armytotheoutpostsoftheenemy。AstheequipmentofmilitaryHospitals

remainssubjecttothelawsofwar，personsattachedtosuchHospitalscannot

ontheirwithdraw。ingcarryawayanyarticlesbuttheirownprivateproperty;

andunderthecircumstancesanambulanceshall，onthecontrary，retainits

equipment。Inhabitantsofthecountrywhomaybringhelptothewoundedshall

berespectedandremainfree。TheGeneralsofthebelligerentPowersshall

makeittheircaretoinformtheinhabitantsoftheappealaddressedtotheir

humanity，andoftheneutralitywhichshadbetheconsequenceofit。Any

woundedwhenentertainedandtakencareofinahouseshallbeconsidered

asaprotectionthereto。Anyinhabitantwhoshallhaveentertainedwounded

meninhishouseshallbeexemptedfromthequarteringoftroops，aswell

asfromapartofthecontributionsofwarwhichmaybeimposed。Wounded

orsicksoldiersshallbeentertainedandtakencareof，towhatevernation

theymaybelong。Commanders—in—chiefshallhavethepowertodelverimmediately

totheoutpostsoftheenemysoldierswhohavebeenwoundedinanengagement，

whencircumstancespermitittobedone，andwiththeconsentofbothparties。

Thosewhoarerecognised，aftertheirwoundsarehealed，asincapableof

serving，shadbesentbacktotheircountry。Theothersmayalsobesent

backonconditionofnotagainbearingarmsduringthecontinuanceofthe

war。Evacuations，togetherwiththepersonsunderwhosedirectionstheytake

place，shallbeprotectedbyabsoluteneutrality。Adistinctiveanduniform

dagshallbeadoptedforHospitals，ambulances，andevacuations。Itmust

oneveryoccasionbeaccompaniedbytheneutralflag。Abadgeforthearm

shallalsobeallowedforindividualsneutralized;butthedeliverythereof

shallbelefttotheneutralauthority。Theflagandthebadgeshallbeararedcrossonawhiteground。TheconductoftheHospitalsestablishedundertheGenevaConventionhas

beencarriedonbysurgeons，nurses，andmilitaryservants，withthegreatest

self—sacrificeandwiththegreatestenthusiasm。Nothing，Ihope，willever

occurtoprovokeretrogrademeasureswithregardtosogreatareform。At

thesametimetherearesomedrawbacks，fromamilitarypointofview，to

theapplicationoftheprovisionsoftheGenevaConvention，onwhichIwill

sayafewwordsinconclusion。Iamtoldonveryexcellentauthoritythat

itisverydifficulttopersuademilitarycommandersinthefieldofthe

perfectfairnessandgoodfaithwithwhichtheseprovisionsarecarriedinto

action。YoumaynotfireonaGenevaHospitalorambulance，andyettheGeneva

Hospital，withitsambulancesandappurtenancesgenerallykeptagooddeal

inmotion，isaveryextensivesetofstructures，andprotectsaconsiderable

portionofthefieldfromthelineoffire。Generalsareapttothink，or

topersuadethemselves，thattheHospitalhasbeenputinalocalityeither

expresslydesignedtocoverthefireofonepartyoranother，ortoprevent

thefireofonepartyfrombeingaseffectiveasitmightbe。Thereis，I

ampersuaded，agreatdealofdelusionaboutthesesuspicions，delusionunhappily

ofthenaturewhichisconstantlyarisinginthemindsofmenactuallyengaged

inadeadlystruggle。Allthatwehavearighttosayhereis，thatthemost

abundantgoodfaithshouldbe。usedinthelocalizationanduseofthese

beneficentmitigationsofthehardshipsofwar，andthatnopunishmentwould

betoosevereforanofficer，nomatterhisrank，whoknowinglyusedthem

forthepurposeofinflictingwarlikeinjuryonanopponent。

LECTUREIX。

RULESASTOPRISONERSANDQUARTER。AtthecloseofmylastlectureIspokeoftheGenevaConventionof1864

asthefarthest，aswellasthemostrecent，pointofadvancereachedby

aconcertofnationsintheattempttomitigatetheinevitablesufferings

ofwar。InternationalLaw，asnowunderstood，containsanumberofrules

ofgreaterantiquityhavingthesameobjectinview。Thestatusoftheprisoner

ofwarishistoricallydescendedfromthestatusoftheslave。Herepresents

theclasswhich，astheRomansputit，hadlostliberty，country，andfamily;

bycapturehehadforfeitedtothecaptoralltherightswhichhepossessed，

andwasboundtolabourattheorderofthecaptor，andanybodywhosucceeded

thecaptorintitle，totheendofhislife。Butasslaveryfellintodisrepute

anddecaychieflyowingtotheinfluenceoftheChristianChurch，anumber

ofrulesgraduallygrewupforthepurposeoflimitingthepowerofthecaptor

overtheprisonerofwar。Theymaybedescribedasintendedtopreventhis

beingtreatedactuallyasaslave，intheformwhichtheyhavenowtaken。

IntheManualswhichseveralofthegreatcivilisedstateshaveprepared

fortheirofficersinthefield，itisdeclaredthattheobjectofdetaining

prisonersofwaristopreventtheirtakingpartagainintheoperations

ofwar。Somuchrestraint，therefore，andnomore，shouldbeappliedasis

sufficientforthatpurpose。Theycannotbecompelledtoaidtheircaptors

inmilitaryoperations，buttheymaybeemployedinanyothermannersuitable

totheircondition。Themoneywhichtheyearnbyworkshouldbeplacedto

theircreditafterdeductingtheexpensesofsubsistence。Aprisonerofwar

whohascommittedanoffenseagainstthecustomsofwar——such，forexample，

asstabbingorrobbingwoundedmen——maybeconsideredtohaveforfeited

thecharacterofaprisonerofwar，andbepunishedwithdeathforhiscrime。

Theprimaryobligationtosupportprisonersofwarnecessarilylieswith

thecaptor，andheshouldmaintaintheminamannersuitabletotheircondition。

Aprisonerofwar，unlesshehasgivenapledgeorpromisenottoescape，

isjustifiedinmakingtheattempt;butifretakenheisnotpunishableby

death，orotherwise，forhavingmadetheattempt，asthecustomsofwardo

notregardanattempttoescapeonthepartofaprisonerasacrime。On

theotherhand，arisingamongstprisonersofwarwithaviewtoeffecta

generalescapemayberigorouslypunished，evenwithdeathinthecaseof

absolutenecessity，asself—securityisthelawoftheconqueror，andthe

customsofwarjustifytheuseofmeansnecessarytothatend。Strictermeans

ofconfinementmaybeusedafteranunsuccessfulattempttoescape。Buta

prisonerofwarcannotbeilltreatedorpunishedforrefusingtogiveinformationastotheforcestowhichhebelonged，orforgivingfalseinformation。Ithashappenedinmoderndaysthataftergreatwars，orwherecommunication

betweenthebelligerentswaspossibleduringthem，seriouscomplaintshave

beenmadeoftheimperfectdischargeoftheobligatiousimposedbyInternational

Laworbyusageonacaptorholdingacaptiveinduress。Atthecloseof

theWarofSecessionbetweentheNorthernandSouthernsectionsoftheUnited

States，theNorthernarmiesobtainedpossessionofthepersonofaConfederate

officerwhohadbeeninchargeoftheprisonerstakenbytheConfederates

duringthevicar。Hehadbeenaccusedofbarbarouscrueltiestowardshis

enemieswhowerecaptives，andtheNorthernarmy，afteratrialwhichon

theothersidewaschargedwitheverykindofcarelessnessandirregularity，

puthimtodeathbyhanging。TheEnglishGovernmentwas，atthebeginning

ofthiscenturyandtheendofthelast，constantlyaccusedofbarbarity

towardstheFrenchprisonerswhoweredetainedinthehulksatPortsmouth

andotherports;andprobablytothisdayitisacommonplaceamongstthe

FrenchthatthisisoneofthegreatestcrimeswhichtheEnglishhaveperpetrated

againstthemselves。Englandwasinrealityingreatdifficultiesinproviding

placesofconfinementfortheprisonersthroughthewantorscarcityofsuch

placesinthiscountry，andinthelastpartofthestruggletheEmperor

NapoleonI。isnowknowntohavebeenindisposedtofacilitateexchangeof

prisonersbetweenthetwocountries。Gatheringhisvastarmiesnotonlyfrom

France，butpracticallyfromthewholeoftheContinent，helookedwithlittle

favouronanythingthatwouldaddtothenumbersoftheBritisharmy，which

hebelievedtobesmallerthanitreallywas，oronanythingthatwouldincrease

theextentofhisownovergrownforces。Stillitisprobablethatbothin

theWarofSecession，andintheFrenchandEnglishwaratthebeginning

ofthecentury，toolittletendernesswasshowntoprisoners;andIhope

thatwiththeemphaticexpressionswhicharecontainedinthenewManuals，

andwhichwillhenceforwardgivethelawinthefield，therewillbenoreason

inthefuturetomakeagrievanceofthetreatmentofprisonersofwar。The

onlycompletemitigationofthemisfortuneofcaptivityis，ofcourse，to

befoundeitherintheescapeoftheprisoner，onwhichIhavesaidafew

words，orelseinsomeruleswhichshouldauthorisehisdischargefromthe

captivecondition。Inallprobabilitythesemethodsofreleasingprisoners

arealldescendedfromthesystemofransomnowextinct。Oneresultofthe

theorythatthecaptivehadbecomeaslavewas，naturally，thatifhewere

ablehemightpaytohiscaptorsuchapriceaswouldinducehimtorelease

whathadbecomehisownproperty。VerylargeBumsofmoneyseemtohavebeen

exactedintheMiddleAgesastheransomofamailedknightwhentakenprisoner。

Hewasusuallyamanofbirthandofwealth;butashelosthisrelative

importance，andasthemosteffectivepartofarmiescametoconsistofthe

men—at—arms，andafterwardsofmercenarytroopscarryinganewclassofweapons，

anumberofrulespresentthemselveswhichareintendedtofacilitatethe

voluntarydischargeofthebulkoftheprisoners。AfterthebattleofPoitiers

itisexpresslystatedthatthereweresomanyprisonerstakenastomake

itnecessarytodischargetheknights，debitingthemwiththeamountoftheir

ransomandnotatonceexactingit;andthattherestofthecaptives，whosenumberwasverygreatindeed，wereexchanged。Exchangehasnowbecomeoneoftheregularcustomsofwar，andoneof

themosthumaneandbeneficial，andmuchdisreputeisusuallyincurredby

therefusaltoadmitit。Atthesametime，whileexchange，saysthetext

oftheManualswhichIhavebeenciting，istheordinarymodeofreleasing

prisonersofwar，anationisnotguiltyofanyactualbreachofthecustoms

ofwarinrefusingtoexchangeitsprisoners，andmaydetainthemtothe

closeofthewar。Exchangesofprisonerstakeplacenumberfornumber，rank

forrank，woundedforwounded，withaddedconditionsforaddedconditions，

such，forinstance，asnottoserveforaparticularperiod。Inexchanging

prisonersofwarsuchnumbersofpersonsofinferiorrankmaybesubstituted

asanequivalentforoneofsuperiorrankasmaybeagreedupon，butthe

agreementrequiresthesanctionoftheGovernmentorofthecommanderof

thearmyinthefield。Aprisonerofwarisinhonourboundtrulytostate

tothecaptorhisrank，andheisnottoassumealowerrankthanbelongs

tohiminordertocauseamoreadvantageousexchange，norahigherrankforthepurposeofobtainingbettertreatment。Prisonersofwararealsonotinfrequentlyreleasedthroughpledgingtheir

wordtoobservecertainconditionsimposedbythecaptor。Aprisonerofwar

sopledginghiswordissaidtogivehisparole，andifhisparolebeaccepted

bythecaptor，tobeparoled。Theusualpledgegivenwithaparoleisnot

toserveduringtheexistingwar。Thispledgeonlyextendstoactiveservice

againsttheenemy。Itdoesnotrefertointernalservice，suchasrecruiting

ordrillingrecruits，quellingcivilcommotions，fightingagainstbelligerents

unconnectedwiththeparolingbelligerents，orthecivilorthediplomatic

serviceonwhichaparoledpersonmaybeemployed。Itislaiddownbythe

legalauthoritiesthatparolingisavoluntarycontractenteredintobetween

theparties。Thecaptorisnotobligedtoovertoparoleaprisonerofwar，

andaprisonerofwarcannotbecompelledtogivehisparole，butmayremain

acaptive。Itisarulethatalistofthenamesofofficersandmenparoled

shouldalwaysbemadeinwritingandbecarefullykept。Itisfurtherarule

thataprisonerofwarhasnoauthoritytopledgehimselfneveragainto

serveagainstaparticularenemy。Thepledgemustbeconfinedtoalimited

time，ashecannotdivesthimselfwhollyofthedutywhichheowestohis

sovereignandcountry。Therightofaprisonerofwartogivehisparole

maybestillfurtherlimitedbythelawsofhisowncountry。Ifaprisoner

makeanengagementwhichisnotapprovedofbyhisownGovernment，heis

boundtoreturnandsurrenderhimselftotheenemy。Asageneralrulethe

commandingofficerhasanimpliedauthoritytogivehisparoleonbehalf

ofhimselfandtheofficersandmenunderhiscommand;aninferiorofficer

oughtnottogiveparoleeitherforhimselforhismenwithouttheauthority

ofasuperiorofficer，ifsuchanofficerbewithinreach。Andaccording

totheEnglishpracticeastatehasnopowertoforceitssubjectstoact

contrarytotheirparole;buthowfaritisauthorisedtorefusesuchparoles，

andtoforceitsparoledsubjectsbackintotheenemy’slines，wouldseem

tobeinprincipledoubtful。Asageneralruleitwouldappearadvisable

toadmitofthevalidityoftheparoles，buttopunishtheindividualswho

havegiventhemcontrarytothelawsoftheircountry。Arecapturedprisoner

whohasviolatedhisparolemaybepunishedwithdeath;butthemodernpractice

usuallyistoabstainfromtheinflictionofdeath，exceptinanaggravated

case，andtosubstitutestrictconfinementwithseveritiesandprivationsnotcruelintheirnatureordegree。Theserules，whichtendtoamelioratetheconditionandhopesofprisoners，are，relativelytothewholehistoryofmodernwar，ofancientorigin。Thereisanothersetofrules，onwhichIproposetosaysomething，which

relatetothetreatmentofthegeneralpopulationoftheenemy’scountry，

andtheseareamongthemostmodernpartsoftheInternationalsystem。They

constituteasubjectofgreatinterestbutofverygreatdifficulty;and

indeeditwastheattempttoconstructasortofcodeonthissubjectwhich

broughtthediscussionsoftheConferenceofBrusselstoanend，anddeprived

itsresults，asawhole，oftheauthoritywhichtheyotherwisemighthave

possessed。HowthequestionsinvolvedaroseImayperhapsbestexpressin

thefollowingway：Inallwarswagedbyarmiesofthemoderntype，andespecially

inthewarbetweenFranceandGermany，therearrivesapointatwhichone

sideortheothermaylegitimatelythinkthatthecampaignhasendedfavourably

forhim。IntheFranco—Germanwarwemaysaythatthispointwasreached

assoonastheGermanarmieshadinvestedParis。Butsomeofyoucanremember，

andothersmayhaveread，whatfollowed。LeonGambetta，aprincipalmember

oftheso—calledGovernmentofNationalDefence，escapedfromParisina

balloonandestablishedaseparateorbranchGovernmentatTours。Fromthat

pointanewcampaignofanewnaturemaybesaidtohavebegun。Largeforces

werebroughttogetherbyGambetta，consistingchieflyoffragmentsofother

armieswhichhadbeenstationedinparticularlocalitiesorhadmarchedwestwards

afterdefeatfromtheGermans，and，besidesthese，ofagreatpartofthe

hithertounarmedpopulationofthecountrycalledtohisstandardunderwhat

wascalledaleveeenmasse。Thispartofthewarwasconductedwithsome

successonthepartoftheFrench，butitatoncegaverisetoalargenumber

ofnewquestionsastowhatshouldbeallowedintheconductofwar。The

principlesagreeduponbytheBrusselsConferenceappearedtohavebeenthese：

Thefirstdutyofacitizenistodefendhiscountry，butthisdefencemust

beconductedaccordingtothecustomsofwar。Thesecustomsrequirethat

anenemyshouldbeabletodistinguishbetweenthearmedforcesandthegeneral

populationofacountry，inorderthathemaysparethelatterwithoutexposing

histroopstobeattackedbypersonswhomhemightreasonablysupposeto

beengagedonlyinpeacefulcapacities。Further，warmustbeconductedby

personsactingunderthecontrolofsomerecognizedGovernmenthavingpower

toputanendtohostilities，inorderthattheenemymayknowtheauthority

towhichhemayresortwhendesirousofmakingpeace。Inordinarycircumstances，

therefore，personscommittingactsofhostility，whodonotbelongtoan

organisedbodyauthorizedbysomerecognizedGovernment，andwhodonotwear

amilitaryuniformorsomeconspicuousdressormarkshowingthemtobepart

ofanorganizedmilitarybody，incurtheriskofbeingtreatedasmarauders

andpunishedaccordingly。SofarthedelegatesatBrusselsmaybesaidto

havebeenreasonablyagreed;butthenthequalificationswhichfollowin

theManualswhichthevariousGovernmentshavenowcirculatedshowhowvery

fartheruleslaiddownwerefrombeingunanimouslyacceptedoragreedto

beuniversal。Theygoontosay：’Norule，however，canbelaiddownwhich

isnotsubjecttogreatexceptions。Forexample，thecustomsofwardonot

justifyacommanderinputtingtodeathoreveninpunishingtheinhabitants

ofatown，afteranattackhasceased，onthegroundthattheyfoughtagainst

himwithoutuniformordistinguishingmarks，asalltheinhabitantsofa

townmaybeconsideredtobelegitimateenemiesuntilthetownistaken。

【推荐阅读】幽幽深宫，醒来一梦似千年，重生于下堂妃身躯中的她，将如何手刃仇人? 点击阅读