treatment of wounded men and of prisoners of war, are plain and positive in character, and commend themselves to all nations. Those on the subject of private property are brief, obscure, and unsatisfactory, reflecting but too clearly the opinions upon that subject of those who framed them. Subjects Treated. The laws of war have chiefly to do with the following subjects: (a.) The forces that may be employed in war, on land and sea. (b.) The methods of carrying on war. (c.) The instruments that may be employed in war. (d.) The treatment of the public and private property of the enemy. (e.) The treatment of non-combatants in the theatre of military operations. (f) The treatment of captured persons, or prisoners of war. (g.) Crimes and offences against the laws of war; retaliation. (h.) The government of occupied territory. (i) The intercourse of belligerents in war. (j.) The termination of war; cartels, capitulations, and treaties of peace. THE FORCES EMPLOYED Extent of the Right to Use Force. International law recognizes the fact of war, and sanctions a resort to hostile methods to obtain redress for an international wrong. It does not sanction or approve acts of indiscriminate violence, however, nor the use of force in excess of the precise amount needed to redress the injury, or its continued use after the legitimate purpose of the war has been accomplished.' Status of Hostility. It has already been seen that the existence of a state of war makes each subject of one belligerent 'Lawrence, Int. Law, § 185; Woolsey, § 131; II Ferguson, 171; IV Calvo, §§ 2033-2043; Klüber, § 243; Heffter, § 119; Hall, §§ 127, 177; Creasy, §§ 385-389; Risley, pp. 106, 107. Instructions for Government of the Armies of the United States, par. 16 (Lieber). the legal enemy of every subject of the other. An individual domiciled in a belligerent state becomes an enemy, his property becomes enemy property, and, as an enemy, he ceases to have a legal status in the courts of the hostile state. This is a consequence of the relation of the belligerent states to each other. The states are at war, and so the individual units who compose them must share the same hostile relation. This state of individual hostility, however, is legal, not actual, and does not, of itself, justify a subject of either state in taking the life of an enemy, in making captures, or in doing any act of hostility whatsoever. Upon this point the international usage is plain. No individual is permitted to commit any hostile act, save in self-defence, without the positive, express authorization of his government. Whoever undertakes an act of hostility without such authorization does so at his peril, and if captured is not entitled to the protection of the laws of war.' Forces Employed on Land. In general war is carried on by the regular armed force of each belligerent power. The character of that force, and its composition, are internal questions, to be determined by the municipal law of every state. In addition to its regular armed force a state may call into its service, for the period of the war, or for a shorter term, such additional forces as it may deem necessary to prosecute the war successfully. This force may consist of conscripts, of volunteers, or of such militia or reserve forces as are, or may be, provided for by its constitution and laws. This force must, in general, be organized and disciplined, commanded by responsible officers, and should either be uniformed, or required to wear some distinguishing mark or badge by which its members may be recognized and known.' 'II Halleck, pp. 2-20; Boyd's Wheaton, § 356; Woolsey, §§ 125127; III Phill. pp. 150-153; Manning, pp. 206-209; par. 57 Instructions for Armies of the United States, etc. see Appendix A. "Vattel, liv. iii. chap. xv. §§ 223228; III Phillimore, pp. 150-152; Risley, pp. 108, 109; Hall, pp. 394, 397; Woolsey, § 125: Boyd's Wheaton, § 356; Klüber, § 267; II Ferguson, pp. 291-294; Walker, Manual, pp. 134-137; II Halleck, pp. 2– 6; Brown vs. U. S. 8 Cranch, 133; Talbot vs. Jansen, 3 Dallas, 160; IV Calvo, §§ 2044-2064; VI PradierFodéré, §§ 2721-2732; Lawrence, Int. Law, § 170; Art. I. Convention Partisans are soldiers, armed, and wearing the uniform of their army, but belonging to a corps which acts detached from the main body, for the purpose of conducting minor operations of war, such as the obtaining of information, the capture of convoys and supply trains, and of making inroads into the territory occupied by the enemy. If captured they are entitled to all the privileges of prisoners of war.' A Levée en Masse is a general rising of the population of a state to resist an invader. Such risings usually take place with the consent, and by the direction, of the government of the invaded state, and there may or may not be time for the movement to be organized and regulated by the government. In such cases the question arises: Are the individual members of such a body entitled, if captured, to be treated as prisoners of war? The weight of opinion is that they are, so long as they observe the laws of civilized war in conducting their operations. Two views have been entertained upon this subject. One, maintained by states having large standing armies, and whose military operations are more likely to be offensive than defensive, holds that such risings are unauthorized. This view is largely influenced by self-interest. The other, held by states maintaining small military establishments, and so more concerned with defensive than offensive operations, justifies them on the grounds of necessity and self-defence. The latter view is now held by the greater number of states. Of those which maintain the former opinion the two most important, Prussia and Russia, have each, at different times, authorized such risings during invasions of their territories.' Employment of Individuals of Semi-civilized Races. The use of native allies in operations against barbarous enemies who do not recognize the rules of civilized warfare is determined by the rule already stated; such forces must be organized, disciplined, and uniformed, and commanded by officers who are capable of enforcing obedience to the laws of war. Their number bears, in general, but a small proportion to the aggregate of forces employed, and they are used chiefly as guides and scouts in the conduct of minor military operations.' The indiscriminate employment of savages, poleonic wars. Russia in 1700 and again in 1812; on the former occasion to resist Charles XII. and on the latter to resist Napoleon. See also Risley, p. 111; II Halleck, pp. 7, 8; Creasy, pp. 483, 487. At the Brussels conference, in 1874, a proposition was submitted requiring such general levies to conform to certain conditions, in order to secure for them the protection of the laws of war. These conditions were: “Art. IX. 1. That they have at their head a person responsible for his subordinates. "2. That they wear some distinctive badge recognizable at a distance. "3. That they carry arms openly; and, "4. That, in their operations, they conform to the laws and customs of war. In those countries where the militia form the whole or a part of the army they shall be included under the denomination of army. "Art. X. The population of a non-occupied territory, who, on the approach of the enemy, of their own accord take up arms to resist the invading troops, without having had time to organize themselves in conformity with Article IX., shall be considered as belligerents, if they respect the laws and customs of war." See also Art. II. Convention of The Hague, 1899, which are, to a great extent, based upon the recommendations of the Brussels Conference. The effect of these rules is made to depend upon the meaning attached to the term "occupied territory," as used in a previous article. It is defined in Article I. to be "territory actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." And the occupation is declared to extend to those territories "where this authority is established and can be exercised." The construction of the term is left to the belligerent invader, and, so long as the views held upon the subject of occupation are so divergent as they are at present, it is quite likely that the rules of the conference, humane as they are in many respects, will receive somewhat discordant interpretations. 1 Such are the native forces employed by Great Britain in India, China, Africa, and the West Indies; a similar employment of Indian scouts in operations against hostile Indians is authorized by law in the United States. See also Risley, p. 126; II Walker, pp. 341-343. "Proceedings of Brussels Conference, 1874," Articles IX. and X. b Ibid. Article I. whose operations cannot be controlled by the belligerent who avails himself of their services, has never been recognized by international law.' Guerillas. The term guerilla is applied to persons who, acting singly or joined in bands, carry on operations in the vicinity of an army in the field in violation of the laws of war. They wear no uniform, they act without the orders of their government, and their operations consist chiefly in the killing of picket guards and sentinels, in the assassination of isolated individuals or detachments, and in robbery and other predatory acts. As they are not controlled in their undertakings by the laws of war, they are not entitled to their protection. If captured, they are treated with great severity, the punishment in any case being proportioned to the offence committed. Their operations have no effect upon the general issue of the war, and only tend to aggravate its severity. Life taken by them is uselessly sacrificed, and with no corresponding advantage.' Forces that may not be Used in War. In carrying on military operations against a belligerent, a state may not use, as a part of its armed force, any persons or corps that are not, or cannot be, subjected to military discipline, or who cannot be restrained from committing acts of cruelty in violation of the laws of war. This restriction prohibits the use of bodies of troops composed of individuals of savage or semi-civilized races, whose cruel instincts lead to the perpetration of all sorts of barbarities. A general who finds the force of his ene and punishment, and, unless done away with, will leave a stain on the national honor."-Speech of Lord Chatham, II Adolphus, History of England, p. 485. See also IV Calvo, §§ 2056, 2057; VI PradierFodéré, § 2727. Walker, Manual, pp. 135-138; II Halleck, pp. 6, 7; III Phillimore, p. 164: Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States, pars. 82, 84; Risley, pp. 110, 111, 126; VI Pradier - Fodéré, § 2730. |