world" (Article 427). It is highly probable that if a question arises which involves any of these principles, an international court will feel justified in recurring to them as the best indication of what the law is or ought to be. In the absence of other agreements between the members, what could be more authoritative or better fitted to guide a court than the recommendations of an international conference of delegates duly accredited by the Governments of the members of the League? CHAPTER V INTERNATIONAL LAW DURING THE WAR - Applicability of the Hague Conventions. It has often been said by those unfamiliar with the Hague Conventions that they were totally disregarded during the course of the war. Such a statement is only partially true. Some of the conventions were observed. Convention IV of 1907 relating to "The Laws and Customs of War on Land" was not applicable during the war. Article 2 of this convention provides that the regulations shall not apply except between contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the convention. Since several of the belligerents, notably Bulgaria and Turkey, had not ratified, it is clear that they were not parties to the convention, hence all the Powers which had ratified were released from their legal obligations; it was inapplicable because the condition necessary for its applicability was non-existent. The rules of Convention II of 1899 did apply, however, for by Article 4 of Convention IV of 1907, it is expressly provided that "The Convention of 1899 remains in force as between Powers which signed it, and which do not also ratify the present convention.” 1 All of the belligerents ratified the 1899 convention and it is for the violation of its provisions that the Versailles Treaty provides for the trial of certain Germans for breach of the laws and customs of war. The provisions of Article I of Convention III of 1907 Scott, J. B., The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, p. 103. relating to the outbreak of hostilities were generally observed. It is provided that hostilities shall not begin "without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.1 Neutrals were generally notified of the existence of a state of war as required by Article 2 of this convention. Conventions V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, of 1907, were legally inapplicable since each (Articles 20, 6, 7, 7, 8, 18, 9, and 28, respectively) contained the following clause: "The provisions of the present convention do not apply except between contracting Powers and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the convention." 2 Morally, however, there existed upon all the signatories certain obligations to regard the humanitarian aims of the conventions. The moral obligation of today may, and often does become, the legal obligation of tomorrow. 3 Declaration XIV of 1907 prohibiting "the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature" was not binding on any of the belligerents because it was not ratified by Germany, France, Austria-Hungary and other belligerent Powers. They would be considered non-contracting Powers in the meaning of the clause providing that the Declaration "shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-contracting Power." 4 This same clause appears in Declaration IV of 1899 which was binding until the United States, which never ratified, joined the belligerents. This Declaration provides that "the contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the 1 Scott, p. 96. 3 2 Scott, pp. 137, 142, 147, 152, 159, 172, 184, and 215. sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases." It was violated before the belligerents were released from its legal obligation by the entrance of the United States into the war. Gases were used shortly after the outbreak of the war in 1914. This was one of the clearest breaches of the Hague agreements by Germany. The opposing side cannot be held for violation if the contract is broken by one party. Until the entrance of the United States into the war, Declaration IV of 1899 was binding upon the belligerents. It provides against the use of "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions." Violations of this provision also occurred. The belligerents were further bound by the preamble of Convention II of 1899 providing that "until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the high contracting parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience." 3 By Article 228 of the Treaty of Versailles the German Government recognizes the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. Such persons shall, if found guilty, be subject to punishments laid down by the law. It is not clear just what punishments will be inflicted upon those found guilty. The commission charged with fixing the 2 Ibid., p. 227. 3 Ibid., pp. 101–102. 1 Scott, p. 225. responsibility for the war, of which Secretary of State Lansing was chairman, reported that it was desirable for the future that "penal sanctions should be provided for such grave outrages against the elementary principles of international law." This article of the treaty and report by the commission constitute one of the strongest acknowledgments ever made of the validity of international law. Only the laws of war - not those of peace endangered by the war, and it was for violations of the laws of war that Germany received the condemnation of the world through its combined public opinion. That fact makes the outlook for the international law of the future very hopeful indeed. 66 were The Trial of William II and the Sanctity of Treaties. Provision is made by Article 227 of the Versailles Treaty for the trial of William II of Hohenzollern "for a supreme offense against international morality and the sanctity of treaties," the decision to be based on the highest motives of international policy with a view to vindicating the solemn obligations of international undertakings and the validity of international morality." The extent to which this provision upholds and strengthens international law is made clearer by a brief consideration of what is meant by the sanctity of treaties in this particular case. By the treaties of 1831 and 1839, Germany agreed to respect the neutrality of Belgium. On January 7, 1871, Germany joined in the following declaration: "The plenipotentiaries of North Germany, of Austria-Hungary, of Great Britain, of Italy, of Russia, and of Turkey, meeting today in conference have agreed that it is an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can unbind itself of the 1 Quoted by Mr. Lansing in an address before the American Bar Association, Boston, Sept. 5, 1919, Boston Evening Transcript, Sept. 5, 1919. |