Ulti matum. practice of the States throughout the last centuries has been to hand in a written declaration of war, when any declaration has been made. War, as between the belligerents, is considered to have commenced from the date of its declaration, although actual hostilities may not have been commenced until much later. On the other hand, as between the belligerents and neutrals, a war is not considered to have commenced until its outbreak has been notified to the neutrals, or has otherwise become unmistakably known to them. For this reason, Article 2 of Convention III. enacts that the belligerents must at once after the outbreak of war notify the neutrals, even if only by telegraph, and that the state of war shall not take effect with regard to neutrals until after they have received notification, unless it be established beyond doubt that they were in fact aware of a state of war. 1 § 95. The second form which the unequivocal warning may take which is provided for by Article 1 of Convention III. is an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war. Ultimatum 2 is the technical term for a written communication by one State to another which ends amicable negotiations respecting a difference, and formulates, for the last time and categorically, the demands to be fulfilled if other measures are to be averted. An ultimatum may be simple or qualified. It is simple, if it does not include an indication of the measures contemplated by the Power sending it. It is qualified, if it does indicate the measures contemplated, whether they be retorsion, or reprisals, pacific blockade, occupation of a certain territory, or war.3 Now Article 1 of Con 1 See below, § 307. * See above, § 28. Thus, on August 4, 1914, the British ambassador at Berlin handed to the German Foreign Minister a written statement that, unless Germany could give an assurance by mid night that it would proceed no further with the violation of the Belgian frontier, the British Government felt bound to take all steps in their power to uphold the neutrality of Belgium' (Collected Diplomatic Documents (1915), pp. 109-112). vention III. provides for a qualified ultimatum, for it must be so worded that the recipient can have no doubt about the commencement of war in case he does not comply with its demands. For this reason, if a State has sent a simple ultimatum to another, or a qualified ultimatum threatening a measure other than war, it is not, in case of non-compliance, justified in commencing hostilities at once without a previous declaration of war. So Italy sent a declaration of war to Turkey in 1911, although an ultimatum threatening the occupation of Tripoli had preceded it. Convention III. does not enact a minimum length of time which an ultimatum must grant before the commencement of hostilities; this period may, therefore, be only very short, as, for instance, a number of hours. All the more is it necessary to emphasise once again. that there could be no greater violation of the Law of Nations than to send an ultimatum without previously having tried to settle a difference by negotiation. The state of war following an ultimatum must likewise be notified to neutrals, for Article 2 of Convention II. applies to this case also. Further, for the same reason as in the case of a declaration of war, an ultimatum containing a conditional declaration of war must be communicated to the other party by a written document. hostile § 96. There is no doubt that, in consequence of Initiative Convention II., recourse to hostilities without a pre-sof vious declaration of war, or a qualified ultimatum, is War. forbidden. But a But a war can nevertheless break out without these preliminaries.1 A State might deliberately order hostilities to be commenced without a previous 1 Thus, in June 1913, hostilities broke out on the conquered Turkish territory of Macedonia between the Bulgarian forces and the Serbian and Greek forces, which were joined by the Montenegrins. Again, Turkey declaration of war, or a qualified ultimatum. Further, the armed forces of two States having a grievance against one another might engage in hostilities without having been authorised thereto, and without the respective Governments ordering them to desist from further hostilities. Again, acts of force by way of reprisals, or during a pacific blockade, or an intervention, might be forcibly resisted by the other party, hostilities breaking out in this way. It is certain that States which deliberately order the commencement of hostilities without a previous declaration of war or a qualified ultimatum, commit an international delinquency; but they are nevertheless engaged in war. Further, it is certain that States which allow themselves to be dragged into a condition of war through unauthorised hostile acts of their armed forces commit an international delinquency; but they are nevertheless engaged in war. Again, war is actually in existence if the other party forcibly resists acts of force undertaken by a State by way of reprisals, or during a pacific blockade, or an intervention. Now in all these and similar cases, all the laws of warfare must find application, for a war is still war in the eyes of International Law, even though it has been illegally commenced, or has automatically arisen from acts of force which were not intended to be acts of war. However that may be, Article 2 of Convention III. also applies to wars which have so broken out, and the belligerents must without delay send a notification to neutral Powers, so that these may be compelled to fulfil the duties of neutrality. But, of course, neutral Powers must in this case likewise, even without notification, fulfil the duties of neutrality, if they are unmistakably aware of the outbreak of war. II EFFECTS OF THE OUTBREAK OF WAR Vattel, iii. § 63-Hall, §§ 124-126-Westlake, ii. pp. 32-55-Lawrence, §§ 143-146-Manning, pp. 163-165-Phillimore, iii. §§ 67-91-Twiss, ii. §§ 41-61-Halleck, i. pp. 526-552, and ii. pp. 124-140-Taylor, §§ 461468-Walker, §§ 44-50-Hershey, Nos. 343-350-Wharton, iii. §§ 336337"-Wheaton, §§ 298-319-Moore, v. § 779, and vii. §§ 1135-1142— Heffter, §§ 121-123-Lueder in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 347-362-Gareis, § 81-Liszt, § 39, v.-Ullmann, § 173-Bonfils, Nos. 1044-1065Despagnet, Nos. 517-519-Pradier-Fodéré, vi. Nos. 2694-2720-Mérignhac, iii. pp. 84-115-Nys, iii. pp. 50-70-Rivier, ii. pp. 228-237Calvo, iv. §§ 1911-1931-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1290-1301, and Code, Nos. 1444-1450—Martens, ii. § 109-Longuet, §§ 8-15-Pillet, pp. 72-84Bordwell, pp. 200-211-Spaight, pp. 25-33-Ariga, §§ 13-15-Takahashi, pp. 26-88-Lawrence, War, pp. 45-55-Garner, i. §§ 27-37, 39-61, 8098, 141-143, 162-171, 173-174, 62-79, 99-117-Sainte-Croix, La Déclaration de Guerre et ses Effets immédiats (1892), pp. 166-207-Meyer, De l'Interdiction du Commerce entre les Belligérants (1902)-Jacomet, La Guerre et les Traités (1909)-Markovitch, Des Effets de la Guerre sur les Contrats entre Particuliers (1912)-Wehberg, pp. 194-200-Borchard, $$ 46, 354-M'Nair, Legal Effects of War (1920)-Politis in Annuaire, xxiii. (1910), pp. 251-281, and xxiv. (1911), pp. 200-223-Beer and Kleinfeller in Z.I., xxv. (1915), pp. 321-338, and pp. 383-395. War. Out § 97. When war breaks out, even if it be limited General to two members of the Family of Nations, neverthe-Effects of less the whole Family of Nations is affected, since the break of rights and duties of neutrality devolve upon such States as are not parties to the war. And the subjects of neutral States may feel the consequences of the outbreak of war in many ways. War is not only a calamity to the commerce and industry of the whole world, but also involves the alteration of the legal position of neutral merchantmen on the open sea, and of subjects of neutral States within the boundaries of the belligerents. For the belligerents have the right to visit, search, and, if need be, capture neutral merchantmen on the open sea, and foreigners who remain within the boundaries of the belligerents, although subjects of neutral Powers, acquire in a degree and to a certain extent enemy character.1 However, the outbreak of war tells chiefly and directly upon the relations between the belligerents and their subjects. Yet it would not be correct to maintain that all legal relations between the parties thereto, and between their subjects, disappear with the outbreak of war. War is not a condition of anarchy, indifferent or hostile to law, but a condition recognised and ruled by International Law, although it involves a rupture of peaceful relations between the belligerents. § 98. The outbreak of war at once causes the rupture matic of diplomatic intercourse between the belligerents, if Inter- this has not already taken place. The respective Consular diplomatic envoys are recalled and ask for their passports, or receive them without any previous request; but they enjoy their privileges of inviolability and exterritoriality for the period of time requisite for leaving the country.2 Rupture of Diplo course and Activity. 4 The official residence 3 of a departed envoy is, according to a usage, confided to the protection of another foreign envoy, and the archives, if left behind, are placed under seals.5 Sometimes a member of the retinue of the departing envoy is left in charge, with the permission of the local Government. With war, consular activity likewise comes to an end, and the consular archives are left in charge of an employé of the consulate, or of the consul of another State. But the question whether the consuls themselves must be permitted to leave aroused recrimination at the beginning of the World War. Several 1 See above, § 88. 2 For the incidents attending the 3 None the less, it is stated in a by a mob in August 1914. As to For the arrangements made at the outbreak of the World War, see Garner, i. § 39. See above, vol. i. § 436. |