mutually agreed to transfer to Switzerland, for internment there, wounded prisoners and those suffering from certain diseases, and to repatriate certain classes of interned civilians. Germany and Russia later reached an agreement for the repatriation of incapacitated prisoners. In 1918, France and Germany arranged to repatriate those combatant prisoners (other than officers) who had been long in captivity and were over a given age, and a similar agreement between Great Britain and Germany was under negotiation when hostilities ended.1 But these measures brought relief to comparatively few, and the position of the far greater number of prisoners who did not belong to these categories was still exercising all the belligerent Governments at the close of hostilities. To secure better treatment for American prisoners, the United States had induced Germany to send delegates to Berne, and there, on November 11, 1918, an agreement was signed concerning prisoners of war, sanitary personnel, and civil prisoners.2 Although this agreement was not ratified, because hostilities came to an end through the general armistice of the same date, it is epoch-making. § 132. Captivity can come to an end in different End of ways. Apart from release on parole, and exchange, Captivity. which have already been mentioned, it comes to an end-(1) through simple release without parole; (2) through successful flight; (3) through liberation by an invasion of the army to which the prisoners belong; (4) through prisoners 3 being brought into neutral territory by captors who take refuge there; and, lastly (5), through the war coming to an end. Release of prisoners for ransom is no longer practised, except in 1 See details in Garner, i. § 357360. See A.J., xiii. (1919), pp. 97 101, and Supplement, pp. 1-72. 3 See below, § 337. the case of the crew of a captured merchantman released on a ransom bill. But the practice of ransoming prisoners might be revived if convenient, provided that the ransom is to be paid, not to the individual captor, but to the belligerent whose forces made the capture. As regards the end of captivity through the war coming to an end, a distinction must be made according to the different modes of ending war. If the war ends by peace being concluded, captivity comes to an end at once 2 with the conclusion of peace, and, as Article 20 of the Hague Regulations expressly enacts, the repatriation of prisoners must be effected as speedily as possible. If, however, the war ends through conquest and annexation of the vanquished State, captivity comes to an end as soon as peace is established. It ought to end with annexation, and it will in most cases do so. But as guerilla war may well go on after conquest and annexation, and thus prevent a condition of peace from being established, although real warfare is over, it is necessary not to confound annexation with peace.3 The point is of interest regarding such prisoners only as are subjects of neutral States. For other prisoners become, through annexation, subjects of the State that keeps them in captivity, and that State is, therefore, so far as International Law is concerned, unrestricted in taking any measure it likes with regard to them. It can repatriate them; and it will in most cases do so. But if it thinks that they might endanger its hold over the conquered territory, it might likewise prevent their repatriation for any definite or indefinite period.4 1 See below, § 195. That, nevertheless, the prisoners remain under the discipline of the captor until they have been handed over to the authorities of their home State, will be shown below, § 275. 3 See above, § 60. Thus, after the South African War, Great Britain refused to repatriate those prisoners of war who were not prepared to take the oath of allegiance. V APPROPRIATION AND UTILISATION OF PUBLIC Grotius, iii. c. 5-Vattel, iii. §§ 73, 160-164-Hall, §§ 136-138-Westlake, ii. pp. 113-121-Lawrence, §§ 171-175-Maine, pp. 192-206-Manning, pp. 179-183-Twiss, ii. §§ 62-71-Halleck, ii. pp. 58-68-Moore, vii. § 1148-Taylor, §§ 529-536-Wharton, iii. § 340-Wheaton, §§ 346, 352354-Bluntschli, §§ 644-651a-Heffter, §§ 130-136-Lueder in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 488-500-G. F. Martens, ii. §§ 279-280-Ullmann, § 183— Bonfils, Nos. 1176-1193-Despagnet, Nos. 592-604-Pradier-Fodéré, vii. Nos. 2989-3018-Rivier, ii. pp. 306-314-Nys, iii. pp. 252-266-Calvo, iv. §§ 2199-2214-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1389, 1392, 1393, 1470, and Code, Nos. 1562-1565-Martens, ii. § 120-Longuet, § 96-Mérignhac, iii". pp. 459494-Pillet, pp. 249-254-Garner, ii. § 398-Kriegsbrauch, pp. 57-60Holland, War, Nos. 113-116-Land Warfare, §§ 426-432-Meurer, ii. §§ 65-69-Spaight, pp. 410-418-Zorn, pp. 243-270-Rouard de Card, La Guerre continentale et la Propriété (1877)—Bluntschli, Das Beuterecht im Krieg, und das Seebeuterecht insbesondere (1878)-Depambour, Des Effets de l'Occupation en Temps de Guerre sur la Propriété et la Jouissance des Biens publics et particuliers (1900)-Wehberg, Das Beuterecht im Land und Seekriege (1909; an English translation appeared in 1911 under the title Capture in War on Land and Sea)-Latifi, Effects of War on Property (1909)—Huber in R. G., xx. (1913), pp. 657-697. of all the Property no longer admis § 133. Under a former rule of International Law, Approbelligerents could appropriate all public and private 1 priation enemy property which they found on enemy territory. Enemy This rule is now obsolete. Its place is taken by several rules, since distinctions are to be made between moveable and immoveable property, between public and private property, and, further, between different kinds of public and private property. These rules must be discussed seriatim. 1 It is impossible for a treatise to go into historical details, and to show the gradual disappearance of the old rule. Even during the nineteenth century-see, for instance, G. F. Martens, ii. § 280; Twiss, ii. § 64; Hall, § 139-it was asserted that in strict law all private enemy moveable property found on enemy territory was as much booty as public property, although the growth matter. sible. able Public Immove- § 134. Appropriation of public immoveables is not lawful so long as the territory on which they are has Property. not become State property of the occupant through able palities, annexation. During mere military occupation of enemy territory, a belligerent may not sell, or otherwise alienate, public enemy land and buildings, but may only appropriate their produce. Article 55 of the Hague Regulations expressly enacts that a belligerent occupying enemy territory shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State and situated on the occupied territory; and that he must protect the stock and plant, and administer them according to the rules of usufruct. He may, therefore, sell the crops from public land, cut and sell timber in the public forests,1 let public land and buildings for the time of his occupation, and the like. He is, however, only usufructuary, and is, therefore, prohibited from exercising his right in a wasteful or negligent way so as to decrease the value of the stock and plant. Thus, for instance, he must not cut down a whole forest, unless the necessities of war compel him. Immove- § 135. It must, however, be observed that only the Property produce of public immoveables belonging to the State of Munici- itself may be appropriated, and not the produce of and of those belonging to municipalities, or of those which, Religious, although they belong to the hostile State, are pertable, and manently set aside for religious purposes, for the main Chari the like Institu tions. tenance of charitable and educational institutions, or for the benefit of art and science. Article 56 of the Hague Regulations expressly enacts that such property is to be treated as private property. § 136. So far as the necessities of war demand, a belligerent may make use of public enemy buildings 1 For details of the German practice during the World War, see Garner, ii. § 398. tion of for all kinds of purposes. Troops must be housed, Utilisahorses stabled, the sick and wounded nursed. Public Public buildings may in the first instance, therefore, be made Buildings. use of for such purposes, although they may thereby be considerably damaged. And it matters not whether the buildings belong to the enemy State or to municipalities, whether they are regularly destined for ordinary governmental and municipal purposes, or for religious, educational, scientific, and similar purposes. Thus, churches may be converted into hospitals, schools into barracks, buildings used for scientific research into stables. But it must be observed that such utilisation of public buildings as damages them is justified only if it is necessary. A belligerent who turned a picture gallery into stables without being compelled thereto would certainly commit a violation of the Law of Nations. Public Property. § 137. Moveable public enemy property may certainly Moveable be appropriated by a belligerent, provided that it can directly or indirectly be useful for military operations. Article 53 of the Hague Regulations unmistakably enacts that a belligerent occupying hostile territory may take possession of the cash, funds, realisable securities, depots of arms, means of transport, stores, supplies, appliances (on land, or at sea, or in the air) adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods, and of all other moveable property of the hostile State which may be used for military operations. Thus, a belligerent is entitled to seize not only the money and funds 1 of the hostile State, munitions of war, depots of arms, stores and supplies, but also the rolling stock of public 1 As regards the funds of public banks, see Schiemann, Rechtslage der öffentlichen Banken im Kriegsfalle (1902), pp. 39-64, and Dicker, Unteriegt die Reichsbank im Kriegsfalle 1 dem Beuterecht des Feindes (1912), |