Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Contributions.

absolutely recognised, but, of course, commanders-inchief may levy contributions 1 in case they do not possess cash for payment of requisitions. However this may be, from the rule that requisitions must always be paid for, it again becomes apparent, and beyond all doubt, that private enemy property is, as a rule, exempt from appropriation by an invading army.

A special kind of requisition is the quartering 2 of soldiers in the houses of private inhabitants of enemy territory who are required to supply lodging and food for them, and sometimes also stabling and forage for horses. Although the Hague Regulations do not specially mention quartering, Article 52 is nevertheless to be applied to it, since quartering is nothing else than a special kind of requisition. If cash cannot be paid at once for quartering, every inhabitant concerned must get a receipt for it, stating the number of soldiers quartered, and the number of days they were catered for, and the payment of the amount must be made as soon as possible.

However, neither in the case of ordinary requisitions, nor in the case of quartering of troops, is a commander compelled to pay the prices asked by the inhabitants. On the contrary, he may fix the prices himself, although it is expected that they shall be fair.

§ 148. Contribution is a payment in ready money demanded either from municipalities or from inhabitants, whether enemy subjects or foreign residents. Whereas formerly no general rules concerning contributions existed, Articles 49 and 51 of the Hague Regulations enacted that contributions might not be demanded extortionately, but exclusively 3 for the needs of the

1 See below, § 148.

2 See above, § 143.

As regards contributions as a

penalty, see Article 50 of the Hague Regulations. See also Keller, op. cit., pp. 60-62.

army, in order, for instance, to pay for requisitions, or for the administration of the locality in question. They might be imposed by a written order of a commanderin-chief only, in contradistinction to requisitions, which might be imposed by a mere commander in a locality. They might not be imposed indiscriminately on the inhabitants, but must so far as possible be assessed upon them in compliance with the rules laid down by their own Government regarding the assessment of taxes. And, finally, for every individual contribution a receipt had to be given. It is apparent that these rules of the Hague Regulations sought to exclude all arbitrariness and despotism on the part of an invading enemy with regard to contributions, and to secure to the individual contributors, as well as to contributing municipalities, the possibility of being indemnified afterwards by their own Government, thus shifting, so far as possible, the burden of supporting the war from private individuals and municipalities to the State proper.1

But the Hague Regulations relating to contributions, as well as those relating to requisitions, were violated by the Central Powers in the territories which they occupied during the World War. In Belgium and Northern France, for example, the contributions which they levied were undoubtedly excessive, for they were required neither for the needs of the army of occupation nor for the administration of the country.2

It is strange to observe that Kriegsbrauch, pp. 61-63, does not mention the Hague Regulations at all.

* See details in Garner, ii. §§ 388

389. By the Treaty of Peace (Article 244, Annex 1), Germany is liable to pay compensation for damage 'in the form of levies . . . upon the civilian population.'

Wanton

VIII

DESTRUCTION OF ENEMY PROPERTY

Grotius, iii. c. 5, §§ 1-3; c. 12-Vattel, iii. §§ 166-168-Hall, § 186— Lawrence, § 206-Manning, p. 186-Twiss, ii. §§ 65-69-Halleck, ii. pp. 63, 64, 71, 74-Taylor, §§ 481-482-Wharton, iii. § 349-Moore, vii. § 1113-Wheaton, §§ 347-351-Bluntschli, §§ 649, 651, 662, 663-Heffter, § 125-Lueder in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 482-487-Klüber, § 262-G. F. Martens, ii. § 280-Ullmann, § 176-Bonfils, Nos. 1078, 1178-1180— Pradier-Fodéré, vi. Nos. 2770-2774-Rivier, ii. pp. 265-268-Nys, iii. pp. 160-164-Calvo, iv. §§ 2215-2222-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1383-1388, and Code, Nos. 1530-1534, 1610-1611-Martens, ii. § 110-Longuet, §§ 99, 100-Garner, i. §§ 206-213-Kriegsbrauch, pp. 53-56-Holland, War, Nos. 3 and 76(g)—Bordwell, p. 284-Spaight, pp. 111-140-Land Warfare, §§ 414, 422, 426, 427, 434.

§ 149. In former times invading armies frequently Destruc- used to fire and destroy all enemy property they could

tion pro

hibited.

Destruction for the

not make use of or carry away. Afterwards, when the practice of warfare grew milder, belligerents in strict law retained the right to destroy enemy property according to discretion, although they did not, as a rule, any longer make use of such right. Nowadays, however, this right is obsolete. For in the nineteenth century it became a universally recognised rule of International Law that all useless and wanton destruction of enemy property, be it public or private, was absolutely prohibited; and this rule was expressly enacted by Article 23(g) of the Hague Regulations : 'to destroy... enemy's property, unless such destruction . . . be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war, is prohibited.'

§ 150. All destruction of, and damage to, enemy property for the purpose of offence and defence is Purpose of necessary destruction and damage, and therefore lawful, whether it be on the battlefield during battle, or in preparation for battle or siege. To strengthen a defensive position, a house may be destroyed or damaged.

Offence

and

Defence.

To cover the retreat of an army, a village on the battlefield may be fired. The district around a fortress held by an enemy may be razed, and, therefore, all private and public buildings, all vegetation may be destroyed, and all bridges blown up within a certain area. If a farm, a village, or even a town is not to be abandoned, but prepared for defence, it may be necessary to damage in many ways, or entirely destroy, private and public property. Further, if and where a bombardment is lawful, all destruction of property involved in it becomes likewise lawful. When a belligerent force obtains possession of an enemy factory which makes ammunition or supplies provisions for the enemy troops, if it is not certain that it can hold it against an attack, it may at least destroy the plant, if not the buildings. Or if a force occupies an enemy fortress, it may raze the fortifications. Even a force entrenching itself on a battlefield may be obliged to resort to the destruction of many kinds of property.

1

Be that as it may, in every case destruction must be 'imperatively demanded by the necessities of war,' and must not merely be the outcome of a spirit of plunder or revenge such as, during the World War, prompted the dreadful and utter devastation 1 of houses, orchards, vineyards, trees in the area from which the German armies in France withdrew in the spring of 1917, and of the coal-mines, factories, and dwellings in Cambrai and elsewhere which marked the German line of retreat in the autumn of the following year.2

tion in

§ 151. Destruction of enemy property in marching Destructroops, conducting military transport, and in recon- Marching, noitring, is lawful if unavoidable. A reconnoitring Reconparty need not keep on the road if they can better serve and Con

1 See Garner, i. § 206, who quotes a German newspaper as saying: 'in front of our new positions runs, like

noitring,

dueting Trans

a gigantic ribbon, an empire of death.' port.
2 See Garner, i. § 211. See also

below, § 154.

Destruction of Arms,

tion, and

visions.

their purpose by riding across the tilled fields. And troops may be marched, and transport may be conducted, over crops when necessary. A humane commander will not unnecessarily allow his troops and transport to march and ride over tilled fields and crops. But if the purpose of war necessitates it, he is justified in so doing.

§ 152. Whatever enemy property a belligerent may appropriate he may likewise destroy. To prevent Ammuni- the enemy from making use of them a retreating force Pro- may destroy arms, ammunition, provisions, and the like, which they have taken from the enemy, or requisitioned and cannot carry away. But they may not destroy provisions in the possession of private enemy inhabitants in order to prevent the enemy from making use of them in the future.1 Nor is a commander allowed to requisition such provisions in order to have them destroyed, for Article 52 of the Hague Regulations expressly enacts that requisitions are only admissible for the necessities of the army.

tion of

ments,

Art, and

the like.

Destruc- § 153. All destruction of, and damage to, historical Historical monuments, works of art and science, buildings for Monu- charitable, educational, and religious purposes are Works of specially prohibited by Article 56 of the Hague Regulations, which enacts that the perpetrators of such acts must be prosecuted (poursuivis), i.e. court-martialled. But these objects enjoy this protection only during military occupation of enemy territory. Should a battle' be waged around an historical monument on open ground, should a church, a school, or a museum be defended and attacked during military operations, these

'Spaight, p. 138, objects to this statement. His arguments are not conclusive, because they concern the case of justified general devastation.

According to Grotius (iii. c. 5, §§ 2 and 3), destruction of graves,

tombstones, churches, and the like is not prohibited by the Law of Nations, although he strongly (iii. c. 12, §§ 5-7) advises that they should be spared, unless their preservation is dangerous to the interests of the invader,

« ПретходнаНастави »