otherwise protected objects may be damaged or destroyed under the same conditions as other enemy property.1 Devasta § 154. The question must also be considered whether, General and under what conditions, general devastation of a tion. locality, be it a town or a larger part of enemy territory, is permitted. There cannot be the slightest doubt that such devastation is, as a rule, absolutely prohibited, and only in exceptional cases permitted when, to use the words of Article 23(g) of the Hague Regulations, it is imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.' It is impossible to define once for all the circumstances which make a general devastation necessary, since everything depends upon the merits of the special case. But the fact that a general devastation can be lawful must be admitted. It is, for instance, lawful in case of a levy en masse on already occupied territory, when self-preservation obliges a belligerent to resort to the most severe measures. It is also lawful when, after the defeat of his main forces and occupation of his territory, an enemy disperses his remaining forces into small bands which carry on guerilla tactics and receive food and information, so that there is no hope of ending the war except by a general devastation which cuts off supplies of every kind from the guerilla bands. But it must be specially observed that general devastation is only justified by imperative necessity, and by the fact that there is no better and less severe way open to a belligerent. There was, for example, no imperative necessity to justify the general devastation by the German armies of the Somme area of France in the spring of 1917, during the World War, or of the country through which they were rolled back in the following autumn.3 1 See further below, § 158. 'See Hall, § 186, who gives in nuce a good survey of the doctrine and practice of general devastation from Grotius down to the beginning of the nineteenth century. See also See Fauchille, L'Evacuation des Be that as it may, whenever a belligerent resorts to general devastation, he ought, if possible, to make some provision for the unfortunate peaceful population of the devastated tract of territory. It would be more humane to take them away into captivity rather than let them perish on the spot. The practice, resorted to during the South African War, of housing the victims of devastation in concentration camps, must be approved. The purpose of war may even oblige a belligerent to confine a population forcibly 1 in concentration camps. Assault, when IX ASSAULT, SIEGE, AND BOMBARDMENT Vattel, iii. §§ 169-170-Hall, § 186-Lawrence, § 204-Westlake, ii. pp. 8789-Moore, vii. § 1112-Halleck, ii. pp. 59 n. 67, 185-Hershey, No. 382-Taylor, §§ 483-485-Bluntschli, §§ 552-5546-Heffter, § 125Lueder in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 448-457-G. F. Martens, ii. §§ 286-287– Ullmann, § 181-Bonfils, Nos. 1079-1087-Despagnet, Nos. 528-535Pradier-Fodéré, vi. Nos. 2779-2786-Rivier, ii. pp. 284-288-Nys, iii. pp. 148-160-Calvo, iv. §§ 2067-2095-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1322-1330, and Code, Nos. 1524-1529-Longuet, §§ 58-59-Mérignhac, iii". pp. 270-284 -Pillet, pp. 101-112-Zorn, pp. 161-174-Holland, War, Nos. 80-83Bordwell, pp. 286-288- Meurer, §§ 32-34-Spaight, pp. 157-201— Garner, i. §§ 269-272—Kriegsbrauch, pp. 18-22-Land Warfare, §§ 117138-Rolin-Jaequemyns in R.I., ii. (1870), pp. 659, 674, iii. (1871), pp. 297-307-Fauchille in R.G., xxiv. (1917), pp. 56-74. § 155. Assault is the rush of an armed force upon Siege, and Bombard- enemy forces in the battlefield, or upon entrenchments, ment, fortifications, habitations, villages, or towns, such rushing force committing every violence against opposing persons, and destroying all impediments. Siege is the surrounding and investing of an enemy locality by an armed force, cutting off those inside from all lawful. and in R. G., xxiv. (1917), pp. 317. 1 See above, § 116 n. As regards War, and the concentration camps instituted in consequence, see Beak, The Aftermath of War (1906), pp. 1-30; The Times History of the War in South Africa, v. pp. 252-254; Spaight, pp. 306-310. communication, for the purpose of starving them into surrender, or for the purpose of attacking the invested locality and taking it by assault. Bombardment is the throwing by artillery of shot and shell upon persons and things. Siege can be accompanied by bombardment and assault, but this is not necessary, since a siege can be carried out by mere investment and starvation caused thereby. Assault, siege, and bombardment are severally and jointly perfectly legitimate means of warfare.1 Neither bombardment nor assault on the battlefield need special discussion, as they are allowed under the same circumstances and conditions as force in general. The only question here is under what circumstances assault and bombardment are allowed outside the battlefield. The answer is indirectly given by Article 25 of the Hague Regulations, where it is categorically enacted that the attack or bombardment, by any means whatever, of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings, which are not defended, is prohibited.'2 This provision involved a decided advance in the view taken by International Law, for it was formerly asserted by many writers 3 and military experts that, for certain reasons and purposes, undefended localities also might, in exceptional cases, be bombarded; and it is doubtful how far the practice of the World War came up to the new standard. It matters not, however, whether the defended locality be fortified or not, since an unfortified place can be 1 The assertion of some writerssee, for instance, Pillet, pp. 104-107, and Mérignhac, iiia. p. 273—that bombardment is lawful only after an unsuccessful attempt by the besiegers to starve the besieged into surrender is not based upon a recognised rule of the Law of Nations. Siege is not there specially mentioned, both because no belligerent would dream of besieging an un 6 defended locality, and because it would involve unjustifiable violence against enemy persons, and would, therefore, be unlawful. See, for instance, Lueder in Holtzendorff, iv. p. 451. 4 For details of the many charges of bombarding undefended places which the belligerents made against each other, see Garner, i. §§ 269-270. Assault, how carried out. Siege, how carried out. defended; but under what circumstances a place is to be regarded as defended is not always free from doubt.1 Nothing prevents a belligerent who has taken possession of an undefended fortified place from destroying the fortifications by bombardment as well as by other means. The words by any means whatever' were added by the Second Hague Conference so as to cover bombardment by aircraft. Nevertheless, it is maintained by some that, by analogy with bombardment by naval forces,2 railway junctions, munition factories, and the like may be bombarded from the air though situated in undefended places. The question of law is controversial.3 All belligerents resorted to such bombardments during the World War. § 156. Undefended towns, villages, habitations or buildings may not be assaulted; 4 but when assault is lawful, no special rules of International Law exist with regard to the mode of carrying it out. Therefore, only the general rules respecting offence and defence apply. It is in particular not 5 necessary to give notice of an impending assault to the authorities of the locality, or to request them to surrender before an assault is made. That an assault may, or may not, be preceded, or accompanied, by a bombardment, need hardly be mentioned, nor that, by Article 28 of the Hague Regulations, pillage of towns taken by assault is expressly prohibited. § 157. With regard to the mode of carrying out siege without bombardment no special rules of International Law exist, and here too only the general rules respect 1 See Holls, The Peace Conference 3 See below, §214a-c. The author had marked this question for consideration. 4 See above, § 155. 5 This may be inferred from Article 26 of the Hague Regulations. ing offence and defence apply. Therefore, an armed force besieging a town may, for instance, cut off the river which supplies drinking water to the besieged, but must not poison1 the river. Moreover, no rule of law exists which obliges a besieging force to allow all non-combatants, or even women, children, the aged, the sick and wounded, or subjects of neutral Powers, to leave the besieged locality unmolested. Although such permission 2 is sometimes granted, it is in most cases refused, because the fact that noncombatants are besieged together with the combatants, and have to endure the same hardships, may, and very often does, exercise pressure upon the authorities to surrender. Further, should the commander of a besieged place expel the non-combatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his store of provisions, the besieging force need not allow them to pass through its lines, but may drive them back.3 That diplomatic envoys of neutral Powers may not be prevented from leaving a besieged town is a consequence of their exterritoriality. However, if they voluntarily remain, may they claim uncontrolled 4 communication with their home State by correspondence and couriers? When Mr. Washburne, the American diplomatic envoy at Paris during the siege of that city in 1870 by the Germans, claimed the right of sending a messenger with despatches to London in a sealed bag through the German lines, Bismarck declared that he was ready to allow foreign diplomats in Paris to send a courier to their home States once a week, but only if their despatches were open and did not contain any remarks concerning the war. Although 1 See above, § 110. 2 Thus in 1870, during the FrancoGerman War, the German besiegers of Strasburg as well as of Belfort allowed the women, the children, and the sick to leave the besieged fortresses. * See Land Warfare, § 129. The matter is discussed by RolinJaequemyns in R.I., iii. (1871), pp. 371-377. |