Religious, Hospital Staff. munities. In no case may they be captured merely because they have such persons on board. But, subject to any undertaking that may have been given to them, they remain liable to capture for any violation of neutrality they may have committed. Moreover, according to Article 12,1 any man-of-war of either belligerent may demand from them the surrender of the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked on board. The § 209. Convention x. provides that the religious, Medical, medical, and hospital staff of any captured vessel are and inviolable, and may not be made prisoners of war, but must continue to discharge their duties while necessary. If they do this, the belligerent into whose hands they have fallen has to give them the same allowances and the same pay as are granted to persons holding the same rank in his own navy. They may leave the ship, when the commander-in-chief considers it possible, and on leaving they are allowed to take with them all surgical articles and instruments which are their private property (Article 10). tion of Applica- § 209a. The provisions of Convention x. are only Conven- binding so long as the war is a war between contracttion X., ing Powers only (Article 18). In the case of operavention of tions of war between land and sea forces of belligerents, and Pre Abuses. its provisions only apply to forces on board ship (Article 22). The contracting Powers undertook, in case their criminal laws were inadequate, to enact, or submit to their legislatures, measures necessary for checking individual acts of pillage or maltreatment of the wounded and sick in the fleet, and for punishing improper use of the distinguishing marks of hospital ships (Article 21). 1 Against which Great Britain made an interpretative reservation. VI ESPIONAGE, TREASON, RUSES See, besides the literature quoted above at the commencement of §§ 159 and 163, Pradier-Fodéré, viii. No. 3157, and Bentwich in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Ser. x. (1910), pp. 243-249. 2 and § 210. Espionage1 and war treason do not play as large Espionage a part in sea warfare as in land warfare; 2 but they Treason. may be employed. Since the Hague Regulations deal only with land warfare, there is no legal necessity of trying a spy in sea warfare by court-martial according to Article 30, although this is advisable. § 211. Ruses are customarily allowed in sea warfare Ruses. within the same limits as in land warfare, perfidy being excluded. As regards the use of a false flag, it is by most publicists considered perfectly lawful for a manof-war to use a neutral or enemy flag (1) when chasing an enemy vessel, (2) when trying to escape, and (3) for the purpose of drawing an enemy vessel into action.3 On the other hand, it is universally agreed that, immediately before an attack, a vessel must fly her national flag. Halleck relates the following two instances:In 1783 the Sybille, a French frigate of thirty-eight guns, enticed the British man-of-war Hussar by dis 4 1 As regards the case of The Haimun, see below, § 356. 2 See above, §§ 159-162. The use of a false flag on the part of a belligerent man-of-war is analogous to the use of the enemy flag and the like in land warfare; see above, § 164. British practicesee Holland, Prize Law, § 200permits the use of false colours. U.S. Naval War Code, Article 7, forbade it altogether, but as late as 1898, during the war with Spain, two American men-of-war used the Spanish flag (see Perels, p. 183). During the war between Turkey and Russia, in 1877, Russian men-of-war in the Black Sea used the Italian flag (see Martens, ii. § 133, p. 566). playing the British flag, and intimating herself to be a distressed prize of a British captor. When the Hussar approached to succour her, she at once attacked without showing the French flag, but was overpowered and captured. The commander of the Hussar then publicly broke the sword of the commander of the Sybille, whom he justly accused of perfidy, although the French commander was acquitted when subsequently brought to trial by the French Government. In 1813 two merchants of New York carried out a plan for destroying the British man-of-war Ramillies in the following way. A schooner, with some casks of flour on deck, was laden with several casks of gunpowder having trains leading from a species of gunlock, which, by the action of clock-work, was to go off at a given time after it had been set, and came up to the Ramillies in order to be captured. The Ramillies then sent a boat with thirteen men and a lieutenant to cut her off. Subsequently the crew of the schooner abandoned her, and she blew up with the lieutenant and his men on board. Vattel1 relates the following case of perfidy :-In 1755, during war between Great Britain and France, a British man-of-war appeared off Calais, made signals of distress, and then seized a French sloop and some sailors who came to bring her help. Vattel was himself not certain whether this case was fact or fiction. But there is no doubt that, if true, it is an example of perfidy, which is not allowed. On the other hand, the following is a perfectly legitimate ruse which occurred during the World War. At the end of October 1914, the German cruiser Emden, hiding her identity by rigging up a dummy fourth funnel and flying the Japanese flag, passed the guardship of the harbour of Penang in the Malay States, made no reply to its signals, came down at full speed 1 vol. iii. § 178. on the Russian cruiser Zhemshug, and then, after lowering the Japanese flag and hoisting the German flag, opened fire and torpedoed her. VII REQUISITIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, BOMBARDMENT Hall, § 140*—Lawrence, § 204—Westlake, ii. pp. 182-184-Moore, vii. §§ 1166-1174-Hershey, No. 427-Taylor, § 499-Bonfils, Nos. 1277-12771 -Despagnet, Nos. 618-618 bis-Fiore, Code, Nos. 1655-1664-PradierFodéré, viii. Nos. 3153-3154-Nys, iii. pp. 392-396-Pillet, p. 117Perels, § 35, p. 181-Holland, Studies, pp. 96-111-Dupuis, Nos. 67-73, and Guerre, Nos. 42-47-Barclay, Problems, p. 51-Higgins, pp. 352357-Lémonon, pp. 503-525-Bernsten, § 7, iii.-Boidin, pp. 201-215 -Nippold, ii. § 28-Scott, Conferences, pp. 587-598, and in A.J., ii. (1908), pp. 285-294-Wehberg, pp. 93-97-Garner, i. §§ 273-278. tions and Coast § 212. No case has to my knowledge occurred in RequisiEurope1 of requisitions or contributions imposed by Contribunaval forces upon enemy coast towns. The question tions upon of their legality was raised long ago by an article on Towns. naval warfare of the future, published in 1882 by the French Admiral Aube in the Revue des Deux Mondes.2 Aube pointed out that one of the tasks of a fleet would be to attack and destroy by bombardment fortified and unfortified military and commercial enemy coast towns, or at least to compel them mercilessly to submit to requisitions and contributions. During the British naval manœuvres of 1888 and 1889 imaginary contributions were imposed upon several coast towns, and this prompted Hall to consider carefully under what conditions requisitions and contributions would be lawful in sea warfare. Starting from the principles regarding requisitions and contributions in land warfare, he concluded that they might also be levied in sea warfare, provided a force was landed which actually took possession of 2 vol. 1. p. 331. 1 Holland, Studies, p. 101, mentions case which occurred in South America in 1871. Bombardment of the Enemy Coast. a coast town and established itself there, although only temporarily, until the imposed requisitions and contributions had been complied with; but that no requisitions or contributions could be demanded by a single message sent on shore under threatened penalty of bombardment in case of refusal. There is no doubt that Hall's arguments are, logically, correct; but it was not at all certain how the naval Powers regarded them until the Second Hague Conference met. That conference produced a convention (IX.),1 two articles of which-3 and 4-deal with requisitions and contributions. According to Article 3 undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or other buildings may be bombarded by a naval force, if the local authorities, on a formal summons being made to them, decline to comply with requisitions for provisions or supplies necessary for the immediate use of the naval force concerned. These requisitions must be proportional to the resources of the place; they can only be demanded by the commander of the naval force concerned; they must be paid for in cash, and, if this is not possible for want of sufficient ready money, their receipt must be acknowledged. As regards contributions, Convention IX. does not directly forbid a demand for them, but Article 4 expressly forbids bombardment of undefended places by a naval force on account of non-payment of money contributions; in practice, therefore, the demand for contributions will not occur in naval warfare. § 213. There is no doubt whatever that enemy coast towns which are defended may be bombarded by naval forces, acting either independently, or in co-operation with a besieging army. But before the Second Hague Conference of 1907 the question was not settled as to 1 See above, vol. i. § 568a. |