If interpreted according to the letter, Article 3 of Convention IV. provides for payment of compensation for violations of the Hague Regulations only, and not for violations of other rules of International Law concerning land warfare or even concerning sea warfare. I have, however, no doubt that the Powers would recognise that the principle of Article 3 must find application to any rule of the laws of war, by the violation of which subjects of the enemy, or of neutral States, suffer damage. For instance, if the commander of a naval force, in contravention of Hague Convention IX., were to bombard an undefended place, compensation could be claimed for such subjects of the enemy and of neutral States as suffered damage through the bombardment. However, Article 3, although it establishes the obligation to pay compensation, does not stipulate anything concerning the time, or the way, in which claims for compensation are to be settled. This is clearly a case for arbitration, and it is to be hoped that an international conference will make arbitration obligatory for claims for compensation arising from violations, on the part of a belligerent, of the Hague Regulations as well as of other laws of war. War a dition. CHAPTER VII END OF WAR, AND POSTLIMINIUM I ON TERMINATION OF WAR IN GENERAL Hall, § 197-Lawrence, 217-Phillimore, iii. § 510-Taylor, § 580-Moore, vii. § 1163-Heffter, § 176-Kirchenheim in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 791792-Ullmann, § 198-Bonfils, No. 1692-Mérignhac, iii". pp. 121-133 -Despagnet, No. 605—Calvo, v. § 3115—Fiore, iii. No. 1693-Martens, ii. § 128-Longuet, § 155—Charleville, La Validité juridique des Actes de l'Occupant en Pays occupé (1902)-Focherini, Il Postliminio nel moderno Diritto internazionale (1908)-Phillipson, Termination of War (1916). § 260. The normal condition between two States Tempo being peace, war can never be more than a temporary condition; whatever may have been the cause, or causes, of a war, it cannot possibly last for ever. For either the purpose of war will be realised, and one belligerent will be overpowered by the other, or both will sooner or later be so exhausted by their exertions that they will desist from the struggle. Modes of Three § 261. A war may be terminated in three different Termina: ways. (1) Belligerents may abstain from further acts tion of of war, and glide into peaceful relations without ex War. pressly making peace through a special treaty; (2) they may formally establish the condition of peace through a special treaty of peace; (3) a belligerent may end the war through subjugation of his adversary.1 1 That a civil war may come to an end through simple cessation of hostilities, or through a treaty of peace, need hardly be mentioned. But it is of importance to state that there is a difference between civil war and other war in a case of subjugation. For to terminate a civil war, conquest and annexation, which together constitute subjugation, are unnecessary (see below, § 264); conquest alone is sufficient. II SIMPLE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES Hall, § 203-Phillimore, iii. § 511-Taylor, § 584-Bluntschli, § 700— Heffter, § 177-Kirchenheim in Holtzendorff, iv. p. 793-Ullmann, § 198-Bonfils, No. 1693-Despagnet, No. 605-Nys, iii. p. 738—Rivier, ii. pp. 435-436-Calvo, v. § 3116-Fiore, iii. No. 1693-Martens, ii. § 128-Longuet, § 155-Mérignhac, iiia. p. 121-Pillet, p. 370-Phillipson, Termination of War (1916), pp. 3-8. Occur Simple tilities. § 262. The regular modes of termination of war are Exceptreaties of peace or subjugation; but cases have occurred tional in which simple cessation of all acts of war on the part rence of of both belligerents has actually and informally brought Cessation the war to an end. Thus ended in 1716 the war between of Hos Sweden and Poland, in 1720 the war between Spain and France, in 1801 the war between Russia and Persia, in 1867 the war between France and Mexico, and in the same year the war between Spain and Chili. Thus ended also the World War as between Germany and China, since China did not sign the Treaty of Peace with Germany. So also the World War as between the United States and Germany will have ended, unless a separate treaty of peace is negotiated between these two powers.1 Although termination of war through simple cessation of hostilities is for many reasons inconvenient, and is, therefore, as a rule avoided, it may nevertheless in the future, as in the past, occasionally occur. Termina § 263. Since, in the case of termination of war through Effect of simple cessation of hostilities, no treaty of peace em- tion of bodies the conditions of peace between the former War belligerents, the question arises whether the status which Simple existed between the parties before the outbreak of war, of Ho 1 Whereas the war between Prussia and several German States in 1866 came to an end through subjugation of some States and treaties of peace with others, Prussia never concluded through Cessation tilities. 1 the status quo ante bellum, should be revived, or the status which exists between the parties at the time when they simply ceased hostilities, the status quo post bellum (the uti possidetis), can be upheld. The majority of publicists 1 correctly maintain that the status which exists at the time of cessation of hostilities becomes silently recognised through such cessation, and is, therefore, the basis of the future relations of the parties. This question is of the greatest importance regarding enemy territory militarily occupied by a belligerent at the time hostilities cease. According to the correct opinion, it can be annexed by the occupier, the adversary, through the cessation of hostilities, having dropped all rights he possessed over it. On the other hand, termination of war through cessation of hostilities does not dispose of claims of the parties which have not been settled by the actual position of affairs at the termination of hostilities, and it remains for the parties to settle them by special agreement, or to let them stand over. III SUBJUGATION Vattel, iii. §§ 199-203-Hall, §§ 204-205-Lawrence, § 77-Phillimore, iii. § 512-Halleck, i. pp. 501-534-Taylor, §§ 220, 585-588-Moore, i. § 87— Walker, § 11-Wheaton, § 165-Bluntschli, §§ 287-289, 701-702-Heffter, § 178-Kirchenheim in Holtzendorff, iv. p. 792-Liszt, § 10-Ullmann, §§ 92, 97, 197-Bonfils, Nos. 535 and 1694-Despagnet, Nos. 387-390, 605-Rivier, ii. pp. 436-441-Nys, iii. p. 738—Calvo, v. §§ 3117-3118-Fiore, ii. No. 863, iii. No. 1693, and Code, Nos. 1083-1086-Martens, i. § 91, ii. § 128-Longuet, § 155-Pillet, p. 371-Holtzendorff, Eroberungen und Eroberungsrecht (1872)-Heimburger, Der Erwerb der Gebietshoheit (1888), pp. 121-132-Westlake in the Law Quarterly Review, xvii. (1901), p. 392, now reprinted in Westlake, Papers, pp. 475-489-Phillipson, Termination of War (1916), pp. 8-51. § 264. Subjugation must not be confounded with conquest, although there can be no subjugation without 1 See, however, Phillimore, iii. § 511, who maintains that the status quo ante bellum has to be revived. tion in Conquest. conquest. Conquest is taking possession of enemy Subjugaterritory by military force, and is completed as soon contradis as the territory is effectively occupied. Now it is tinction to obvious that conquest of a part of enemy territory has nothing to do with subjugation, because the enemy may well reconquer it. Even the conquest of the whole enemy territory need not necessarily involve subjugation; for in a war between more than two belligerents, the troops of one of them may evacuate their own country and join the allied army, so that the armed contention is continued, although the territory of one of the allies is completely conquered. Again, a belligerent, although he has annihilated the forces and conquered the whole of the territory of his adversary, and thereby brought the armed contention to an end,2 may nevertheless not choose to exterminate the enemy State by annexing the conquered territory, but may conclude a treaty of peace with the expelled or imprisoned head of the defeated State, re-establish its Government, and hand back to it the whole or a part of the conquered territory. Subjugation takes place only when a belligerent, after having annihilated the forces and conquered the territory of his adversary, destroys his existence by annexing the conquered territory. Subjugation may, therefore, correctly be defined as extermination in war of one belligerent by another through annexation of the former's territory after conquest, the enemy forces having been annihilated.4 3 § 265. Although complete conquest, together with 1 The conditions of effective occupation have been discussed above in § 167. Regarding subjugation as a mode of acquisition of territory, see above, vol. i. §§ 236-241. 2 The continuation of guerilla war after the termination of a real war is discussed above in § 60. 3 That conquest alone is sufficient for the termination of civil wars has been pointed out above, § 261. Premature annexation can become valid through the occupation becoming soon afterwards effective. Thus, although the annexation of the South African Republic, on September 1, 1900, was premature, it became valid through the occupation becoming effective in 1901. See above, § 167 n. |