ment of States. The millions of individuals who as a body are called mankind do not face one another individually and severally, but in groups as races, nations, and States. With the welfare of the races, nations, and States to which they belong the welfare of individuals is more or less identified; and it is the development of races, nations, and States that carries with it the causes of war. A constant increase of population must in the end force upon a State the necessity of acquiring more territory, and if it cannot be acquired by peaceable means, acquisition by conquest alone remains. At certain periods of history, the principle of nationality, and the desire for national unity, gain such a power over the hearts and minds of the individuals belonging to the same race or nation, but living within the boundaries of several different States, that wars break out for the cause of national unity and independence. And jealous rivalry between two or more States, the awakening of national ambition, the craving for rich colonies, the desire of a land-locked State for a sea-coast, the endeavour of a hitherto minor State to become a world-Power, the ambitionof dynasties or of great politicians to extend and enlarge their influence beyond the boundaries of their own States, and innumerable other factors, have been at work, ever since history was first recorded, in creating causes of war, and likewise play their part in our own times. Although one must hope that the time will come when war will entirely disappear, there is no possibility of seeing this hope realised in the near future. The first necessities for the disappearance of war are that the surface of the earth should be shared between States of the same standard of civilisation, and that the moral ideas of the governing classes in all the States of the world should undergo such alteration and progressive development as would create the conviction that decisions of International Courts of Justice, and awards of arbitrators, are alone adequate means for the settlement of international disputes and international political aims. So long as these first necessities are not realised, war will, as heretofore, remain the ultima ratio of international politics, although the causes of war can be diminished by effective machinery for settling international differences without recourse to hostilities.1 War. § 63. However this may be, it often depends largely Just upon the standpoint from which they are viewed Causes of whether or no causes of war are to be called just causes. A war may be just or unjust from the standpoint of both belligerents, or just from the standpoint of one, and utterly unjust from the standpoint of the other. The assertion that whereas all wars waged for political causes are unjust, all wars waged for international delinquencies are just, if there be no other way of getting reparation and satisfaction, is certainly incorrect, because too sweeping. The evils of war are so great that, even when caused by an international delinquency,2 it cannot be justified if the delinquency be comparatively unimportant and trifling. On the other hand, under certain circumstances and conditions, many political causes of war may correctly be called just causes. Only such individuals as lack insight into history and human nature can, for instance, defend the opinion that a war is unjust which has been caused by the desire for national unity, or by the desire to maintain the balance of power, which under the present conditions and circumstances is the basis of all International Law. Necessity for a war implies its justification, whatever may be the cause. In the past many wars have undoubtedly been waged which were unjust, 1 Such as the Covenant of the League of Nations has endeavoured to set up. See above, §§ 25b-25g. The author had intended to re VOL. II. F consider this, and the following, See above, vol. i. §§ 151-156. contradis to Pre texts for War. from whatever standpoint they may be viewed. Yet the number of wars diminishes gradually every year, and the majority of the European wars since the downfall of Napoleon 1. were wars that were, from the standpoint of, at any rate, one of the belligerents, necessary, and therefore just wars. Causes in § 64. Causes of war must not be confounded with tinction pretexts for war. A State which makes war against another will never confess that there is no just cause for war, and it will therefore, when it has made up its mind to make war for political reasons, always look out for a so-called just cause. Thus frequently the apparent reason of a war is only a pretext, behind which the real cause is concealed. If two States are convinced that war between them is inevitable, and if, consequently, they face each other armed to the teeth, they will find at the suitable time many a so-called just cause plausible and calculated to serve as a pretext for the outbreak of a war which was planned and resolved upon long ago. History teaches that the skill of politics and diplomacy have nowhere been more needed than when a State was convinced that it must go to war for one reason or another. Public opinion at home and abroad was often not ripe to appreciate the reason and not prepared for the scheme of the leading politicians, whose task it was to realise their plans with the aid of pretexts which appeared as the cause of war, whereas the real cause did not become apparent for some time.1 Different War. § 65. Writers on International Law who lay great Kinds of stress upon the causes of war in general, and upon the distinction between just causes and others, also lay great stress upon the distinction between different kinds of war. But as the rules of the Law of Nations The author hoped that the progress of democracy and constitutional government, and the establishment of the League of Nations, would prevent wars being embarked upon under pretexts. are the same 1 for the different kinds of war that may be distinguished, this distinction is in most cases of no importance. Apart from that, there is no unanimity respecting the kinds of war, and it is apparent that, just as the causes of war are innumerable, so innumerable kinds of war can be distinguished. Thus one speaks of offensive and defensive, or religious, political, dynastic, national, civil wars; of wars of unity, independence, conquest, intervention, revenge, and of many other kinds. As the very name which each different kind of war bears always explains its character, no further details are necessary respecting kinds of war. War. § 66. The cause, or causes, of a war determine at its Ends of inception the ends of that war. The ends of war must not be confounded with the purpose of war. Whereas the purpose is always the same-namely, the overpowering and utter defeat of the opponent-the ends may be different in each case. Ends of war are those objects for the realisation of which a war is made.3 In the beginning of the war its ends are determined by its cause or causes, as already said. But they may undergo alteration, or at least modification, with its progress and development. No moral or legal duty exists for a belligerent to stop the war when his opponent is ready to concede the object for which war was made. If war has once broken out, the very national existence of the belligerents is more or less at stake. The risk the belligerents run, the exertion they make, the blood and wealth they sacrifice, the reputation they gain or lose through the changing fortune and chances of war -all these and many other factors work, or may work, together to influence the ends of a war, so that eventually there is scarcely any longer a relation between 1 See above, § 61. * Ends of war must likewise not be confounded with aims of land and sea warfare; see below, §§ 103, 137. 3 See Bluntschli, § 536; Lueder in Holtzendorf, iv. p. 364; Rivier, ii. p. 219. them and the causes of the war. If war really were, as some writers maintain,1 the legal remedy of selfhelp to obtain satisfaction for a wrong sustained from another State, no such alteration of the ends of war could take place without at once setting in the wrong a belligerent which changed the ends for which the war was initiated. But history shows that nothing of the kind is really the case; and the existing rules of International Law by no means forbid such alteration or modification of the ends of a war, which is the result of an alteration or modification of circumstances created during the progress of war, through the factors previously mentioned. It could not be otherwise, and there is no moral, legal, or political reason why it should be. And the natural jealousy between the members of the Family of Nations, their conflicting interests in many points, and the necessity of a balance of power, are factors of sufficient strength to check the political dangers which such alteration of the ends of a war may eventually involve. III THE LAWS OF WAR Hall, § 17-Westlake, ii. pp. 56-63, and Papers, pp. 237-241-Maine, pp. 123-159-Phillimore, iii. § 50-Taylor, § 470-Hershey, No. 336Walker, History, i. §§ 106-108-Heffter, § 119-Lueder in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 253-332-Ullmann, §§ 167, 170-Bonfils, Nos. 1006-1013Despagnet, Nos. 508-510- Pradier-Fodéré, viii. Nos. 3212-3213 Mérignhac, iii". pp. 19-44-Rivier, ii. pp. 238-242-Nys, iii. pp. 91-96— Calvo, iv. §§ 1897-1898-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1244-1260-Martens, ii. § 107Longuet, p. 12-Bordwell, pp. 100-193-Spaight, pp. 1-19-Garner, i. §§ 1-24-Kriegsbrauch, p. 2-Land Warfare, §§ 1-7-Holland, Studies, pp. 40-96-Lammasch, Das Völkerrecht nach dem Kriege (1917), pp. 3-25-Jerusalem, Kriegsrecht und Kodification (1918). § 67. Laws of war are the rules of the Law of Nations respecting warfare. The roots of the present laws of 1 See above, § 54. |