drawn. We dare not expose the previous achievements in this direction to destruction,1 but neither dare we fetter the waging of war, whether it be by military or economic means. Let us therefore go no farther than we have already gone. At any rate, we should not now attempt to restrict the war on trade by onesided regulations, since to-day it is recognized as having equal rights with the military war. The circumstance that commerce and industry are both attacked by war can have only a prophylactic effect. It will increase the number of the opponents of war quite materially.

On the other hand, all those regulations which have been made for the protection of individuals should not only be maintained, but above all they should be more clearly defined. We should be decidedly better able than heretofore to hinder the future violations of the law of war by a closer study of many questions, as, for example, that of the participation of noncombatants in the struggle or in hostile acts, the protection to be afforded to private individuals and their property and interests in the belligerent states, the question of reprisals, the rights of requisition and levying contributions, the holding of hostages, the punishment of the interned and prisoners, and so forth. These are questions which stand in a comparatively loose relationship with the attainment of the military or the economic aim of the war, and which therefore make it possible to let the voice of humanity be heard without hindering the progress of the war.3 A service can be performed to both warfare and humanity by a clear rewriting of the law. Let us take, for example, the question of reprisals, which have played so disastrous a rôle in this war.4 It is most necessary to issue more accurate regulations, so that we may never again experience a repetition of the events of this war. The same thing is true of numerous other questions, the solution of which would be to the advantage of private individuals. Here we have before us the field where a legal standardization appears not only desirable but possible, whereas in respect to the regulation

1 Triepel is also of this opinion, ante, p. 109, note.

2 Triepel, p. 19, for example, justly points to the gaps of the Geneva Convention, particularly in regard to the sanitary personnel.

3 Triepel, p. 29, justly emphasizes that it remains the task of international law to balance in its universally applicable decisions the interests of a warfare impelling to victory and the need of protection of the peaceful citizen.

Fuller details on the war of reprisals will be found in my repeatedly mentioned book, Deutschland und das Völkerrecht.

of warfare proper we would perhaps do well to exercise more restraint than before.1

Just as the regulation of land war will to-day be regarded with somewhat different eyes than before this war, so to a materially greater degree will naval warfare have to submit to a revision of many views expressed before this war. Many of its institutions will doubtless need a thorough revision. Many postulates set up before this war must be abandoned without more ado. This, as we have seen, follows necessarily from the fact that after this war international law will be given an entirely new character. Before the war it was supposed to be built chiefly, yes exclusively, on mutual confidence. Now, with this confidence lacking, we shall no longer be content with a building standing on such a weak foundation, and we will desire that coercive measures be introduced into international law. That of course changes the whole state of affairs, though this is less the case in the domain of land warfare, in which we already have a complete code of war law, and in which the previous outlines can on the whole be preserved.3 The same cannot be said of naval warfare, in which we have a series of institutes which stand in fairly close connexion with the proposed system of coercive measures. As long as we believed that we could dispense with coercive measures in international law, and still thought of the possibility of a war of a more or less exclusive military character, so long did the postulates which I cited at the beginning of this section appear capable of realization. One could at that time still plead for a complete abolition of the rights

1 Triepel also justly demands, pp. 21 ff., a revision of the clause of general participation' in the Hague Conventions. In the event of war, one should grant to the treaty power engaged with several adversaries, who are not all parties to the treaty, the right to decide for itself whether and in how far it wishes to have the treaty applied. We must also agree with Triepel when he objects to the many reservations attached to the conventions. Under certain circumstances one should absolutely refuse to sign a treaty weakened by numerous reservations, for the reservations are a sure sign that the time is not yet ripe for a codification, and it would therefore be better not to attempt it. Another possibility would be, however, that those states which are agreed conclude a treaty among themselves. 2 Burckhardt is also of this opinion, Wandlungen des Prisenrechts im europäischen Kriege', in the Politisches Jahrbuch der schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, 1916, p. 117. He is of the opinion that the present war has shown that a mere modification of the existing institute on the right of capturing prizes will not lead to any satisfactory result. An entirely new law must be created. Since I cannot at this place enter into the discussion of individual problems, the reader is referred to Burckhardt's criticism of prize law.

3 Strupp, Neue Probleme des Völkerrechts, p. 10, is of the opinion that action in the domain of land warfare will be almost wholly revisionary in its character. • Cf. above, p. 110, and my Zweite Haager Friedenskonferenz, vol. ii, pp. 238 ff.

of contraband and the capture of prizes. This appears to me questionable to-day,1 for to the degree that we introduce coercive measures and bring the economic war to the foreground, to that same degree do we interfere with the waging of war if we abolish these institutions. It is just this that we wish to avoid, as I have repeatedly explained.

The salient point in the question concerning the retention, abolition, or modification of the institutes of naval warfare must evidently be, whether they are really adapted to making possible the attainment of the essential war aim. If so, they will presumably be retained and merely adapted to the modern method of waging war. The war aim, as we have seen, is always the same, in land as well as in naval warfare, in the military as well as in the economic war-to force one's will upon the opponent. But this can be accomplished by economic as well as by military means, and in naval warfare the former play an especially important part. Consequently it appears impossible that in the future we should dispense with these means. Rather the nature of future warfare depends in great part on the manner in which the application of these means takes shape in the war law of the future. And linked with the shaping of future warfare is also that of international law.

In the foreground of our interest stands to-day without a doubt one of the most effective means of naval warfare, the institution of the blockade. As in many fields of international law, so also in regard to the right of blockade, there has been for years past a divergence of opinion between the continental system and the Anglo-American practice. According to the latter system, the consequences of a violation of the blockade are meted out to every ship which sails to a blockaded port. (Theory of the continuous voyage.) In the Declaration of London an attempt was made to reconcile these divergences by a compromise, but the Declaration of London was never ratified, nor were its regulations by any means

1 Strupp, loc. cit., p. 11, says: It will no longer be merely a question of legalizing submarine warfare, but above all of limiting materially the right of blockade, of defining the position of the enemy's merchant marine, and of abolishing the right of the capture of prizes.'

2 Niemeyer, Prinzipien des Seekriegsrechts, pp. 19, 22, emphasizes that the unlimited form of all serviceable military means, inclusive of the right of capture of prizes, is in accord with the principles of naval warfare. I believe that to-day we can say with greater accuracy the unlimited form of all serviceable economic

means.

complete. Consequently the divergences still exist. Besides, through this war the views concerning the conception, the extent, and the methods of the blockade have doubtless undergone a very essential modification. The conception of the blockade appears to-day to be very materially enlarged. In its legal aspects we can scarcely go back to the old institution. In addition, we must remember that if coercive measures are once introduced into international law, we might have to wield the boycott along with the blockade, not only in war law, but also in international law. Consequently this institution takes on not merely a new significance, but it may perhaps assume quite a different appearance. All of these facts which I have mentioned must be borne in mind in the building of the maritime law of the future. Of course the right of blockade must be so fashioned that it comports with all modern needs and the experiences of this war, and so that it conforms to the alterations in the methods of waging war. We dare not seek to emasculate the blockade.1

It is doubtful whether the states would still be willing to-day

1 Eltzbacher, op. cit., p. 71, is of the opinion that, even if it has not brought about an effective blockade, from now on a belligerent state can forbid neutral ships to enter the harbours of the enemy, if it is of the opinion that the hostile state might use them to carry on world commerce. It might also attach conditions to the permitting of the voyage, e. g. that men of military age of the enemy state be surrendered, that wares destined for the country of the enemy be handed over, that the searching of the mail be permitted. On this subject compare Burckhardt, loc. cit., 1915, p. 62. Among other things, he justly points out the fact that in London the important question remained unsettled as to whether the blockade might be carried out by the laying of mines. Convention VIII contained merely the unsatisfactory stipulation that it was forbidden to lay automatic contact mines before the coasts and harbours of the enemy for the sole purpose of hindering commerce'. It is worthy of note that at The Hague Germany declared that she would accept this article only with reservations. In the Politisches Jahrbuch, 1916, p. 5, Burckhardt summarizes the experiences of the war in reference to the blockade, saying that the methods that modern military technique has employed to effect it must be called into question; and that, on the other hand, it frequently happens that the blockade of a limited section, or even the whole of the enemy's coast, is rendered purposeless by the ease with which nonblockaded ports can be pressed into service. We already knew before the war that, on account of mines, torpedoes, &c., the blockade could only be carried into effect at a rather remote distance from the coast; now we know in addition that it is no longer possible to blockade hostile coasts by means of permanently stationed ships on account of the submarine boat danger. All these experiences assuredly speak in favour of a thorough modification of the present law of blockade. Burckhardt, loc. cit., p. 115, demands the complete rejection of the right of blockade ; when limited to the coasts of the enemy it has proved to be ineffective. I am also of the opinion that the conditions of the blockade must undergo a complete change, but do not think that on this account the institution as a whole ought to be abolished. On the contrary, the blockade in the future may prove to be a thoroughly effective weapon.

to consent to a complete abolition of the law of contraband, as at the second Hague Conference.1 This institution stands in too intimate relations with the economic war and with the blockade to be so lightly dispensed with. And it can doubtless be of the greatest influence on the attainment of the economic war aim. I believe, therefore, that we shall have to count on maintaining the institution as a whole. Nevertheless, we hope that for the sake of the neutrals there will be prescribed definite limits in the regulations concerning relative contraband, unless, indeed, in the future we are to restrict ourselves to absolute contraband. Moreover, I should not consider it a misfortune if in the new regulations we do not go back to the Declaration of London, for its provision signified, as I have already explained, a backward step.2 At that time I characterized as the goal of a regulation of the law of contraband the defining and limitation of its meaning. This is still the desired goal. It is possible to conduct an effective naval warfare, and nevertheless out of consideration for the neutrals to hold fast to the postulate of a definite limitation of the law of contraband.3

1 Cf. with this my Zweite Haager Friedenskonferenz, vol. ii, p. 212. The proposal for the abolition emanated from England. Sir Ernest Satow declared: We regard, then, our proposition to abolish contraband of war in every sense of the expression as the only step in advance which has been made in our day for the development of the true principle of the Declaration of Paris.'

2 Cf. with this my Zweite Haager Friedenskonferenz, vol. ii, pp. 225 ff. Von Bar, in the Deutsche Revue of December 1909, expressed himself to the same effect. This retrogressive action at London in part made it possible that in the practice of this war the conception of contraband could be subjected to such an elastic interpretation.

3 Eltzbacher, loc. cit., p. 71, is to be sure of the opinion that, from now on, a belligerent state, without paying any heed to the former principles of conditional and absolute contraband, may take from neutral ships wares destined for the enemy, without regard to their nature, and without reference to the question whether they are going directly to a hostile or to a neutral port, in order from there to be sent further by land. Of course this view calls for no serious refutation. On the contrary, what Burckhardt writes, loc. cit., 1915, p. 69, is very much to the point: What (in the Declaration of London) was proposed as a common law of nations has not stood the test. In the first place, it is dangerous to allow so much scope to the belligerents in the definition of what is to be contraband and what not; and, in addition, the rules concerning neutral or foreign destination and the presumptions established to determine it, leaving quite out of consideration a certain lack of clarity in their formulation, are so subtile that they fall to pieces when the attempt is made to apply them. In particular, the distinctions concerning the destination of contraband seem to us to be of almost unbelievable shortsightedness. The present war has shown that it is impracticable to distinguish between objects destined for the use of the state and those for private consumption. What is once in the country belongs to the whole people and is at the disposal of the state. . . . Further, it is impracticable, in respect to the importation of relative contraband, to distinguish whether the ship unloads its