TheSelectedWritingsofRichardBaxter
TheeditorsandpublishergratefullyacknowledgepermissionfortheuseofRichard R.Baxter’swritingsinthefollowing:
‘TheDutyofObediencetotheBelligerentOccupant’ firstappearedin TheBritish YearBookofInternationalLaw,Vol.27,1950,pp.235–266.PermissionforrepublicationgrantedbyChathamHouse,alsoknownastheRoyalInstituteforInternationalAffairs.
‘So-Called “UnprivilegedBelligerency”:Spies,Guerrillas,andSaboteurs’ firstappeared in TheBritishYearBookofInternationalLaw,Vol.28,1951,pp.323–345.Permission forrepublicationgrantedbyChathamHouse,alsoknownastheRoyalInstitutefor InternationalAffairs.
‘TheMunicipalandInternationalLawBasisofJurisdictionOverWarCrimes’ first appearedin TheBritishYearBookofInternationalLaw,Vol.28,1951,pp.382–393. PermissionforrepublicationgrantedbyChathamHouse,alsoknownastheRoyal InstituteforInternationalAffairs.
‘ConstitutionalFormsandSomeLegalProblemsofInternationalMilitaryCommand’ firstappearedin TheBritishYearBookofInternationalLaw,Vol.29,1952, pp.325–359.PermissionforrepublicationgrantedbyChathamHouse,also knownastheRoyalInstituteforInternationalAffairs.
‘TheGenevaConventionsof1949’ firstappearedin NavalWarCollegeReview, Vol.VIIINo.5,January1956,pp.59–82.
‘TheFirstModernCodificationoftheLawofWar:FrancisLieberandGeneral OrderNo.100’ firstappearedin InternationalReviewoftheRedCross,Vol.3, No.25,April1963,pp.171–189and InternationalReviewoftheRedCross, Vol.3,No.26,May1963,pp.234–250.Permissionforrepublicationgranted byCambridgeUniversityPress.
‘ForcesforCompliancewiththeLawofWar’ firstappearedin Proceedingsofthe AmericanSocietyofInternationalLawatItsAnnualMeeting(1921–1969),Vol.58, ‘CausingCompliancewithInternationalLaw’,April23–25,1964,pp.82–99.
‘LegalAspectsoftheGenevaProtocolof1925’ (withThomasBuergenthal) first appearedinthe AmericanJournalofInternationalLaw,Vol.64,1970,pp.853–879.
‘TheLawofWarintheArab-IsraeliConflict:OnWaterandonLand’ first appearedin TowsonStateJournalofInternationalAffairs,Vol.VI,No.1,Fall 1971,pp.1–15.Permissionforrepublicationgrantedby TowsonStateJournalof InternationalAffairs.
‘ASkepticalLookattheConceptofTerrorism’ firstappearedin AkromLaw Review,Vol.7:3,Spring,1974,pp.380–387.Permissionforrepublicationgranted byEstateofRichardR.Baxter.
‘LegalAspectsofArmsControlMeasuresConcerningtheMissileCarryingSubmarinesandAnti-SubmarineWarfare’ firstappearedin TheFutureoftheSea-Based Deterrent,editedbyKostaTsipis,AnneH.Cahn,andBernardT.Field,Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress,1974,pp.213–232.Permissionforrepublication grantedbyTheMITPress.
‘TheLawofWar’ firstappearedin ThePresentStateofInternationalLawandOther Essays:WritteninHonouroftheCentenaryCelebrationoftheInternationalLaw Association1873–1973,editedbyMaartenBos,TheNetherlands:Kluwer,1973, pp.107–124.PermissionforrepublicationgrantedbytheInternationalLaw Association.
‘Perspective TheEvolvingLawsofArmedConflicts’ firstappearedin MilitaryLaw Review,Vol.60,1973,pp.99–111.DepartmentoftheArmyPamphlet27-100-60, p.99[withopinionsandconclusionsnotnecessarilyrepresentingtheviewsofThe JudgeAdvocate’sLegalCenterandSchool,theUnitedStatesArmy,oranyother governmentagency].
‘IusinBelloInterno:ThePresentandFutureLaw’ firstappearedin LawandCivil WarintheModernWorld,editedbyJohnNortonMoore,Baltimore:TheJohn HopkinsUniversityPress,1974,pp.518–536.ReprintedwithpermissionofThe JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
‘TheGenevaConventionsof1949andWarsofNationalLiberation’ firstappeared in InternationalTerrorismandPoliticalCrimes,editedbyM.CherifBassiouni,New York:ThomasPublishing,1975,pp.120–132.Permissionforrepublicationgranted byCharlesC.Thomas.
‘HumanitarianLaworHumanitarianPolitics?The1974DiplomaticConference onHumanitarianLaw’ firstappearedin HarvardInternationalLawJournal, Vol.16,1975,pp.1–26.WithpermissionofHarvardUniversity/LawSchool andconveyedthroughCopyrightClearanceCenter,Inc.
‘ArmisticesandOtherFormsofSuspensionsofHostilities’ firstappearedin CollectedCoursesoftheHagueAcademyofInternationalLaw,Vol.149,1976, pp.355–398.PermissionforrepublicationgrantedbyTheHagueAcademyof InternationalLaw.
‘HumanRightsinWar’ firstappearedin BulletinoftheAmericanAcademyofArts andSciences,Vol.31,No.2(Nov.,1977),pp.4–13.Permissionforrepublication grantedbyEstateofRichardR.Baxter.
‘ModernizingtheLawofWar’ firstappearedin MilitaryLawReview,Vol.78, 1977,pp.165–183[withopinionsandconclusionsnotnecessarilyrepresentingthe viewsofTheJudgeAdvocateGeneral’sLegalCenterandSchool,theUnitedStates Army,oranyothergovernmentagency.]
Introduction
RichardBaxterwasthepreeminent figureinthe fieldofthelawofwarduringthe period1950to1980.Hewasanoutstandingscholarasisevidentfromthearticles republishedhere.Buthewasalsoactiveinavarietyofotherways.Heparticipated intheredraftingofFM27–10,theU.S.Army’ s fieldmanualontheLawofLand Warfarein1956.Hetookpartindiplomaticconferencesandnegotiations.He urgedCongresstoacttocurbpoisonousweapons.AsCounseloronInternational LawintheDepartmentofStatehewasactiveintheformulationoftheForeign SovereignImmunitiesActof1976.Heleftnodoubtabouthisconvictions.He consistentlyfavoredmovesthatwouldenhancetheprotectionsaffordedtothose injuredorthreatenedbyarmedconflict.Anoutstandingexamplewashisreactionto thepositionadvancedbyagroupofscholarsthatthelawofwarwasnotapplicable totheUnitedNations.
HowcantheviewthatthelawofwarisnotapplicabletoaUnitedNationsactionbe reconciledwiththehumanitarianinspirationofthelawofwar?TheCommittee’sconclusionwouldseemtosuggestthatthelawsrelatingtoprisonersofwar,thesickandwounded, belligerentoccupation,arenotoftheirownforceapplicabletotheUnitedNationsforces.If thesebodiesoflawaresetaside,onecanonlyconcludethattheUnitedNationsforcesare nottobeinfluencedbyhumanitarianconsiderationsintheconductofhostilities.Itmustbe thattheUnitedNationswillbeguidedbysomenewstandardofhumanity,yetunknownto uswhenitstartstheselectiveprocessofdecidingwhatprincipleswillguideitsconduct.
FortunatelytheBaxterviewprevailedandUNforcesaresubjecttohumanitarian law.1
StephenM.Schwebel
RichardR.BaxterwasborninNewYorkCityin1921anddiedinCambridge, Massachusettsin1980,attheageof59.Hisdeathwastragicallypremature,not onlybecauseofhisagebutbecauseitcutshort,atitsoutset,hisserviceasaJudgeof theInternationalCourtofJustice.HesatfromFebruary1979toSeptember1980,
1 FredericKirgis, TheAmericanSocietyofInternationalLaw 248(2006).
ABiographyofRichardBaxter
andfellgravelyillduringthespringof1980.Hetookpartonlyinthemomentous caseof UnitedStatesDiplomaticandConsularStaffinTehran. JudgeBaxterwasgraduatedfromBrownUniversitysummacumlaudein1942 andreceivedanLL.BfromHarvardLawSchoolin1948.Followingwartime serviceasanenlistedmanandofficer,BaxterwasintheRegularArmyfrom 1947to1954.AtthetimeofhisresignationfromtheArmy,hewasChiefofthe InternationalLawBranchintheOfficeoftheJudgeAdvocateGeneral.
TheArmysentCaptain(shortly,Major)BaxtertoCambridgeUniversityin 1950toworkforayearwithProfessorH.Lauterpacht,WhewellProfessorof InternationalLaw,whowaswidelyacknowledgedtobetheworld’sleadinginternationallegalscholar.LauterpachthadrecentlyrevisedtheBritish Manualof MilitaryLaw whileBaxterwasengagedintherevisionoftheUnitedStates Rules ofLandWarfare madenecessarybytheadoptionoftheGenevaConventionsof 1949anddevelopmentsinthelawofwarthat flowedfromWorldWarIIandthe Koreanconflict.Baxter’syearinCambridgewasaturningpointinhiscareer. LauterpachtbecameapatronofBaxter’scareerasArnoldMcNairhadbeena patronofhis.HewasinstrumentalinBaxterbeingappointedin1954toaresearch andteachingpositionatHarvardLawSchoolwhichripenedintoanappointment asaprofessoroflawandthe firstholderoftheManleyHudsonChairofInternationalLaw.Baxter’searlyarticlesonthelawofwarwerepublishedin TheBritish YearBookofInternationalLaw,theneditedbyLauterpacht.
AproductofBaxter’sresearchperiodatHarvardLawSchoolwasthepreparation ofhismonographon TheLawofInternationalWaterways.Inthelatterpartofhis twentyyearsofteachingatHarvardLawSchool,hedevotedagreatdealoftimeand efforttothewriting,togetherwithProfessorLouisB.Sohn,ofastudyonState responsibilityfortheU.N.InternationalLawCommission.Baxter’swidelypublishedarticles,commentsandbookreviews,notonlyonthelawofwarbutalsoon othertopicsofinternationallawsuchastherelationshipbetweentreatiesand customaryinternationallaw,wereofexceptionalquality.
Baxterdevotedasmuchcaretothepreparationandconductofhisclasses,andto thementoringofhisstudents,ashedidtohisscholarship.Hetaughttortsand criminallawaswellasinternationallawinordertoburnishhiscredentialsboth withprofessorsandstudents,someofwhomtendedtotreatinternationallawasa subjectremovedfromthemainstreamofHarvardLawSchool’ sconcerns.
Baxterwasamemberoftheboardofeditorsofthe AmericanJournalof InternationalLaw formanyyears,andthe Journal ’seditor-in-chieffrom1970to 1978.Hewasasuperbeditor.Heworkedatitrelentlesslylikeajovialdemon. Hiscommentsonprospectivemanuscriptsweredetailedandconstructive,or dispositive,asthemanuscriptmerited.Manyanauthorcouldhavelistedhimas aco-author,soextensiveandexcellentwerehisannotations.Themeetingsof theboardofeditors,underhischeerychairmanship,wereadelight.Hewould distributealistofarticleshehadnotthoughtworthyofsubmissiontoothereditors foranalysisbuthadrejectedonhisownauthority;hedisposedofahundredor moreeachyear,inadditiontohisothereditingwork.Eachentrywasaccompanied
byapithydispositivecommentworthyof TheNewYorker magazine.Thelistwas destroyedattheendofthemeetingtoavoidembarrassingthosewhosesubmissionshadbeenrejected anactcharacteristicofBaxter’sconcernforthefeelingsof others.
Fortwoyears,whileeditor-in-chiefofthe Journal,Baxterconcurrentlyservedas PresidentoftheAmericanSocietyofInternationalLaw.AmonghismanycontributionstotheSocietywastheleadhetookinorganizingastudentbranchofthe Society.ThatledtothecreationoftheAssociationofStudentInternationalLaw Societies,whichinturnhascontributedtotheproliferationofthepublicationof studentinternationallawjournals.
Baxterwasthe firsttoproposeandputintooperationamootcourtdevotedtoan internationallegalproblem.ThatHarvardLawSchoolexperimentwastheseedof whatbecametheJessupCompetition(namedbyhim).Heplayedaprimaryrolein theconceptionandlaunchingof InternationalLegalMaterials.Hewasaregular contributorto InternationalLawReports,undertheeditorshipofProfessor H.Lauterpachtandsubsequently,EliLauterpacht.WhileservingasCounselor onInternationalLawoftheStateDepartment,hewasinfluentialintheestablishmentoftheannual DigestofUnitedStatesPracticeinInternationalLaw.Earlier Baxterconductedarecurrent,shortandintensivecourseoninternationallawfor mid-levelofficersattheNavalWarCollegeatNewport.Heassembledabandof expertsfromtheUnitedStatesandabroad,suchashisgreatfriendfromhis Cambridgedays,EliLauterpacht.TheseminarproblemsBaxterskillfullydevised weredemandingandthefacultyandofficerswhoparticipatedintheBaxtershort courseenjoyedastimulatingintellectualexperience.
BaxterdistinguishedhimselfduringhisyearofStateDepartmentserviceas CounseloronInternationalLaw,andwasaleadingrepresentativeoftheUnited StatesintheGenevaconferencesthatconcludedtheProtocolstotheGeneva ConventionsontheLawofWar.
Baxter’snominationin1978forelectiontotheInternationalCourtofJustice wasuniversallysupportedintheinternationallawcommunity.Butitwasaclose thing,becausePresidentCarter,unawareofthenominatingproceduresprescribed bytheStatuteoftheCourt,hadpromisedthenominationtoaformerJusticeofthe SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.ThethenLegalAdviseroftheStateDepartmentmadestrenuouseffortstopersuadetheU.S.NationalGrouptogiveeffectto PresidentCarter’scommitment,buttheGroup,responsivetotheoverwhelming supportforBaxterintheinternationallawcommunity,stood firmforBaxter’ s nomination.Oncenominated,hewashandilyelected.
HadBaxternotbeenstruckdownbycancerinhis59thyear,hewould haveservedasajudgeoftheInternationalCourtofJusticewiththedistinction thathadmarkedeveryphaseofhiscareer.Hisbitterlyprematuredeathgrievedhis legionsoffriendsandadmirersanddeprivedtheCourtofagreatmindandgreat heart.
TheDutyofObediencetothe BelligerentOccupant*
Whenenemyterritoryhasbeensubjectedtobelligerentoccupation,theinhabitants ofthatareaarecommonlysaidtobeunderadutynottocommitactswhichwould jeopardizethesecurityoftheoccupant.Violationsofthisdutyofobedienceare oftendescribedintermsof ‘ wartreason ’ and ‘warrebellion’.However,therehas beennoagreementonthequestionswhetherthejuridicalbasisforthisobligation istobesoughtininternationallaw,inthemunicipallawoftheoccupiedstate,or merelyinthesuperiorforceoftheoccupantandwhetheritsviolationsmay accuratelybedescribedintermsborrowedfrommunicipallaw.Theruthlessnessanddisregardforinternationallawwhichhavecharacterizedtheconductof belligerentoccupationsduringtwoworldwarshaveraisedthesequestionsina particularlyacuteform.AlthoughtheGenevaConventionrelativetotheProtection ofCivilianPersonsinTimeofWarof12August1949profitedfromexperience gainedsincetheadoptionofHagueConventionNo.IVof1907,itdidnot purporttobeacompleterecodificationofthelawofbelligerentoccupation. 1 Thefundamentalquestionoftherelationshipexistingbetweentheinhabitant andtheoccupyingPowerremainsforthemostpartaproblemofthecommon lawofwarandisilluminatedonly fitfullybyexplicitprovisionsofthenewGeneva Convention.
Theprotectionofthecivilianpopulationofoccupiedareasagainstoppressionby theoccupanthasconsistentlybeenaguidingprincipleofthelawofbelligerent occupation.Inthechangingtidesofwarfareitisessentialthat,tothemaximum extentcompatiblewiththeconductofhostilities,theciviliannon-combatant shouldbesafeguardedinhisperson,hisproperty,hisloyalties,andinthelegal ordertowhichheissubject.Itisinevitable,however,thattheinhabitantsofan occupiedareawillchafeunderenemyruleandundertherestrictionsplacedupon themintheinterestoftheoccupant’ssecurityandthattheywillinnumerous instances,actingeithersinglyorinconcert,commitactsinconsistentwiththe securityoftheoccupyingforces.Theoccupantmustundoubtedlyhavethemeans
*Thisarticle firstappearedin TheBritishYearBookofInternationalLaw,Vol.27,1950, pp.235–266.Thisarticleoriginallyfeaturedfootnotenumberingwhichrestartedateachnewpage. Forthisrepublicationthefootnotesnowrunsequentially.
1 Art.154.SeeGutteridge, ‘TheGenevaConventionsof1949’,inthis YearBook,26(1949), pp.318–19.
ofdealing,anddealingseverely,withsuchacts,whetherornottheyarisefrom hostileintent.Itmustberecognized,ontheotherhand,thatthereisatendencyfor theoccupanttoprojecthisangerindiscriminatelyupontheguiltyandinnocent alikeandtoimposeexcessivepenaltiesonthewrongdoerswhenheisexposedto conductprejudicialtohissafety.Onwhatjuridicalbasisthelegitimateprotection oftheoccupantagainsthostileordangerousactsmaybestbereconciledwiththe protectionofciviliansagainstarbitraryandunwarrantedpenaltiesandpunishments istheproblemtowhichthisarticleisdirected.Tothisenditwillbenecessaryto considerthenatureofthedutywhichtheinhabitantowestotheoccupantandthe proprietyofdescribingactsofresistanceas ‘ wartreason ’ oras ‘warrebellion’ .
I.Theinhabitant’sdutytotheoccupant
Asthelawofbelligerentoccupationdevelopedoutofthelawwhichwasatonetime applicabletoconqueredterritoryandultimatelyattainedanindependentstatus, theoriesofthenatureofthedutyowedtotheoccupantbytheinhabitantsofthe areaheoccupieshaveundergoneacorrespondingchange.
1.Allegiance
Priortotheemergenceofadistinctlawofbelligerentoccupationduringthesecond halfoftheeighteenthcenturyandtheearlynineteenthcentury,enemyterritory occupiedbyarmedforcesimmediatelybecamepartoftheterritoryoftheoccupying state.2 Theunqualifiedallegianceoftheinhabitantsoftheareawas,asamatterof course,demandedbytheoccupant,andtheirrelationshiptotheoccupantwasleft entirelytomunicipallaw.3 ThuswhenLouisXIVtookNamurin1692,the magistratesofthecitycametohimthenextdaytorenderhimhomageashisloyal subjects.4 Althoughtherewereintimationsinthegreattextsoftheseventeenth centurythatmerebelligerentoccupationofterritoryisprecariousandthatthevery uncertaintyofthefortunesofwardemandsrestraintintheexerciseofbelligerent ‘rights’ , 5 itremainedforVattelandforKlüberandHeffterinthenineteenthcentury toassertthatsovereigntyoveranoccupiedareadoesnotpasstotheoccupantwhile hostilitiesarestillinprogress.Untila debellatio,normallyintheformofapeace treaty,whichdeterminesthedispositiontobemadeoftheterritory,thestatewhose territoryitisisdeprivedonlyoftheexerciseofcertainattributesofsovereignty.6
2 Nys, LeDroitinternational.Lesprincipes,lesthéories,lesfaits,vol.iii(1912),p.223.
3 See,e.g.,Wolff, JusGentiumMethodoScientificaPertractatum (1764), } 892;Heffter, Das europäischeVölkerrechtderGegenwart (1sted.,1884), } 132.
4 VanNispentotSevenaer, L’Occupationallemandependantladernièreguerremondiale (1946), p.157.
5 Grotius, DeJureBelliacPacis (1625),Bookiii,Ch.vi,iv.1;Pufendorf, DeJureNaturaeet GentiumLibriOcto (1688),Bookviii,Ch.vi, } 7.
6 Vattel, LeDroitdesgens (1758),Bookiii,Ch.xiii;Klüber, Droitdesgensmodernedel’Europe (1831), } 256;Heffter,op.cit., }} 131–3.
Thetheorythatanoccupiedterritoryimmediatelybecomespartoftheoccupyingstatewasslowtodie.AnEnglishcourtcouldstatein1814that: ‘Nopointis moreclearlysettledintheCourtsofCommonLawthanthataconqueredcountry formsimmediatelypartoftheKing’sdominions.’7 In1875SirTraversTwissstill maintainedthatabelligerentnationtakingpossessionofanenemy’sterritory acquiressovereigntyoverit.8 ArevisionofdeMartens’ textwhichwaspublished adecadeearliercontainsastatementthatastatewhichmakesitselfmasterofan enemyprovincemaydemandhomagefromtheinhabitants. 9 Duringthewar betweentheUnitedStatesandMexico,GeneralKearneyissuedaproclamation absolvingallpersonsresidingintheoccupiedportionofMexicofromtheir allegiancetothatrepublicandclaimingthemascitizensoftheUnitedStates an actwhichdidnotpasswithoutcriticisminCongress.10 However,thesearebut isolatedinstancesduringaperiodofchange.Already,duringseveralwarsofthe eighteenthcentury,newtheoriesofbelligerentoccupationhadbeengivenapplication.11 Ademandbytheoccupantforunqualifiedandpermanentallegiance graduallyceasedtohavethesanctionoflaworofgeneralpractice.
2.Temporaryallegiance
InAnglo-Americanlaw,asdistinguishedfromthatoftheContinent,therelationshipofthepopulationofanoccupiedareatotheoccupantwas,duringalarge portionofthenineteenthcentury,describedintermsof temporary allegiance.This viewisparticularlyapparentintheAmericanjurisprudenceoftheperiod.It receivedits firststatementin UnitedStates v. Hayward, 12 inwhichMr.Justice StorymadehiscelebratedstatementthatbythemilitaryoccupationofCastine, Maine,byBritishforces,theinhabitantsthereofpassedunderatemporaryallegiancetotheBritishGovernment.SubsequentopinionsoftheUnitedStates SupremeCourtadoptedthisprinciple,13 butin1830theCourttemperedits holdingbysuggestingthattheoccupationofJamesIslandandCharlestonbythe Britishin1780,whilecausingtheinhabitantstoowetemporaryallegiancetoGreat Britain,didnot ‘annihilatetheirallegiancetothestateofSouthCarolina’ . 14 This judicialcharacterizationoftheeffectofbelligerentoccupationrepresentedthestate
7 TheFoltina (1814),1Dods.450,451,165E.R.1374,1375.Cf. TheGerasimo (1857),11Moo. P.C.88,14E.R.628,whichindicatesthat,atleastwithrespecttothequestionoftheenemycharacter ofoccupiedterritory,theprincipleenunciatedin TheFoltina hadby1857ceasedtoprevail.
8 TheLawofNationsConsideredasIndependentPoliticalCommunities.OntheRightsandDutiesof NationsinTimeofWar (2nded.,1875), } 64.
9 Précisdudroitdesgensmodernedel’Europe (2nded.byVergé,1864), } 280.
10 HouseExecutiveDocumentNo.19,29thCongress,2ndSession,pp.20ff.,citedinThomas, AHistoryofMilitaryGovernmentinNewlyAcquiredTerritoryoftheUnitedStates (1904),p.104.Fora criticismofGeneralKearney’sconduct,seetheremarksofMr.Holmesin CongressionalGlobe,29th Congress,2ndSession,p.18.
11 Nys,op.cit.,vol.iii,p.223.Anumberofhistoricalinstancesarecollectedatpp.227–33.
12 (C.C.Mass.1815),F.Cas.No.15,336,2Gall.485.
13 UnitedStates v. Rice (1819),4Wheat.246; Flemingetal.v. Page (1850),9How.603; Thorington v. Smith (1868),8Wall.1.
14 Shanks v. Dupont (1830),3Pet.242.
ofthelawduringthewarwithMexicoandformedthebasisofpoliticalpronouncementsofthetime.15
Repeatedjudicialaffirmationsofthisprincipleleftlittleroomfordissentupon thepartofAmericaninternationallawyers.Thedutyofallegianceis,accordingto Halleck,writingin1861,reciprocaltothedutyofprotectionwhichrestsonthe occupant,butbecauseoftheincompletenessandinstabilityofoccupation,the allegianceisonlyatemporaryorqualifiedone.16 Infact,thecivilianinhabitantsofa placetakenbytheenemywhoareallowedtolaydowntheirarmsandreturnto theirpeacefulpursuitsare ‘virtuallyintheconditionofprisonersofwaron parole’ . 17 Otherauthors,inextendingthischaracterizationtotheinhabitantsof occupiedareasgenerally,overlookedthefactthatHalleckhadbeenspeakingof membersofdefendingarmedforceswhohadsurrenderedandbeenallowedto assumepeacefuloccupations.18 TheAmericanwritersoftenspeakofan ‘implied covenant ’ oran ‘impliedparole’ toremainquiescentwhichisimputedtothe inhabitantsandformsthebasisoftheirallegiancetotheoccupant.19 Duringthe nineteenthcenturyMr.JusticeStory’sremarksin UnitedStates v. Hayward were alsoquotedandapprovedbyanumberofBritishwritersonthesubject.20
TheadoptionofArticle45oftheRegulationsannexedtoConventionNo.IVof TheHagueof1907,whichforbadecompellingthepopulationofoccupiedterritorytoswearallegiancetothehostilePower,eventuallymadethistheoryuntenable. Thequestionoftheexactionofanoathofallegiancehadpreviouslyattracted relativelylittleattention.TheUnitedStates InstructionsfortheGovernmentof ArmiesoftheUnitedStatesintheField,whichcameintouseduringtheCivil War,hadstatednomorethanthatanoathof fidelityortemporaryallegiancemight beadministeredtocivilofficersintheoccupiedterritory,21 butBluntschli’ s paraphraseofthisprovisioncarriedanannotationtotheeffectthatan ‘oathof citizenship’ couldnotbedemandedinoccupiedterritoryuntiltheconclusionof
15 InreplyingtoCongressionalinquiriesconcerningtheadministrationoftheoccupiedportionof Mexico,PresidentPolk,inamessagetotheHouseofRepresentativeson24July1848,statedthatthe inhabitantsofthisareaowedatemporaryallegiancetotheUnitedStates.Hequotedextensivelyfrom UnitedStates v. Rice (Richardson, ACompilationoftheMessagesandPapersofthePresidents,1789–1897 (1897),vol.iv,p.595).
16 InternationalLaw;or,RulesRegulatingtheIntercourseofStatesinPeaceandWar (1861),p.791.
17 Ibid.,p.793.
18 See,e.g.,Rolin-Jaequemyns, ‘Chroniquedudroitinternational.Essaicomplémentairesurla guerrefranco-allemandedanssesrapportsavecledroitinternational’,in Revuededroitinternationalet delégislationcomparée,3(1871),p.312.
19 Field, DraftOutlinesofanInternationalCode (1872),vol.ii,p.482;Birkhimer, Military GovernmentandMartialLaw (1892),pp.38–41.Dana’snotesinhiseditionofWheatonstatethat theoccupyingforceshave ‘arighttorequireoftheinhabitantsanoathorparole,notinconsistentwith theirgeneralandultimateallegiancetotheirownstate’ toremainquietandsubmittotheoccupant’ s authority(Wheaton, ElementsofInternationalLaw (8thed.byDana,1866)),p.436,note.Although HannisTaylorbelievedthattemporaryorqualifiedallegianceisowedtotheoccupant,headoptedthe viewthatthereisnolegalormoralimpedimenttoinsurrectionbytheinhabitantsiftheyarewillingto undergotheperilsofsuchanenterprise(ATreatiseonInternationalPublicLaw (1901),pp.585–92).
20 Phillimore, CommentariesuponInternationalLaw (3rded.,1885),vol.iii,p.869;Creasy, First PlatformofInternationalLaw (1876),p.512;Wheaton,op.cit.(3rdEnglished.byBoyd,1889), p.469.
21 Art.26,GeneralOrdersNo.100,WarDepartment,AdjutantGeneral’sOffice,24April1863.
peace.22 AprovisionsubstantiallysimilartoArticle45hadoriginallybeendraftedat theBrusselsConferenceof187423 andwasrepeatedintheOxfordManual preparedbytheInstituteofInternationalLawin1880.24 Withtheunequivocal statementofthe1899Regulations,whichwasrepeatedwithoutfurtherdiscussion in1907,25 itwashardlypossibletoarguethataninhabitantowedanydutyof allegiancetotheoccupant.Morerecently,theGenevaCiviliansConventionof 1949hascalledattentiontothefactthatanindividualinoccupiedterritorywho hascommittedanoffenceagainsttheoccupyingPowerisnottobeconsideredas boundtotheoccupantbyanydutyofallegiance.26
3.Adutyofobediencecreatedbyinternationallaw
Athirdtheoryofthedutyoftheinhabitanttotheoccupant,whichstandsin roughlychronologicalsuccessiontotheviewjustdescribed,iscastintermsofaduty ofobedienceimposedbythelawofnations.Althoughthisviewoftherelationship ofpersonsinvolvedinbelligerentoccupationwouldcertainlynotcreateanygreater latitudetocommitactshostiletotheoccupant,thedifferenceinterminologyis neverthelesssignificant.Itsuggestsforcefullythattherelationshipoftheinhabitant totheoccupantisquitedifferentinnaturefromtherelationshipofacitizentohis owncountry,andcorrespondinglythatactsinconsistentwiththesecurityofthe occupantandoffencesagainsttheintegrityofthestatemustbelongtotwoseparate bodiesoflaw.Inpracticalterms,itindicatesmoreoverthattheinhabitantmaynot becalledupontodocertainacts,suchasperformingmilitaryserviceorforced labourorfurnishinginformationonhostileactivities,whichmightproperlybe expectedofoneowingallegiance.
Thosewhoadopttheviewthatadutyofobedienceiscreatedbyinternational lawassertthattherationaleofthisprincipleliesintheconsiderationthatadutyof obedienceandsubmissionisowedinreturnfortheprotectiontheinhabitant receives.Anumberofcontinentalwriters findajurisprudentialbasisforthisduty inwhatisvariouslydescribedbyGuelleas uneespècedequasi-contrat,byLoeningas a communautédedroit,andbyFioreandCalvoas unesortedecontratmoral between occupantandoccupied.27 Ifaninhabitantbreachesthissocialcontract,which
22 DasmoderneVölkerrechtdercivilisirtenStaaten (1868), } 551.
23 Art.37.Theprovisioninthe projet submittedtotheConferencebytheRussianGovernmenthad beenthattheoccupiedpopulationcouldnotberequiredtosubmittoa ‘sermentdesujétion perpetuelle’ totheenemy(seeArt.49, Projet,in ActesdelaConférencedeBruxelles (1874)).
24 Art.47, ‘Manueldesloisdelaguerre’,in Annuairedel’Institutdedroitinternational,5(1881–2), p.167.InapenalcodeofwarpreparedbydeLandain1878,therequiringofanoath(ofapparently anynature)ofthepopulationofoccupiedterritoryrenderedtheoccupantguiltyofan abusd’autorité (‘Droitpénaldelaguerre.Projetdeclassificationdescrimesetdélitscontrelesloisdelaguerre ’,in Revuededroitinternationaletdelégislationcomparée,10(1878),p.183).
25 See TheProceedingsoftheHaguePeaceConferences.TheConferenceof1899 (ed.byScott,1920), pp.63,428,487,557.
26 Art.68.SeealsoArt.67,whichprovidesinpartthat ‘They[thecourtsoftheoccupant]shalltake intoconsiderationthefactthattheaccusedisnotanationaloftheOccupyingPower.’
27 Guelle, Précisdesloisdelaguerresurterre (1884),vol.i,p.130;Loening, ‘L’Administrationdu gouvernement-généraldel’Alsacedurantlaguerrede1870–1871’,in Revuededroitinternationaletde
concededlyisthecreationofnecessityandnotofchoice,heisplacedoutsidethe protectionofthelawandmaybetreatedatdiscretion,subjecttothelimitatations imposedbymoralityandnaturaljustice.Itisobviousthatthislegalprinciple, whichmakesan ‘outlaw’ ofsomeonewhocommitssometriflingactofhostility againsttheoccupant,isdifficulttoreconcilewithpatrioticsentiment.Calvois forcedtoconcedethatalthoughtheinhabitantoftheoccupiedarea ‘ought’ todesist fromresistance,thesameinhabitanthasthe ‘right’ and ‘animperiousduty’ under hisownlawtotakeuparmsagainsttheoccupantandtoseektorecoverhis freedom.28 Thiscaveatrepresentsinitselfawithdrawalfromtheextremeposition takenbyseveralotherinternationallawyers,whohadassertedthatcontinued resistanceonthepartofpersonsinoccupiedterritoryisnotsanctionedby internationallaw,shouldnotberequiredbytheoccupiedstate,andis,invirtually allcircumstances, ‘immoral’ . 29
Othercontinentalwriterswhodonotspeakintermsofasocialcontract neverthelessbelievethatadutyofobedience,reciprocaltotheoccupant’sdutyof protectionandlikeitcreatedbyinternationallaw,isowedtotheoccupant.30 In someBritishtextsthedutyisalsorecognizedasbeingcreatedbyinternationallaw, butitoftenappearsunderadifferentname,suchasadutyofquiescence,asSpaight putsit.31 Severalmilitarymanuals,includingtheGerman KriegsbrauchimLandkriege, 32 theBritish ManualofMilitaryLaw, 33 andtheUnitedStates RulesofLand Warfare34 speakinmoregeneraltermsofadutyofobedience.Whilethesourceof thedutyisnotmadeplainbythesetexts,aproperinferencewouldappeartobethat itisregardedaslyingininternationallaw.An ‘oathofneutrality’ wasdemandedof theinhabitantsofoccupiedareasinSouthAfricaduringtheBoerWar,35 andthis practicehasreceivedsomesanctioninthetextsofthiscountry. 36 Whetherthe previousexactionofanoathfromapersonwhocommitsahostileordangerousact servesanysoundpurposeotherthancompoundinghisoffencewhenheviolateshis pledgedwordishighlyquestionable,andthereseemsanairofunrealityaboutsuch devicesafterthepassageofhalfacentury.ProfessorHydeisprobablytheonly modernauthoritywhoseesanyefficacyinthisprocedure,whichhecompareswith
législationcomparée,5(1873),p.72;Fiore, Trattatodidirittointernazionalepubblico (2nded.,1884), vol.iii,pp.238–9,245;Calvo, LeDroitinternationalthéoriqueetpratique (5thed.,1896),vol.iv, pp.216–18.
28 Loc.cit.
29 See,e.g.,Loening,op.cit.,pp.76–7,inwhichtheauthorespeciallypraisestheefficacyof collectivepunishments,andRolin-Jaequemyns,loc.cit.,pp.319,325.
30 Pillet, LesLoisactuellesdelaguerre (1898),pp.200–1,207–9;Rolin, LeDroitmodernedela guerre (1920),vol.i,p.429;Fauchille, Traitédedroitinternationalpublic (1921),vol.ii,pp.210–11; Nys,op.cit.,vol.iii,p.108;Mérignhac, Traitédedroitpublicinternational (1912),vol.iii,p.416;Von Liszt, LeDroitinternational (tr.byGidelfrom8thGermaned.of1913),pp.326–7.
31 Lafiti, EffectsofWaronProperty (1909),p.11;Spaight, WarRightsonLand (1911),p.323.
32 (1902),p.114.
33 (1929),AmendmentsNo.12(1936),p.72.
34 FieldManual27–10,WarDepartment,1October1940,para.301,repeatingthesubstanceof Art.26,GeneralOrdersNo.100of1863.
35 Holland, TheLawsofWaronLand (1908),p.53.
36 Ibid.;Wheaton,op.cit.(5thEnglished.byPhillipson,1916),p.531.
givingabondtokeepthepeace,thepeaceinthiscasebeingoneimposedby internationallawanditsbreachaccordinglyconstitutingaviolationofthatlaw. 37 Forthemostpart,nodistinctionismadebytheseauthoritiesbetweenadutyto refrainfromactsendangeringtheoccupantorintendedtointerferewithhis militaryoperationsandtheindividual’sdutytocomplywiththeexistingmunicipal lawoftheoccupiedareaandthemeasuresadoptedbytheoccupantinpursuanceof hisobligationsunderArticle43oftheHagueRegulations.38 Bordwellisanoteworthyexception.Certainacts,hestates,suchasattacksontroopsandwhatwe nowrefertoassabotage,areviolationsofinternationallawandarepunishableas suchbytheoccupant.Obedienceissimilarlyowedtotheoccupant ‘actingasthe territorialauthorityincarryingouttheordinarypurposesofgovernment,andnot forhisownbelligerentpurposes’.Butifheactsinathirdcapacity,thatis,inserving hisownmilitaryinterestsalone,noobedienceisowedtohim.39 Thesedistinctions appeartobeexcessivelysubtle,andthe firstandthirdaspectsoftheoccupant’ s functionarevirtuallyindistinguishable.Still,hisformulationofthelawdoesserve toindicateausefuldistinctionbetweenmeasurestakenbytheoccupantonhisown behalfandthosedirectedtothenormalgovernmentoftheoccupiedareawithout regardtothemilitaryadvantage,otherthanthepreservationoforder,thereby accruingtohim.Thesecondcategoryisoutsidethescopeofthisarticle,butit shouldbenotedthatitsimportanceislessening.Toanincreasingdegreeevensuch measuresasrationingandpricecontrolinoccupiedareasareinspiredbythe militaryneedsoftheoccupant,anddeliberateviolationofsuchlegislationmay beemployedasaweaponofresistanceagainsttheoccupant.40
4.Adutyofobedienceimposedbymunicipallaw
AprovisionoftheBelgianLawof25May1910,whichapprovedConventionNo. IVofTheHagueof1907,providedthattheHagueConventionsandDeclarations weretohave ‘fullandcompleteeffectinBelgium’.TheBelgianCourtofCassation foundinthisLawabasisforconcludingthatalegislativemeasureoftheGerman occupationauthoritiesdealingwitharbitrationinrentcontroversies,havingbeen
37 InternationalLaw.ChieflyasInterpretedandAppliedbytheUnitedStates (2ndrev.ed.,1945),vol. iii,pp.1898–9.SeeWheaton,op.cit.(5thEnglished.byPhillipson,1916),p.531,foracriticism ofthepracticalutilityoftheoath.
38 To ‘takeallthemeasuresinhispowertorestore,andensure,asfaraspossible,publicorderand safety’ .
39 TheLawofWarbetweenBelligerents (1908),pp.299–302.ProfessorOppenheimcriticized Bordwell’stheoryconcerningtheoccupantas ‘territorialauthority’ onthebasisthatwhentheoccupant actsinthiscapacity,theobedienceofwhichheincidentallyreceivesthebenefitisactuallydirectedto theinhabitants’ ownlawsandtotheirdisplacedgovernment(‘TheLegalRelationsbetweenan OccupyingPowerandtheInhabitants’,in LawQuarterlyReview,33(1917),p.366).
40 ItwassousedinoccupiedCzechoslovakiaduringtheSecondWorldWar(FourFightingYears (‘PublishedonBehalfoftheCzechoslovakMinistryofForeignAffairs(DepartmentofInformation)’ , (1943),p.121).AstheoccupyingPower,underArt.55oftheGenevaCiviliansConventionof1949, hasthe ‘dutyofensuringthefoodandmedicalsuppliesofthepopulation’,deliberateattemptstokeep sucharticlesfromthemarketmayconstituteanadditionaldrainontheresourcesoftheoccupantand maythusbeusedasaweaponofresistance.
promulgatedinpursuanceofArticle43oftheHagueRegulations,drewitslegal effectnotfromthefactthattheoccupantheldlegislativepowerinBelgiumbut solelybecauseBelgianlawdirectedthatitbeobserved.41 Thedecreereferredto appearstobeaconsequenceoftheoccupant’sauthorityandresponsibilitytosecure orderintheoccupiedarearatherthanofhisabilitytopreventconductdangerousto him.Thelegalprincipleenunciatedintheopinionmightaccordinglynotprove applicabletoactsofresistancebyinhabitants.
TheCourtofCassation’sviewofthelawhasbeensympatheticallyreceivedby severalBelgiancommentators,buthasgainedlittlecurrencyelsewhere.42 Most nationalcourtswould,itissubmitted,behesitanttoconstruetheincorporationof theHagueRegulationsintomunicipallawasconstitutingadvanceassentto whateverlegislativemeasurestheoccupantmightimposeinconformitywith thoseRegulations.DeVisscherjustlyobservesthatthesovereignisfreetodeterminetheattitudetobetakenbythepopulationoftheoccupiedareatowardthe occupantandthatthesovereignwillrequireitssubmissiontothedecreesand proclamationsoftheoccupantonlyforsuchtimeasthisconformityappearstobe inthenationalinterest.43
5.Adutyofobediencebasedexclusivelyonthepoweroftheoccupant
Whilethetheorythatinternationallawimposesadutyofobedienceontheinhabitanthasreceivedconsiderablesupport,ithasbynomeansgaineduniversalacceptance eitherinthelastcenturyorinthis.Thereisastrongtendencyinmodernlaw,and,it issubmitted,acorrectone,todenythatthereisanydutyofobediencefoundedon anylegalormoralobligationwithwhichinternationallawconcernsitself.The occupyingPower’sabilitytoenforcerespectforitslegitimateinterestsisnotacreation ofthelaw.Itspringsinsteadfromsuperiormilitarypowerandfromfactualcapacity tocompelobedience.Internationallawsufferstheoccupanttolegislate,butitwill notlenditsauthorityoritsassistancetotheenforcementofsuchlegislation.
Althoughthetheorythatinternationallawcreatesanobligationofobedience seemstoprevailinFrenchlaw,andincontinentallawgenerally,thereis,even amongtheprotagonistsofthisview,adisquietingrealizationthatthe ‘moral contract ’ or ‘communityoflaw’ or ‘thereciprocalrightsanddutiesoftheinhabitant ’ arecreatedsolelybyforce.44 Thosewhoattributeafranklyfactualbasistosuch
41 ProcureurGénéralPrèslaCourd’AppeldeLiège v. Marteaux,MichauxetConsortsetleComtede Borchgraved’Alténa (1916), PasicrisieBelge,1915–16,vol.i,p.375, BelgiqueJudiciaire,1919,cols.148 ff.Butsee Cambier v. Lebrunetal.(1919), AnnualDigest,1919–21,CaseNo.325,p.459,inwhichit washeldthat ‘ThedecreesoftheoccupyingPower,whatevertheymaybe,donotemanatefromthe exerciseofnationalsovereignty.TheyhavenotthevalidityofBelgianlaws,butaremerelycommands oftheenemymilitaryauthorityandarenotincorporatedinthelegislationortheinstitutionsofthe country. ’ TheBelgiancasesonthelegislativefunctionoftheoccupantarediscussedinVanNispentot Sevenaer,op.cit.,pp.176–203.
42 Rolin,op.cit.,vol.i,pp.445–7;deVisscher, ‘L’Occupationdeguerre’,in LawQuarterlyReview, 34(1918),pp.78–79.
43 Loc.cit.AndseeVanNispentotSevenaer,op.cit.,pp.148–9.
44 Seeauthoritiescitedonp.11,n.27, supra
dutyarecomparativelyfewinnumber Jacomet,Coll,andLorriotamongthe Frenchwriters.45 DeVisschersimilarlyrecognizesthe defacto characterofthe occupant ’sauthoritybutsuggeststhatthepeacefulconductofthepopulation permitsthepropersovereigntoclaimprotectionforhispeople. 46 Itis,however, nolongerthepropersovereignalonewhomayclaimthisprotection,aswarcrimes trialsfollowingtheSecondWorldWarhavemadeplain,47 anditisalsoevidentthat protectionmaybeclaimedfortheoccupiedpopulation,atleastintheformof certainjudicialsafeguards,notwithstandingviolentindividualandcollectiveresistance.48 InEnglandtherehasbeenamorepronouncedtendencyto findthesource oftheinhabitant’sobligationsinthemilitarypoweroftheoccupant.Inthemodern texts,suchasthoseofHall,Phillipson,PittCobbett,Keith,McNair,andOppenheim,thequestionisgenerallyregardedinthisrealisticfashion.49 Buttheprinciple thatinternationallawoperatesonlyonstates,whichseemedtoatleastoneBritish publicisttobeasufficientexplanationforthisattitude,50 haslostsomeofits persuasivenesssincetheFirstWorldWar.
ItisdifficulttobelievethatduringtheSecondWorldWarmanyofthosewho sufferedunderGerman,Italian,orJapaneseoccupationcouldhavebelievedthat theirobediencetotheoccupationmeasuresofthosecountrieswasdemandedby anyhighermoralorderorbyinternationallawitself,evenwhensuchmeasureswere takeninconformitywithlaw.Theabstractquestionofthesourceoftheirduty, however,seldomdemandedtheattentionoftribunalsconcernedwithprosecutions forwarcrimesandcollaboration.Therelationshipofoccupantandoccupiedwas moreoftenapproachedfromthestandpointoftheproprietyunderinternational lawofresistancebyinhabitantsofoccupiedcountries.Asthismatterlendsitself toconsiderationinconnexionwiththeacademicdoctrineofwarrebellion,commentthereonmustbedeferreduntilaccounthasbeentakenofthehistorical developmentofthekindredprinciplesofwartreasonandwarrebellion.Itmay beobservedthatthesetermsarecustomarilyregardedasbeingdescriptivenotonly ofviolationsofadutyofobedienceimposedbyinternationallawbutalso,and moresurprisingly,asbeingthetitlesascribedbyinternationallawtocertain
45 Jacomet, LesLoisdelaguerrecontinentale (‘Publiésousladirectiondelasectionhistoriquede l’état-majordel’armée’,1913),p.69;Coll, L’Occupationdutempsdeguerre (1914),pp.71–72; Lorriot, Delanaturedel’occupationdeguerre (1903),p.175.
46 Op.cit.,p.79.
47 SeeinthisconnexiontheDeclarationofGermanAtrocities,1November1943,issuedfollowing theMoscowConference.
48 Seep.26,n.122, infra.TheGenevaCiviliansConventionof1949lendsnosanctiontotheview thatthesafeguardsitaffordsarecontingentonthepeacefulconductofthepopulation.Anumberof provisions,notablytheprohibitiononcollectivepenaltiesandreprisalscontainedinArt.33,indicate thecontrarytobetrue.
49 Hall, ATreatiseonInternationalLaw (4thed.,1895),p.498;Wheaton,op.cit.(5thEnglished. byPhillipson,1916),p.520;PittCobbett, CasesonInternationalLaw (5thed.byWalker,1937)vol. ii,p.169;Wheaton,op.cit.(7thEnglished.byKeith,1944),vol.ii,p.234;McNair, LegalEffectsof War (3rded.,1948),p.332,n.2;Oppenheim, InternationalLaw (6thed.byLauterpacht,1944), vol.ii,p.343.
50 SeeOppenheim’suseofthisrationalein ‘TheLegalRelationsbetweenanOccupyingPowerand theInhabitants’ in LawQuarterlyReview,33(1917),p.367.VanNispentotSevenaertakesalikeview (op.cit.,p.204).
breachesofadutyofobedienceattributedexclusivelytothemilitarypowerofthe occupant.
II.Wartreason
‘Wartreason’ hasbeenvariouslydescribed,butthemajorityofdefinitionsagree thatitinvolvesthecommissionofhostileacts,exceptarmedresistanceandpossibly espionage,bypersonsotherthanmembersofthearmedforcesproperlyidentified assuch.Theconceptisnotpeculiartothelawofbelligerentoccupation,forwar treason,itissaid,maybecommittedanywherewithinthelinesofabelligerent. 51 Theterm ‘ wartreason ’ inthesenseinwhichitisnowunderstoodininternational lawwas firstusedinGeneralOrdersNo.100, InstructionsfortheGovernmentof ArmiesoftheUnitedStatesintheField,whichwasostensiblypreparedbyaboardof armyofficersin1862and1863butwasactuallytheworkofDr.FrancisLieber, ProfessorofHistoryandPoliticalScienceatColumbiaCollegeinNewYork. Article90ofthe Instructions provided:
‘Atraitorunderthelawofwar,orawar-traitor,isapersoninaplaceordistrictundermartial lawwho,unauthorizedbythemilitarycommander,givesinformationofanykindtothe enemy,orholdsintercoursewithhim.’
Successivearticlesdealtindetailwiththeoffencesconstitutingwartreason, includingthegivingofinformationtotheinhabitant’spropergovernment,service asaguidetotheenemyina ‘hostileandinvadeddistrict’,themisleadingofthe enemybyguides,andall ‘unauthorizedorsecretcommunicationwiththe enemy ’ 52 Theoffencecouldequallybecommittedbyacivilianorbyanenemy soldierindisguisewhoenteredtheoccupiedarea, 53 butapparentlycouldtakeplace onlyinoccupiedorinvadedterritory.54 Ifasuccessfulwartraitorreturnedtohis ownarmyandwassubsequentlytakenprisoner,likeaspyhecouldnotbepunished forhispreviousoffence.55 AlthoughLieberclaimedthathehadbeenthe firsttouse theterm ‘wartraitor’ , 56 therewereprecedentsfortheconceptinthemilitarylawof atleastthreenations,withallofwhichLiebermaywellhavebeenfamiliar.
51 See,e.g.,thedefinitionsinOppenheim, InternationalLaw (6thed.byLauterpacht,1944), vol.ii,p.457;British ManualofMilitaryLaw (1929),AmendmentsNo.12(1936),p.37;United States RulesofLandWarfare,para.205.
52 Arts.92,95,and98.Art.97,dealingwithguideswhomislead,doesnotspecificallymentionwar treason,butthecontextofthearticlesuggeststhatLieberintendedsotocharacterizesuchconduct.
53 SeeArt.99,regardingthesoldier,notinuniform,whoiscapturedwhilecarryingmessagesin occupiedterritory,andArt.104,whichreferstothewartraitorwhohas ‘safelyreturnedtohisown army ’
54 Lieberspeaksof ‘aplaceordistrictundermartiallaw’ (Art.90), ‘acountryorplaceinvadedor conquered’ (Art.92),an ‘invadedoroccupiedterritory’ (Art.98),and ‘ahostileandinvadeddistrict’ (Art.95).
55 Art.104.ThislimitationappearsonlyintheCodeandwasnotadoptedinsubsequenttextsand manuals(see RulesofLandWarfare,para.213).
56 MS.NotebookbyLieber,OfficeoftheJudgeAdvocateGeneraloftheArmy,Washington,D.C., U.S.A.
Thehistoryof Kriegsverrat,orwartreason,maybetracedbacktomedieval Germaniclaw,inwhichitconstitutedaviolationofdutiesof fidelitytowardthe lord.57 ProfessorOppenheimsuggested58 thatDr.Lieber,whohadseenservicein thePrussianarmyseveraldecadesearlier,mayhavebeenfamiliarwiththeprovisionsrelatingto Kriegsverrat inthePrussianMilitaryPenalCodeof1845,which containedastipulationsubjectingtoextraordinarymilitaryjurisdiction ‘ ...all subjectsofthePrussianstateoralienswhohave,inthetheatreofwar,caused anydangerorprejudicetothePrussiantroops,byactsoftreason’ 59 Althoughitis bynomeansclearfromthefaceofthisprovisionthatitappliedtooccupiedareasas wellastoterritorynormallysubjecttoPrussianlaw,boththeprevioushistoryand subsequentrevisionsoftheMilitaryPenalCodeindicatethatthiswasintended. AsimilarprovisioninSections67,69,and70ofthePrussianPenalCodeof1851 madeallaliensguiltyofanactoftreasonagainstthePrussianstateorPrussian soldiersamenabletothelawofwar.60 TheFrenchCodeofMilitaryJusticeforthe Armyof1857,whichwasanimprobablesourceofinspirationtotheardently francophobeLieber,containedalikestipulation,subjectingpersonswithinenemy territorytocourtmartialjurisdictionforthecommissionofcertainoffences,among whichwereespionageandtreason.61
AthirdpossiblesourceoftheconceptofwartreasoninLieber’sCodewas Americanpracticeitself.ReferencehaspreviouslybeenmadetoGeneralKearney’ s purportedabsolutionoftheinhabitantsofoccupiedNewMexicofromtheir allegiancetotheRepublic.62 Atthattime,treatmentastraitorswaspromisedto thosefoundinarmsagainsttheUnitedStates.When,in1847,theleaderofan uprisinginNewMexicowassentencedtodeathfor ‘treasonagainsttheUnited States’,theSecretaryofWaradvisedthelocalmilitarycommanderthattheoffender couldnotbesaidtobeguiltyofthatoffence,asheowedtheUnitedStatesno allegiance. 63 InMarch1863,duringtheperiodwhenGeneralOrdersNo.100was beingprepared,GeneralHalleckwrotealettertotheUnioncommandingofficerin Tennesseeinwhichheusedtheexpression ‘militarytreason’ asapplicableto personswhotookuparmsagainsttheoccupyingarmyortheauthorityestablished byitorwhofurnishedinformationtotheenemywithoutproperauthority. 64 He specificallydistinguishedthisspeciesoftreasonfromthenormaldomesticvariety.
57 Pella, ‘LaRépressiondescrimescontrelapersonnalitédel’état’,in Recueildescoursdel’Académie dedroitinternational,33(1930),pp.690–1.
58 ‘OnWarTreason’,in LawQuarterlyReview,33(1917),p.281.
59 Militärgesetz-CodexfürdasPreussischeHeer,3April1845,Part2,Title1, } 18(4).
60 SeeLoening,op.cit.,p.79.
61 Loening,op.cit.,p.78.SeeDalloz, Jurisprudencegénérale,1865,Part1,p.500;ibid.,1866, Part1,p.45,inconnexionwiththesanctioningofthispracticebytheFrenchCourtofCassation.
62 Seep.9, supra
63 Richardson,op.cit.,vol.iv,p.598.
64 QuotedinHalleck,op.cit.(3rdEnglished.byBaker,1893),vol.ii,pp.55–57.GeneralHalleck hadalsowrittentothecommandinggeneraloftheConfederateforcesstatingthat,althoughtheUnited Statesdidnotextortoathsofallegiance,itdidreservetherighttopunishpersonswithinitslineswho weresuspectedofgivingaidandinformationtoitsenemiesorperforminganyother ‘treasonableact’ (quotedinWheaton,op.cit.(2nded.byLawrence,1863),p.625,n.190).
SeveralcircumstancesindicatethatitwastheAmericanpractice,andmore particularlytheviewsofGeneralHalleck,whichprovedadecisiveinfluencein Lieber’sadoptionoftheterm ‘ wartreason ’.Lieberhaddealtwiththelawofwarin his PoliticalEthics,inaseriesoflectureshehadgivenatColumbiaCollegein1861 and1862,andinapamphletonguerrillaswhichhehadpreparedattheinstigation ofHalleckin1862,butnoneofthesewritingsadvertstowartreason.65 Indeed,in thelastofthese,hehaddescribedasespionageactswhichhewaslatertoplace inthecategoryofwartreason.66 AnearlydraftofGeneralOrdersNo.100refersto treasonableactscommittedbyinhabitantsofoccupiedterritorieswithouttheuseof thequalifying ‘ war ’ . 67 AsthisdraftwassubmittedtoHalleckforhiscomments,one maysurmisethatitwashewhosuggestedamorecautiousapproachtothematterof hostileactsinoccupiedareas.Theexpression ‘ wartreason ’ hadthefurtheradvantageofbeinggrammaticallyandlogicallysymmetricalwiththeterm ‘warrebel’ , whichLieberhadpreviouslyoriginated.Whatevermayhavebeentheinfluences workingonLieber,hewascertainlyawarethathewasdealingwithaspeciesof treasoncognizablebyinternationalratherthanbymunicipallaw.AlthoughGeneralOrdersNo.100waspreparedintimeofcivilwarandmustundoubtedlyhave beencolouredtoacertainextentbythemilitarysituationthenprevailing,Lieber intendedthatGeneralOrdersNo.100shouldconstituteacodeoftheinternational lawofwar,andhewasassiduoustodistinguishthoseprinciplesapplicableonlyin civilwarsfromthosetobeobservedinwarsbetweenstates.68
TheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStateshadseveraldecadespreviouslycommittedthejurisprudenceofthatcountrytotheviewthattheinhabitantofan occupiedareatemporarilyowesallegiancetotheoccupant.Itwasnotunnatural thereforethatthesameobligationsthatrestedonresidentsoftheUnitedStates shouldbeimposedonanindividualwhoowedallegiancetotheUnitedStatesby reasonofoccupation,albeittheallegiancewasonlytemporary,andthatviolations ofthe fidelitytowhicheachwasboundshouldbegenerallydescribedintermsof treason.Atthesametime,theverycharacterizationofwartreasonassomething apartfromtreasonundermunicipallawrepresentedinitselfasignificantdeparture fromwhatmightbeconsideredthelogicalconsequencesoftheruleoftemporary allegiance.69 Thisdeviationfromthearchaicrulethenacceptedbythecourts
65 PoliticalEthics (1838–9),pp.629–68, ‘LecturesontheLawsandUsagesofWardeliveredatthe LawSchoolofColumbiaCollege,1861–62’,MS.,JohnsHopkinsUniversityLibrary,Baltimore,Md., U.S.A.; GuerrillaPartiesConsideredwithReferencetotheLawsandUsagesofWar (1862).
66 Op.cit.,p.12.
67 ACodefortheGovernmentofArmiesintheFieldasAuthorizedbytheLawsandUsagesofWaron Land, ‘PrintedasmanuscriptfortheBoardappointedbytheSecretaryofWar “ToProposeAmendmentsorChangesintheRulesandArticlesofWar,andaCodeofRegulationsfortheGovernmentof ArmiesintheField,asauthorizedbytheLawsandUsagesofWar”’ (February1863),Art.54.
68 Lieberlaterwrote: ‘WhilewritingdownthiscodeIfeltthehighresponsibilityweighingonme andthegravityaswellasthenoblenessofthistask;Iwasconsciousofdoingapieceofworkfor mankindofhistoriceffectandpermanency ’ (MS.Notebook, supra).Sec.XoftheCodecomprisesnine articlesapplicabletoinsurrection,civilwar,andrebellion.Thesearticlesspecifytheextenttowhichthe Codeisapplicableundersuchconditions.
69 Lieber,inArt.26,hadsaidnomorethanthattheinhabitantowesadutyofobedience.
shouldnot,however,blindustotherealimportanceoftheappearanceofthisnew doctrine.For ‘ wartreason ’ representedafreshborrowingfromdomesticlawatthe verytimethatthelawapplicabletooccupiedareaswasbecomingasubjectfor internationalratherthanmunicipalregulationandhadsuccessfullythrownoff mostoftheshacklesofthepast.
Kriegsverrat reappearedinGermany,transformedfromaconceptofmunicipal lawtooneofinternationallaw,inBluntschli’ s DasmoderneKriegsrechtdercivilisirtenStaaten 70 DespitethisentryofwartreasonintoGermanlawunderanew guise,itisprobablethattheprovisionsoftheGermanMilitaryPenalCodeof1872 applicableto Kriegsverrat weretheoutgrowthofearlierlegislation,ratherthanof anydevelopmentininternationallaw.TheCodestipulatedthatwartreasonwas punishablebyforcedlabour ‘foratleasttenyearsorinperpetuity’ anditemized sometwelveoffencestobeconsideredaswartreason.Theseincludedespionage, communicationwiththeenemy,betrayaloffortresses,troops,supplies,andsecrets totheenemy,andrefusaltoobeyanorder. 71 AmodifiedversionofSection161of the1872MilitaryPenalCode,whichwasineffectduringtheSecondWorldWar, madeactsbytheinhabitantsofoccupiedcountriesagainsttheReichpunishablein thesamemannerasiftheyhadbeencommittedinGermany.Althoughthis provisionoflawwasinvokedbythedefenceinthe JusticeTrial,theTribunal, whilecondemningtheindiscriminatecharacterizationofwrongsagainsttheoccupyingPoweras ‘hightreason’,didnot finditnecessarytodeterminewhether Section161wasinconformitywithinternationallaw. 72
FortheinternationalconferenceonthelawsofwarwhichwasheldinBrusselsin 1874,theRussianGovernmenthadpreparedadraftconvention.The projet didnot refertowartraitors,butcommunicationofinformationtotheenemybyinhabitantsofoccupiedterritorywastreatedunderthegeneralheading ‘OfSpies’ 73 The draftarticlewas,however,suppressedinconformitywiththeunanimousopinion ofthecommitteewhichconsideredit,74 andtheresultingcodecontainedno referencetowartreasonortothedutyoftheinhabitanttotheoccupant,thelatter beingmerelyenjoinednottorequireanoathofallegiance.75 WhentheInstituteof InternationalLawpreparedasimilarmanualatitsOxfordmeetingin1880,it contenteditselfwithstatingthat ‘individualswhocommitactsofhostilityagainst theoccupyingauthorityarepunishable’ andthatifinhabitantsdonotsubmit totheordersoftheoccupyingauthority,theymaybecompelledtodoso.76 TheproceedingsoftheHagueConferencesof1899and1907aredevoidofany 70 (1866), }} 122,127.Seealso DasmoderneVölkerrechtdercivilisirtenStaaten (1868), }} 631–9.
71 Militärstrafgesetzbuch,20June1872, }} 57and58.
72 InreAltstötteretal.(1947), LawReportsofTrialsofWarCriminals (hereinafterreferredtoas ‘War CrimesReports’),vol.vi,pp.53,61.
73 Projet,Art.20.
74 ActesdelaConférencedeBruxelles(1874),p.44.
75 Seep.11,n.23, supra
76 Arts.47and48, ‘Manueldesloisdelaguerre’,in Annuairedel’Institutdedroitinternational,5 (1881–2),p.167.
referencetowartreasonunderthatname,andthereareonlyisolatedreferencesto thecommissionofhostileactsbytheinhabitantsofoccupiedterritory. 77
Ifwartreasonwasreceivedwithindifferencebythoseactivelyconcernedinthe codificationofthelawofwar,itmetalivelyandfarfromuniformreceptionintextbooksandmonographs.Thosewhoregarditasausefulandaccuratecategoryof internationallawdonotgreatlyexceedthosewhodonot,anditisdifficultto segregateproponentsandopponentsonnationallines.Bothbeforeandafterthe FirstWorldWar,itwas,forexample,describedasanaccepteddoctrineof internationallawbyanumberofcontinentalinternationallawyers,whobelieved ittobeapplicableonlytocommunicationwiththeenemy.78 Ontheotherhand,it meetswithlittlesympathyatthehandsofPilletandJacomet,whofearedthatitwas responsibleforexcessiveindividualandcollectivepunishmentsandthatitfailedto takeintoaccountthedutyof fidelitywhichthecitizenstillowestohisstate.79
IntheBritishviewofinternationallaw,wartreasonembracesawiderrangeof offencesthanitdoesincontinentallawandincludesmostoftheactsinoccupied territorywhichgiveaidandcomforttotheenemy,withtheexceptionofrebellion andespionage.80 ProfessorOppenheim,morethananyotherindividual,hasbeen responsiblefortherespectabilitywhichwartreasonhasattainedinEnglishlaw.81 Heincludedadiscussionofthe ‘warcrime’ ofwartreasoninthe firsteditionofhis textin1906,82 andthelistofoffenceswhichheregardedasconstitutingwar treasonhas,withthedeletionofcertainpsychologicalwarfareactivitiesinoccupied territory,remainedunchangedtothisday.83 Arationalefortheprincipleisseldom encountered,butSpaightsuggeststhattreasonnolongermeansinfidelitytoa personalsovereignandisnowaproperdescriptionofanyconspiracyagainstthe establishedauthorityinastate.Iftheoccupantbecomes ‘warruler’ oftheoccupied area,toconspireagainsthimisasmuchtreasonasitistoconspireagainsttheruler intheacceptedsense,sincebothconstitutethe ‘establishedauthority’ inthestate.84 ButsucheminentauthoritiesasHollandandWestlakehavebeenunableto
77 SeethestatementofColonelGrossvonSchwarzoffconcerningArts.44through47oftheHague Regulationsthat ‘...theselimitationscouldnotbedeemedtocheckthelibertyofactionofbelligerents incertainextremecircumstanceswhichmaybelikenedtoakindoflegitimatedefense’ (Reporttothe ConferencefromtheSecondCommissionontheLawsandCustomsofWaronLand(1899),in ReportstotheHagueConferencesof1899and1907 (ed.byScott,1917),p.149).
78 Guelle,op.cit.,vol.i,pp.129–30;Mérignhac,op.cit.,vol.iii,p.290;Despagnet, Coursdedroit internationalpublic (4thed.byBoeck,1910),p.855;Fauchille,op.cit.,vol.ii,p.211;Calvo,op.cit., vol.iv,pp.181–2.Rolinexpressesonlyquali fiedapprovalanddeplorestheinvokingofwartreasonas thebasisforindiscriminateapplicationofthedeathpenalty(op.cit.,vol.i,pp.372–5).
79 Pillet,op.cit.,pp.207–9;Jacomet,op.cit.,p.67.Someofthedisquietwhichtheconcept arousedmayprobablybeattributedtoanxietyabouttheusetowhichitwasputbytheGermanarmed forces.
80 See,e.g.,Oppenheim, InternationalLaw (6thed.byLauterpacht,1944),vol.ii,p.457.
81 Seehis apologia forwartreasonin ‘OnWarTreason’,in LawQuarterlyReview,33(1917), pp.266ff.,thewritingofwhichwaspromptedbyProfessorMorgan’sarticle, ‘WarTreason’,in TransactionsoftheGrotiusSociety,2(1916),pp.161ff.
82 InternationalLaw (1906),vol.ii,pp.162,268.
83 Ibid.(6thed.byLauterpacht,1944),vol.ii,p.457.
84 WarRightsonLand (1911),pp.333–5.
reconciletheoffenceofwartreasonwiththenaturalimpulsesofpatriotismandthe continuingbondofthecitizenwithhisownstateandhisowngovernment. 85
Wartreasonhasbeentreatedinmilitarymanualssincethe Instructions promulgatedbytheUnitedStatesin1863,andsomeofLieber’slanguageispreservedin thecurrent RulesofLandWarfare employedbytheUnitedStatesArmy. 86 ReferencestothesubjectarealsotobefoundintheBritish ManualofMilitaryLaw87 and theGerman KriegsbrauchimLandkriege,publishedin1902.88 TheBritishand Americanmanuals,andAnglo-Americanlawgenerally,regardwartreasonasan offencewhichmaybecommittednotonlyinoccupiedterritorybutalsowithin invadedareasandanywherewithinthelinesofabelligerent.
Intheactualpracticeofstates,however,resorttowartreasonasajuridicalbasis forthepunishmentofhostileactshasbeencomparativelyrare.Personswho withheldarmsfromtheGermanoccupyingforcesduringtheFranco-Prussian Warwereheldtobeguiltyoftreason,89 andintheRusso-JapaneseWarthe Japanesecharacterizedcertainactshostiletothem,includingespionageandthe furnishingofinformationtotheenemy,as ‘treasonable’ . 90 Thepeculiarnatureof theoccupationofthePhilippineIslandsbytheUnitedStatesfollowingthewar withSpainin1898occasionedsomedoubtwhethernativeinsurgentscouldbe punishedfortreason.ThematterwasnotresolveduntilNovember1901,whenthe PhilippineCommissionpassedanactdefiningandprovidingforthepunishmentof treason.91 PersonsintheOrangeFreeStatewhohadsignedadeclarationof neutralitybuthadsubsequentlyheldcommunicationwithoraidedtheenemy werein1900consideredtobeguiltyof ‘treachery’ . 92
Theclassiccaseofwartreason,whichoccurredduringtheFirstWorldWar,is thetrialofNurseEdithCavellforassistingintheescapeofBritishandFrench soldiersandBelgiansofmilitaryagefromareasoccupiedbytheGermanarmy.She waschargedwithviolationofSection58oftheGermanMilitaryPenalCode, whichdefinedtheoffenceof ‘guidingsoldierstotheenemy’ asmilitarytreason, punishablebydeath.93 Inspiteofthepopularexcitementwhichthecasearousedat thetime,itisdifficulttoseehowtheGermanmilitaryforcescouldhavebeen expectedtotakeanythingbuttheseriousviewofheractswhichtheirdangerous
85 Holland,op.cit.,p.49;Westlake, InternationalLaw,Partii(2nded.,1913),p.100.Seealso Wheaton,op.cit.(5thEnglished.byPhillipson,1916),p.528;Morgan,loc.cit.
86 Paras.207,208,and210ofFieldManual27–10,1October1940,incorporatethelanguageof Arts.92,95,and91ofGeneralOrdersNo.100.Theseandotherparagraphsofthe RulesofLand Warfare dealingwithwartreasonformthebasisofreferencestothissubjectinHyde,op.cit.,vol.iii, pp.1865–6,andHackworth, DigestofInternationalLaw,vol.vi(1943),pp.308–9.
87 (1929),AmendmentsNo.12(1936),p.37.
88 Pp.50–51.SeeMorgan, TheGermanWarBook (1915),pp.121–2.
89 Bordwell,op.cit.,p.303,citingBray, Del’occupationmilitaireentempsdeguerre (1894), pp.184–8.
90 Ariga, LaGuerrerusso-japonaiseaupointdevuecontinentaletledroitinternational (1908), pp.397–401.
91 Thomas,op.cit.,pp.301–2.
92 Spaight,op.cit.,p.335.
93 ForadescriptionofthecaseseeGarner, InternationalLawandtheWorldWar (1920),vol.ii, pp.97–105.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Religion and ceremonies of the Lenape
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Religion and ceremonies of the Lenape
Author: M. R. Harrington
Editor: Frederick Webb Hodge
Release date: February 19, 2024 [eBook #72988]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: Museum of the American Indian, 1921
Credits: The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RELIGION AND CEREMONIES OF THE LENAPE ***
CONCLUSION OF THE LENAPE ANNUAL CEREMONY IN OKLAHOMA
Native Painting by Earnest Spybuck, a Shawnee
