Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:46:01.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chaotic Status of the Laws of War and the Urgent Necessity for Their Revision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Once more, as he did sixteen years ago, this writer wants to raise his voice in order to point at the actual chaotic status of the laws of war, at the grave inherent dangers, and at the urgent necessity for the revision of this part of international law. The problem involves the very survival of our Western Christian civilization, if not of mankind. Under these circumstances it becomes the duty of an international lawyer to treat this subject, notwithstanding its “unpopularity” since 1920. It was Grotius who, under the impression of the “total war” of thirty years urged upon men the necessity of the “temperamenta belli.” It is amazing to see that the men of this generation, living under a more terrible total war, turn their backs upon the laws of war. This neglect is the outcome of different and often contradictory ideologies: indifference, apathy, over-optimistic wishful thinking, political wishes to keep one’s hands free in the next war, and pessimistic fatalism. All the arguments for this neglect are untenable, are in contradiction with the law as well as the facts; and yet, strong drives by writers and statesmen have nearly succeeded in putting over men a veil of voluntary blindness in adopting a policy of the ostrich which may lead to disaster, to the return of new and more terrible “dark ages.” A full exposé would need a book, not an article. But while no full picture can be given here, it will be attempted to give, at least, a complete sketch, dealing with the law and the facts, with the arguments pro and con.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1951 , pp. 37 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Josef L. Kunz, “Plus de lois de la guerre?,” in Revue Générale de Droit International Public, Jan.-Feb., 1934, pp. 22-57. This article has gained wide attention. See, e.g., Pradelle, La, Voncken, , and Dehousse, , La Reconstruction du Droit de la Guerre (Paris, 1936), p. 87 Google Scholar; Brown, Sidney H., “Les lois de la guerre selon la doctrine du droit international depuis 1914 (á propos de l’article de M. Jos. L. Kunz),” in Revue Internationale de la Croix Rouge, Vol. XVI (May, 1934), pp. 367–387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Kunz, Jos. L., Kriegsrecht una Neutralitätsreoht (Vienna, 1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Prior to Grotius “seul le droit de la guerre se développe sérieusement; il forme le noyeau au droit international” (Ernest Nys, Le droit đe la guerre et les précurseurs đe Grotius (1882), p. 7); “The most important as well as the first to spring into existence was that (part of international law) which occupied itself with the laws of war” (T. E. Holland, Studies in International Law (1898), p. 45).

3 Smith, H. A., The Law and Custom of the Sea (London, 1948), p. 65 Google Scholar.

4 By far the best work is still Garner, J. W., International Law and the World War (2 vols., London, 1920)Google Scholar.

5 Smith, op. cit., p. 67.

6 “The League of Nations and the Laws of War,” British Year Book of International Law, 1920-1921, pp. 109-124.

7 See Hart, B. H. Liddell, The Revolution in Warfare (New Haven, 1947)Google Scholar.

8 U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/1, Nov. 5, 1948 (Lake Success, N. T., 1948, pp. 70).

9 See Fenwick, Charles G., International Law (3rd ed., New York, 1948)Google Scholar. This author never speaks of the laws of war, but only of the “laws of war” which, he feels, have no future. He puts them in his treatise “in the past tense.”

10 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1948, pp. 32-33.

11 The paper and discussion are printed ibid., 1949, pp. 102-114, 117-122, 123-126, 128.

12 In this sense also Guggenheim, P., Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, Vol. II (Basel, 1949), p. 593 Google Scholar.

13 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law, Vol. II (6th ed., London, 1947), par. 52j, pp. 149–150 Google Scholar.

14 History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War (London, 1948), p. 181; reviewed in this Journal, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 431.

15 See Clemens, René, Le Projet de Monaco. Le Oroit de la Guerre (Paris, 1938)Google Scholar; Beinhauer, , “Monaco-Konferenz. Neugestaltung des Kriegsrechts,” in Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, Vol. XXI, No. 1, pp. 115–125 Google Scholar.

16 See Hyde, Charles Cheney, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the U. S. (2nd rev. ed., Boston, 1945), Vol. III, pp. 1683–84 Google Scholar.

17 This Journal, Vol. 41 (1947), pp. 174, 218-219, 225-249.

18 All these rules of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment stated, “are merely declaratory of the existing laws of war.”

19 Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations (New York, 1948), p. 218 Google Scholar; reviewed in this Journal, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 219.

20 See, e.g., A. C. Melen, “La question des otages à la lumière đu droit,” Révue de Droit International, January-March, 1946; Kuhn, A. K., “The execution of hostages,” this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), pp. 271–274 Google Scholar; E. Hammer and M. Salvin, “The taking of hostages in theory and practice,” ibid., Vol. 38 (1944), pp. 20-33; tot Sevenaer, Van Nispen, La Prise d’otages (The Hague, 1949)Google Scholar, reviewed in this Journal, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 219.

21 See e.g., Trainin, L. P., “Questions of guerrilla warfare in the laws of war,” this Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 534–562 Google Scholar; L. Nurick and E. W. Barrett, “Legality of guerrilla forces under the laws of war,” ibid., 563-583.

22 See Smith, H. A., “Booty of War,” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. XXIII (1946), pp. 227–239 Google Scholar; Freeman, A. V., “General Note on the Law of War Booty,” this Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 795–803 Google Scholar; Downey, W. G. Jr., “Captured Enemy Property: Booty of War and Seized Enemy Property,” this Journal, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 488 Google Scholar.

23 In the 3rd edition of his treatise (p. 559) Professor Eenwick speaks of the “doubtful legality of the atomic bomb. “The British expert, Spaight, J. M., declared himself against the legality of the atomic bomb (Air Power and War Rights (3rd ed., London, 1947), pp. 273–276 Google Scholar).

24 Op. cit., supra, note 19, p. 219.

25 Op. cit., supra, note 3, p. 69.

26 Op. cit., supra, note 16, Vol. III, pp. 1829-30.

27 A Modern Law of Nations (New York, 1948), p. 215.

28 Loc. cit., supra, note 17, pp. 303-305, 308.

29 Colombos, C. John, A Treatise on the Law of Prize (3rd ed., London, 1949), pp. 28–29, 299-300Google Scholar; reviewed in this Journal, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 788.

30 “Lawless Maritime Warfare,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. XVIII (1940), pp. 424–441 Google Scholar.

31 Op. cit., supra, note 29, pp. 287-288.

32 Garner, J. W., Recent Developments in International Law (Calcutta, 1925), p. 356 Google Scholar.

33 The Belativity of War and Peace (New Haven, 1949), p. 266; reviewed in this Journal, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 429.

34 Op. cit., supra, note 29, pp. 266-270.

35 See, e.g., G. Vedovato: “Il diritto bellico ... si trova actualmente in uno stato caotico; le guerre 1914-1918 e 1939-1945 hanno messo in discussione le basi stesse della sua existenza. Ricostruire, oggi, orientamenti e prassi della vita reale bellica è di eccezionale interesse” (Diritto Internazionale Bellico (Florence, 1946), p. 7).

36 See the excellent etudy by Feilchenfeld, Ernst H., The International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation (Washington, 1942)Google Scholar. The author starts from the fact that Arts. 42-56 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, “have survived all historical changes since 1914” (p. 5).

37 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1948, pp. 32-33.

38 Mossop, J. C., “Hospital ships in the Second World War,” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. XXIV (1947), pp. 398–406 Google Scholar.

39 Gabaglia, A. C. Baja, Guerra e Diretto Internacional (Sao Paulo, 1949)Google Scholar; reviewed in this Journal, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 800.

40 “Codifying laws of war” (letter to the Editor of The New York Times, Oct. 31, 1948, p. 8 E).

41 “It is a mistake to assume that the acceptance of the concept of an international police force . . . with its subsequent abolition of the concept of ‘war’ in a legal sense, eliminates the necessity for the legal regulation of the rights and duties of those who are active participants in the struggle. We may cease to call it war, but there will be fighting and people will be killed” (P. C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations (New York, 1948), pp. 188-189).

42 See the full discussion in Jessup, op. cit., pp. 188-221.

43 The “action commune” under Article XVI of the League of Nations Covenant was always practically considered as war. In the committee charged to put the Covenant into harmony with the Pact of Paris (L. of N. Doc. C. 16.O.M.69.1930.V), it was clearly stated that in case of aggression or international police measures “les normes du droit de la guerre conservent leur valeur, quel que soit le nom de telles opirations.” This manuscript had been finished before the outbreak of the Korean war, which shows that military action, based on a resolution which the Security Council, because of the absence of the Soviet Union, was able to adopt, constitutes, for all practical purposes war, and that the observation of the laws of war is essential.

44 “The fact of the existence of war is a matter unrelated to the question concerning the propriety of the mode by which it is brought about” (C. C. Hyde, International Law (2nd rev. ed., Boston, 1945), Vol. III, p. 1693); “In conformity with the view which has remained unchallenged . . . Grotius lays down that the question of the justice or injustice of the war is irrelevant for the purpose of observing the rules of warfare as between the belligerents” (Lauterpacht, “The Grotian Tradition in International Law,” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. XXIII (1946), pp. 1-53, at p. 39); “ A war thus undertaken (against the provisions of the Pact of Paris) would be illegal, but it would still be war regulated by the accepted rules of warfare” ( Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law, Vol. II (6th ed., London, 1940), p. 150)Google Scholar; “Whatever may be the cause of a war that has broken out . . . the same rules of international law are valid. . . . This is so even if the declaration of war is ipso facto a violation of international law. The rules of international law apply to war from whatever cause it originates” (ibid., p. 174). The last-quoted words were cited by the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen, in the decision of the Adelaide Star Case of October 24, 1947 (Jus Gentium, Copenhagen, Vol. I (1949), pp. 117-125). “Even an unlawful war will undoubtedly have the same legal effects, as any other war” (Alf Boss, “Denmark’s legal status during the occupation,” ibid., pp. 2-21, at p. 6; see also pp. 8-9).

45 Jews and Arabs agreed that the laws of war should apply to their fighting. Egypt recognized this fighting as war, promulgated war legislation (Sevue Egyptienne de Droit International, Vol. V (1949), pp. 73-81), and established a Prize Court in Alexandria (ibid., pp. 28-33) which rendered prize decisions (ibid., pp. 139-151).

46 French Constitution of Oct. 13, 1946, Art. 7: “La Guerre ne peut être déclarée sans un vote de l’Assemblée Nationale et avec l’avis préalable đu Conseil đe la Bépublique.”

47 See Hanson W. Baldwin’s article in The New York Times, May 7, 1950, p. 5 E.

48 See, recently, Curt Wachtel, Chemical Warfare (New York, 1941) ; Vannevar Bush, Modern Arms and Pree Men (1949).

49 See Rosebury, Theodor, Peace or Pestilence (Report on Biological Warfare) (New York, 1949)Google Scholar.

50 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XXII, No. 555 (Feb. 20, 1950), pp. 267-271, at p. 269.

51 Hyde, op. cit., supra, note 44, Vol. III, p. 1679.

52 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., supra, note 44, Vol. II, p. 150, note 4.

53 W. J. Bivens, in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1949, pp. 117-118.

54 Thus already Schwarzenberger, G. in Grotius Society Transactions, Problems of Peace and War, Vol. 37 (London, 1942), pp. 1 ffGoogle Scholar. The question is also put by Smith, H. A., The Law and Custom of the Sea (London, 1948), p. 71 Google Scholar.

55 Loc. cit., supra, note 53, pp. 124-126.

56 Official notes can be found in the Department of State Bulletin, June 26, 1947, p. 1205, and Oct. 10, 1948, p. 404, as well as the brief article by William H. McCahon, ibid., Vol. XXI, No. 531 (Sept. 5, 1949), pp. 339-340. The texts are not yet available here. No studies on those Conventions have yet been published. The four new Conventions are already fully worked in by A. C. Eaja Gabaglia, op. cit., supra, note 39.

57 See Huber, Max, Principles, Tasks and Problems of the Eed Cross in International Law (Geneva, 1946)Google Scholar.

58 Commission d’Experts Gouvernementaux pour l’étude des Conventions protégeant les victimes de la guerre. . . . Mapport sur les travaux (Geneva, 1947).

59 Projets de Conventions . . . XVIIe Conférence Internationale de la Croix Bouge (Geneva, May, 1948). See also volumes for 1948, 1949 of the Revue Internationale de la Croix Bouge (Geneva).

60 Les Conventions de Génève du 12 août 1949 (Geneva, 1949, pp. 251).

61 Kelsen, H., “Will the Nuremberg Trial Constitute a Precedent?”, International Law Quarterly, Vol. II, No. 2 (1947), pp. 153–171 Google Scholar, at p. 171.

62 Last year there was some information as to a private international conference on the revision of the laws of war at Buenos Aires. The Hague Conference of the International Bar Association, 1948, asked the Executive Council and the House of Deputies to take appropriate steps to promote the setting up of a committee to study the adaptation of prize law to modern conditions and its unification (Ibid., No. 4 (1948-49), p. 638).

63 The New York Times, Aug. 9, 1948, p. 3.

64 Ibid., Jan. 3, 1950, p. 12.

65 Ibid., March 31, 1950, p. 22.

66 Hula, Erich, “The revival of the idea of punitive war,” in “Thought,” Fordham university Quarterly, Vol. XXI, No. 82 (September, 1946), at pp. 411, 434.Google Scholar

67 W. B. Cowles, loc. cit., supra, note 53, p. 121.

68 See H. W. Baldwin’s article in The New York Times, Dec. 7, 1949, p. 14.