Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:01:09.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Law of Naval Warfare at the Turn of two Centuries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

J. Ashley Roach
J. Ashley Roach*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of State, U.S. Navy (retired),
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The law of naval warfare as it existed in 1899 and as it is understood in 1999 exhibits a few similarities but many differences. The fundamental similarity is that the law of naval warfare can be seen, then as now, as consisting primarily of customary international law. The many differences in this law have been caused by the major changes in war at sea and the law of the sea. In 1899 war at sea meant combat primarily by gunfire between surface warships, control of maritime commerce, and shore bombardment. Today, war at sea also involves nuclear-powered aircraft carriers; supersonic aircraft, helicopters and tilt-rotor aircraft; submarines; high-speed patrol craft; ballistic, cruise, and other guided missiles; long-range secure communications for command, control, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; radar; underwater sound technology; electronic and information warfare; satellites in space; unmanned aerial and undersea vehicles; and stealth and computer technology; as well as expeditionary and amphibious capabilities. Nevertheless, the fundamental role of navies continues to be to establish control at sea or to deny it to the enemy, linking that control to broad political and economic issues ashore. In view of these constants and changes, this article reviews the state of the law of naval warfare at the end of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and assesses its future prospects.

Type
Symposium: The Hague Peace Conferences
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 64 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2000

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 Sec John B. Hattendorf, Sea Warfare, in The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern War 213, 223–27 (Charles Townshend ed., 1997); Martin van Creveld, Technology and War from 2000 b.c. to the Present 199–216, 266–83 (1989); John Keegan, The Price of Admiralty: The Evolution of Naval Warfare (1988).

2 Hattendorf, supra note 1, at 227.

3 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Louise Doswald-Beck ed., 1995) [hereinafter San Remo Manual]; see Louise Doswald-Beck, The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 89 AJIL 192 (1995); Horace B. Robertson, An International Manual for the Law of Armed Conflict at Sea, Duke L. Mag., Winter 1995, at 14. Between 1987 and 1994, the author participated, in his personal capacity, in the development of the San Remo Manual The Manual also contains an extensive “commentary explaining the legal background to the provisions and the discussions of the participants where there was a certain controversy as to the state of the law.” Doswald-Beck, supra, at 193. The commentary is denominated the “Explanation” and is so termed in this article. The text of the San Remo Manual (without the Explanation) also appears in Int'l Rev. Red Cross, No. 309, Nov.–Dec. 1995, at 595.

4 In addition to the travaux préparatoires of the San Remo Manuallisted in Doswald-Beck, supra note 3, at 194–95 n.12, see William J. Fenrick, Legal Aspects of Targeting in the Law of Naval Warfare, 1991 Can. Y.B. Int'l L. 238; Wolff Heinschel von Heinegg, Visit, Search, Diversion, and Capture in Naval Warfare: Part I, the Traditional Law, id. at 283; Horace B. Robertson, The “New” Law of the Sea and the Law of Armed Conflict at Sea, in U.S. Naval War College, Readings on International Law from the Naval War College Review 1978–1994, at 263 (International Law Studies No. 68,John Norton Moore & Robert F. Turner eds., 1995); and Louise Doswald-Beck, Vessels, Aircraft and Persons Entitled to Protection During Armed Conflicts at Sea, 1994 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 211.

5 Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality, in 68 International Law Association, Conference Report 497 (1998) [hereinafter Helsinki Principles]. The final report of the ILA Committee on Maritime Neutrality, which prepared the Helsinki Principles, also contains commentaries on each of the principles. Id.

6 Convention [No. III] for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864, July 29, 1899, 32 Stat. 1827, 1 Bevans 263.

7 Convention [No. VIII] Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2332,1 Bevans 669 [hereinafter Hague Convention No. VIII]. SeeCorfu Channel case (UKv. A1b.), 1949 ICJ Rep. 4, 22 (Apr. 9); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, 112 (June 27).

8 Convention [No. XI] Relative to Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2396, 1 Bevans 711 [hereinafter Hague Convention No. XI].

9 Convention [No. XIII] concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2415,1 Bevans 723.

10 Convention [No. II] for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3217, 75 UNTS 85 [hereinafter Geneva Convention No. II].

11 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, opened for signatureHec. 12, 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, reprinted in 16 ILM 1391 (1977) [hereinafter Additional Protocol I].

12 The effectiveness of the London Proces-Verbal Relating to the Rules of Submarine Warfare Set Forth in Part IV of the Treaty of London of 22 April 1930, Nov. 6, 1936, 173 LNTS 353, 3 Bevans 298 [hereinafter London Protocol], which is still technically in force, is discussed in the text at notes 51–56 infra.

13 Additional Articles Relating to the Condition of the Wounded in War, Oct. 20, 1868, 22 Stat. 946 [hereinafter Additional Articles], re/wmted in The Laws of Armed Conflicts 285 (Dietrich Schindler & Jiří Tomaneds., 3d rev. ed. 1988) [hereinafter Armed Conflicts].

14 See 22 Stat. 946.

15 See 1898 Foreign Relations of the United States 1148–59.

16 Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, Apr. 16,1856, reprinted in 1 AJIL Supp. 89 (1907), Armed Conflicts, supranote 13, at 787.

17 Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, Feb. 26, 1909, reprinted in 3 AJIL 179 (1909), Armed Conflicts, supra note 13, at 845 [hereinafter London Declaration].

18 See Armed Conflicts, supra note 13, at 843.

19 Aug. 9, 1913, reprinted in id. at 857.

20 U.S. Navy Dep't, The United States Naval War Code of 1900: The Laws and Usages of War at Sea (General Orders No. 551, June 27, 1900), revoked by General Orders No. 150, Feb. 4, 1904, reprinted in 3 U.S. Naval War College, International Law Discussions, 1903, at 101 (1904). The code was revoked,

not because of any change of views as to the rules which it contained, but because many of those rules, being imposed upon the forces of the United States by the order, would have put our naval forces at a disadvantage as against the forces of other powers, upon whom the rules were not binding.

Maritime War, 6 Hackworth, Digest §591, at 437 (quoting the instructions to the American delegation to the second Hague Peace Conference).

21 U.S. Navy Dep't, Instructions for the Navy of the United States Governing Maritime Warfare, June 1917 (1918).

22 U.S. Navy Dep't, Tentative Instructions for the Navy of the United States Governing Maritime and Aerial Warfare, February 1941, replaced by the Instructions issued May 7,1941 (1941), reprinted April 1944 with changes issued to date.

23 Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Dep't of the Navy, Law of Naval Warfare (Naval Warfare Pub. No. NWIP 10-2, 1955), reprinted in U.S. Naval War College, The Law of War and Neutrality at Sea 359 (International Law Studies No. 60, Robert W. Tucker ed., 1957).

24 Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Dep't of the Navy, The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (Naval Warfare Pub. No. NWP 9, 1987). Work on this manual began while the author was assigned to the International Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1979–1983. NWP 9 was translated into Spanish by the Argentine Naval War College and into Japanese by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force Staff College. See J. Ashley Roach & Robert W. Smith, United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims 505 & n.12 (2d ed. 1996).

25 Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Dep't of the Navy, Annotated Supplement to the Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (1989). The authordrafted the Annotated Supplement while assigned to the faculty of the Naval War College in 1986–1988 and completed it after being assigned to the Department of State.

26 Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Dep't of the Navy, The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (Naval Warfare Pub. No. NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1–10, 1989) [hereinafter Commander's Handbook NWP 9], reprinted in U.S. Naval War College, The Law of Naval Operations 385 (International Law Studies No. 64, Horace W. Robertson ed., 1991) [hereinafter The Law of Naval Operations]; Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Dep't of the Navy, U.S. Coast Guard & U.S. Dep't of Transportation, The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (Naval Warfare Pub. No. NWP 1–14M (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A))/MCWP 5–2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, 1995) [hereinafter Commander's Handbook NWP 1–14M]. The second edition of the Annotated Supplement was published by the U.S. Naval War College in 1997 [hereinafter Annotated Supplement].

27 FRG Federal Ministry of Defense, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts-Manual (ZDv> 15/2, 1992) (Eng. version); The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts (Dieter Fleck ed., 1995).

28 Canadian Dep't of National Defence, Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (MAOP–331, 1991), which adopts Commander's Handbook NWP 9, supra note 26, as the interim Canadian manual with certain differences owing principally to differing treaty obligations.

29 Australian Dep't of Defence, Manual of the Law of the Sea (ABR 5179, 1983).

30 See the listing in The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, supra note 27, App. 3.

31 Commander's Handbook NWP 1–14M, supra note 26, paras. 9.2, 9.5, 9.8, 9.9, at 9-2–9-5.

32 UN Charter Arts. 2(4), 51, 53.

33 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10,1982, Art. 3,1833 UNTS 397, reprinted in United Nations, Official Text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with Annexes and Index, UN Sales No. E.83.V.5 (1983) [hereinafter LOS Convention]. As the U.S. Navy has pointed out, “extension of the breadth of the territorial sea from 3 to 12 nautical miles removes over 3,000,000 square miles of ocean from the arena in which belligerent forces may conduct offensive operations and significandy complicates neutral nation enforcement of the inviolability of its neutral waters.” Commander's Handbook NWP 1–14M, supra note 26, para. 7.3.4.1, at 7-3.

34 LOS Convention, supra note 33, Arts. 46, 47, 49.

35 Id., Parts V and VI.

36 See San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 10; accord Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 4. The Commander's Handbook NWP 1–14M, supra note 26, does not address this situation.

37 LOS Convention, supra note 33, Art. 194(5).

38 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 11.

39 The Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 5.2.9, while consistent with the San Remo Manual's provisions, are less detailed.

40 Compare entries in the index to United Nations, supra note 33, with International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Index of International Humanitarian Law (Waldemar A. Solf & J. Ashley Roach eds., 1987).

41 See Explanation, supra note 3, para. 12.2; accord Helsinki Principles, supranote 5, para. 3.1. There is general agreement among scholars that the “due regard” formula in the law of the sea necessarily reflects the need to accommodate the rights and duties of all users of the oceans. For example, Professor D. P. O'Connell wrote:

One common thread running through the formulation of the various jurisdictional zones in the contemporary law of the sea is the idea of accommodation of interests, or a balancing of rights and duties, which can be summed up in the concept of “reasonable use”. The result is that there is little absolutism in the rights of States with respect to the sea.

1 D. P. O'Connell, The International Law of the Sea 57 (I. A. Shearer ed., 1982).

McDougal and Burke described the common interest in a balance of exclusive and inclusive uses of the oceans:

The common interest of all states and their peoples in both exclusive and inclusive uses of the oceans of the world and in an economic accommodation of all uses is not… difficult to demonstrate…. [A]U states which border upon the oceans have a common interest in those traditional exclusive assertions of control in nearby areas which permit a state both to protect its territorial base and organized social life from too easy invasion or attack from the sea and to take advantage of any unique proximity it may have to the riches of the sea bed and marine life. … [E]ach state, whedier coastal or not, has an interest in the fullest possible access, either for itself or for others on its behalf, to all the inclusive uses of the ocean … for the richest possible production of values. From this mutual interest of all states in all types of uses, it follows that each state has an interest in an accommodation of such uses, when they conflict, which will yield both an adequate protection to exclusive claims and yet the greatest possible access to inclusive uses. The net total of inclusive uses available for sharing among all states is direcdy dependent, further, upon the restriction of exclusive claims to the minimum reasonably necessary to the protection of common interest. If all states asserted and were protected in extravagant, disproportionate, exclusive claims, there would be litde, if any, net total of inclusive use for common enjoyment…. [T] he common interest is in an accommodation of exclusive and inclusive claim which will produce the largest total output of community values at the least cost.

Myres S. McDougal & William T. Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans 51–52 (1962).

On the other hand, when considering obligations of behavior, the term “respect” is used in the law of armed conflict to mean that armed force should not be directed against protected persons or objects. “Respect” is used in common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions in the sense of the duty of states parties to perform their obligations under a treaty in good faith. See ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, at 35, para. 39 (Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski & Bruno Zimmermann eds., 1987). In his Commentary on Article 12 of the Second Geneva Convention, Pictet defined “respect” as “to spare, not to attack …; in a more positive sense, it comprises even such actions as is necessary to ensure respect.” Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea: Commentary 89–90 (Jean Pictet ed., 1960). The ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols, supra, at 146, para. 446, applies the same definition.

42 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 12. Id., para. 13(d), defines the term “neutral” as “any State not party to the conflict.” This definition is not conditioned on adherence by the neutral to the traditional duties of neutrals. The Explanation notes that a neutral runs the risk of being treated as a belligerent if it gives more aid to one belligerent than its enemy is prepared to tolerate. Explanation, supra note 3, para. 13.14.

43 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, pt. III, §§1, 2; Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para 5.1.3. The Hague Convention [No. IX] concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2351, 1 Bevans 681 [hereinafter Hague Convention No. IX], established the general rules of naval bombardment of land targets, which have been further developed by state practice. See Commander's Handbook NWP 1–14M, supra note 26, para. 8.5.1.

44 See San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 11.

45 Id., para. 44.

46 Commander's Handbook NWP 1–14M, supra note 26, para. 8.1.3, at 8-2. See]. Ashley Roach, The Laws of War and the Protection of the Environment, 1 Env't & Security 53 (1997);U.S. Naval War College, Protection of the Environment During Armed Conflict (International Law Studies No. 69, Richard J. Grunawalt, John E. King & Ronald S. McClain eds., 1996); Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, Int'l Rev. Red Cross, No. 311, Mar.-Apr. 1996, at 231.

47 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 47 (h); see Explanation, supra note 3, para. 47.52.

48 See Roach & Smith, supra note 24, at 427, 448–49 (military surveys).

49 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 47.

50 Id., paras. 48–58.

51 London Protocol, supra note 12.

52 See the collection of essays in U.S. Naval War College, The Law of Naval Warfare: Targeting Enemy Merchant Shipping (International Law Studies No. 65, Richard J. Grunawalt ed., 1993) [hereinafter Targeting Enemy Merchant Shipping].

53 See Commander's Handbook NWP 1–14M, supra note 26, para. 8.2.2.2, at 8-4.

54 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 60.

55 Commander's Handbook NWP 1–14M, supra note 26, para 8.2.2.2.7, at 8-3, permits attacking enemy merchantships, inter alia, “[i]f integrated into the enemy's war-fighting/war-sustaining effort and compliance with the 1936 London Protocol would, under the circumstances of the specific encounter, subject the surface warship to imminent danger or would otherwise preclude mission accomplishment.”

56 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 60(g).

57 Id., para. 67; accord Helsinki Principles, supranote 5, para. 5.1.2.

58 Explanation, supra note 3, para. 67.27. The Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 5.2.5, provide that goods with a neutral destination coming from a belligerent port do not constitute contraband. The commentary to this paragraph states that the fact that the belligerent may derive revenue from the sale of exported goods does not make them liable to seizure and condemnation as prize or, this author might add, attack and destruction. The U.S. Navy's Annotated Supplement, supra note 26, at 8-3 n.11, states that the question of “[a]ttacks on war-sustaining cargo carried in neutral bottoms at sea, such as by Iraq on the tankers carrying oil exported by Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, is not firmly settled.”

59 J. Ashley Roach, Missiles on Target: Targeting and Defense Zones in the Tanker War, 31 Va. J. Int'l L. 593, 607 (1991).

60 See Hague Convention No. IX, supra note 43.

61 Hague Convention No. VIII, supra note 7. See generally Howard S. Levie, Mine Warfare At Sea (1991).

62 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 89. Removal by a neutral state of naval mines unlawfully laid is not an unneutral act. Id., para. 92; Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 6.2.

63 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, paras. 92-104. The provisions of the Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 5.2.10, are much less detailed.

64 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 97.

65 Id., para. 102(a); accord Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 5.3.

66 See Explanation, supra note 3, para. 102.3; San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 103.

67 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 103 (a), (b).

68 For detailed examinations of this subject, see William J. Fenrick, The Exclusion Zone Device in the Law of Naval Warfare, 1986 Can. Y.B. Int'l L. 91; and L. F. E. Goldie, Maritime War Zones and Exclusion Zones, in The Law of Naval Operations, supra note 26, at 156. See also George P. Politakis, Waging War at Sea: The Legality of War Zones, 38 Neth. Int'l L. Rev. 125 (1991); Frank Russo, Neutrality at Sea in Transition: State Practice in the Gulf War as Emerging International Law, 19 Ocean Dev. & Int'l L. 381, 389–92, 396 (1988); Ross Leckow, The Iran-Iraq Conflict in the Gulf: The Law of War Zones, 37 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 629 (1988).

69 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, paras. 105–11.

70 Helsinki Principles, supranote 5, para. 3.3; accord Commander's Hand Book NWP 1–14M, supra note 26, para. 7.9, at 7–14 (“In short, an otherwise protected platform does not lose that protection by crossing an imaginary line drawn in the ocean by a belligerent.”).

71 Ruses and perfidy were addressed in Article 15 of the Oxford Manual of 1913, supra note 19. Paragraph 111 of the San Remo Manual restates these provisions. The Explanation, supra note 3, para. 111.2, notes that the drafters of the Manual were of the view that “the former British practice of Q-ships [warships disguised as merchant ships] is no longer acceptable.” See Tony Bridgland, Sea Killers in Disguise: The Story of Q-Ships and Decoy Ships in the First World War (1999); Kenneth M. Beyer, Q-Ships versus U-Boats: America’s Secret Project (1999).

72 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, paras. 109–11.

73 Additional Protocol I, supra note 11, Art. 37.

74 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 112.

75 Id., para. 113. The Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 5.1.2, do not address this question.

76 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 117.

77 See Explanation, supra note 3, para. 117.3.

78 For the provisions of the Paris Declaration, see text at note 16 supra. See also Explanation, supra note 3, para. 117.8; accord Commander's Handbook NWP 1-14M, supranote 26, para. 7.4.1.2.1.

79 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 118; accord Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 5.2.1; Annotated Supplement, supra note 26, para. 7.6 & n.105.

80 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, paras. 119, 121; accord Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 5.2.1. The General Editor of the San Remo Manual quite properly notes that the possibility of diversion, in lieu of visit and search, of a neutral merchant vessel is progressive development of the law. Doswald-Beck, supra note 3, at 202.

81 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 120. The customary law rules were stated in the 1909 London Declaration, supra note 17, Arts. 61, 62.

82 Id., para. 120(b); see Explanation, supra note 3, para. 120.4.

83 See Explanation, supra note 3, para. 120.3.

84 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, paras. 122-24; accord Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, para. 5.2.6.

85 See Explanation, supranote 3, para. 135.1.

86 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 136. Compare the somewhat longer list of categories of vessels exempted from attack set out in id., para. 67.

87 Hague Convention No. XI, supra note 3, Art. 3.

88 See Explanation, supranote 3, para. 136.

89 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 137.

90 See the various views set out in Targeting Enemy Merchant Shipping, supra note 52.

91 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 139.

92 Id., para. 140.

93 Id., paras. 146–50; accord Helsinki Principles, supra note 5, paras. 5.2.2–5.2.5.

94 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, paras. 151–52.

95 Additional Articles, supra note 13, Arts. 7, 8, 11.

96 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 162.

97 Id., paras. 136, 142.

98 Id., para. 163.

99 Id., para. 165(c).

100 Id,, para. 165(e).

101 Id., para. 166.

102 Additional Articles, supra note 13, Arts. 6, 9, 10, 12, 13.

103 Explanation, supranote 3, para. 169.6. Resolution 7 of the 1949 Diplomatic Conference of Geneva expressed the hope tfiat all high contracting parties “will arrange that, whenever conveniently practicable, such ships shall frequently and regularly broadcast particulars of their position, route and speed.” 1 [Swiss] Federal Political Dep't, Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, at 362 (n.d.). The regulations concerning identification contained in Annex I to Additional Protocol I, supra note 11, as amended on November 30, 1993 (entered into force Mar. 1, 1994), provide for some of these improvements. See Int'l Rev. Red Cross, No. 298, Jan.-Feb. 1994, at 29–41; ICRC, Manual for the Use of Technical Means of Identification by Hospital Ships, Coastal Rescue Craft, Other Protected Craft and Medical Aircraft (1990).

104 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 170.

105 See ICRC, Memorandum, Revision of Annex I to Protocol I, Int'l Rev. Red Cross, No. 232, Jan.-Feb. 1983, at 26.

106 Explanation, supra note 3, para. 171.3.

107 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 171. How to achieve a legal basis for this change in the text of the Second Convention is addressed at the end of this article.

108 Observers are provided for in Article 31 (4) of Geneva Convention No. II, supra note 10. Such observers, of course, must be able to tell if the equipment is being misused.

109 See Sylvie-Stoyanka Junod, Protection of the Victims of Armed Conflict: Falkland-Malvtnas Islands (1982), at 26, para. 3.1.3 (1984).

110 San Remo Manual, supra note 3, para. 160.

111 Additional Protocol I, supra note 11, Arts. 7,97. See New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts 84–87, 557–58 (Michael Bothe, Karl Josef Partsch & Waldemar A. Solf eds., 1982).

112 Natalino Ronzitti, The Crisis of the Traditional Law Regulating International Armed Conflicts at Sea and the Need for Its Revision, in The Law of Naval Warfare 1 (Natalino Ronzitti ed., 1988).

113 See Doswald-Beck, supra note 3, at 207.

114 Christopher Greenwood, International Humanitarian Law (Laws of War): Revised report prepared for the Centennial of the First International Peace Conference pursuant to United Nations General Assembly Resolutions A/RES/52/154 and A/RES/53/99, at 51, para. 4-48 (May 1999) <http://minbuza.nl/English/f_sumnewsl4.html>.

115 Kingdom of the Netherlands and Russian Federation, Outcome of the Celebrations of the Centennial of the First International Peace Conference: Report on the conclusions of the expert meetings on the three “Hague themes”, Peace Palace, The Hague, 17–18 May 1999 and Smolny Institute, St. Petersburg, 22–25 fune 1999, para. 73, at 16 <http://minbuza.nl/English/f_sumnewsl4.html> (visited Dec. 14, 1999).

116 See U.S. Naval War College, Studies in the Law of Naval Warfare: Submarines in General and Limited Wars 36–47 (International Law Studies No. 58, W. T. Mallison, Jr., ed., 1968).

117 See New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts, supra note 111, at 290–91; Additional Protocol I, supranote 11, Art. 49(3).

118 See W. Michael Reisman & William K. Leitzau, Moving International Law from Theory to Practice: The Role of Military Manuals in Effectuating the Law of Armed Conflict, in The Law of Naval Operations, supra note 26, at 1.