Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

tion, may destroy or impair lights, signals, channels and other facilities of navigation, within the territory of either belligerent, doing no more permanent injury than is necessary, and giving reasonable notice before so doing, for the benefit of neutrals;' but the use of false lights and signals is unlawful.

In the Franco-Prussian war, 1870-71, the German government gave such notice.

In the case of the obstructing of Southern harbors during the Ameri can civil war, the obligation of the government to remove the obstructions when the war should be successfully terminated, was acknowl edged.

Ravaging or laying waste enemy's country.

839. For the purpose of self-preservation, a belligerent may ravage or lay waste the territory of the hos tile nation.

See Lawrence's Wheaton, Elem. of Intern. Law, p. 598, § 6; Dana's Wheaton, § 347; Twiss, Law of Nations, pt. II., p. 124, and authorities cited; which sustain the rule that it is allowable in extreme cases, when necessary to accomplish the object of the war. The better opinion of the present day, however, condemns it except when necessary for self-preservation.

Property exempt from acts of hostilities.

840. The following, so long as not used for a military purpose, are not objects of hostilities, and must be respected and protected by each belligerent, to whomsoever belonging:

1. Light-houses; storm signals; inter-oceanic canals; submarine telegraph cables; and all structures and establishments intended exclusively for the uses of peaceful intercourse; except in the cases provided for by article 838;

2. Palaces and offices of government; halls of legislation and of justice; churches and temples of religion; hospitals; and other establishments of an exclusively religious or charitable character; and,

3. Museums; galleries of art; monuments and works of art; libraries, books and manuscripts; ob

servatories; and scientific instruments; depositories of state papers, and public archives, of historical records, of scientific instruments, of muniments of property, of judicial and legal documents, and their contents; and all other institutions of civil education and culture.

Halleck, Intern. Law & Laws of War, p. 543; Lieber's Political Ethics, p. 7. § 15; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 92; Heffter, Europ. Volker, §§ 130, 131; Dana's Wheaton, note, 169, Belligerent Occupation, (5); Lieber's Instructions, T¶ 34-36; Twiss, Law of Nations, pt. II., p. 128; and other authorities cited by these authors.

Property exempt not to be sold or carried away.

841. The property mentioned in the last article can not be sold or removed from the country, by the invader, except when allowed by the treaty of peace.

Such property may be taxed for purposes of government. The rule proposed in this Article is in consonance with the present tendency of the law. For the controversy on this subject, see the authorities cited under the last Article.

In the case of the Marquis de Somerueles, Stewart's Vice-Adm. Rep., 482, a case of paintings belonging to the Academy of Arts at Philadelphia was decreed to be restored, on the ground that the arts and sciences are admitted, amongst all civilized nations, as forming an exception to the severe rights of warfare, and as entitled to favor and protection.

Use of and title to public immovables.

842. When the territory and immovable property of a hostile nation are seized by a belligerent, the title thereto remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete; but, subject to article 844, the revenues thereof meanwhile belong to the nation making the capture.

This is the rule adopted by the United States, as stated in Lieber's Instructions, ¶ 31. See Bluntschli, Droit Intern. Codifié, § 732, &c.

Other writers say that such immovables become the property of the captor, and may be transferred by it, subject, however, to the subsequent fortunes of the war. See Troiss, Law of Nations, Part II., p. 126.

Article 968 declares it to be inconsistent with neutrality to take a transfer during war.

Title to movables.

843. Except in the case provided for by article 896,' the title to public movable property of the hostile nation, not exempt by the provisions of this Book, and to movable property contraband of war, or engaged in hostilities or in intercourse which, under the provisions of this Book, is illegal, to whomsoever belonging, when lawfully taken by a belligerent, becomes thereby vested in the nation making the capture; and, after being removed to a place of safety, or after twenty-four hours' firm possession, is transferable by it.

Such movables, and no other, may be declared by the commanding officer to be booty, liable to be appropriated by individual captors.

Lawrence's Wheaton, Elements of Intern. Law, p. 598, § 6; Dana's Wheaton, § 359; citing Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, § 254; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. III., ch. 13, § 196; ch. 14, § 209; Heffter, Europ. Volker, § 136. See also Coolidge v. Guthrie, 8 American Law Register, (N. S.,) 22. Booty, (butin,) as used in the most general sense, has been declared to include all movable property which belongs to members of the hostile nation, and which falls into the belligerent's possession. Twiss, Law of Nations, Part II., p. 122, § 64.

All lawful captures and booty belong to the nation by whose authority they are made, or to those to whom such nation awards them. Lieber's Instructions, ¶ 45.

Fioré, (Nouveau Droit Intern., vol. 2, p. 309,) says, that things, when taken in the vicissitudes of the conflict, such as valuables, arms, &c., do not become truly the property of the conqueror, without a renunciation of the first owner's rights, which may be made by the treaty of peace.

Wildman, (International Law, vol. 2, p. 29,) says, that plunder or booty, in a mere continental war, without the presence or intervention of any ships or their crews, has never been important enough to give rise to any question about it. "There is no instance in history or law, ancient or modern, of any question before any legal judicature ever having existed about it in this kingdom."

As to property captured at sea.

Revenues held in trust for governing the country. 844. A belligerent having military occupation' of any place, may lay taxes and appropriate the public revenues of the place, and the income of the public property, so far as necessary for the maintenance of

civil government.' Such revenues and income are held in trust exclusively for the government of the country.

1 Defined by Article 728.

• Lieber's Instructions, ¶ 39.

Public ships surprised by war.

845. Public ships of one belligerent in the ports of another at the commencement of hostilities, or the declaration of war, or coming there afterwards without knowledge of the hostilities or declaration, are free from capture or detention, but may be required to leave immediately, being allowed, if necessary, to take suf ficient supplies to reach the nearest port of their own nation.

This Article is new, and is suggested in derogation of war.

Private property to be respected.

846. Private property, whether tangible or intangible, on land or at sea,' and belonging to the enemy or a neutral, can not be in any manner taken or violated, under pretext of war,' except in the cases and to the extent allowed by the provisions of this Book.'

1 For the discussion of the right of private property at sea, see note at the begining of this Chapter; also Hautefeuille, des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations Neutres, tit. III., § 1; Ortolan, Diplomatie de la Mer, liv. III., ch. 2; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. III., (ed. of 1863 ;) Grotius, Droit de la Guerre et de la Paix, (ed. of 1867,) liv. III., vol. 3, p. 35; Fioré, Nouveau Droit Intern., 2d part, ch. 8, vol. 2, pp. 314-332.

Fioré, Nouveau Droit Intern., vol. 2, p. 313. This principle, says Pradier Fodéré, is now adopted by modern nations, as to property on land. Id., note.

It is embodied in many modern treaties, which provide that in case of war or collision between the two nations, property of whatever nature of their respective citizens, is not subject to seizure or sequestration, nor to any other burdens than those imposed on members of the nation. See treaty between France and Peru, March 9, 1861, 8 De Clercq, 193.

The rule proposed by the United States as a condition of their acceding to the treaty of Paris, was, that "all private property at sea, not contraband of war, be exempt from capture."

According to many authorities, however, a nation has the right, stricti juris, to seize and confiscate any property of any enemy found in the country on the happening of war. Dana's Wheaton, Elements of Intern.

Law, note 156, p. 387; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 59; Halleck, Intern. Law and Laws of War, p. 365; Woolsey's Intern. Laso, § 118; Brown. United States, 8 Cranch's U. S. Supr. Ct. Rep., 123-129.

Vattel says, that "the sovereign can neither detain the persons nor the property of those subjects of the enemy who are within his dominions at the time of the declaration."

The English text writers, like the American, are of opinion that the law of nations is not settled against the right, but in fact admit it. Manning, Law of Nations, 167; 1 Phillimore's Intern. Law, 115–135.

No transfer of title to all or any movables, being private property, is worked by the mere fact of belligerent occupation of the country. There must be an act of capture or transfer. Dana's Wheaton, Elem. of Intern. Law, note 169, p. 432. Private property on land is exempt from confisca tion. Id., § 346.

As to immovables, the existing rule, according to most authorities, (and Bynkershoeck, who contends for the power of absolute confiscation of immovables, admits that in practice the power is not exercised,) is that a belligerent may sequestrate the profits only of immovables within its territory belonging to enemies, and must reinstate the owner on the return of peace. Twiss, Law of Nations, Part II., pp. 118, 126.

The right to confiscate debts is contended for on theoretic grounds by some authorities, who, however, do not appear to be sustained by modern usage or by the weight of opinion. Id., Part II., Pp. 108.

As to debts, Kent, (1 Commentaries, 65,) states, that it rests in the discretion of the legislative authority of a nation to confiscate private debts or not; but as the exercise of the right is contrary to universal practice, it may well be considered as a wicked and impolitic right, condemned by the enlightened conscience of modern times."

Wildman, (Intern. Law, v. II., 10, 11,) speaks of the old rule as more or less mitigated by the wise and humane practice of modern times. Phillimore, (Intern. Lau, vol. III., 132, et seq.,) says, "the strict right.the summum jus,-by the reason of the thing and the opinion of every eminent jurist, remains unquestioned."

Manning, (Law of Nations, p. 129,) says, such debts "may be confiscated by the rigorous application of the rights of war, but the exercise of this right has been discontinued in modern warfare."

Woolsey, (Law of Nations, § 118,) says, "from the strict theory of hostile relations, laid down above, it would follow, that enemy's property within the country, at the breaking out of war, was liable to confis cation. This principle would also apply to debts due to them at that time."

Halleck, (Intern. Law and Laws of War, pp. 362-9,) agrees with Kent, that the law of nations in this respect can not be considered as changed, so as to prohibit the confiscation. So, also, Pfeiffer, Kriegseroberung, § 14. The state of war itself works no change in the relation of debtor and creditor between the citizens of the respective belligerents, beyond a mere suspension of the remedy. Upon the return of peace, the rights

« ForrigeFortsett »