Page images
PDF
EPUB

to outweight the risks of a desperate resistance, men may prefer death to dishonor. Again, whilst acts which are dishonorable or cruel may be committed in the heat of passion, or in the blind fury of conflict, and may be condoned or forgotten by an enemy after a war, the humiliation of prisoners of war, an act for which the heat of passion cannot be pleaded as an excuse, remains as a stain. The imprisonment of Napoleon at St. Helena was justified as a measure of public safety, but the petty annoyances of Sir Hudson Lowe turned public sympathy to the illustrious prisoner. For every reason, therefore, the humane and generous treatment of prisoners of war is expedient, and the customary and conventional code has kept in touch with the progress of enlightenment. We are a long way from the slaughter or enslavement of prisoners taken in a fair fight.

THE TREATMENT of prisoners of war is now regulated by the articles of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The following are the most important of these: Article 5 provides that "prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, or camp or other place, and are bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits; but they cannot be placed in confinement, except as an indispensable measure of safety, and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist." Article 7 declares that "the Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance. In default of special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards rations, quarters and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government which captured them." Article 9 requires that "every prisoner is bound to give if questioned on the subject his true name and rank, and if he infringes this rule he is liable to have the advantages given to prisoners of his class curtailed."

These Articles read together show that a distinction of rank is to be recognized, and that the prisoners are to be treated as regards rations, quarters and clothing on the same footing as the officers and men of the capturing forces. The conditions under which this war is waged and the nationality and religion of the forces engaged raise the question whether the requirements of the Hague Convention in respect of rations are suitable in all cases. It would be impossible, for instance, to offer a Mahommedan soldier pork as a ration, or to include beef in the ration or the cooking of the ration of a Hindoo. Article 17 provides that "officers taken prisoners shall receive the same rate of pay as officers of corresponding rank in the country where they are detained; the amount shall be refunded by their own Government. Article 18 provides for liberty of religion and attendance at church, but

this and other Articles providing for the humane treatment of prisoners of war are not immediately in question. It would, for instance, be difficult for Germany to provide churches for Mahommedan, Hindoo, or even Orthodox prisoners, and it is obvious that the general intention is fulfilled if the exercise of their religion and the ministration of the clergy be facilitated as far as possible.

THE CORRESPONDENCE contained in the White Books indicates that whilst the German regulations do not meet the requirements of the Hague Convention, they are nevertheless consistent with humanity. The complaints made by British prisoners relate mostly, though not entirely, to their treatment on the way to the internment camp. The overcrowding may be caused by the inadequacy of hastily extemporised camps or huts, and it is to be hoped that these defects will be remedied. The rations issued are not such as are suitable for British soldiers, but if they are similar to those consumed by German troops the Convention has been observed. The complaints as to want of clothing and the deprivation of clothing are more serious, for whilst no one would object to surrendering his overcoat to a wounded man, still, the prisoner of war should be the last man to be deprived even for such a purpose. It is to be hoped that further investigation will clear the honor of the German army of the charge of ill-treatment of prisoners, and that in the cases where possibly unavoidable hardship has been caused the defect will be remedied. To a soldier the honor of his opponent is only second to his own, and every soldier of every nationality must feel that a departure from the conventional obligations in regard to the treatment of prisoners of war by any nation is a stain on the honorable traditions of the profession of arms. Certainly every British soldier or sailor may be trusted to deal courteously and sympathetically with men whom the fortune of war has placed in his power, and it needs no statement of the Law to remind him of the obligations which are already imposed by his sense of honor and of humanity. In England the requirements of the Convention are generally fulfilled in spirit. For in regards to rations, quarters and clothing, the enemy prisoners are treated as well as the corresponding ranks. of the British army. The officers receive only 4s. a day for subalterns and 4s. 6d. for captains and officers of higher rank, but this is a change necessitated by the failure of the German Government to accept a reciprocal obligation in respect to Article 17 of the Hague Convention.

MORE than a year ago the British Government announced that prisoners taken from two German submarines would be subject

[blocks in formation]

to special restrictions, and would not be allowed the distinction of their rank or be allowed to mingle with other prisoners of war because "the crews of the German submarines in question, before they were rescued from the sea, were engaged in sinking innocent British and neutral merchant ships and wantonly killing noncombatants, they cannot be regarded as honorable opponents, but rather as persons who at the orders of their Government have committed acts which are offenses against the law of nations and contrary to common humanity." The German Government replied that it accepted responsibility for the acts of the submarine officers and men which were in execution of orders given to them. This being the case, Sir Graham Bower contends that the action of the British Government is not according to the Rules of war. There are three cases he says in which military courts or military authorities exercise jurisdiction over enemy subjects. They are: (1) Espionage. (2) War Treason. (3) War crimes which include the foregoing and others:

ESPIONAGE is defined by the Hague Convention. A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretenses he obtains or endeavors to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent. with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party. "Accordingly, soldiers not wearing a disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of the hostile army for the purpose of obtaining information are not considered spies, etc., etc." It is evident from this that the submarine officers are not spies. It is possible that whilst in British waters they have obtained information, but they did so in their military capacity as scouts, not as spies. War treason is an offense committed by the inhabitants of a country in the occupation of an enemy belligerent. This offense is also not in point.

THERE remains then only the case of War Crimes which are thus described in the English Manual of Military Law, which summarizes the provisions of the Hague Convention of 1907. They are: "442. War crimes may be divided into four different classes: 1. Violations of the recognized rules of warfare by members of the armed forces. 2. Illegitimate hostilities in arms committed by individuals who are not members of the armed forces. 3. Espionage and war treason. 4. Marauding. 443. The more important violations are the following: Making use of poisoned and otherwise forbidden arms and ammunition, killing of the wounded, refusal of quarter, treacherous request of quarter, maltreatment of dead bodies on the battlefield, ill-treatment of prisoners of war, firing on undefended localities, abuse of the flag of truce, firing on

the flag of truce, abuse of the Red Cross flag and badge and other violations of the Geneva Convention, use of civilian clothing by troops to conceal their military character during battle, bombardment of hospitals and other privileged buildings, improper use of privileged buildings for military purposes, poisoning of wells and streams, pillage and purposeless destruction, ill-treatment of inhabitants in occupied territory. It is important, however, to note that members of the armed forces who commit such violations of the recognized rules of warfare as are ordered by their Government or by their commanders are not criminals and cannot therefore be punished by the enemy. He may punish the officials or commanders responsible for such orders if they fall into his hands, but otherwise he may only resort to the other means of obtaining redress, which are dealt with in this chapter. The "other means" are reprisals; but that is a separate subject to be dealt with later. Whilst nearly all these crimes have been charged against the German troops in Belgium, France and Africa, they have not been alleged against the submarine officers. Moreover, the offense which they are charged has undoubtedly, and on the admission of their own Government, been ordered by that Government. It is clear, therefore, that the concluding sentences in the paragraph quoted forbid their punishment.

THE SINKING of neutral ships stands on different footing to the sinking of enemy merchant ships. By no possibility can it be construed as war treason, or a war crime, though it may be construed as an act of war against the neutral State affected. Though Articles 49 and 50 of the Declaration of London conditionally admit the practice as an exception, nevertheless, if the conditions are not observed and the exception becomes the rule, it would be impossible for a neutral State to ignore attacks on vessels on the high seas. Lord Lansdowne has stated (Times, July 13th, 1904), "Speaking generally a British ship on the high seas is regarded as British territory," and this view is held almost universally by all nationalities, so that an attack on a neutral ship on the high seas is an attack on neutral territory. It is not surprising, therefore, that the American Government should have addressed the following warning to Germany: "To declare or exercise the right to attack or destroy any vessel entering the prescribed area on the high seas without first determining its belligerent nationality, and the contraband character of its cargo, is an act so unprecedented in naval warfare that this Government is reluctant to believe that the Imperial Government of Germany in this case contemplates it as possible. If commanders of German vessels of war act on the presumption that the flag of the United States is not used in good faith and should destroy on the high seas an American vessel and the lives of American citizens, it would be difficult for the

Government of the United States to view such an act in any other light than an indefensible violation of neutral rights, which it would be very hard indeed to reconcile with the friendly relations now happily existing between the two Governments. The United States Government would be constrained to hold the Imperial Government to strict accountability for such acts and to take any steps that might be necessary to safeguard American lives and property." Nothing could be plainer-the destruction of a neutral ship is not a war crime against the belligerent, but an act of war against the neutral involving all the risks of such an act. It is for the neutral Government to protect its own subjects and their property. But in no case is it incumbent on the British Government, as a belligerent, to take action against the German subordinate officer for an offense against a neutral flag.

THEREFORE, says Sir Graham Bower, the action of the German submarine officers cannot be classified as espionage or as a war crime. But some newspapers have described the destruction of merchant ships as piracy and the officers as pirates. That the destruction of merchant ships, whether belligerent or nentral, when it is impossible to save the passengers and crew, is an act of cruelty and inhumanity as well as a gross violation of the Conventional Law is admitted by all who are capable of dispassionate judgment, but it is not piracy. Mr. Hall defines piracy as follows: "Piracy includes acts differing much from each other in kind and in moral value; but one thing they all have in commonthey are done under conditions which render it impossible or unfair to hold any State responsible for their commission. A pirate either belongs to no State, or organized political party, or by the nature of his act he has shown his intention to reject the authority of that to which he is properly subject." The sinking of merchant ships under the conditions stated is certainly reprehensible, but Germany has accepted responsibility and the German officers and men have not shown any intention to reject the authority of their Government. Therefore they are not pirates. If they commit, as they have been alleged to commit, acts contrary to the laws of war and humanity-acts which are the more reprehensible, inasmuch as they have no military value-and can in no way influence the ultimate decision, the blame does not rest with them, but with their superiors.

CONSIDER, says Sir Graham Bower, how that doctrine if accepted would affect the British navy. The Naval Discipline

1 See Hall, 5th Edition, p. 619.

« PreviousContinue »